I think interpretations fall more within the realm of philosophy. What physicists wants are theories that can yield correct and precise predictions. For instance, if we have, let's say, 10 different interpretations of QM, all of them unfalsifiable, yet all of them provide the same accurate physical predictions, then in terms of theory, they are equally suitable approximations of reality. What is of greater interest are innovative theories that can generate improved and more specific predictions, such as those for higher energy scales where gravity comes into play and other areas. Therefore, as a physicist, I would concentrate on developing theories that can yield more accurate and precise predictions.
I wouldn’t say it’s philosophy so much as a split in what you think the goal of physics is. Is the goal to create the most accurate models or to understand how the universe actually works?
The storyline that “science now accepts their ideas” is questionable editorializing imho. Neither Bohmian mechanics nor many worlds are falsifiable, they are just interpretations. They are cool but they aren’t really something you can reject. And to be honest, an unscientific sample of the physicists I know has the majority basically subscribing to some version of “shut up and calculate”
Sean Carroll claims many-worlds is “super duper falsifiable”
“ Right, so speaking of which, look, many-worlds says there is a wave function or a state vector, it evolves all the time under the Schrödinger equation. So all you need to do to falsify the many worlds-interpretation is to do an experiment where the wave function is not under the Schrödinger equation. These experiments are ongoing. Roger Penrose makes predictions that we should see them. There’s other theories of objective collapses that says we should see them. So that’s just one way. Also, you could find evidence for dynamical variables other than the wave function, ’cause those don’t exist in many-worlds. So there’s plenty of ways in which you could experimentally do these things. They’re hard experiments to do, and they may never converge on anything, but they’re there in principle. If you care about the philosophy of it rather than the practice of it, there’s zero question that many-worlds is completely 100% super-duper falsifiable.”
IIRC the pilot wave theory from Bohmian is good for single particles, but it's difficult to generalize to multiple particles. In my opinion most physicist don't think it's a good idea.
The many-words interpretation of Everett is quite different. I'm still not sure if it's just claiming that the "hallucinated" Hilbert spaces in a measurement are actualy real copies of the "universe".
Disclaimer: I prefer the "shut up and calculate" interpretation, and I hope that "something-something-decoherence" will fix all the problems one day. Perhaps I like "many-words" without knowing.
Technically, if you find a system that doesn't satisfy the Schrödinger equation, you have falsified many worlds. On the other hand, is the wave function collapse falsifiable? Note that MWI makes less assumptions than Copenhagen.
> Neither Bohmian mechanics nor many worlds are falsifiable, they are just interpretations.
If we accept that (I’m not sure I do[1]), then that must be true of all interpretations, including the once most popular, Copenhagen/collapse. And as valuable is the "shut up and calculate" refusal to interpret anything, I suspect it is at least in part a way to avoid the possible demise of the collapse interpretation. A compromise of sorts.
Agreed that “science accepts their ideas” is a mischaracterization (indeed Everett annd Bohm are probably mutually exclusive so couldn’t both be “accepted”). Better to say that the community now takes both seriously as contenders for a completion of quantum mechanics.
I deliberately say “completion”, not “interpretation” since, without further elaboration, Copenhagen quantum mechanics is only a piece of a model.
It's an odd thing to have a bio piece on what amounts to a "failed" phycist — at least while he was alive. Not all of life's stories have happy endings.
"Claims that the standard procedure for testing scientific theories is inapplicable to Everettian quantum theory, and hence that the theory is untestable, are due to misconceptions about probability and about the logic of experimental testing. Refuting those claims by correcting those misconceptions leads to an improved theory of scientific methodology (based on Popper's) and testing, which allows various simplifications, notably the elimination of everything probabilistic from the methodology (‘Bayesian’ credences) and from fundamental physics (stochastic processes)." – David Deutsch
I love these sort of paradoxes in physics: multiple models, multiple interpretations, multiple meanings and realities, out of seemingly the same experiments and measurements, sometimes even the exact same mathematical formulas
Sometimes it can definitely be seen as a bit ridiculous, like if maybe a formula is taken to mean something slightly different, it could mean the whole Universe is upside down!
However, sometimes creating alternative models, even if weird when taken at face value, can actually make a difference in making better predictions and even finding new practical applications
For anyone interested in other theories that were not mentioned and not satisfied with the unfalsifiability of Many Worlds I can recommend reading Carlo Rovelli's book Helgoland and his Relational Quantum Mechanics[0].
