- #1
rodsika
- 279
- 2
We know Copenhagen settles for computational rules connecting human observations rather than striving to comprehend the nature of the underlying reality. Heisenberg eventually did try to form a coherence picture of what is actually happening. But how come this Heisenberg Interpretation is not widely known? Henry Stapp said most practicing quantum physicist hold that view yet I never hear them (you) state this. Is he right? What do you think of the following? It's from Henry Stapp "Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics" (my comments follows it):
"In Heisenberg’s picture, which is the one informally adopted by most practicing quantum physicists, the classical world of material particles, evolving in accordance with local deterministic mathematical laws, is replaced by the Heisenberg state of the universe. This state can be pictured as a complicated wave, which, like its classical counterpart, evolves in accordance with local deterministic laws of motion. However, this Heisenberg state represents not the actual physical universe itself, in the normal sense, but merely a set of "objective tendencies", or "propensities", connected to an impending actual event. The connection is this: for each of the alternative possible forms that this impending event might take, the Heisenberg state specifies a propensity, or tendency, for the event to take that form. The choice between these alternative possible forms is asserted to be governed by "pure chance", weighted by these propensities.
The actual event itself is simply an abrupt change in the Heisenberg state: it is sometimes called "the collapse of the wave function". The new state describes the tendencies associated with the next actual event. This leads to an alternating succession of states and events, in which the state at each stage describes the propensities associated with the event that follows it. In this way the universe becomes controlled in part by strictly deterministic mathematical laws, and in part by mathematically defined "pure chance".
The actual events become, in Heisenberg’s ontology, the fundamental entities from which the evolving universe is built. The properties of these actual events are determined by the quantum formalism. These properties are remarkable: they lead to a quantum world profoundly different from the one pictured in classical physics.
<snip>
By introducing in this way a quantum ontology, and thus departing from the purely epistemological stance of the strictly orthodox Copenhagen interpretation, one can remove the subjective human observer from the quantum description of the physical world and speak directly about the actual dispositions of the measuring devices, rather than the knowledge of the observer. Thus the moon can be said to be "really there" even when nobody is looking. And Schroedinger’s cat is, actually, either dead or alive."
Well. In Objective Collapse. They have to make it spontaneous to avoid observers mediated collapse. But Stapp said Heisenberg can make it work by returning to the picture of measuring devices and objective collapse without invoking spontaneous collapse like in the GRW model. Heisenberg picture may be the best of all worlds because it retains the collapse model and measuring device and making it objective rather than just calculational tool. What do you think about it? How is your objection?