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favor of this interpretation and has objections to others, is there any thing here that is fundamentally incorrect or out of date (not his philosophical positions, but his facts)?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:
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In her YouTube video Bell’s Theorem Experiments on Entangled Photons, Dr. Fugate shows how polarization-entangled photons violate Bell’s inequality. In this Insight, I will use quantum information theory to explain why such entangled photon-polarization qubits violate the version of Bell’s inequality due to John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt known as the...
This post is a spin-off of the original post that discussed Barandes theory, A new realistic stochastic interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, for any details about the interpretation in general PLEASE look up for an answer there. Now I want this post to focus on this pre-print: J. A. Barandes, "New Prospects for a Causally Local Formulation of Quantum Theory", arXiv 2402.16935 (2024) My main concerns are that Barandes thinks this deflates the anti-classical Bell's theorem. In Barandes...
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...
Back
Top