I've been digging a lot into quantum physics in the last few weeks. I didn't care much about the maths, just about what empirically happens to get a conceptual idea about quantum phenomena.
The most widely accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics seems to be the Copenhagen one. If I got it right, it's heavily relaying on the two following principles (among others):
- Superposition: a quantum system is at the same time in all the states it could possibly be in. When it's measured, it instantaneously collapses in a single state.
- Entanglement (aka "spooky action at a distance"): if two or more quantum systems are entangled, it means that some of their properties are correlated. When measuring a system, all the entangled ones collapse in a state coherent to the measured one. Simultaneously. No matter how far away they are to each other.
I'm not able to believe it. It allows some unrealistic paradoxes (e.g. Schrödinger's cat paradox), and I have the feeling that this interpretation (and its consequences) is what makes quantum mechanics look so weird, mysterious, unnatural and spooky to the public. Besides I've read from a few sources (like this Google Tech Talk) that this interpretation has proven to be broken: the math says everything is continuous and doesn't hint to anything like collapsing, and even more important, the quantum eraser experiment contradicts the Copenhagen interpretation.
The second most popular interpretation, many-worlds sounds a lot more natural to me, although it strongly smells like science fiction.
I believe there must be many interpretations that would hold better and would be a lot less weird than the two mentioned ones.
What I'm wondering is, then: why does the Copenhagen interpretation (and to a lesser degree the many-worlds one) remain the most accredited one?