Because we live in the macro world, it feels like a single unitary reality is simpler, but actually, the MWI makes fewer assumptions. So I would turn that around and put the burden on the other theories to show that collapse is real, the default position should be MWI.
This is especially problematic because QM doesn't predict any particular decomposition of a quantum state into particular classical states. That is, the Schrodinger equation doesn't actually predict that a particle has some amplitude here and some other amplitude there, as is often presented; instead, it predicts that it is described by some vector which can be decomposed in many different ways. You can say it has some amplitude X here and some amplitude Y there, but with any 2 points in space-time (adjusting the amplitudes). Or, it can have some combination of position and spin with amplitude X, and some other combination of position and spin with amplitude Y. You can choose any basis you like for the measurement, and you will get the corresponding answer.
But, for MWI to actually predict experimental results (and the classical world we live in) you not only have to choose to look at a single element of that basis, but you also have to believe that the classical basis is somehow preferred.
It does predict it, this decomposition is called decoherence, where a classical state splits into a superposition of several different classical states.
No, that's not what decoherence is. Decoherence is the spread of entanglement over a very large number of untrackable degrees of freedom (usually referred to as the "environment"). This makes interference effects unobservable. But decoherence itself does not involve any "splitting"; the entanglement that decoherence spreads over a very large number of untrackable degrees of freedom has to already be there before decoherence can act on it.
And yes, spread of entanglement does mean splitting. Entangled state is not factorizable, because all states in it are split. This splitting is the result of splitting of the initial state.
No. The 100 atoms is the largest molecule that we can do experiments on without having decoherence happen and ruining our attempts to observe interference.
The number of degrees of freedom in the environment is many orders of magnitude larger, something like 10^30 or more for a typical experiment.
>The many-worlds interpretation implies that there are most likely an uncountably infinite number of universes.
The MWI says that there is one single universal wave function, which evolves in time by unitary evolution forever. That is one universe, not an infinity of them. It is just one universe that is nothing like what we think we perceive.
Wanna join? You can be number 2 thus have second dibs at the buffet.
What conditions are these?
Getting to that point can take several years. A quicker option seem to be drugs, based on conversations I had with friends, but I never wanted to artificially taint my perception, so I did it the hard way. My findings are that while there is no fate, there exist enough aspects in universes similar enough to yours, but perhaps chronically shifted, that you can learn from their mistakes. This is known as instinct, "guardian angels", premonition, deja-vue, etc. Good luck.
If you could travel between these many earths, you could even end up in one - let's call this mythical land "Australia" - where South was up!
Sounds a bit crazy but some people believe it could really exist.
The collapse amounts to just setting some terms to zero.
Title article is literally about trying to test those theories experimentally.
Here's the best poem ever written, or that will ever be written:
Roses are red
Violets are blue
MWI stinks
And so do you.
I hereby accept my position as God Poet of the Universe.
The MWI is a simpler theory than other interpretations because it does not require "collapse" to be a physical process. The "realness" of the other worlds is untestable, but also not part of the theory.
"unreal" MWI should be the null hypothesis given what we know to be true about quantum mechanics. If we find evidence that collapse is a physical process then we can reject it, but otherwise it makes the fewest leaps. At the moment the Copenhagen intepretation is taught instead, which is a problem. To quote wikipedia:
> There is no uniquely definitive statement of the Copenhagen interpretation
And
> the device used to observe a system must be described in classical language, while the system under observation is treated in quantum terms
In other words, it does allow you to predict the result of an experiment, but we know it can't be right because it's impossible to formalize without building this "classical observer" into the model. Attempting to build on this inevitably leads to metaphysical nonsense about consciousness.
In "unreal" MWI there is a universal wave function, and something is "real" to us if it is entangled with us. The "many worlds" terminology makes it easier to visualize but doesn't mean those other worlds are real because whether something is real is subjective in this interpretation. Subjective reality may be a problem for some people, but if you look at the evolution of physical theories, we consistently find that everything is more subjective than we thought it was (see also: relativity).