This market will resolve when Wikipedia states that a specific interpretation is correct, and I deem it not to be vandalism
Related questions
Reasons for Aaronson to doubt Bohmian mechanics:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0412143.pdf
> Bohmian mechanics is incompatible with the belief that all physical observables are
discrete. But in my view, there are strong reasons to hold that belief, which include black
hole entropy bounds; the existence of a natural minimum length scale (10−33 cm); results
on area quantization in quantum gravity [205]; the fact that many physical quantities once
thought to be continuous have turned out to be discrete; the infinities of quantum field
theory; the implausibility of analog “hypercomputers”; and conceptual problems raised by
the independence of the continuum hypothesis.
@LivInTheLookingGlass "Wikipedia will not be clarified by market close" isn't a valid answer, right? Because the market can resolve at any point after it is closed.
@L are there, like, equations to go with the pretty animations? This is incredibly handwavy. It's not even clear whether the author is trying to modify QM, interpret it in a new way, or give a visual intuition for an existing interpretation.
@FranklinBaldo I commit to making another of this market if a free response market with short selling is released
@Eel13 The whole point of "interpretations" of quantum mechanics is trying to reconcile it with philosophical realism. That is (for this subject) the claim that what physic studies is independant from the mind.
Bohmian is a good example, claiming that particle have an actual configuration when unobserved, guided by a pilot wave. Unfortunately, this has serious flaws that are demonstated by Alain Aspect experiments.
Copenhagen interpretation makes no attempt at realism. So it's barely an interpretation, as the "shut up and calculate" motto.
@Zardoru Bohmian mechanics has no flaws. None of these do as far as we know (and if they do have flaws, they all have the same flaws). They make exactly the same predictions in all cases, so there is no way we could ever say that one is more correct than another. The only advantage of one over another is if it's more intuitive or easier to understand and use. And that's totally subjective, which is why I think Wikipedia will never label one as "correct".
@Eel13 The interpretations share the same equations for the wave function. However, they don't explain measurement the same way. Copenhagen doesn't explain it at all, it states that the wave function collapse. However a measurement is a physical event, it should follow the same rule as the other.
"Many worlds" has interpretation has no collapsing. Everett presented it as a theory, not just an interpretation.
@Zardoru “Copenhagen doesn’t explain it at all”, that’s not correct. Copenhagen explains measurements via wave function collapse.
“It should follow the same rule as the other”, says who? There’s no rule that says measurements have to behave any differently than the Copenhagen interpretation describes.
It might be less subjectively intuitive to you, in that sense it’s fine that you prefer the many worlds interpretation. But that doesn’t make it more or less correct.
Everett presented it as a theory because he hadn’t yet proved that it produced all the same predictions as the Copenhagen interpretation. Now that we know the predictions are identical, it’s best described as a new interpretation rather than as a new theory.
@Eel13 Who says ? Max Tegmark, well better than I could. See https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/PDF/quantum.pdf
Well, we have 30 years before resolution. We will see how the perception of this evolves, for me the trend is quite clear.
About "Orchestrated Objective Reduction" that is currently at a huge 17%, it's not just an "interpretation" as it makes specific claims about the brain and consciousness. Penrose argumentation relies heavily on an math argument about Gödel's theorem. Best critic is by Scott Aaronson here : https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec10.5.html
@Zardoru we may not be able to ask about substratum even in principle. we will see. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFSbvrT8PHg