-----Original Message-----
From: Leigh Palmer [SMTP:palmer@sfu.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 1997 7:23 PM
To: phys-l@atlantis.cc.uwf.edu
Subject: Re: Explaining QM to the layperson
Dear Brian,
If you are going to teach the Copenhagen interpretation of the quantum
mechanics to nonscience students I hope you will offer it in the spirit =
of
levity. Many of us simply do not believe the Schrodinger's cat =
"paradox";
indeed I believe it was introduced for the purpose of invalidating the
Copenhagen interpretation by *reductio ad absurdum*. If your students go
away with the belief that all scientists believe in collapsing =
wavefunctions
&c. they may (quite properly) infer that we are a bunch of kooks.
Leigh
Leigh,=20
I suppose the fact is I no longer know what to believe regarding the =
interpretation of QM an undoubtedly I am not alone. However the fact =
remains something remarkably unusual and outside our experience with the =
macroscopic world occurs when dealing with the quantum mechanical realm. =
If I'm not mistaken, there are specific experiments that can be =
performed involving the interference of "two-level atoms" with "single =
mode" cavity fields whose results can only be explained by considering =
the atom and/or field system to have been in a superposition of =
eigenstates of an observable.
In discussing these issues with students who know little about physics =
at all I am truly surprised at how much I myself have accepted to be =
true about the interpretation of QM without a deep understanding. I am =
consoled however by a quote from Feynman in his book "The Character of =
Physical Law", that basically says "....no one knows how it can be that =
way, it just is."
I agree that the Schrodingers Cat gedanken experiment could have been =
used to illustrate the seeming absurdity of the Copenhagen =
interpretation of QM. However it could also serve as a means to attempt =
to bring the odd properties of the QM world into a realm closer to our =
experience so that we might appreciate more the differences between the =
micro and macro worlds. In this sense it is in the spirit of Mr. =
Tompkins adventures, is it not?
As far as providing the students with alternatives, I did mention =
Everett's Many World's Interpretation. Amazingly, they were =
significantly more comfortable with this concept. Probably due to the =
fact that so much media SciFi plays on this idea. I did point out to =
them that if they recalled our discussion of the Scientific Method, that =
this theory was untenable due to it's untestability. The only truly =
different interpretation that I can think of is Bohm's Causal =
Interpretation which I understand to be most closely related to =
deBroglie's pilot wave theory.