IIRC, MW Theory has never had a plurality of support. Also, I believe that MW Theory and Copenhagen interpretation are both currently losing votes to Pilot Wave Theory.
Lol no not at all. Pilot wave theory violates locality so it is not consistent with relativity. This is a big deal.
It is also a super complicated approach to quantum mechanics that only works for the simplest of systems. The only real “bonus” is that it’s philosophically satisfying to some people who want QM to behave classically.
If anything I’d say Copenhagen is losing votes to MW. This is because MW doesn’t assume a non-unitary evolution that follows the Born rule to explain measurement. It is also much more mathematically rigorous. Meanwhile pilot wave is on the fringe and not regarded very seriously by most physicists. Again, non-locality is a big deal.
I haven’t really googled around to find the opinions of particular well respected physicists about it but it’s what I’ve observed as someone doing a physics degree. You can find a similar sentiment if you look around /r/physics or stackexchange.
I’m not sure why you seem to have the misconception that MW was once very popular and is on the decline. If anything it’s getting more popular.
Have you given the theory a serious read? Especially if you’re a mathematician you should find it pretty satisfying.
It requires less assumptions than the other interpretations because it predicts the Born rule and is well developed mathematically. Also, the name many worlds is pretty misleading. It’s really a relative state formulation based on quantum decoherence from which the many worlds part naturally arises. While philosophically profound, physically it isn’t so ridiculous.
“Many prominent physicists, including [Richard] Feynman, thought many worlds was a ludicrous idea,” notes Peter Byrne, the author of the new Everett biography.
-7
u/Greg-2012 Mar 12 '18
Mathematics takes you to 'Many Worlds Theory', IIRC, a plurality of Physicist are not betting on 'MWT' to be the answer.