Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
According to Krivchenkov, the intents to "interpret" quantum mechanics in terms of classical mechanics have no more sense than interpretation of heliocentric cosmological system in terms of geocentric system. Only the old tradition forced the physicists to discuss the so-called Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is completely deterministic systems, where any event always has a cause and any cause always has an effect. However, some quantum mechanical systems are complicated, so we have to describe them classically (quasi-classically, semi-classically, pseudo-classically, ...). Then, immediately, probability appears, because classical mechanics cannot interpret events in a deterministic way. An intermediate step is provided by the formalism of the density matrix, that allows us to keep some quantum mechanical properties in the classical description; however, such a description is not complete and it is just a compromise between the deterministic description of too complicated a system and wishes to make any (at least probabilistic) predictions.
As an example of the superiority of quantum mechanics, Krivchenkov usually cited the 3-body problem. The 2-body Kepler problem has an analytic ("exact") solution, which is periodic. The quantum-mechanical analogy corresponds to the Hydrogen atom, which also has an analytic ("exact") solution in closed form, described with the Coulomb wave function. The addition of a third particle Helium atom still admits analytic estimates that can be performed by a 3rd-grade student. However, the classical analogy becomes so complicated that it is not even included in a university course of astronomy.
In such a way, it is classical mechanics that could in some sense be interpreted in terms of quantum mechanics (the correspondence principle). By itself, quantum mechanics is a self-consistent deterministic theory that does not need any interpretation.
Read more about this topic: Vladimir Krivchenkov
Famous quotes containing the words interpretation of, quantum and/or mechanics:
“It is clear that everybody interested in science must be interested in world 3 objects. A physical scientist, to start with, may be interested mainly in world 1 objects—say crystals and X-rays. But very soon he must realize how much depends on our interpretation of the facts, that is, on our theories, and so on world 3 objects. Similarly, a historian of science, or a philosopher interested in science must be largely a student of world 3 objects.”
—Karl Popper (1902–1994)
“But how is one to make a scientist understand that there is something unalterably deranged about differential calculus, quantum theory, or the obscene and so inanely liturgical ordeals of the precession of the equinoxes.”
—Antonin Artaud (1896–1948)
“the moderate Aristotelian city
Of darning and the Eight-Fifteen, where Euclid’s geometry
And Newton’s mechanics would account for our experience,
And the kitchen table exists because I scrub it.”
—W.H. (Wystan Hugh)