Original Paper
The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Many Worlds or Many Words?
Article first published online: 19 APR 1999
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1521-3978(199811)46:6/8<855::AID-PROP855>3.0.CO;2-Q
© 1998 WILEY-VCH Verlag Berlin GmbH, Fed. Rep. of Germany
Additional Information
How to Cite
Tegmark, M. (1998), The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Many Worlds or Many Words?. Fortschritte der Physik, 46: 855–862. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1521-3978(199811)46:6/8<855::AID-PROP855>3.0.CO;2-Q
Publication History
- Issue published online: 19 APR 1999
- Article first published online: 19 APR 1999
- Abstract
- Cited By
Abstract
As cutting-edge experiments display ever more extreme forms of non-classical behavior, the prevailing view on the interpretation of quantum mechanics appears to be gradually changing. A (highly unscientific) poll taken at the 1997 UMBC quantum mechanics workshop gave the once all-dominant Copenhagen interpretation less than half of the votes. The Many Worlds interpretation (MWI) scored second, comfortably a head of the Consistent Histories and Bohm interpretations. It is argued that since all the above-mentioned approaches to nonrelativistic quantum mechanics give identical cookbook prescriptions for how to calculate things in practice, practical-minded experimentalists, who have traditionally adopted the “shut-up-and-calculate interpretation”, typically show little interest in whether cozy classical concepts are in fact real in some untestable metaphysical sense or merely the way we subjectively perceive a mathematically simpler world where the Schrödinger equation describes everything – and that they are therefore becoming less bothered by a profusion of worlds than by a profusion of words.
Common objections to the MWI are discussed. It is argued that when environment-induced decoherence is taken into account, the experimental predictions of the MWI are identical to those of the Copenhagen interpretation except for an experiment involving a Byzantine form of “quantum suicide”. This makes the choice between them purely a matter of taste, roughly equivalent to whether one believes mathematical language or human language to be more fundamental.

1521-3978/asset/2244_left.gif?v=1&s=550b05a271791e863cd9cf7bae1aa88b5e3d51ca)
1521-3978/asset/cover.gif?v=1&s=4168f5a22018b77a97b17676b4ba810315e06d4e)