Copenhagen isn't any more satisfiable than Many Worlds.
They both say similar things: that the wavefunction evolves according to the Schrodinger equation. One leaves the equation intact (Many Worlds), while the other involves randomly selecting certain parts of it to be "real" or "unreal" without any explanation of how or why that choice is made (Copenhagen).
https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.11052 claims to have derived an experimentally verifiable prediction from many worlds (namely that energy is only conserved in the linear progression of the wave function, and not necessarily in the "branched" or "collapsed" bit that we observe; and so in certain circumstances it might be possible to observe an interaction that fails to conserve energy.
[+] [-] randomtoast|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] zeroonetwothree|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pjs_|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] jahnu|1 year ago|reply
“ Right, so speaking of which, look, many-worlds says there is a wave function or a state vector, it evolves all the time under the Schrödinger equation. So all you need to do to falsify the many worlds-interpretation is to do an experiment where the wave function is not under the Schrödinger equation. These experiments are ongoing. Roger Penrose makes predictions that we should see them. There’s other theories of objective collapses that says we should see them. So that’s just one way. Also, you could find evidence for dynamical variables other than the wave function, ’cause those don’t exist in many-worlds. So there’s plenty of ways in which you could experimentally do these things. They’re hard experiments to do, and they may never converge on anything, but they’re there in principle. If you care about the philosophy of it rather than the practice of it, there’s zero question that many-worlds is completely 100% super-duper falsifiable.”
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2021/04/14/ama-...
[+] [-] gus_massa|1 year ago|reply
The many-words interpretation of Everett is quite different. I'm still not sure if it's just claiming that the "hallucinated" Hilbert spaces in a measurement are actualy real copies of the "universe".
Disclaimer: I prefer the "shut up and calculate" interpretation, and I hope that "something-something-decoherence" will fix all the problems one day. Perhaps I like "many-words" without knowing.
[+] [-] mr_mitm|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] loup-vaillant|1 year ago|reply
If we accept that (I’m not sure I do[1]), then that must be true of all interpretations, including the once most popular, Copenhagen/collapse. And as valuable is the "shut up and calculate" refusal to interpret anything, I suspect it is at least in part a way to avoid the possible demise of the collapse interpretation. A compromise of sorts.
[1]: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/DFxoaWGEh9ndwtZhk/decoherenc...
[+] [-] nico|1 year ago|reply
However, this is a typical dichotomy in academic/research settings
The interplay between the practical (like “calculate” or “build”); and searching for meaning (like coming up with a new model for some phenomenon)
My impression is that the majority in a particular field, usually focus on the practical, applying known “tried and true” models to novel things
And then, there are only a few who are successful at convincing others of using their models
There are a lot of people who are technically capable of creating new models. But it is incredibly difficult to make them go mainstream
[+] [-] xaPe|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] superposeur|1 year ago|reply
I deliberately say “completion”, not “interpretation” since, without further elaboration, Copenhagen quantum mechanics is only a piece of a model.
[+] [-] mistermann|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] microtherion|1 year ago|reply
The son, Mark Oliver Everett, is better known as E, the leader of the Eels.
[+] [-] JKCalhoun|1 year ago|reply
https://youtu.be/0LroZS97VjA
It's an odd thing to have a bio piece on what amounts to a "failed" phycist — at least while he was alive. Not all of life's stories have happy endings.
[+] [-] jessenichols|1 year ago|reply
pdf, The Logic of Experimental Tests, Particularly of Everettian Quantum Theory https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135521981...
[+] [-] nico|1 year ago|reply
Sometimes it can definitely be seen as a bit ridiculous, like if maybe a formula is taken to mean something slightly different, it could mean the whole Universe is upside down!
However, sometimes creating alternative models, even if weird when taken at face value, can actually make a difference in making better predictions and even finding new practical applications
In the end, all of our models are made up by us
[+] [-] fidrelity|1 year ago|reply
[0]: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/
[+] [-] notfed|1 year ago|reply
They both say similar things: that the wavefunction evolves according to the Schrodinger equation. One leaves the equation intact (Many Worlds), while the other involves randomly selecting certain parts of it to be "real" or "unreal" without any explanation of how or why that choice is made (Copenhagen).
[+] [-] lanstin|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] adolph|1 year ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anathem