Many Worlds experimental evidence

In summary, the conversation discussed the difference between the many worlds interpretation and collapse theories in quantum mechanics. The concept of quantum suicide was also brought up, but it was deemed as experimentally unverifiable. Another proposed experiment, involving a quantum computer simulating a person's brain, was discussed as a potential way to test the many worlds interpretation. However, it was questioned whether the simulated person would have real consciousness and the ethical implications of creating a conscious being for the sake of an experiment. Overall, the conversation concluded with the idea that the Copenhagen interpretation may be more scientific, despite the appeal of the many worlds interpretation.
  • #1
Jake
90
0
I keep hearing that the "many worlds interpretation" is experimentally different than the collapse theories. But I haven't heard of anything other than "quantum suicide". Is there anything else?

As far as quantum suicide, I fail to see how this differs from collapse theories. Isn't each quantum event independent, such that each event has a probability of turning out one way or another? And this goes for collapse theories as well as Many Worlds. So if someone keeps trying to commit 'suicide' with a quantum event, but keeps ending up alive, couldn't this be explained under collapse theories as just being extremely lucky?

Also, am I mistaken in thinking that actual suicide isn't necessary for the experiment? In other words couldn't a quantum event just be set up, linked to some kind of alarm? If the alarm never goes off, or always goes on, then "many worlds" is true (according to its proponents)?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Quantum suicide is idiotic. Even its proponents admit that we would see anybody who committed quantum suicide die. There is, therefore, by definition, no way of using this to scientifically verify many worlds.

And no, it could not be done without actual suicide. The idea is that the consciousness would remain in the universe in which you didn't die - an unfounded assumption to begin with!
 
  • #3
I don't see why it can't be done without suicide though. All the "does the consciousness persist" question answer is whether in one "alternate universe" it is confirmed that the quantum event keeps returning the same result each time, going against the odds. Why couldn't this just be done with a quantum event linked to an alarm, which scientists could observe? If the alarm never goes off, the scientists could say "ah, this is like if a person kept not being killed in Quantum Suicide!"
 
  • #4
Because the alarm will always go off exactly as QM predicts it will. How would you force the outcome to be different, or, in the MWI veiw, force yourself into the desired world? You can't. The quantum suicide hypothesis is that - perhaps - your consciousness would only remain in worlds in which you don't die. Which is, like I said, unfounded.

And if that were true, we'll all find out eventually. Because then some quantum events will conspire in our respective universes to make sure we live forever.

What nonsense.
 
  • #5
It seems idiotic to me too.
 
  • #6
Well, it is experimentally different because you always have a unitary time evolution in MWI. In the Copenhagen interpretation, the wavefunction really collapses after a measurement is made (and not just in an effective way as a result of decoherence), so you have a non-unitary time evolution.

I agree that the quantum suicide experiment will not work even if the MWI is true. But another experiment proposed by David Deutsch will work, at least in principle. This involves a quantum computer that is able to simulate someone's brain. Such a computer is used to simulate a person in some virtual reality environment.

One then sets up an experiment involving the quantum computer that will demostrate to us that the simulated person can exist in a superposition of states. This then proves that the virtual person does not really collapse his wavefunction in the virtual reality, he merely enters into a complicated entangled superposition with his environment.
 
  • #7
How can a "simulated reality" prove anything about R_E_A_L_I_T_Y?
David Deutsch has too many assumptions, with no evidence.

another thing: would the brain simulated be "conscious" ? if so, wouldn't that be torture, creating a conscious being in a solipsitic existence only for a experiment?
must be a mice brain otherwise complete torture.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
To the best of my knowledge, there is no experimental evidence, nor is their likely to be.

If causality were violated (eg, general relativity seems to allow for wormholes through time as well as space) in an experiment, there would seem to be some evidence to support it (since it would be useful for resolving temporal paradoxes). Unfortunately, such an experiment seems more than a little far-fetched and amounts to little more than speculation.

Many worlds always seemed like a better explanation than the Copenhagen interpretation, but, if you asked which interpretation is more scientific, I would have to conclude the Copenhagen, Occam's razor being what it is.

I have not taken a quantum physics class yet, so you may want to fact-check my response with someone better-versed in quantum mechanics.
 
  • #9
Phycho said:
David Deutsch has too many assumptions, with no evidence.
Sounds like you're making an assumption without evidence. :wink:
 
  • #10
Phycho said:
How can a "simulated reality" prove anything about R_E_A_L_I_T_Y?
David Deutsch has too many assumptions, with no evidence.

another thing: would the brain simulated be "conscious" ? if so, wouldn't that be torture, creating a conscious being in a solipsitic existence only for a experiment?
must be a mice brain otherwise complete torture.

The quantum compuer itself would behave in a non-unitary way if the Copenhagen interpretation is correct. That's a verifiable prediction for the people in the real world. The simulated person's observations are not what matters here (other than that they would cause the wavefunction of the quantum computer to collapse).

What we do is we let the simulation run in a superpostion of two states and then we do a special measurement that will enable us to tell wheter or not the quantum computer's state has collapsed.

If we assume that the simulated person has real consciousness, then the Copenhagen principle would predict that the simulated person's observation would collapse his virtual environment. But then the quantum computer would have undergone a non unitary evolution, which is detectable.
 

1. What is the Many Worlds theory?

The Many Worlds theory is a scientific theory that suggests the existence of multiple parallel universes. According to this theory, every possible outcome of a quantum event actually occurs in a separate universe, creating an infinite number of parallel universes.

2. Is there any experimental evidence to support the Many Worlds theory?

While there is no direct experimental evidence for the Many Worlds theory, there have been several experiments that indirectly support its existence. One example is the delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment, which showed that particles can behave as both a wave and a particle at the same time, supporting the idea of multiple parallel universes.

3. How can the Many Worlds theory be tested?

One proposed way to test the Many Worlds theory is through the use of quantum computers. These computers would be able to perform calculations in multiple parallel universes, providing evidence for their existence. However, this technology is still in its early stages and more research is needed.

4. Are there any criticisms of the Many Worlds theory?

One major criticism of the Many Worlds theory is that it is currently untestable and therefore cannot be considered a scientific theory. Some scientists also argue that the theory is unnecessarily complex and does not offer any new insights or explanations for quantum phenomena.

5. How does the Many Worlds theory differ from other interpretations of quantum mechanics?

The Many Worlds theory differs from other interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, in that it proposes the existence of multiple parallel universes instead of collapsing wave functions. It also suggests that all possible outcomes of a quantum event actually occur in separate universes, rather than just one outcome in the current universe.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
1
Views
236
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
11
Views
540
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
5
Replies
174
Views
9K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
19
Views
584
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
7
Views
607
Back
Top