This brand new published result (nature):
Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system
by
Radek Lapkiewicz, Peizhe Li, Christoph Schaeff, Nathan K. Langford, Sven Ramelow, Marcin Wieśniak & Anton Zeilinger
(see here, for a more popular article about it see here; also for a pre-print see the ArXiv here)
seems to support the Copenhagen interpretation.
My question
Does this definitely rule out the many-worlds interpretation – or are there still loopholes? How could a many-worlds interpretation of this experiment possibly look like (if possible)?
Thank you
EDIT
Because I obviously created some confusion, how I came to that question: at the end of the NewScientist-article it says:
Niels Bohr, a giant of quantum
physics, was a great proponent of the
idea that the nature of quantum
reality depends on what we choose to
measure, a notion that came to be
called the Copenhagen interpretation.
"This experiment lends more support to
the Copenhagen interpretation," says
Zeilinger.
Best Answer
They don't make any claim in the paper about interpretations of quantum theory, either for the Copenhagen interpretation or against many-worlds interpretations. Nor does the Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 20403 (2008) that they cite as their principal theoretical source. The Vienna group's stated intention here, as, I think, in a number of papers over the last few years, has been to try to rule out contextual classical particle models for experiments. This is to me something of a straw man, but they have been hacking away at it.
I was going to ask that you expand your Question to say why you think this experiment supports the Copenhagen interpretation over other interpretations, because I do not see that to be the case, but I finally saw the off the cuff remark to that effect from Zeilinger at the very end of the New Scientist article [you should have cited this]. That's definitely not enough to rule out many-worlds interpretations without a much more substantial argument. There isn't, so far, enough of an argument to have loopholes in it.