Is Copenhagen the Dominant Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics? | Tim Maudlin & Sheldon Goldstein

Robinson's Podcast #188 - Tim Maudlin & Sheldon Goldstein: The Copenhagen Interpretation and Bohmian Mechanics

Tim Maudlin is Professor of Philosophy at NYU and Founder and Director of the John Bell Institute for the Foundations of Physics. Sheldon Goldstein is Distinguished Professor of Mathematics at Rutgers University, where he researches mathematical physics, the foundations of quantum mechanics, and Bohmian Mechanics. He is also Board Member of the John Bell Institute for the Foundations of Physics, and this is his second appearance on the show. In episode 170, he and Robinson discussed Bohmian Mechanics. On the other hand, this is Tim’s fifth appearance on the show. Tim was also a guest on episode 46 (laws of nature, space, and free will), episode 67 with David Albert (the foundations of quantum mechanics), episode 115 with Craig Callender (the philosophy of time), and episode 142 on Bell’s inequality and the philosophy of science. In this episode, Robinson, Tim, and Shelly discuss the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the Many-Worlds theory, spontaneous collapse theories, Bohmian mechanics, and emergent relativity. If you’re interested in the foundations of physics—which you absolutely should be—then please check out the JBI, which is devoted to providing a home for research and education in this important area. Any donations are immensely helpful at this early stage in the institute’s life.

Robinson Erhardt researches symbolic logic and the foundations of mathematics at Stanford University. Join him in conversations with philosophers, scientists, weightlifters, artists, and everyone in-between.

[david_porthouse]

There is no quantum world, just a collection of experiments we can do. Any computer simulation which aims to show that quantum world is impossible. It would enable us to observe quantum mechanical behaviour without the use of photons.

That’s roughly what the Copenhagen interpretation is saying. It’s hardly difficult to understand. I would like to produce such a computer simulation making use of a random number generator alongside the numerical integration of a big system of differential equations. I am nowhere near to succeeding in doing it yet. The view from Copenhagen could be right.

I would say there is more than one way to travel faster than light. One way is associated with wavelike behaviour. The other way is associated with particle-like behaviour. Stick with Copenhagen if you don’t realise that.