Yesterday, 09:14 AM
Many Worlds does have its proponents among professional physicists, as do several other interpretations. But by far, the dominant understanding of quantum mechanics among professional physicists is and always has been Copenhagenism. Most physicists are not philosophers and have no interest in philosophizing about their work - and the Copenhagen interpretation is the most amenable (or perhaps it would better to say "least unamenable") to this mindset.
Compared to other interpretations (such as the extravagant Many Worlds), though, Copenhagenism is pedestrian. It is "boring" and not "sexy" - which is why Many Worlds and other frameworks get highly disporportionate attention in pop-science outlets, science fiction stories, and other popular (rather than professional) venues. This may give the impression that Many Worlds et al. dominate among working physicists, but it is not so.
While we're on this particular subject: I strongly recommend the book "Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics" by Nick Herbert for anyone who is interested in the various "schools" of interpretation of quantum mechanics. It was published in the mid-80s, so it doesn't cover things like Cramer's "transactional" interpretation or some of the more recent decoherence-based interpretations, but it does an excellent job of unbaisedly discussing (in a way accessible to the intelligent layman) eight of the most significant quantum "realities" - including Copenhagenism, Many Worlds, Einsteinian "realism," etc.