The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is usually called standard because it is presented in the basic textbooks on the field. In the USSR this inter­pretation was treated from the point of view of the philosophy of dialectic mate­rialism, which was taken as the state ideology. This treatment was oscillated from negative and rejecting of definitely positive. The Copenhagen interpreta­tion has been rejected by the Marxist philosopher A. Maximov, it was severely criticized by the physicist D. Blohintsev, who supported the ensemble approach to quantum mechanics, it was adopted by the mathematician-physicist V. Fock, who proposed some corrections and reservations to it. The Soviet ideology was not completely homogeneous and stable. From the very beginning it contained the philosophy of activity which was something like the “shadow component”. By accepting the philosophy of activity the physicist M. Markov provided the authentic presentation of the Copenhagen interpretation in 1947. In 1980 the philosophy of activity became popular among Russian intellectuals, and the philosopher I. Alexeev published the detailed presentation of the Copenhagen interpretation by treating it as methodologically productive.

This work examines the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) of quantum mechanics from the perspective of effective models in physics, analyzing its strengths, epistemological limitations, and the apparent violations of conservation laws that should be present during the measurement process.The concept of effective models is explained and a paradigmatic example is developed. Subsequently, this conceptual framework is extended to a critical study of the CI, examining the wavefunction collapse postulate and its implications for energy conservation. Three theoretical alternatives are reviewed: quantum decoherence, Everett's many-worlds interpretation (MWI), and quantum field theory (QFT).The analysis demonstrates that the CI, although computationally effective and widely used, presents fundamental inconsistencies by treating measurement as an abstract collapse that apparently violates energy conservation. The studied alternatives resolve these problems: decoherence provides a natural dynamical mechanism for loss of coherence; the MWI preserves global conservation through deterministic branching of the universal state vector; and QFT reformulates the process as local interactions between fields without the need for collapse postulates.The CI functions as a pedagogically useful but theoretically incomplete effective model. It is recommended that teaching incorporate a critical perspective that recognizes its limitations and presents more rigorous alternative interpretations, promoting a