> dck%(
/0LDArial00PPؖO0ؖ"@.
@n?" dd@ @@``P*
0AA@3ʚ;ʚ;g4UdUdɆO0ppp@<4ddddv0PЈ80___PPT10
!MThe Copenhagen interpretationBorn, Heisenberg, Schrdinger, Bohr (1925-1927)N(0Even though the Copenhagen interpretation is supposed to be the orthodox interpretation, there is widespread disagreement on it because&
& it requires a process (called wavefunction collapse) for which there is no known physical explanation.
The disagreement is between those who believe a physical explanation might be possible and those who don t..In this interpretation& Space and time are assumed to be objectively real.
Prior to an observation, the universe is assumed to be divided between a quantum wavefunction that cannot be observed and a classical object that can be observed.Z"FuThe wavefunction is assumed to be a solution to the Schrdinger equation, the fundamental equation of quantum physics.v8 " = fThe wavefunction is assumed to exist whether or not there are observations.
It represents the probability (not the certainty) that a specific result (e.g., a position) will be obtained if the observer makes a specific type of measurement (e.g., of position).
It describes all of the possible results (e.g., all of the possible positions) that could be obtained , but cannot predict which result will actually be obtained.
BZ^9Wavefunction collapse
At the moment of observation, the wavefunction is assumed to change irreversibly from a description of all of the possibilities (e.g., of position) that could be observed to a description of only the event that is observed.
This is called wavefunction reduction, or wavefunction collapse.!!$>"The next observationAfter an observation and wavefunction collapse, a new wavefunction emerges.
It represents all of the possibilities that are allowed by the previous observation.
Another observation results in another wave function collapse, etc.
In this interpretation, a sequence of observations result from a sequence of wavefunction collapses.
Without wavefunction collapse, there are no observations.&Ze:P&Wavefunction collapse (cont.)" Any solution to the Schrdinger equation must at all times contain as many possibilities as were present initially.
" No mechanism that obeys the Schrdinger equation (i.e., no physical process) can change the number of possibilities.
" This means that no physical process can cause collapse.
Thus, collapse requires a nonphysical agent.*- [ T T$$ 3What is the only nonphysical agent that we know of?44(Most physicists do not like to admit that collapse might be caused by Awareness.
Awareness, being nonphysical, does not obey the Schrdinger equation.
Therefore, Awareness might collapse the wavefunction.
Is there any other nonphysical agent?0Z$"$m$(
Wavefunction collapse (cont.)" Even if there were a physical mechanism for wavefunction collapse, it would produce nothing but a collapsed wavefunction.
A collapsed wavefunction is not aware. It is only a collapsed wavefunction.
Awareness exists on a different level from the objects of awareness.
What we are aware of cannot be what is aware.
Awareness is self-evident. It needs no proof. That we are aware is the only thing that we can be certain of because Awareness does not change.
All objects of Awareness change with time.V}PP""he+P/4&5 The problem of the observermWhat do we mean by an observer?
In the Copenhagen interpretation, a sequence of observations results from a sequence of wavefunction collapses.
An example of a sequence of observations is a sequence of thoughts, feelings, emotions, body sensations, and perceptions, i.e., a sequence of mind states.
(These can be thought to be a sequence of arisings in Awareness.)nn,x
AThe Copenhagen interpretation does not require separate observersBB(It requires only observations.
Is it possible that the separate observer is nothing but a mental construct (which would also result from a sequence of wavefunction collapses)?
Does observing really require a separate observer ?
Or does it just require Awareness?ejIf there are observations but not separate observers& 66(@There is no separation&
& and there is no suffering.
We think there is more than one observer because we have been taught so.
Suppose we have been taught wrong!
Then the best thing we can say about all of our suffering is that it has told us that there must be a better way! !Z!8The Copenhagen interpretation could be purely subjective99(;The Copenhagen interpretation normally requires an objective wavefunction that collapses at the moment of an observation.
However, suppose there is no wavefunction and no wavefunction collapse.
Then an observation would consist of simply a sequence of mind states.
This would be a purely subjective interpretation.
<<>=N 0` 33` Sf3f` 33g` f` www3PP` ZXdbmo` \ғ3y`Ӣ` 3f3ff` 3f3FKf` hk]wwwfܹ` ff>>\`Y{ff` R>&- {p_/̴>?" dd@,|?" dd@ " @ ` n?" dd@ @@``PR @ ` `p>>f(
6J `}
T Click to edit Master title style!
!
0XM `
RClick to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level!
