David Deutsch's Many Worlds Interpretation and the Double Slit Experiment

In summary, David Deutsch's argument is that the photon, as a wave going through double slits, can produce interference. This is commonly accepted by physicists, and he does not seem to have a good reason for believing otherwise.
  • #1
Marek Domanski
20
3
TL;DR Summary
I wish to know whether David Deutsch really doesn't believe in wave-particle duality, and, if so, how he explains interference in the light of this.
David Deutsch is a well known proponent of the Many Worlds Interpretation. His argument seems to be that a single photon in the double slit experiment must be interfering with one from another world. It is commonly held by physicists that the the photon, as a wave going through double slits, can produce interference. Possibly he does not believe that the photon can be treated as a wave. Is this true, or does he have another reason? I am having difficulty find this information on the internet. I read his book The "Fabric of Reality" years ago and can't remember if, or how, he justified his position.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes Motore
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Marek Domanski said:
Summary:: I wish to know whether David Deutsch really doesn't believe in wave-particle duality, and, if so, how he explains interference in the light of this.

David Deutsch is a well known proponent of the Many Worlds Interpretation. His argument seems to be that a single photon in the double slit experiment must be interfering with one from another world. It is commonly held by physicists that the the photon, as a wave going through double slits, can produce interference. Possibly he does not believe that the photon can be treated as a wave. Is this true, or does he have another reason? I am having difficulty find this information on the internet. I read his book The "Fabric of Reality" years ago and can't remember if, or how, he justified his position.
The Fabric of Reality is a popular science book and hence not a valid reference on here. Regarding the MWI you could try this:

https://www.preposterousuniverse.co...y-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics/
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #3
PeroK said:
The Fabric of Reality is a popular science book and hence not a valid reference on here. Regarding the MWI you could try this:

https://www.preposterousuniverse.co...y-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics/
The idea that a popular science book by a reputable physicist has no value seems to me to be preposterous. Are you saying that we cannot learn anything from such books? Einstein wrote a popular science book on Relativity and explained it really well. The link you sent me explains Carrolls view not Deutsch's. There is a difference between Carrol and Deutsch on the reasons for the MWI. Also Carroll's page is a popular page!
 
  • Like
  • Skeptical
Likes physika, weirdoguy and Demystifier
  • #4
Marek Domanski said:
The idea that a popular science book by a reputable physicist has no value seems to me to be preposterous. Are you saying that we cannot learn anything from such books?
This is not a popular-science forum. The "I" in the thread description implies that undergraduate level physics and mathematics is expected. There is nothing against popular-science sources - there are plenty of reputable ones. But, the aim of this forum is to provide the next level of detail (and the next level of understanding).

There is a significant difference between QM as a popular science and QM as an academic subject as taught at universities. We try to focus on the latter.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and weirdoguy
  • #5
PeroK said:
There is nothing against popular-science sources - there are plenty of reputable ones. But, the aim of this forum is to provide the next level of detail
While this is true, the OP does have a fair point that the article you linked to by Carroll is also a pop science article, not a textbook or peer-reviewed paper.

This somewhat more technical paper by Deutsch might be a good starting point for the OP:

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0104033
 
  • Like
Likes physika and dextercioby

Similar threads

  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
4
Replies
105
Views
4K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
52
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
5
Replies
174
Views
10K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
32
Views
2K
Back
Top