Copenhagen interpretation
It’s not my ‘interpretation’, it’s the truth!
November 3, 2009 4 comments
Physicist Léon Rosenfeld in 1972, responding to a draft of an article entitled “The Copenhagen Interpretation” sent to him by Henry Stapp:
I would incline to prefer your March 31 title [“Quantum Theory, Pragmatism and the Nature of Space-Time”], the reason being that it does not contain the phrase “Copenhagen interpretation,” which we in Copenhagen do not like at all. Indeed, this expression was invented, and is used by people wishing to suggest that there may be other interpretations of the Schrödinger equation, namely their own muddled ones. ((Quoted in Jeremy Bernstein, Quantum Leaps (Cambridge, Mass., 2009), p78.))
In our terms, Rosenfeld is complaining that “Copenhagen interpretation” is Unspeak. There are other cases in which names for scientific ideas have become hostage to fortune — see, for example, this discussion of how Jerry Fodor thinks there’s something fishy about “natural selection”.
I was also reminded that Einstein had the phrase “relativity theory” more or less forced upon him: in private correspondence, he preferred to call his special theory of 1905 “invariant theory” or Invariantentheorie, and referred grumpily to “so-called ‘relativity theory’” for six years, until it was obvious the cause was lost, and a zillion dodgy metaphors were launched.
Other examples, readers?
there’s a whole geneaology beginning with Social Darwinism, which became associated with a bunch of right wing cranks and race nuts, for which reason E O Wilson coined “sociobiology”, which became associated with a bunch of right wing cranks and race nuts, for which reason Leda Cosmides coined “evolutionary psychology” … and I think we are about due for another round. “Human ethology”, perhaps?
“Indeed, this expression was invented, and is used by people wishing to suggest that there may be other interpretations of the Schrödinger equation, namely their own muddled ones.”
Well, yes, this expression was “invented”, but not much more so than any other scientific term. The fact is that there is more than one interpretation of the Schrodinger equation. Bohr and Co. had their interpretation (Copenhagen). The many-worlds theorists have their own. David Bohm developed another, etc, etc.
I would say that this is not an example of Unspeak, but an artificial and contrived example of Unspeak.
Another excellent example of misnaming things, or the acceptance of a misnamed term, is the “uncertainty principle”. Heisenberg called it the “indeterminancy principle”. After all, uncertainty is not quite the same thing as indeterminancy.
OT, but I thought Steven might be interested to hear that the satirical construct known as “Melanie Phillips” is now referring to UK criticism of Israeli policy as a “verbal pogrom”.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/mel.....jews.thtml
You do have to wonder how she’s going to better that one. “Rhetorical Hiroshima,” perhaps?
Quite! (Which maps on to the argument between Bohr and Einstein et al over “Copenhagen”.) Nice example.