The fact that MWI isn’t generally accepted doesn’t mean that there a sizable chunk of physicists who do accept it. I’m not even sure that you need to accept it to run the relevant equations.
This is a misconception. Many worlds has one fewer postulate then Copenhagen quantum, so there are operations you can do in Copenhagen that don’t make sense in Everettian quantum (measurement as a projection operator). Most of the physicist I know who object to many worlds object that it doesn’t have enough structure in the postulates to actually get predictions out.
Most interpretations are similar- they remove or introduce other postulates. Consistent histories, for instance, has a consistency operator that you wouldn’t use in another formulation.
This is a misconception. Many worlds has one fewer postulate then Copenhagen quantum, so there are operations you can do in Copenhagen that don’t make sense in Everettian quantum (measurement as a projection operator). Most of the physicist I know who object to many worlds object that it doesn’t have enough structure in the postulates to actually get predictions out.
The complaint is that MWI is not complete enough to give a satisfactory interpretation for the Born rule. Nevertheless, those who support MWI do believe that Born rule is essentially accurate.
Nevertheless, those who support MWI do believe that Born rule is essentially accurate.
Sure, its obvious empirically.
The question is- can you do without the measurement postulate and recover the Born rule. If you can’t, then Everett’s interpretation doesn’t work, you still have an ugly measurement postulate grafted on to the unitary theory, and you gain no elegance.
I don’t even know enough about the physics to know which equations you would have to run. However there are a lot of theoretical physics Phds.
I know one who tries to writes her thesis on two dimensional time. It’s my impression that theoretical physicists just try out various different methods of writing formula in the hope of discovery something “beautiful” or something that at least makes testable predictions.
The fact that MWI isn’t generally accepted doesn’t mean that there a sizable chunk of physicists who do accept it. I’m not even sure that you need to accept it to run the relevant equations.
Do you know anyone who would be willing to run through said equations?
MWI doesn’t have different equations than “mainstream” quantum mechanics. It’s just an epistemological interpretation.
This is a misconception. Many worlds has one fewer postulate then Copenhagen quantum, so there are operations you can do in Copenhagen that don’t make sense in Everettian quantum (measurement as a projection operator). Most of the physicist I know who object to many worlds object that it doesn’t have enough structure in the postulates to actually get predictions out.
Most interpretations are similar- they remove or introduce other postulates. Consistent histories, for instance, has a consistency operator that you wouldn’t use in another formulation.
The complaint is that MWI is not complete enough to give a satisfactory interpretation for the Born rule. Nevertheless, those who support MWI do believe that Born rule is essentially accurate.
Sure, its obvious empirically.
The question is- can you do without the measurement postulate and recover the Born rule. If you can’t, then Everett’s interpretation doesn’t work, you still have an ugly measurement postulate grafted on to the unitary theory, and you gain no elegance.
I don’t even know enough about the physics to know which equations you would have to run. However there are a lot of theoretical physics Phds.
I know one who tries to writes her thesis on two dimensional time. It’s my impression that theoretical physicists just try out various different methods of writing formula in the hope of discovery something “beautiful” or something that at least makes testable predictions.
MWI has no equations distinct from the standard approach.