S
0S ^ `
>*
0xY ^
@*
0(^ ^ `
@*H
0h ? 3380___PPT10.j!9 Default Design6
0`6(
~
s* `}
x
c$L `
H
0h ? 3380___PPT10.@}f0
0p0(
x
c$x(c` `0
c
x
c$P)c0 `Sc
H
0h ? 3380___PPT10.<
0 <(
~
s*0c `P
c
~
s*h1cp0c
H
0h ? 3380___PPT10.&#Ɖ<
0$<(
$~
$ s*8c `}
c
~
$ s*Fc `c
H
$0h ? 3380___PPT10.-0
0(0(
(x
( c$Lzc`00
c
x
( c$${c00 c
H
(0h ? 3380___PPT10.lиM0
0,0(
,x
, c$@@G)CaEs I1G)(
/0LDArial00PP_ؖO0ؖ"@.
@n?" dd@ @@``T-
Oh+'0pY`h
,4PThe Copenhagen interpretation Born, Heisenberg, Schrdinger, Bohr (1925-1927)DCIDCI4Microsoft Office PowerPoint@p[@Jj@jG4Xg ,&" WMFCF2 4$4Dlx\ EMF4D T 0F(GDICx!b$$==%%V0xx x %%$$AA"FGDICF(GDICl.wFGDICF(GDIC6ljwFGDICF(GDICFGDICRp@"Arial~|Arial T_p؞@"Arial
0 hO0p<0U050؞4#X&0$&0\dv%TAALThe Copenhagen interpretationy%
(Rp@"Arial|ArialT_p؞@"Arial
0 /hO0p<0U050؞4#&00$&0\dv%TKAALxBorn, Heisenberg, Schr%
(Rp@"Arial|@"Arial
0 |J$A|H]|'
UJ$J$4#00<0U050؞ԝ0 \dv&^Zw4%
`!dv%TTLOAALLP%
(Rp@"Arial|A|H]|'
UJ$J$4|J$A|H]|'
VJ$J$ԝ0 \dv^Zw<0U050؞t !dv&^Zw%
!dv%TPAAPLpdinger, Bohr (1925%
(Rp@"Arial|A|H]|'
VJ$J$ԝ0 \|J$A|H]|'
WJ$J$t !dv^Zw<0U050؞ !dv&^Zw%
!dv%TTAALP-%
(Rp@"Arial|A|H]|'
WJ$J$t !|J$A|H]|'
XJ$J$ !dv^Zw<0U050؞ !dv&^Zw\%
!dv%TlAALX1927)%
(F(GDIClFGDICRp@"ArialTsR0),0d=0F0Ȝ0|؞de<0U050؞d -` s0|d *U0dv%TT
#AA
#LP" %
(Rp@"ArialdJ00M0l$Pw
%؞ę\ؚ||
|wJ$!+w @w
J$!4w?w @w
Inww
؞ę<0U050؞40з sR00؞
#xdv%TH#AA#*LEven though the Copenhagen interpretation %
(Rp@"Ariala|pC0ԙpHDՉ0ԙ<0U050؞4 p̙0 ԙ\dv%T%Q+AA+Lxis supposed to be the %
(Rp@"Ariala|pHDՉ0|J$A|H]|'
jJ$J$4 p̙0<0U050؞ԝ \dv^Zw%
0!dv%TTR%S+AAR+LP %
(Rp@"Ariala|A|H]|'
jJ$J$4 |J$A|H]|'
kJ$J$ԝ \dv^Zw<0U050؞t !dv^Zw%
!dv%T|T%m+AAT+L\orthodox%
(Rp@"Ariala|A|H]|'
kJ$J$ԝ \|J$A|H]|'
lJ$J$t !dv^Zw<0U050؞ !dv^Zw%
!dv%TTn%o+AAn+LP %
(Rp@"Arialf|з\0"ԙззDՉ0"ԙ<0U050؞4#з̙0&" WMFC 44D#ԙ\Pdv%T$-u3AA3$Linterpretation, there is widespread %
(Rp@"ArialZ|Arialdep؞@"Arial
0 hO0p<0U050؞4 #l&0$&0\dv%T5a;AA;Ldisagreement on it because%
(Rp@"ArialZ|@"Arial
0 |J$A|H]|'
uJ$J$4 #0<0U050؞ԝ0 \dvl&^Zw%
#!dv%TTb5i;AAb;LP& %
(Rp@"ArialTsR0
Ȝ0d=0F0Ȝ0|؞de<0U050؞0?w @w
I`s0|xU0dv%TT
>DAA
DLP" %
(Rp@"ArialdJ00M0l$Pw
%؞ę\ؚ||
|wJ$!+w @w
J$!4w?w @w
Inww
؞ę<0U050؞40з sR00؞
Dxdv%TT>DAADLP& %
(Rp@"ArialdJ00M0l$P+w @w
J$!4w?w @w
|J$A|H]|
J$J$40з sR0<0U050؞ dv^Zw%
)!dv%T>jDAADLit requires a process (called %
(Rp@"ArialdJ00M0l$PA|H]|
J$J$40з|J$A|H]|
J$J$ dv^Zw<0U050؞T !dv^Zw%
,!dv%Tk>DAAkDLdwavefunction%
(Rp@"Arialo|з0$ԙззDՉ0$ԙ<0U050؞4%з̙0%ԙ\Pdv%T0F~LAAL&Lcollapse) for which there is no known %
(Rp@"Arial@|Arialdep؞@"Arial
0 hO0p<0U050؞4#X&0$&0\dv%TNNTAATLxphysical explanation.%
(Rp@"ArialTsR0!%0d=0F0Ȝ0|؞de<0U050؞0?w @w
prI` s0|d &U0dv%TT
X^AA
^LP" %
(Rp@"ArialdJ00M0l$Pw'
%؞ę\ؚ||
|wJ$!+w @w'
J$!4w?w @w
prInww'
؞ę<0U050؞40з sR00؞
^xdv%T0X^AA^<he disagreement is between those who %
(Rp@"Arialv|з0&ԙззDՉ0&ԙ<0U050؞4'з̙0'ԙ\Pdv%T<`fAAf(Lbelieve a physical explanation might be %
(Rp@"ArialZ|Arialdep؞@"Arial
0 hO0p<0U050؞4H#&0$&0\ddv%ThbnAAnLpossible and those who don%
(Rp0&VWMFC44D@"ArialZ|@"Arial
0 |J$A|H]|'
J$J$4H#0<0U050؞ԝ0 \ddv&^Zw%
