Re: [Phys-l] qm texts other than Copenhagen

[William Maddox <maddox@physics.Auburn.EDU>]

From: WC Maddox

Those interested in the issue of determinism in QM may want to read this 
article:

Would Bohr be born if Bohm were born before Born?

American Journal of Physics -- February 2008 -- Volume 76, Issue 2, pp. 
143-146

Discusses a hypothetical historical context in which a Bohm-like 
deterministic^ interpretation of the Schrödinger equation is proposed 
before the Born^ probabilistic interpretation and argue that in such a 
context the^ Copenhagen (Bohr) interpretation would probably have not 
achieved great popularity^ among physicists.


End Message



On 3/24/2010 10:34 PM, John Denker wrote:
> The current thinking among experts on the subject is that
> Thoreau got it right:  that which interprets least interprets
> best.  The equations of motion get the right answer, and do
> not really require interpretation.
>
> 2) If the real objective is to "preserve determinism" then
> the whole game is not worth playing.  The field has progressed
> since the 1950s.  There is absolutely no chance that a hidden
> variable theory of the sort Bohm was talking about could be
> correct.  John Bell and Alain Aspect have had something to
> say about it.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
>
>
>