Can decoherence validate the Copenhagen interpretation?

[Arfur]

Hi,

 

I am an amateur enthusiast and this is a direct question (not a proposal, i'm not nearly qualified to offer a proposal). I would like to throw to experts and people who are more qualified, because it's got me a bit stumped. Could I ask for an answer which is as simple as I am please, lols - answers for dummies style would be just great

 

As I have read it from popular reading books - Copenhagen asks us to believe that the wavefunction breaks down for big things but not for small things until they are observed and offers no explanation as to why, and this is the main criticism of it right? Whereas many worlds says the wavefunction never breaks down and all outcomes are realized in separate realities.

 

Yet is it a case of we would break down if nothing was observing us, and I mean in terms of decoherence, i.e. photons of light hitting us and collisions between atoms and molecules within our own bodies giving each others positions away?

 

Are we, and other macroscopic objects destined to lie around as definite outcomes because of decoherence giving it all away in multi-atomic objects, whereas in the case of the electron there is nothing to observe it if it is in a dark chamber, and in a vacuum (and thus the wavefunction does not break down?).

 

Did they know about decoherence in Bohr and Einsteins day when Einstein offered up 'will a sideways glance from a mouse suffice?

 

Would decoherence have explained why Copenhagen can work with an explanation as to why big things break down and small things do not break down?

 

 

Can I have answers from qualified people please, it's a genuine question not a proposal.

[swansont]

I don't think you will get validation, because of there was some effect that happened only in one interpretation, we wouldn't have multiple interpretations.

[KipIngram]

I agree with Swansont - by definition the "interpretation" doesn't affect the execution of the theory (doesn't enter into the math). If something affects the math, it's not part of the interpretation; it's part of the theory. That means discussion of interpretations isn't science per se.

 

Some people feel that in spite of this one interpretation could still be "right" and others "wrong," but other people say that all interpretations that conform with predicted experimental results are equally valid. I think I'm in the latter camp, subject to the caveat that in some cases we might learn new things that make it possible to differentiate via test amongst the interpretations. But then that distinction moves from interpretation to theory, so...

 

I think learning a lot about all of the interpretations is the way to go - each one can offer its own way to "hold the theory" in your mind and can potentially make you a better scientist. It's not that the theory "works better" with one interpretation than another - it's more about using the interpretations to help keep your own imperfect skills on track.

 

I love discussing interpretations - I like some better than others and those can be lively conversations. But it's really just not science.

Edited March 24, 2017 by KipIngram