Do CI and MWI Interpret Quantum Probabilities Differently?

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
Sign up Log in
5 replies · 2K views
entropy1
Messages
1,232
Reaction score
72
Suppose we fire a photon P at a polarisation filter F1, and it passes the filter, thus forcing the polarisation of P in an eigenstate M1. Subsequently, the photon falls through a polarisation filter F2, forcing P in eigenstate M2.

Now, if I understand correctly, the probability of P passing F2, thus becoming in eigenstate M2 when in known eigenstate M1, can be exactly determined by the relative settings of F1 and F2.

So, we have P passing F2 with a known probability. Now, In CI the probability represents the factual state of P (M2 or the perpendicular to M2), while MWI allows for both M2 and perpendicular to M2. So, it seems as if in MWI both eigenstates (M2 and the perpendicular) both have a probability of 100% of occurring, only in two different worlds. So, it seems as if MWI contradicts the probabilistic nature of QM?

What is the explanation for this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What do you mean by "occurring"? Suppose I flip a coin and it comes up heads. Do you think that the fact that MWI says that it came up tails in another "world" which is completely unobservable to us means that the event of coming up tails actually "occurred"?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: entropy1
phyzguy said:
What do you mean by "occurring"? Suppose I flip a coin and it comes up heads. Do you think that the fact that MWI says that it came up tails in another "world" which is completely unobservable to us means that the event of coming up tails actually "occurred"?

Yes, at least, that's the way I understood the interpretation of MWI.
 
100% probability of occurring if you take all -four- "worlds" into account. Same probability of occurring in only one "world", 50% for each filter.

QM probabilistic predictions only apply to one "world".
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: entropy1
entropy1 said:
Suppose we fire a photon P at a polarisation filter F1, and it passes the filter, thus forcing the polarisation of P in an eigenstate M1. Subsequently, the photon falls through a polarisation filter F2, forcing P in eigenstate M2.

Now, if I understand correctly, the probability of P passing F2, thus becoming in eigenstate M2 when in known eigenstate M1, can be exactly determined by the relative settings of F1 and F2.

So, we have P passing F2 with a known probability. Now, In CI the probability represents the factual state of P (M2 or the perpendicular to M2), while MWI allows for both M2 and perpendicular to M2. So, it seems as if in MWI both eigenstates (M2 and the perpendicular) both have a probability of 100% of occurring, only in two different worlds. So, it seems as if MWI contradicts the probabilistic nature of QM?

What is the explanation for this?

Here's an analogy: You buy a lottery ticket. You have a one in 50,000,000 chance of winning the big prize. But on the other hand, you know that it is certain that somebody wins it.

Probability is consistent with absolute certainty, if you have lots of observers involved.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: entropy1
Lottery is not a good analogy for MWI, because in lottery most of players do not win at all.

A much better analogy is biological twins. They are created by a cell splitting, after which two beings exist independently. They are almost identical, but differ in some minor details. For instance, one of them is slightly fatter than the other one. Then, if you have a twin brother, you may ask yourself what is the probability that you are the fatter one.