We assume that N. Bohr knew brilliantly that his previous description of the spectrum of the hydrogen atom via a single principal energy quantum number was insufficient to describe the fine structure of the hydrogen atom and so he introduced the interpretation of Schrodnger's equation to generate 4 quantum numbers n, l, m, s (primary, azimuthal, magnetic and spin quantum numbers) for a more complete description of the H2 atom.
However, this interpretation requires an instantaneous entanglement of subatomic quantum particles through space.
A. Eistien admitted the probabilistic nature of SE but only objected to instantaneous entanglement because it would violate the principles of the special theory of relativity.
He called the latter a frightening action from a distance.
The question arises: can we succeed in integrating the two points of view?
Yes, this is done within relativistic quantum mechanics (aka quantum field theory). Bohr’s model describes the spectrum of the electron, bound to the hydrogen atom, in the Coulomb potential-which is what the Schrödinger equation, also, describes-it doesn’t describe the fluctuations of the electromagnetic field, that QED does. All this is now well understood.
The first point to note is the Copenhagen interpretation is epistemic, that is, it is essentially a recipe for calculating. It says nothing about what causes anything. It assumes the wave function is merely a calculating aid so we have the remarkable fact that the interference effects in the two-slit experiment is caused by, er, nothing. Even weirder, in the Mach Zehnder interferometer, you can get a different effect by blocking the "nothing". Nothing is working very hard here.
The next peculiarity is the Copenhagen interpretation assumes that ψ.ψ* represents probability. That means it is a number. There is nothing in particular wrong with that, but the problem arises when you make a measurement; now only one pixel is activated so what happened to the other probabilities. Now, if you adopt the Einstein view, that before measurement you did not know, after measurement you knew, the probabilities behave the same as in other statistics, but no, the Copenhagen interpretation assumes they are significant, the wave function has to collapse, ans we get the so-called measurement problem, which has never been answered so for most it is pushed under the mat.
Another point that is pushed under the mat is the question of superposition. The mathematicians are so keen to point out that any combination of legitimate solutions to the wave equation is also a solution, but they get mixed up when they start talking abo0ut probabilities. If two normed solutions are superimposed, the new solution is not normed, and we have to renormalize. Does this not strike you as a shonky procedure?
Quote: " Bohr’s model describes the spectrum of the electron, bound to the hydrogen atom, in the Coulomb potential-which is what the Schrödinger equation, also, describes-it doesn’t describe the fluctuations of the electromagnetic field, that QED does. All this is now well understood."
I beg to differ. Feynman, who established the current version of QED wrote in 1964:
"There are difficulties associated with the ideas of Maxwell's theory which are not solved by and not directly associated with quantum mechanics...when electromagnetism is joined to quantum mechanics, the difficulties remain."
Ref: Feynman R.P., Leighton R.B and Sands M. (1964) The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Addison-Wesley, Vol. II, p. 28-1.
So this is not now well understood in the mainstream community.
This issue is further analyzed and correlated with electromagnetic theory in this article:
Article An Overview of the Hydrogen Atom Fundamental Resonance State...
