Science-advisor
REGISTER info/FAQ
Login
username
password
     
forgot password?
register here
 
Research articles
  search articles
  reviews guidelines
  reviews
  articles index
My Pages
my alerts
  my messages
  my reviews
  my favorites
 
 
Stat
Members: 3644
Articles: 2'497'992
Articles rated: 2609

16 April 2024
 
  » arxiv » quant-ph/9709032

 Article overview


The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Many Worlds or Many Words?
Max Tegmark ;
Date 16 Sep 1997
Journal Fortsch.Phys. 46 (1998) 855-862
Subject quant-ph gr-qc hep-th
AffiliationIAS
AbstractAs cutting-edge experiments display ever more extreme forms of non-classical behavior, the prevailing view on the interpretation of quantum mechanics appears to be gradually changing. A (highly unscientific) poll taken at the 1997 UMBC quantum mechanics workshop gave the once all-dominant Copenhagen interpretation less than half of the votes. The Many Worlds interpretation (MWI) scored second, comfortably ahead of the Consistent Histories and Bohm interpretations. It is argued that since all the above-mentioned approaches to nonrelativistic quantum mechanics give identical cookbook prescriptions for how to calculate things in practice, practical-minded experimentalists, who have traditionally adopted the ``shut-up-and-calculate interpretation’’, typically show little interest in whether cozy classical concepts are in fact real in some untestable metaphysical sense or merely the way we subjectively perceive a mathematically simpler world where the Schrodinger equation describes everything - and that they are therefore becoming less bothered by a profusion of worlds than by a profusion of words. Common objections to the MWI are discussed. It is argued that when environment-induced decoherence is taken into account, the experimental predictions of the MWI are identical to those of the Copenhagen interpretation except for an experiment involving a Byzantine form of ``quantum suicide’’. This makes the choice between them purely a matter of taste, roughly equivalent to whether one believes mathematical language or human language to be more fundamental.
Source arXiv, quant-ph/9709032
Services Forum | Review | PDF | Favorites   
 
Visitor rating: did you like this article? no 1   2   3   4   5   yes

No review found.
 Did you like this article?

This article or document is ...
important:
of broad interest:
readable:
new:
correct:
Global appreciation:

  Note: answers to reviews or questions about the article must be posted in the forum section.
Authors are not allowed to review their own article. They can use the forum section.

browser claudebot






ScienXe.org
» my Online CV
» Free


News, job offers and information for researchers and scientists:
home  |  contact  |  terms of use  |  sitemap
Copyright © 2005-2024 - Scimetrica