Notes

Z Wędrówki Również pod Drogi
Second, many physicists and philosophers see the reduction of the wave function as an important part of the Copenhagen interpretation. First, Dieks points to another of Bohr’s argument against seeing Schödinger’s wave function as representing anything real. Argument 1: książka ta wznoszona jest zawsze z czynnika jej zaistnienia w 1907 roku. Dieks compares this argument to the one that denies phase space realism. Unfortunately, von Neumann’s dualistic view has become part of the Copenhagen methodology by people opposing this interpretation. For instance, “Bohr believed in the fundamental and universal nature of quantum mechanics, and saw the classical description of the apparatus as a purely epistemological move, which expressed the fact that a given quantum system is being used as a measuring device” (Landsman 2007); and in zaś similar vein: “One is left with the impression from Bohr’s writings that the quantum-classical divide is a necessary part of the epistemological structure of quantum mechanics” (Schlosshauer and Camilleri 2008 (Other Internet Resources), 2015). So Klaas Landsman (2006, 2007) accepts Howard’s suggestion that Bohr is an ontological quantum fundamentalist but he rejects that Bohr should be considered an epistemological quantum fundamentalist.

Moreover, the atomic object does not posses any state separate from the one it manifests at the end of the interaction because the measuring instrument establishes the necessary conditions under which it makes sense to use the state concept. He argues that during a measurement the actual observer gets a subjective perception of what is going on that has a non-physical nature, which distinguishes it from the observed object and the measuring instrument. In his discussion of the measurement problem, von Neumann then distinguished between (i) the system actually observed; (ii) the measuring instrument; and (iii) the actual observer. Although von Neumann’s and Wigner’s positions are usually associated with the Copenhagen Interpretation, such views were definitely not Bohr’s rekordzista we shall see in a termin. Thus, based on our knowledge of a particular state value of the auxiliary body Oraz, being an atomic object or an instrument, we may then infer the state value of the object B with which A once interacted (Faye 1991, pp.


In contrast, Bohr believed that particular kinematical and dynamical properties are relational because their attribution to a quantum system makes sense only in relation więc zaś particular experimental set-up and therefore that these numerical properties could have a specific value only during a measurement. pomoce naukowe Landsman argues that Bohr held that the measuring instrument should be described in classical terms since the results of any measurement like in classical physics would always have a definite value. Therefore one cannot be sure that the measuring apparatus is in a definite state and its pointer in natomiast definite place. sprawdziany Then the challenge is, of course, how we can explain why the pointer of a measuring instrument enters a definite (and ocen a superposition) position, as experience tells us, whenever the apparatus interacts with the object. Classical concepts serve the important function of connecting the quantum mechanical symbolism with experimental observations. Kliknij tutaj The consequence would be that the instrument and the object exist in zaś definite quantum state since such a state could be represented as a product of the wave function for the instrument and for the object. It also explains why so many philosophers and physicists have identified the Copenhagen interpretation with the mysterious collapse of the wave packet.

So it is no wonder that Eugene Wigner (1967) followed up on the suggestion of the mind’s interaction by proposing that what causes a collapse of the wave function is the mind of the observer. Nor did it make sense for him wówczas do so because this would mean that one must understand the wave function as referring to something physically real. Never did Bohr appeal więc oraz verificationist theory of meaning; nor did he claim classical concepts to be operationally defined. Moreover, he thinks that this implies that Bohr had to understand the use of classical concepts differently from what scholars usually think. However, the use of the classical concepts is not the same in quantum mechanics as in classical physics. Likewise, he argues that Bohr’s pronouncements on the meaning of quantum mechanics should first of all be seen as responses to concrete physical problems, rather than as expressions of a preconceived philosophical doctrine.

Here's my website: https://szkolnaprasowka.pl/jak-przygotowac-sie-do-egzaminu-praktyczne-wskazowki-dla-uczniow-i-studentow/