>!dv%TTchdnAAcnLP %
(Rp@"ArialZ|A|H]|'
J$J$4H|J$A|H]|'
J$J$ԝ0 \ddv^Zw<0U050؞t !dv&^ZwdQ%
hA!dv%TXehhnAAenLPt.%
(x--$xx--'@"Arial~??-. 32
The Copenhagen interpretation ."System-@"Arial???-. (2
Born, Heisenberg, Schr.-@"Arial???-. 2
L.-@"Arial???-. "2
Pdinger, Bohr (1925.-@"Arial???-. 2
-.-@"Arial???-. 2
1927)d.-@"Arial???????-. 2
#
.-@"Arial??????????????????-. F2
#*Even though the Copenhagen interpretation .-@"Ariala??-. (2
+is supposed to be the .-@"Ariala??-. 2
+R.-@"Ariala??-. 2
+Torthodox.-@"Ariala??-. 2
+n.-@"Arialf??-. =2
3$interpretation, there is widespread .-@"ArialZ??-. .2
;disagreement on it because.-@"ArialZ??-. 2
;b.-@"Arial???????-. 2
D
.-@"Arial??????????????????-. 2
D.-@"Arial??????????????????-. 42
Dit requires a process (called .-@"Arial??????????????????-. 2
Dkwavefunction.-@"Arialo??-. @2
L&collapse) for which there is no known .-@"Arial@??-. '2
Tphysical explanation. .-@"Arial???????-. 2
^
.-@"Arial??????????????????-. @2
^&The disagreement is between those who .-@"Arialv??-. C2
f(believe a physical explanation might be .-@"ArialZ??-. .2
npossible and those who don.-@"ArialZ??-. 2
nc.-@"ArialZ??-.
2
net..-՜.+,0(
On-screen ShowPhysics Department~<
'ArialDefault DesignNThe Copenhagen interpretation Born, Heisenberg, Schrdinger, Bohr (1925-1927)In this interpretationvThe wavefunction is assumed to be a solution to the Schrdinger equation, the fundamental equation of quantum physicsWavefunction collapseThe next observationWavefunction collapse (cont.)4What is the only nonphysical agent that we know of?Wavefunction collapse (cont.)The problem of the observerBThe Copenhagen interpretation does not require separate observers6If there are observations but not separate observers9The Copenhagen interpretation could be purely subjective
For example,Fonts UsedDesign Template
Slide Titles
_
JdDCIDCI
!"#$%f'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQReghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root EntrydO)jCurrent User)SummaryInformation(&YPowerPoint Document(~DocumentSummaryInformation8X
0AA@3ʚ;ʚ;g4UdUd|_O0ppp@<4ddddv0P_80___PPT10
l%MThe Copenhagen interpretationBorn, Heisenberg, Schrdinger, Bohr (1925-1927)N(0Even though the Copenhagen interpretation is supposed to be the orthodox interpretation, there is widespread disagreement on it because&
& it requires a process (called wavefunction collapse) for which there is no known physical explanation.
The disagreement is between those who believe a physical explanation might be possible and those who don t.__.In this interpretation& Space and time are assumed to be objectively real.
Prior to an observation, the universe is assumed to be divided between a quantum wavefunction that cannot be observed and a classical object that can be observed.Z"FuThe wavefunction is assumed to be a solution to the Schrdinger equation, the fundamental equation of quantum physics.v8 " = fThe wavefunction is assumed to exist whether or not there are observations.
