The strange point about Copenhagen Interpretation is that it is usually called as the orthodox interpretation although there is no common consensus on it among physicists and philosophers!
|
Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics is a blended heap of different challenging views toward understanding the quantum formalism. Among the famous founders (e.g., Heisenberg, Born, Pauli, Jordan etc.), Bohr was the most influential figure. On this account and for the sake of distinguishing between different attitudes in Copenhagen school, and more importantly, for making a clear distinction from von Neumann influence (i.e., the reduction of state function) on what is now usually called as Copenhagen interpretation, it is more reasonable to forget about so-called Copenhagen interpretation and simply say Bohr's Interpretation. However, it is really difficult to talk about a coherent and unique attitude of Bohr toward foundation of QM.
Complementarity principle and phenomenon are key ingredients of Bohr view; in his viewpoint, the quantum formalism is nothing but the mathematical presentation of Complementarity idea, an idea which is claimed to be the consistent and rational generalization of classical terms to quantum realm. The importance of Complementarity in Bohr's view is comparable with the position of causality in classical physics, even similar in the same philosophical way!
However, although Bohr explicitly explained what he meant by phenomenon there is no consensus on what he meant by Complementarity principle. This ambiguity is directly related to vagueness in Bohr's view about the position of classical physics in quantum realm. We should carefully keep in mind that in Bohr's view, unambiguous, objective and communicable description of quantum phenomena is only possible with the aid of classical explanations. Subsequently, It could be said that Bohr's view about quantum domain was a continual traditional view that has a deep roots in classical physics, in contrast to some believes considering some revolutionary shift.
Let alone the dogmatic attitude of Bohr in some respects, in my idea, Bohr's interpretation provides a suitable and neat language for communicating the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics, just a terminology, but in no ways it explains why quantum. It could help us to correctly describe the mathematical formalism in words, and prevents from some misconceptions, too. For example, Complementarity Principle states the existence of preclusions in simultaneous possibility of obtainging exact information and the physical meaning about complementary properties of physical system, but it provides no the reason of such a situation (in other words and roughly speaking, instead of explaining the weidness of the quantum theory, Bohr said that it is impossible to do so). |