I Many-Worlds and Testable Claims

bzcle316
Messages
2
Reaction score
1
Among the most well-known interpretations of Quantum Mechanics is that of the "Many Worlds," in which all possible outcomes of a measured quantum event occur simultaneously in some alternative universe. Now, I realize there is some manner of debate as to whether or not the different interpretations of quantum events are genuine scientific hypotheses, or simply some manner of personal philosophical interpretation, but I was curious about the specifics of this particular claim. Specifically, are there any kind of testable claims that this interpretation of quantum phenomena suggests that would allow scientists to try and determine if this (or any other interpretation) corresponds to physical reality?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bzcle316 said:
are there any kind of testable claims that this interpretation of quantum phenomena suggests that would allow scientists to try and determine if this (or any other interpretation) corresponds to physical reality?
No interpretation of QM is testable over and above standard QM itself, because all QM interpretations make the same predictions as standard QM for all experiments. So there is no way to experimentally test one QM interpretation against another. That is why there is still no consensus about QM interpretations a century after QM was developed.
 
  • Like
Likes Lord Jestocost
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