That’s what they want you to think. If you dig deeper, you will find an equivalent of the Born rule in any interpretation. This rule is usually more complicated than the Born rule, and is never used for any kind of calculations.
The Born rule does not enter into the Everettian interpretation as the consequence of an additional dynamical process. Precisely how it enters is a matter of some controversy. I think the most promising program is the Savage-style decision theoretic approach adopted by the Oxford Everettians, which I discussed here. Whatever you think about the success of this approach, it is an attempt at a rigorous foundation for the Born rule that is missing from most other interpretations. I would also argue that it is a much simpler and more philosophically sound approach than postulating arbitrary discontinuities in physical law.
I would also argue that it is a much simpler and more philosophically sound approach
Feel-good words. You still end up doing the exact same calculations using the Born rule. To me this means that the philosophical fluff around it is not worth the air used to breathe them out.
If your only interest in quantum mechanics is doing calculations, then I guess all this interpretive stuff is fluff. If you look at the history of physics, though, interpretive questions have often driven theoretical advancement. Consider, for example, the role Einstein’s Machianism played. Or—a more pertinent example—the role Everettianism played in the development of quantum computation. In neither case did the substance of the subsequent developments hinge on particular answers to the interpretive question, but philosophical speculation was the spur that led Einstein and Deutsch to their novel ideas.
I think many physicists are wise to ignore issues of interpretation. If you’re doing experimental work in quantum mechanics, it doesn’t matter. But it seems odd to suggest that scientists should just give up on the task of figuring out the actual structure of the world.
Oh, the interpretive questions are the fun stuff, for sure. Everett’s work was seminal. And yes, Mach was an inspiration for Einstein, though the eventual relativity theory was quite far from that. What I am unhappy with is the claims that one interpretation has more “truth” to it than another. More inspiration, maybe, but that’s it.
It still helps to decide whether collapse occurs in some complicated cases (like a measurement device in double-slit experiment that is secure from possibility of a human retrieving the measurement results).
That’s what they want you to think. If you dig deeper, you will find an equivalent of the Born rule in any interpretation. This rule is usually more complicated than the Born rule, and is never used for any kind of calculations.
The Born rule does not enter into the Everettian interpretation as the consequence of an additional dynamical process. Precisely how it enters is a matter of some controversy. I think the most promising program is the Savage-style decision theoretic approach adopted by the Oxford Everettians, which I discussed here. Whatever you think about the success of this approach, it is an attempt at a rigorous foundation for the Born rule that is missing from most other interpretations. I would also argue that it is a much simpler and more philosophically sound approach than postulating arbitrary discontinuities in physical law.
Feel-good words. You still end up doing the exact same calculations using the Born rule. To me this means that the philosophical fluff around it is not worth the air used to breathe them out.
If your only interest in quantum mechanics is doing calculations, then I guess all this interpretive stuff is fluff. If you look at the history of physics, though, interpretive questions have often driven theoretical advancement. Consider, for example, the role Einstein’s Machianism played. Or—a more pertinent example—the role Everettianism played in the development of quantum computation. In neither case did the substance of the subsequent developments hinge on particular answers to the interpretive question, but philosophical speculation was the spur that led Einstein and Deutsch to their novel ideas.
I think many physicists are wise to ignore issues of interpretation. If you’re doing experimental work in quantum mechanics, it doesn’t matter. But it seems odd to suggest that scientists should just give up on the task of figuring out the actual structure of the world.
Oh, the interpretive questions are the fun stuff, for sure. Everett’s work was seminal. And yes, Mach was an inspiration for Einstein, though the eventual relativity theory was quite far from that. What I am unhappy with is the claims that one interpretation has more “truth” to it than another. More inspiration, maybe, but that’s it.
It still helps to decide whether collapse occurs in some complicated cases (like a measurement device in double-slit experiment that is secure from possibility of a human retrieving the measurement results).