I think interpretations fall more within the realm of philosophy. What physicists wants are theories that can yield correct and precise predictions. For instance, if we have, let's say, 10 different interpretations of QM, all of them unfalsifiable, yet all of them provide the same accurate physical predictions, then in terms of theory, they are equally suitable approximations of reality. What is of greater interest are innovative theories that can generate improved and more specific predictions, such as those for higher energy scales where gravity comes into play and other areas. Therefore, as a physicist, I would concentrate on developing theories that can yield more accurate and precise predictions.
The storyline that “science now accepts their ideas” is questionable editorializing imho. Neither Bohmian mechanics nor many worlds are falsifiable, they are just interpretations. They are cool but they aren’t really something you can reject. And to be honest, an unscientific sample of the physicists I know has the majority basically subscribing to some version of “shut up and calculate”
There are some biographical glimpses of Hugh Everett's family life in his son's autobiography, "Things the Grandchildren Should Know" <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_the_Grandchildren_Should_Know" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_the_Grandchildren_Shoul...</a><p>The son, Mark Oliver Everett, is better known as E, the leader of the Eels.
"Claims that the standard procedure for testing scientific theories is inapplicable to Everettian quantum theory, and hence that the theory is untestable, are due to misconceptions about probability and about the logic of experimental testing. Refuting those claims by correcting those misconceptions leads to an improved theory of scientific methodology (based on Popper's) and testing, which allows various simplifications, notably the elimination of everything probabilistic from the methodology (‘Bayesian’ credences) and from fundamental physics (stochastic processes)." – David Deutsch<p>pdf, The Logic of Experimental Tests, Particularly of Everettian Quantum Theory
<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135521981530023X/pdfft?md5=f65c229a83e03215c5619fb2821c29ac&pid=1-s2.0-S135521981530023X-main.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135521981...</a>
I love these sort of paradoxes in physics: multiple models, multiple interpretations, multiple meanings and realities, out of seemingly the same experiments and measurements, sometimes even the exact same mathematical formulas<p>Sometimes it can definitely be seen as a bit ridiculous, like if maybe a formula is taken to mean something slightly different, it could mean the whole Universe is upside down!<p>However, sometimes creating alternative models, even if weird when taken at face value, can actually make a difference in making better predictions and even finding new practical applications<p>In the end, all of our models are made up by us
For anyone interested in other theories that were not mentioned and not satisfied with the unfalsifiability of Many Worlds I can recommend reading Carlo Rovelli's book Helgoland and his Relational Quantum Mechanics[0].<p>[0]: <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/" rel="nofollow">https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/</a>
For anyone interested in MWI in a novel, Stephenson’s Anathem is quite nice. I think I may start a reread this evening.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anathem" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anathem</a>