Вайнберг в своём недавнем учебнике по квантовой механике (S. Weinberg, "Lectures on Quantum Mechanics", 2013) пишет, что многомировая интерпретация более строго следует принципам
квантовой механики, а вот копенгагенская прибегает к некоему туманному понятию коллапса волновой функции, которое является внешним по отношению к квантовой механике.
ссылку можно обновить? Вайнберг в своей книге по квантовой механике удивил многих весьма спорными высказываниями о квантовой механике, правда, ограничил их в одном параграфе одной главы. Некоторые его ученики, Джон Прескилл в том числе, отмечали крайне необычные изменения в его взглядах на квантовую механику в последние годы:
John Preskill, 2016 писал(а):
When I was his student, Steve Weinberg thought quantum mechanics is fine. Now he prefers "reality with one history"
В то же время, если внимательно прислушаться к тому о чем писал в статьях и говорил Вайнберг в последние десятилетия, то понятно, что он, в противоположность тому что вы пишите, не отдавал предпочтение ни одной из "интерпретаций":
Weinberg, 2014, KITP conference Celebrating the science of Joe Polchinski писал(а):
... I don't think that ... getting the Born rule is the whole problem for quantum mechanics... A more general way of saying what the problem is .... well, there are two problems with quantum mechanics. One is that if you take the state vector seriously as a representative of what's happening really to physical systems then you have to be worried that you can change the state vector by measurements in a very distant system and you can change it instantaneously; you don't have to worry about that if you take an instrumentalist point of view that the only important thing is the predictions you make because you can't change those predictions, you can't send the signal [faster that the speed of light] in ordinary quantum mechanics, but it out to bother you that ..., and it did bother a lot of people historically, that you can change the state vector instantaneously from a distance and that's the reason why I want to concentrate on the density matrix. Another thing wrong with ordinary quantum mechanics of course is the treatment it gives of measurement. The Copehangen interpretation is absurd: the idea that at a certain point classical mechanics takes over when you do a measurement and the kind of collapse of the wave function is something that isn't described by quantum mechanics and is described in some other way, I think that's unacceptable. On the other hand, if you take quantum mechanics seriously ... in its usual description of the evolution of the state vector, then I think you can't avoid the many-worlds interpretation and I find it hard to live with that many worlds... Finally, you could take as I said an instrumentalist point of view which I think is the point of view you and your colleagues take in dealing with the many-worlds interpretation [Weinberg here is addressing James Hartle's question] which is that you don't try to make a moment-to-moment description of what's really happening but you just say what will be the results of observations. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, it's just ... it doesn't satisfy a lot of people, doesn't satisfy me: I'd like to have a description, whether it's probabilistic or not, or linear or not, or deterministic or not, I'd like to have a description of what physical states are like from moment to moment.
Почему Вайнберг изменил свои взгляды на квантовую механику не одному мне непонятно. Но мне все равно кажется что он был неудовлетворен квантовой механикой больше с философской точки зрения, нежели с физической. Иначе совершенно непонятно как один и тот же человек написавший свой знаменитый трехтомник по КТП, где он последовательно и строго обосновывает значение микропричинности и кластерной декомпозиции, может написать параграф 3.7 в его книге по КМ.