from BigThink Website
Quantum mechanics is hard to do.
The great physicist Richard Feynman once remarked "It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics" and that statement was regarded as correct.
The problem isn't in the math, even an undergraduate can use Schr÷dinger's equation, it is in what the math means.
How to prove which of these interpretations is correct is another problem; as parallel universes are postulated to not interact with one another and scientists don't quite have the stomach to put cats in quantum booby traps.
With no ability to experiment (below video), the math is all we know for sure:
But, a radical new interpretation might hold the answer, and in a manner that could be tested.
The idea is called the Many Interacting Worlds hypothesis or MIW (Quantum Phenomena Modeled by Interactions between Many Classical Worlds).
The core concept is that a plethora of universes have always existed side by side, and that they subtly influence the ones near them to differ from themselves.
The bizarre effects of quantum mechanics that we observe and are confused by, such as quantum tunneling and the double slit experiment, are really caused by the interactions between these universes.
The hypothesis says the probabilistic nature we ascribe to certain events is really uncertainty caused by our not knowing which universe we are in, and that if we knew where we were physics would again be deterministic.
The authors of the study say as little as two existent universes would be enough to assure quantum effects take place.
They show they can account for basic quantum phenomena using their ideas.
What makes this model different from the others?
...except when the number of modeled universes is infinite.
When the model contains only one universe, it simplifies to a classical, Newtonian system.
Quantum physicist and author of the hypothesis Michael Hall called this element "surprising" and said that it means that their hypothesis,
A vital step for any interpretation that wants to make headway.
Since science typically holds falsifiability to be a gold standard, this is a great leap forward for quantum theory.
So, is this model going to be of any use?
At the moment, the model is still speculative and unlikely to become the new standard interpretation anytime soon.
The authors of the hypothesis hope that their concept,
Even if the ideas are proven false, or never catch on as a paradigm for interpreting quantum phenomena, the researchers hope to advance our understanding of science anyway.
As they say in their press release,