Does MWI Rule itself Out?

  • I
  • Thread starter WWGD
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Mwi
In summary, the conversation discussed the possibility of worlds where the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) does not hold and the implications of this. Some participants also brought up the connection between Godel's incompleteness theorem and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and how they were both published around the same time. Ultimately, the conversation concluded that this topic is not relevant to the discussion of the MWI and the thread was closed.
  • #1
WWGD
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,910
10,293
TL;DR Summary
Are there worlds where MWI does not hold?
Summary: Are there worlds where MWI does not hold?

(I made a comment on this but I lost track of it).
I hope this makes sense:
Does MWI allow for worlds were MWI itself does not apply? Where rules of Physics as we know, understand, don't apply? If so, is our world one of these?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
WWGD said:
Does MWI allow for worlds were MWI itself does not apply?

What would this even mean?

WWGD said:
Where rules of Physics as we know, understand, don't apply?

If the rules of physics we know don't apply, we have no way of telling what would happen, so this question is unanswerable.
 
  • #3
I meant if there is a branching into worlds , some where MWI itself applies and some where it does not?
 
  • #4
WWGD said:
I meant if there is a branching into worlds , some where MWI itself applies and some where it does not?

What would this even mean?

I think you need to go back and consider the strong possibility that the question you are asking does not even make sense.
 
  • #5
Ok, please delete. Will rethink.
 
  • #6
WWGD said:
Summary: Are there worlds where MWI does not hold?

(I made a comment on this but I lost track of it).
I hope this makes sense:
Does MWI allow for worlds were MWI itself does not apply? Where rules of Physics as we know, understand, don't apply? If so, is our world one of these?

MWI is sometimes criticized on the basis that there might be worlds in which an observer cannot verify that the standard postulates of quantum mechanics are good descriptions of what he observes.
 
  • Like
Likes WWGD
  • #7
I was aiming for a Godel -like approach , though clearly mine was without as much success.
 
  • #8
atyy said:
MWI is sometimes criticized on the basis that there might be worlds in which an observer cannot verify that the standard postulates of quantum mechanics are good descriptions of what he observes.

Yes, but the MWI itself does not claim this, and in fact claims the opposite.

Also, any such criticism has to be based on applying those same laws of quantum mechanics.
 
  • #9
WWGD said:
Ok, please delete. Will rethink.
I was thinking liars paradox before you stated Gödel
I wondered if there was a link between incompleteness and uncertainty and I am sure it's been discussed on pf. I'll have a look!
 
  • Like
Likes WWGD
  • #10
pinball1970 said:
I was thinking liars paradox before you stated Gödel
I wondered if there was a link between incompleteness and uncertainty and I am sure it's been discussed on pf. I'll have a look!
Thanks, Pinball, I think Godel used the Liar's paradox.
 
  • #11
WWGD said:
Thanks, Pinball, I think Godel used the Liar's paradox.
Yes there are papers on Godel and Heisenberg on line like this one https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0402197

I am sure the MWI has had similar questions, is there a world in one of the many worlds where the many world theory does not apply? If it does apply than that world cannot exist if it does not apply then every possible world is not allowed. MW I don't think means every possible world, I still have to finish my Sean Carroll book.

I don't want Peter Donis jumping on me for considering this, its fun trying to join those two things.

As an aside Godel and Heisenberg published around the same time, late 20s early 30s. Incompleteness in mathematics and the probabilistic/ unknowable nature of physics within a few years of each other.

It must have been a time of uncertainty.
 
  • Like
Likes WWGD
  • #12
pinball1970 said:
I don't want Peter Donis jumping on me for considering this

It's irrelevant to the topic of this thread, which is specifically about the MWI. The uncertainty principle is not specific to the MWI, it's part of the basics of QM, independent of any interpretation.
 
  • #13
The OP question has been addressed. Thread closed.
 

1. What is MWI and how does it relate to the question of ruling itself out?

MWI stands for Many-Worlds Interpretation, which is a theory in quantum mechanics that suggests that every possible outcome of a quantum event actually occurs in a separate parallel universe. The question of whether MWI rules itself out refers to the idea that this theory may contradict itself and therefore be invalid.

2. What are some arguments for and against MWI ruling itself out?

Some arguments for MWI ruling itself out include the fact that it relies on the existence of infinite parallel universes, which some consider to be unscientific. Additionally, it has been argued that MWI is not falsifiable, meaning it cannot be proven or disproven. On the other hand, proponents of MWI argue that it is a logical and mathematically consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics.

3. Is there any evidence to support or refute the idea that MWI rules itself out?

At this time, there is no conclusive evidence either for or against MWI ruling itself out. The theory is still a subject of debate and further research is needed to fully understand its implications.

4. How does MWI compare to other interpretations of quantum mechanics?

There are several other interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the Copenhagen interpretation and the pilot-wave theory. Each of these interpretations presents a different way of understanding the behavior of particles at the quantum level. MWI is just one of many interpretations and it is not universally accepted among scientists.

5. What are the potential implications if MWI does rule itself out?

If MWI is proven to be invalid, it would have significant implications for our understanding of the universe and the behavior of particles at the quantum level. It could also lead to the development of new theories and interpretations to explain the mysteries of quantum mechanics.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
10
Replies
321
Views
16K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
3
Views
743
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
51
Views
4K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
6
Replies
183
Views
14K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
4
Replies
108
Views
8K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
8
Views
2K
Back
Top