Many-worlds interpretation: Worlds joining instead of splitting?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, specifically exploring the concept of whether branches of reality could join instead of remaining separate. Participants consider implications of this idea in relation to quantum interference and the behavior of particles in experiments.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions if two identical branches of the many-worlds tree would join or remain separate, suggesting a connection to relativity and differing observations of the same event.
  • Another participant explains that for branches to join, quantum interference must occur, requiring components of the statevector to evolve into a common classical subspace, while noting that this does not prove the many-worlds interpretation.
  • A participant seeks clarification on what is meant by "certain scale" in relation to experimental evidence against many worlds, prompting further discussion on the scale of macroscopicity and its implications for quantum mechanics.
  • One participant proposes that if quantum interference is expected but not observed at a certain scale, it would falsify quantum mechanics and the many-worlds interpretation at that scale.
  • Another participant introduces a thought experiment involving two electrons at a double slit, suggesting that they exist in different worlds simultaneously, while expressing uncertainty about whether these worlds split and rejoin.
  • A later reply corrects the previous thought by stating that electrons are indistinguishable, which complicates the notion of separate worlds in that specific scenario.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints on the nature of branching and joining in the many-worlds interpretation, with no consensus reached on whether branches can join or the implications of quantum interference at different scales.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the nature of quantum mechanics and the many-worlds interpretation that are not universally accepted, as well as unresolved definitions regarding "scale" and "macroscopicity."

Meatbot
Messages
146
Reaction score
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
"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.
 
" 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
 
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).
 
Okay, I see what you mean. Thank you.
 
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.
 
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".
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K