Does the Many Worlds Interpretation make sense?

As an engineer, I performed a quick estimate and determined that we have at least one world in existence. The remaining calculations are beyond the scope of our current budget.

“Friends don’t let friends go through beam splitters” — wise words to live by 😂

7:40 I always assumed that the observers did split. So the question 'why do we only experience one of the worlds' would be answered when we realise that there would be a gazillion other 'replicas' of us asking the same question in their own world.

The point that hidden variables theories have NOT been ruled out by experiment is an extremely important one, and it should be hammered over and over until the myth is dispelled (and then some more to kill it while it still goes around as a zombie). And I think you're doing a huge service to physics in highlighting it once more. Thank you!!

I would love to see a discussion about this between Sabine and Sean Carroll. He's a very smart physicist (formerly at Caltech, now at Johns Hopkins) who favors Many Worlds and who, like Sabine, has a great youtube channel (featuring lengthy interviews of other very smart people).

Hi Sabine. Here in Brazil, "quantum mechanics" means whatever you like!!! I have a coworker who is a civil engineer and she was teaching "quantum mechanics" to a handful of people from my job. I was like "well she returned to college to study physics". One day she started talking to me about such QM. Turns out it's a religion!!! More like horoscupus and sign mixed with spiritism (I guess?). The term "quantum dynamics " seemed to be for cosmetic purposes only... I was astonished!!! Can't believe it up to this day.

Hi Sabine. I love your passion and commitment to getting physics right!

The way Sabine says ‘today’ is everything

Hi sabine!!! Thank you for keeping us all updated on science news. I one day aspire to get a degree in physics, so thank you for keeping that sense of wonder alive!!

Asking why the observer "doesnt branch and observe all worlds" feels like asking why identical twins don't have telepathy. The observer does branch, and by definition, to branch is to become a different thing, with different experiences.

This is an awesome video on the subject! I would love a dissection of the observer vs measurement aspect of this subject as well.

You are a most wonderful example of a thinker. Examine, test, observe, think. Love your videos and thoughts. ❤

Sabine, which universe has a new video from you everyday? That's the one I want to be in.

I love this channel. Your standup keeps getting better & better. Keep it up!

Your videos are Great Sabine, thank you 😁

I just love the topics and discussions! It keeps our brains from rusting out!! 😂😂🙏❤️❤️

Thank you for these amazing videos ! I always love when you talk about quantum mechanics. Can you please explain Nelson mechanics, whether it is equivalent to QM and what is entanglement in it ?

"The major challenge [of MWI] is to explain why the thing we call an observer does not itself branch with the worlds" But in MWI, the observer does branch with the worlds. Suppose that, like Two-Face, I decide whether to comment on this video by flipping a truly random coin that's dependent on some random quantum event. Some other world has a me that decided not to comment on this video. I can no longer see the world thru his eyes, nor he thru mine, but we each see a consistent world, and we each see a single outcome for the coin-flip, even though in the larger picture both outcomes happened. "Not simpler [because] as we saw earlier, you need the collapse postulate to calculate probabilities" That's circular, since you couched the earlier discussion in the Copenhagen paradigm or something similar in the first place. As I was watching it, I was thinking "That's not right, observer-splitting does the same thing just fine" But I do want to thank you for introducing QB-ism, which I will have a look at.

8:38 - I love your stuff, Sabine and I am so, so thankful for all the knowledge you share. At that timestamp, I've often wondered the same thing about energy conservation and many worlds. Maybe I'm just bad with the math here, but I'm having a hard time trying to understand why the "branching universes / probability calculation explains why conservation of energy isn't violated" point you made. Maybe this is something you could do its own video on at some point?

Beautifully said and point well made. Bravo.