Comments on: Against the Copenhagen Interpretation http://madhadron.auditblogs.com/2007/11/28/against-the-copenhagen-interpretation/ Ramblings of a physicist in biology Tue, 02 Dec 2008 01:52:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: George Hacken http://madhadron.auditblogs.com/2007/11/28/against-the-copenhagen-interpretation/#comment-662 George Hacken Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:50:03 +0000 http://madhadron.auditblogs.com/2007/11/28/against-the-copenhagen-interpretation/#comment-662 Discovered your site this morning, upon having 'googled' the phrase, "damnation by faint praise" -- for purposes of confirming or refuting Shakespeare as its source. (I'm suitably embarrassed by my lack of culture, etc, etc. For completeness's sake, I'll state that my 'final purpose' is to use that phrase in a quite positive review of Graham Hutton's 'Programming in Haskell.') There is much that Alfred O'Rahilly (Electromagnetics, 1938) is wrong about, including his theory of E&M; however, he's dead right when he says, "Physics cannot solve philosophical problems." Hear, hear. You're right about Copenhagen. I felt quite cheated when, almost 45 years ago, the very smart (late) Professor Gerald Feinberg overloaded the Advanced QM final with Copenhagen-type and EPR-paradox philosophical questions. And here I wanted to come to grips with calculating renormalization & the Lamb shift. I hope not to sound as if I'm slouching toward Philipp Lenard, whose motive was not better physics, and whose diatribe Jack Steinberger asked us to translate as one of two foreign-language requirements for the PhD. Thanks for some great 'reads,' and sorry for my exercise of Proustian tendencies. -- George Discovered your site this morning, upon having ‘googled’ the phrase, “damnation by faint praise” — for purposes of confirming or refuting Shakespeare as its source. (I’m suitably embarrassed by my lack of culture, etc, etc. For completeness’s sake, I’ll state that my ‘final purpose’ is to use that phrase in a quite positive review of Graham Hutton’s ‘Programming in Haskell.’) There is much that Alfred O’Rahilly (Electromagnetics, 1938) is wrong about, including his theory of E&M; however, he’s dead right when he says, “Physics cannot solve philosophical problems.” Hear, hear. You’re right about Copenhagen. I felt quite cheated when, almost 45 years ago, the very smart (late) Professor Gerald Feinberg overloaded the Advanced QM final with Copenhagen-type and EPR-paradox philosophical questions. And here I wanted to come to grips with calculating renormalization & the Lamb shift. I hope not to sound as if I’m slouching toward Philipp Lenard, whose motive was not better physics, and whose diatribe Jack Steinberger asked us to translate as one of two foreign-language requirements for the PhD.

Thanks for some great ‘reads,’ and sorry for my exercise of Proustian tendencies.

– George

]]>