this seems like it would be evidence for many worlds, if true
A bad motivation, unless you also post things that seem like they would be evidence against many worlds, if true.
I don’t want to speak out of my area of expertise
Please don’t in cases like this, there is too much noise in the news to let it through without filtering by understanding of what is being said. Discussing settled science is much more fruitful. Here is what John Baez says about the same article (link to the science daily writeup he references):
I bet this supposed anomaly doesn’t really exist. There are hundreds of theoretical papers that use big crazy theories to explain tiny glitches in experimental data… and usually, the glitches just go away. So before you start explaining these far-out theories to the public, you should start by talking about how good the experimental data is! But this article doesn’t do that.
A bad motivation, unless you also post things that seem like they would be evidence against many worlds, if true.
Please don’t in cases like this, there is too much noise in the news to let it through without filtering by understanding of what is being said. Discussing settled science is much more fruitful. Here is what John Baez says about the same article (link to the science daily writeup he references):