3 ms·

My opinion is that the Copenhagen interpretation does not contradict DeBroglie in terms of nuclear chemistry, but solely thermodynamics. The Copenhagen interpr

My opinion is that the Copenhagen interpretation does not contradict DeBroglie in terms of nuclear chemistry, but solely thermodynamics. The Copenhagen interpretation makes a leap of faith with the Born Rule as it is based on Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics. The work of t'Hooft is a more modern alternative for ensembles where the outcome is stochastic, rather than probabilistic. Photosynthesis has that property, as do many other enzymatic systems.

n4r9 11y ago
Not sure what you mean by "contradict". Certainly you won't easily find experiments for which the two offer different predictions. They are very different in terms of their ontology though: DeBroglie states that particles have definite positions and momenta at all times whereas Copenhagen does not.
- williamjennings 11y ago
  Most of the contradictions arise as epistemological forks in the context of molecular spectroscopy with nuclear decay events. Thusly, it is a question of whose theories to use, and the Born rule is moot when the distribution of particles is not gaussian. DeBroglie himself states that matter waves propagate according to a defined distribution; whereas Copehagen interprets that they are probabilistically distributed. In the former case there is a stochastic process, whereas it is only a random process in the latter case.
  - n4r9 11y ago
    What do you mean by "moot"? The Born rule is simply that the probability of measuring a particle to be in a certain location is given by the squared amplitude of the wavefunction. This squared amplitude will generate the same predictions whether you are using deBroglie-Bohm or "Copenhagen" to imagine your underlying ontology. The difference in ontology being that deBroglie-Bohm is deterministic, i.e. particles have definite positions of which we are merely ignorant, whereas "Copenhagen" is (usually) non-realist, i.e. it is not meaningful to talk about the positions of particles until the moment we measure it.
    - williamjennings 11y ago
      In this context, the word moot is a synonym for false. You are omitting the word "normalized wave function" from your description of the Born Rule; it is a key part of the mathematical justification. The squared amplitude does not generate the same predictions under every theory, because the probability function is different. That is also the difference between the theories of DeBroglie and Bohm, the former is stochastic while the latter is deterministic. Copenhagen theories describe the positions of particles probabilitistically; and the word 'measure' is not being used in the precise mathematical way that it should be. A better translation from Danish would be 'convolute'. The thing to remember is that when one writes about physics which are centuries old, one must be historiographically consistent. If there is a hyphen between two names for a theory, such that one name is being attributed posthumously; then the student should infer the most recent name is making some error in translation. When you separate DeBroglie and Bohm, on the basis of their lack of real cooperation, then it is clear to see who was ahead of their time. Bohm is abusing statistical terms in his translations from French, and the meaning of those words is an extremely important detail in the context of Quantum Information Theory. John Von Neumann was contemporaneously working in that context, but it was classified until recent times.
effie 11y ago
> The Copenhagen interpretation makes a leap of faith with the Born Rule as it is based on Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics. The Born rule was introduced in Born's paper on description of a scattering experiment with help of the \psi function that is a solution of Schroedinger's equation. Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics had nothing to do with it.
- williamjennings 11y ago
  Because thermodynamics at the time espoused normally distributed error as dictated by Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics; Born used a normalized wave function to solve Schroedinger's equation. Thermodynamics and Linear Algebra have gotten more advanced, since then.

n4r9 11y ago

Not sure what you mean by "contradict". Certainly you won't easily find experiments for which the two offer different predictions. They are very different in terms of their ontology though: DeBroglie states that particles have definite positions and momenta at all times whereas Copenhagen does not.

williamjennings 11y ago
Most of the contradictions arise as epistemological forks in the context of molecular spectroscopy with nuclear decay events. Thusly, it is a question of whose theories to use, and the Born rule is moot when the distribution of particles is not gaussian. DeBroglie himself states that matter waves propagate according to a defined distribution; whereas Copehagen interprets that they are probabilistically distributed. In the former case there is a stochastic process, whereas it is only a random process in the latter case.
- n4r9 11y ago
  What do you mean by "moot"? The Born rule is simply that the probability of measuring a particle to be in a certain location is given by the squared amplitude of the wavefunction. This squared amplitude will generate the same predictions whether you are using deBroglie-Bohm or "Copenhagen" to imagine your underlying ontology. The difference in ontology being that deBroglie-Bohm is deterministic, i.e. particles have definite positions of which we are merely ignorant, whereas "Copenhagen" is (usually) non-realist, i.e. it is not meaningful to talk about the positions of particles until the moment we measure it.
  - williamjennings 11y ago
    In this context, the word moot is a synonym for false. You are omitting the word "normalized wave function" from your description of the Born Rule; it is a key part of the mathematical justification. The squared amplitude does not generate the same predictions under every theory, because the probability function is different. That is also the difference between the theories of DeBroglie and Bohm, the former is stochastic while the latter is deterministic. Copenhagen theories describe the positions of particles probabilitistically; and the word 'measure' is not being used in the precise mathematical way that it should be. A better translation from Danish would be 'convolute'. The thing to remember is that when one writes about physics which are centuries old, one must be historiographically consistent. If there is a hyphen between two names for a theory, such that one name is being attributed posthumously; then the student should infer the most recent name is making some error in translation. When you separate DeBroglie and Bohm, on the basis of their lack of real cooperation, then it is clear to see who was ahead of their time. Bohm is abusing statistical terms in his translations from French, and the meaning of those words is an extremely important detail in the context of Quantum Information Theory. John Von Neumann was contemporaneously working in that context, but it was classified until recent times.

effie 11y ago

> The Copenhagen interpretation makes a leap of faith with the Born Rule as it is based on Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics. The Born rule was introduced in Born's paper on description of a scattering experiment with help of the \psi function that is a solution of Schroedinger's equation. Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics had nothing to do with it.

williamjennings 11y ago
Because thermodynamics at the time espoused normally distributed error as dictated by Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics; Born used a normalized wave function to solve Schroedinger's equation. Thermodynamics and Linear Algebra have gotten more advanced, since then.