It represents the probability (not the certainty) that a specific result (e.g., a position) will be obtained if the observer makes a specific type of measurement (e.g., of position).
It describes all of the possible results (e.g., all of the possible positions) that could be obtained , but cannot predict which result will actually be obtained.
BZ^9Wavefunction collapse
At the moment of observation, the wavefunction is assumed to change irreversibly from a description of all of the possibilities (e.g., of position) that could be observed to a description of only the event that is observed.
This is called wavefunction reduction, or wavefunction collapse.!!$>"The next observationAfter an observation and wavefunction collapse, a new wavefunction emerges.
It represents all of the possibilities that are allowed by the previous observation.
Another observation results in another wave function collapse, etc.
In this interpretation, a sequence of observations result from a sequence of wavefunction collapses.
Without wavefunction collapse, there are no observations.&Ze:P&Wavefunction collapse (cont.)" Any solution to the Schrdinger equation must at all times contain as many possibilities as were present initially.
" No mechanism that obeys the Schrdinger equation (i.e., no physical process) can change the number of possibilities.
" This means that no physical process can cause collapse.
Thus, collapse requires a nonphysical agent.*- [ T T$$ 3What is the only nonphysical agent that we know of?44(Most physicists do not like to admit that collapse might be caused by Awareness.
Awareness, being nonphysical, does not obey the Schrdinger equation.
Therefore, Awareness might collapse the wavefunction..$"$G$
Wavefunction collapse (cont.)" Even if there were a physical mechanism for wavefunction collapse, it would produce nothing but a collapsed wavefunction.
A collapsed wavefunction is not aware. It is only a collapsed wavefunction.
Awareness exists on a different level from the objects of awareness.
What we are aware of cannot be what is aware.
Awareness is self-evident. It needs no proof. That we are aware is the only thing that we can be certain of because Awareness does not change.
All objects of Awareness change with time.V}PP""he+P/4&5 The problem of the observermWhat do we mean by an observer?
In the Copenhagen interpretation, a sequence of observations results from a sequence of wavefunction collapses.
An example of a sequence of observations is a sequence of thoughts, feelings, emotions, body sensations, and perceptions, i.e., a sequence of mind states.
(These can be thought of as a sequence of arisings in Awareness.)nn,x
AThe Copenhagen interpretation does not require separate observersBB("It requires only observations.
The separate observer is only a mental construct (which could result from a sequence of wavefunction collapses).$y
jIf there are observations but not separate observers& 66(@There is no separation&
& and there is no suffering.
We think there is more than one observer because we have been taught so.
Suppose we have been taught wrong!
Then the best thing we can say about all of our suffering is that it has told us that there must be a better way! !Z!8The Copenhagen interpretation could be purely subjective99(;The Copenhagen interpretation normally requires an objective wavefunction that collapses at the moment of an observation.
However, suppose there is no wavefunction and no wavefunction collapse.
Then an observation would consist of simply a sequence of mind states.
This would be a purely subjective interpretation.
<<>=N
For example,Christopher Fuchs has created a subjective interpretation in which quantum probabilities are interpreted as Bayesian probabilities.
Bayesian probabilities are probabilities that an agent s belief will change to a new belief as a result of new data (from new observations).
At the present time, Fuchs interpretation requires an external object to be observed.
However, if the observation were purely subjective, then his interpretation would be a completely subjective interpretation of quantum theory!PP
6
0`6(
~
s*] `}
x
c$^ `
H
0h ? 3380___PPT10.@}f$
04$(
4r
4 Sh `}
r
4 S@ `
H
40h ? 3380___PPT10.jPpV0
0D0(
Dx
D c$ `}
x
D c$0 `
H
D0h ? 3380___PPT10."f0
0 H0(
Hx
H c$h `
x
H c$, `3
H
H0h ? 3380___PPT10.$f(D$
0PT$(
Tr
T S$.$ `}
$
r
T St!$ `$
H
T0h ? 3380___PPT10.jr01Js uw"zZ|
s
J~1
՜.+,0(
On-screen ShowPhysics Department~<
'ArialDefault DesignNThe Copenhagen interpretation Born, Heisenberg, Schrdinger, Bohr (1925-1927)In this interpretationvThe wavefunction is assumed to be a solution to the Schrdinger equation, the fundamental equation of quantum physicsWavefunction collapseThe next observationWavefunction collapse (cont.)4What is the only nonphysical agent that we know of?Wavefunction collapse (cont.)The problem of the observerBThe Copenhagen interpretation does not require separate observers6If there are observations but not separate observers9The Copenhagen interpretation could be purely subjective
For example,Fonts UsedDesign Template
Slide Titles
_~dDCIDCI