Born rule for macroscopic objects

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the implications of the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics for macroscopic objects. Participants argue that while classical mechanics serves as a valid approximation for everyday macroscopic bodies, the probabilistic nature of MWI raises questions about the occurrence of branching events. It is concluded that the overwhelming probability of classical behavior suggests that deviations are negligible, and thus, the notion of all outcomes occurring in MWI is deemed absurd. The conversation emphasizes that the only observable reality is the single branch we experience, rendering other branches irrelevant.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles
  • Familiarity with the many-worlds interpretation (MWI)
  • Knowledge of classical mechanics and its approximations
  • Basic grasp of probability theory in quantum contexts
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the implications of quantum mechanics on macroscopic objects
  • Research the mathematical foundations of the many-worlds interpretation
  • Investigate classical mechanics as an approximation in quantum systems
  • Study the role of probability in quantum mechanics and its interpretations
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, quantum mechanics enthusiasts, and anyone interested in the philosophical implications of the many-worlds interpretation on macroscopic phenomena.

durant35
Messages
292
Reaction score
11
There is one thing that I don't understand when considering quantum mechanics for macroscopic bodies. It is said that classical mechanics is a valid approximation and that macroscopic bodies that we encounter on everyday basis have a small uncertainty in position and momentum.

So far, so good.

But when the many-worlds interpretation is invoked, there are suggestions that the branching in the macroscopic world is occurring. The problem with this is the probability. If we just consider things from a probabilistic perspective, there is an enormous chance that the things around us will behave approximately classicaly and follow classical paths without some miracoulous deviations, like my monitor suddenly turning left without any force applied to it. So if we strictly try to give probabilities for macroscopic behaviour, one outcome has something like 99.9999..% probability and sudden deviations have very, very small amplitudes.

But in MWI, all outcomes occur. In fact it is ridicoulous to say all, it's better to say one that we would expect (high amplitude branch) and many, many low probability branches. So does quantum mechanics actually give probabilities for macroscopic behavior like I mentioned and do MWI supporters really believe that the branching occurs on this weird way, where one branch is always extremely probable and others are negligible?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
durant35 said:
it is ridicoulous
MWI is ridiculous if you take it to mean that everything that can happen happens.

In the only world we see only one thing happens, and the other worlds are irrelevant since we cannot say the slightest thing about them. All probabilities we measure are probabilities about the single branch we have a memory about - only that counts. No branching ever happens as all branches are already present in the wave function, at any time. The branches are just a label attached to terms in the wave function when expressed in a particular basis. Lots of irrelevant blabla accompanies this to make it sound interesting and explanatory.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 96 ·
4
Replies
96
Views
9K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
6K
  • · Replies 232 ·
8
Replies
232
Views
22K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K