Everett Interpretation in English; correct or flawed?

Galteeth
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
I came across this document http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm#faq containing a plain english explanation of the Everett interpretation. While it is clear that the author is very much in favor of this interpretation and has objections to others, is there any thing here that is fundamentally incorrect or out of date (not his philosophical positions, but his facts)?

Particularly this statement: prediction occurs when a theory suggests new phenomena. Many-worlds makes at least three predictions, two of them unique: about linearity, (See "Is linearity exact?"), quantum gravity (See "Why quantum gravity?") and reversible quantum computers (See "Could we detect other Everett-worlds?").
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That statement is not something that many physicists would agree is true.
 
I have always felt that that FAQ is really bad. I have no idea why it has spread to so many sites.
 
IMHO only the "reversible AI" part in the "Could we detect other Everett-worlds" is a way off [reversible AI is not going to help detecting MWI], but otherwise the FAQ is Ok. And of course it is always the best to go to the original documents, rather than FAQs.

Everett's thesis is available online: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/manyworlds/pdf/dissertation.pdf" , and it is quite readable.

-- Dmtr
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
This is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of interpretations per se. We often see discussions based on QM as it was understood during the early days and the famous Einstein-Bohr debates. The problem with this is that things in QM have advanced tremendously since then, and the 'weirdness' that puzzles those attempting to understand QM has changed. I recently came across a synopsis of these advances, allowing those interested in interpretational issues to understand the modern view...
Back
Top