Timeline for Is the Copenhagen interpretation falsifiable?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 8, 2018 at 19:14 | history | edited | Tajimura | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Typo
|
| Mar 8, 2018 at 16:50 | history | edited | Tajimura | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 378 characters in body
|
| Mar 8, 2018 at 16:41 | history | edited | Tajimura | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Wording
|
| Mar 8, 2018 at 16:41 | comment | added | Tajimura | @Asmani perhaps I should've worded it differently. What Born said when he created what we call Copenhagen interpretation is "Only observables are relevant, so, let's concentrate on the outcomes of measurements and don't be bothered by what happens in between". I will edit the answer to make that line of thought more expressed. | |
| Mar 8, 2018 at 16:37 | comment | added | asmani | A doesn't look falsifiable to me, unless we're going to falsify the whole quantum theory. So isn't all this Copenhagen terminology ("both 0 and 1 at the same time" or "at two positions at the same time") redundant? | |
| Mar 8, 2018 at 16:25 | history | answered | Tajimura | CC BY-SA 3.0 |