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
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...
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...
Back
Top