Conservation of energy in Everett's MWI

[PeterDonis]

@name123 if your basic issue is that you don't think the MWI is true, many people would agree with you. But "it violates energy conservation" is not a good argument for such a position. You would be on much better ground in questioning, for example, why the Born Rule should work in the MWI, which has been a common criticism in the literature. I believe we have had a number of previous threads on that here.

 

[name123]

This is not a matter of interpretation. It's a matter of the basic math of QM. When you have a wave function with multiple terms (more precisely, multiple terms with no interference, which is what you have when you have multiple branches after a measurement in the MWI), that's how you calculate the total anything of the wave function: a weighted average of that thing over the terms. As I've already pointed out, the same is true in Copenhagen--but in Copenhagen, after a measurement there is only one term, so there is no need to do any averaging.

The Born Rule isn't a coefficient in the wave function though is it?

So why should the terms be multiplied by that coefficient as opposed to the "PeterDonisNumber"?

 

[PeterDonis]

The Born Rule isn't a coefficient in the wave function though is it?

It's the squared modulus of the coefficient in the wave function. I've already explained this.

why should the terms be multiplied by that coefficient

I've already explained this too. I'm not going to repeat myself.

It seems to me like you need to learn more about the basic math of QM. Look up "expectation value" for a start.

 

[PeterDonis]

@name123 I am closing this thread since your question has been answered and we are just going in circles at this point.