>>10844940maybe copenhagen is still "dominant" in terms of how profs teach undergrads, or how experimentalists think practically, or maybe brainlet biophysicists never think about it beyond Griffiths QM 101, but i already explained to you.
look up cosmology articles by e.g. Leonard Susskind or Stephen Hawking or Juan Maldacena or Ed Witten or etc. etc. with the keyword "unitarity" or "unitary". it is as common as dirt that they say something like "we assume the theory is unitary, and preserves probability". it is a reasonable assumption, basically equivalent to saying "we assume the evolution is dictated by the schrodinger/dirac/klein-gordon equation". what they're sneaking in there, which people like you don't realize, is that this means collapse is excluded from their theory. because collapse is non-unitary. in undergrad QM terms, collapse is a non-unitary process -- this means that your schrodinger equation works except for at discrete breaks when collapse happens (which depend on when "it is chosen" that a measurement be performed), so at certain discrete times you break the schrodinger equation. even just practically, this makes the theory unwieldy, and it sort of breaks the "sum of probabilites=1" conception.
if you don't believe me, then fine, but from personal experience i know that unitarity is a basic building block for high-energy and cosmology theory physicists, and it is a fact that if you assume unitarity, then collapse is prohibited
