Could ghosts be explained by the many-worlds theory?

weAre
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone

I'm new here--a first year penn state undergrad--and the extent of what i know is the popularizations of quantum physics, so i might be a little off base, and I know that what I'm about to ask is borderline unscientific, but here goes

Everett wrote his theory of the many-worlds without any mention of a physical world split, but rather on the lines of decoherence, with people only being able to pick up on certain frequencies. So, all around us, there are tons of different worlds existing, full of people, that we cannot interact with because they have been hit out of phase from us.

I've also done some research on the paranormal, and assuming that ghosts do indeed exist (PLEASE do not come on here and complain about how ghosts scientifically cannot exist), and that Everett's theory is right, would it be possible for ghosts to be some people between phases? Maybe someone was knocked out of phase with their world, and only partly appears in ours...would this be consistent with Everett's theory?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Please don't go off into wild speculation which is against the rules here.

No offense, but first learn about quantum theory, and why Everett proposed the many-worlds interpretation of it and so on (and what problems it tries to solve, and what difficulties it faces) ; compare it to other interpretations, and make up your mind.

But refrain from ghost stories - I know it is tempting when one only has popular science books as a starting point. It leads nowhere on a scientific level.
 
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
This is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of interpretations per se. We often see discussions based on QM as it was understood during the early days and the famous Einstein-Bohr debates. The problem with this is that things in QM have advanced tremendously since then, and the 'weirdness' that puzzles those attempting to understand QM has changed. I recently came across a synopsis of these advances, allowing those interested in interpretational issues to understand the modern view...
Back
Top