-7

Many-worlds and Copenhagen are the two major interpretations (actually features) of quantum mechanics, and both are valid to some degree. So, instead of arguing and battling over their differences, why can’t we think of a way to bring the two together into a single mechanism. The question is, what it takes to envision a scheme that can accommodate both Many-worlds and Copenhagen?

While we are in this unifying different interpretations (or features) mode, maybe we should also throw in the Bayesian interpretation (feature) as well.

To clarify, each valid interpretation in QM actually reflects a feature in QM. That is, MWI is a distinctive feature in QM and so is Copenhagen, and that is why we say both are valid in terms of physics. People tend to use the word "interpretation" to refer to a major feature in QM and then somehow regard it as a sort of man made fantasy since it is called an interpretation. The feature referred to by a valid "interpretation" exists just as the whole QM exists.

southwind
  • 147

1 Answers1

3

The problem is that the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics tries to get rid of the very cern of the Copenhagen interpretation: the idea that the act of measurement results in an instantanous collapse of the wave function. The MW interpretation attempts to maintain a fully predictable, continuous time-evolution governed by the Schrodinger equation, something that the Copenhagen interpretation postulates is not possible when an observer affects the system. If one tries to refute the other, I don't believe it makes sense to try to unite them. Furthermore, none of them offers a method to be distinguished from the other (currently, at least). Perhaps, a more fruitful path in studying interpretations of quantum mechanics would be trying to do something akin to what J. Bell did in 1960's: to find a way to objectively measure differences between these interpretations.

Lukas Montenegro
  • 155