Many-worlds interpretation: Worlds joining instead of splitting?

In summary: In fact, the two states are indistinguishable if you measure them without disturbing the system. So there's no way for the systems to "split" and then "rejoin".Actually, no, and that's because electrons are indistinguishable particles, so the state "electron 1 hits point 1 and electron 2 hits point 2" is exactly the same state (in projective hilbert space) as the state "electron 1 hits point 2 and electron 2 hits point 1". In fact, the two states are indistinguishable if you measure them without disturbing the system.
  • #1
Meatbot
147
1
If two branches of the tree eventually came to be identical would they join or would they continue to exist as separate worlds? If they joined, observers in each would remember a different history. Any connection between this and relativity where people observe the same event happening in different ways?

What if in the far future all branches converge?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
"branches to join" is nothing else but quantum interference. In order for "branches to join", the two components of the statevector that represent them, and happen to be in different "classical subspaces" need to evolve into a common "classical subspace". The component that matters in that subspace is then nothing else but the sum of the two former components. In the making of this sum, interference phenomena will probably occur.

Experiments that put this to work on a microscopic scale are the famous so-called delayed quantum eraser experiments. That said, they don't *prove* any "many worlds" view on quantum theory. They can be conveniently explained in such a view, but they don't prove it. It is even more speculative to assume that these many world phenomena persist on the macroscopic scale, although at present there is no experimental evidence *against* it.

Experimental evidence against many worlds would be: the failure of quantum interference on a certain scale. Many worlds is simply assuming quantum interference and superposition universally.
 
  • #3
" Experimental evidence against many worlds would be: the failure of quantum interference on a certain scale."

Could you explain? I don't understand "certain scale".

Nice to hear from you here.

Regards
 
  • #4
dlgoff said:
" Experimental evidence against many worlds would be: the failure of quantum interference on a certain scale."

Could you explain? I don't understand "certain scale".

"scale of macroscopicity", whatever that is: gravitational mass, size, time scale, ...

If you expect, taking into account all possible effects of decoherence, some quantum interference effect, and you don't see it, then quantum mechanics on that scale is falsified, and hence MWI (on that scale).
 
  • #5
Okay, I see what you mean. Thank you.
 
  • #6
This is an interesting idea. I am not sure if it has any relevance but its a cool thought. If you shoot 2 electrons at a double slit and measure where they hit on the screen, your in two different worlds simultaneously. The one where electron 1 hit point 1 and electron 2 hit point 2, and the one where electron 1 hit point 2 and electron 2 hit point 1. I am not sure if in this case the worlds split and then rejoin, but I am sure there's some experiment that could cause that to happen.
 
  • #7
michael879 said:
This is an interesting idea. I am not sure if it has any relevance but its a cool thought. If you shoot 2 electrons at a double slit and measure where they hit on the screen, your in two different worlds simultaneously. The one where electron 1 hit point 1 and electron 2 hit point 2, and the one where electron 1 hit point 2 and electron 2 hit point 1. I am not sure if in this case the worlds split and then rejoin, but I am sure there's some experiment that could cause that to happen.

Actually, no, and that's because electrons are indistinguishable particles, so the state "electron 1 hits point 1 and electron 2 hits point 2" is exactly the same state (in projective hilbert space) as the state "electron 1 hits point 2 and electron 2 hits point 1".
 

1. What is the Many-worlds interpretation?

The Many-worlds interpretation is a controversial theory in quantum mechanics that suggests that every possible outcome of a quantum measurement exists in a separate parallel universe. This means that instead of the traditional view of a single universe where events occur, there are infinite parallel universes where all possible outcomes of an event exist.

2. How does the Many-worlds interpretation differ from other interpretations of quantum mechanics?

The Many-worlds interpretation differs from other interpretations, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, in that it does not involve the collapse of the wave function. In this theory, all possible outcomes of a measurement exist in different universes, rather than one outcome being chosen and the others disappearing.

3. How does the Many-worlds interpretation explain the measurement problem?

The measurement problem in quantum mechanics refers to the question of how a quantum system can exist in multiple states until it is observed or measured, at which point it collapses into a single state. The Many-worlds interpretation solves this problem by suggesting that all possible states of the system exist in separate universes, and the act of measurement simply reveals one of these states.

4. Are there any experiments that support the Many-worlds interpretation?

There is currently no experimental evidence that definitively supports the Many-worlds interpretation. However, some scientists argue that certain phenomena, such as quantum entanglement, can be explained more easily in this framework than in other interpretations.

5. What are the implications of the Many-worlds interpretation?

The Many-worlds interpretation has many philosophical implications, such as the existence of infinite parallel universes and the possibility of time travel. It also has implications for the understanding of free will and the role of the observer in determining reality. However, these implications are highly debated and not universally accepted by the scientific community.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
11
Views
621
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
1
Views
308
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
2
Views
933
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
14
Views
962
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top