> Actually, what I actually said is more accurate than my off-the-cuff paraphrase in the above comment. There is no flaw in the reasoning. The reasoning is correct, and I say that in the presentation too. It is the premises that are false.
In that case, I think your presentation was accurate to what you wanted to convey, but I disagree that the Copenhagen interpretation has a major problem.
It is perhaps harder to get a good grasp of than another interpretation, but the really hard parts of QM is in the math.
>> My understanding is that all the different accepted interpretations are mathematically equivalent
> Yes, that's true. The part of the Copenhagen interpretation that is scientifically untenable is the non-mathematical part, the part that says that there is this physical phenomenon called the collapse of the wave function which is non-unitary and outside the scope of the theory, but which causes real measurable effects (i.e. the destruction of interference).
I was not quite clear. I meant that all of the predictions are identical (thus leading to the math calculating them being the same). If that is not true, either I have been terribly mislead or you have a groundbreaking result in QM.
> That's all bullshit. QM is not hard to understand.
The really hard part about understanding quantum mechanics is dealing with the underlying math. It is not intuitive. Complex numbers tend to make an intuitive understanding hard. Properly understanding the Quantum Fourier Transform is not easy, and that doesn't even use measurement. I never touched the Copenhagen interpretation in my study of the QFT and it was still hard.