🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7407@boring.cwi.nl>, lambert@cwi.nl (Lambert Meertens) writes:
> In article <5925@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
> replies:
> > No.  The "many-worlds" interpretation has been known for quite some
> > time to make the same predictions as the Copenhagen interpretation.

Well, no. When the Everett-DeWitt many-worlds interpretation was
first proposed, the common view was that it was "merely" an
alternate interpretation, and therefore instrumentally isomorphic
with other interpretations. In recent years, some physicists have
disputed this. In particular, David Deutsch, a young British
physicist, has published several papers describing experiments
that differentiate the many-worlds interpretation from the standard
interpretation. See, for example:

	David Deutsch, "Three connections between Everett's
	interpretation and experiment,"
	which appears as chapter 14 of
	Quantum Concepts in Space and Time, Clarendon Press, 1986,
	edited by Penrose and Isham.

The supporters of MWI claim it is a purer quantum theory. In MWI,
the change of a system through time can always be described by
Schrodinger evolution. Under the standard interpretation,
Schrodinger evolution is interrupted by periods of wave collapse.
There is no universely accepted principle for determining when
this wave collapse must occur, except it must take place after
the last chance for wave interference and before human observation.

The above book has several interesting chapters discussing
quantum interpretations.

Russell