So you say many-worlds isn’t rationally favored over other interpretations because those other interpretations haven’t been stated clearly enough? I’m pretty sure I could argue against evolution or gravity in the same manner.
If mere clarity were the issue, then Bohmian mechanics would be #1, spontaneous collapse theories would be #2, and many-worlds and the “zigzag in time” approach would be tied for third place.
The reason for this ranking is that Bohmian mechanics and collapse theories actually have equations of motion which allow you to make the correct predictions. But the collapse theories come off as slightly inferior because there is no principle constraining the form of collapse dynamics.
Zigzag-in-time refers to John Cramer’s transactional interpretation and Mark Hadley’s QM-from-gravity approach (mentioned above). They’re in third place with many-worlds because they cannot presently make predictions.
But the situation is way more complex than this summary suggests. You can have Bohmian mechanics without a pilot wave (the “nomological” version of Bohm), you can have a collapse theory without superpositions (you just quantum jump from one “collapse” to the next), you can have many-worlds without a universal wavefunction (just use the world-probabilities in a “consistent histories” ensemble). Like I said, the known options have been expressed in a babel of theoretical frameworks, and anything resembling objective comparison has hardly begun. The human race is still thinking this through.
So you say many-worlds isn’t rationally favored over other interpretations because those other interpretations haven’t been stated clearly enough? I’m pretty sure I could argue against evolution or gravity in the same manner.
If mere clarity were the issue, then Bohmian mechanics would be #1, spontaneous collapse theories would be #2, and many-worlds and the “zigzag in time” approach would be tied for third place.
The reason for this ranking is that Bohmian mechanics and collapse theories actually have equations of motion which allow you to make the correct predictions. But the collapse theories come off as slightly inferior because there is no principle constraining the form of collapse dynamics.
Zigzag-in-time refers to John Cramer’s transactional interpretation and Mark Hadley’s QM-from-gravity approach (mentioned above). They’re in third place with many-worlds because they cannot presently make predictions.
But the situation is way more complex than this summary suggests. You can have Bohmian mechanics without a pilot wave (the “nomological” version of Bohm), you can have a collapse theory without superpositions (you just quantum jump from one “collapse” to the next), you can have many-worlds without a universal wavefunction (just use the world-probabilities in a “consistent histories” ensemble). Like I said, the known options have been expressed in a babel of theoretical frameworks, and anything resembling objective comparison has hardly begun. The human race is still thinking this through.
Thanks. I’d really like to see a post explaining the different interpretations in detail.