Posted: Apr 22, 2016 2:43 pm
by crank
The Everett interpretation is gaining support amongst physicists. There is at least 1 video with Max Tegmark discussing his informal polling he's been doing, I'm pretty sure it's one of these two. Plus, it's my understanding that QM, meaning the Standard Model IS the theory for everything but the regimes requiring GR. It's not that QM doesn't apply to macro systems, it's just not feasible to do so, and Newtonian mechanics, classical mechanics, is more than adequate. At least is what I've understood for a long time. I'm obviously no physicist.

I appreciate the reply, but whether Everett is correct, or wrong, or both simultaneously, I would still like to know the answer to the question. I'm pretty sure Sean Carroll supports Everettian interpretation, and voiced something similar to Tegmark's remarks about it gaining ground. Most physicists I think still will say Copenhagen, but if pressed say they really don't think about it, said it because that's what they were exposed to in school. And in reality [haha] few physicists think Copenhagen is the right way to go.





I'm watching shit while trying to respond, this has some interesting info, the audio really sucks, and the white board he is using is really really white to where you can seldom see the slide, but it's worth a watch if you like this stuff