Does the photon in a double slit experiment create many worlds?

[entropy1]

I can't find the anwer on this anywhere, so I hope I may ask it here.

My question: In a standard double slit experiment, according to the Many Worlds Interpretation, does the photon create different worlds with different impact locations of the photon?

So, without measuring which way information.

My use of terminology may be wanting, but the thread should be brief I think.

 

[Nugatory]

does the photon create different worlds with different impact locations of the photon?

I would not think of it in terms of the photon “creating” anything, but yes, we do get different worlds for each possible photon detection at the screen. This analysis cannot be done sensibly without some understanding of the actual interaction between photon and screen (is a detection event the triggering of a photodetector? Breaking down a silver halide crystal in a photographic film? Or…?) so applying MWI here complicates things unnecessarily. It’s a poor choice for this problem.

Never forget: interpretations are tools that we use to help us reason about quantum problems. If an interpretation isn’t helping, we should try a different one. And if we ever think our choice of interpretation affects the predicted outcome of any experiment…. We’ve made a mistake somewhere.

So, without measuring which way information.

I’m not sure why you’re bringing up which-way information here?

 

[entropy1]

I’m not sure why you’re bringing up which-way information here?

I thought that without which way information, that would ensure the photon taking different paths simultaneously. But a single slit might fullfil that requirement also, I don't know.

 

[entropy1]

I would not think of it in terms of the photon “creating” anything, but yes, we do get different worlds for each possible photon detection at the screen. This analysis cannot be done sensibly without some understanding of the actual interaction between photon and screen (is a detection event the triggering of a photodetector? Breaking down a silver halide crystal in a photographic film? Or…?) so applying MWI here complicates things unnecessarily. It’s a poor choice for this problem.

Never forget: interpretations are tools that we use to help us reason about quantum problems. If an interpretation isn’t helping, we should try a different one. And if we ever think our choice of interpretation affects the predicted outcome of any experiment…. We’ve made a mistake somewhere.

I actually wanted to prove MWI unsuitable in this (to myself), so I agree on that. However, you bring up a good point that I have to consider further.

 

[entropy1]

This analysis cannot be done sensibly without some understanding of the actual interaction between photon and screen (is a detection event the triggering of a photodetector? Breaking down a silver halide crystal in a photographic film? Or…?)

Does a transfer of energy from the EM field to the screen count as an outcome?

 

[Nugatory]

Does a transfer of energy from the EM field to the screen count as an outcome?

It is the only thing that counts as an outcome in this experiment. This energy transfer is what creates a dot on the screen and that’s the measurement we’re making in this experiment.

 

[entropy1]

It is the only thing that counts as an outcome in this experiment. This energy transfer is what creates a dot on the screen and that’s the measurement we’re making in this experiment.

This thing puzzles me:

So the energy transfer is quantized, right? Does that mean it has to be localized? And does that mean the wavefunction has to collapse?

 

[Nugatory]

This thing puzzles me:

So the energy transfer is quantized, right? Does that mean it has to be localized? And does that mean the wavefunction has to collapse?

The electromagnetic field has transferred a particular amount of energy to the screen so we could say that the energy transfer is quantized.

It happens at a single point (within the resolution of our detector) so we could say that it is localized.

This thread is about MWI, and there is no collapse in MWI.

 

[entropy1]

I am hesitant to start threads because Peter told me they should be based on scientific articles, which makes sense if you want to attract physicists to the site, which I am not. A thing like this just seems so simple but given what Feynman said and given I am not a physicist, it could not be.

 

[hutchphd]

The requirement that there be some relationship to mainstream science is necessary for (at least ) two reasons: it requires the questioner to do enough research to circumscribe and define her question, and it provides a common ground (a reference) from which both questioner and " teacher" can proceed.
Doing less than this leads quickly to chaos and nobody profits from the interchange

A thing like this just seems so simple but given what Feynman said and given I am not a physisist, it could not be.

For instance I have no idea what "Feynman said" refers to. If you quote someone it needs to be referenced. Feynman said many many things.
.

 

[entropy1]

For instance I have no idea what "Feynman said" refers to. If you quote someone it needs to be referenced. Feynman said many many things.

I think the Feynman quote is something like: “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.”

I interpret this something like: "You don't understand quantum mechanics.", and that as like: "Everything about quantum mechanics should be obscure to you."

 

[hutchphd]

If you wish to quote someone, then quote them with references. Anything less is laziness and unfair to the subject as well as your reader.

 

[entropy1]

If you wish to quote someone, then quote them with references. Anything less is laziness and unfair to the subject as well as your reader.

I guess you are right.

 

[PeterDonis]

I am hesitant to start threads because Peter told me they should be based on scientific articles

You said in the OP that you couldn't find the answer anywhere, which implies that you couldn't find a scientific article or other source that answered your question.

given what Feynman said

If you couldn't find an answer to your question in any scientific source, what does it matter what Feynman said?

If what Feynman said does matter, then, as others have already pointed out, you need to give a specific reference to a specific thing Feynman said so we know what you are talking about.

 

[entropy1]

You said in the OP that you couldn't find the answer anywhere, which implies that you couldn't find a scientific article or other source that answered your question.

That is right. That is why I returned to PF to ask about it. As for opening another thread, that was about my follow up questions in response to Nugatory that actually were off topic, of which I was alerted by Nugatory that I should open another thread.

This thread is about MWI, and there is no collapse in MWI.

Feynman was about his quote.

 

[PeterDonis]

Feynman was about his quote.

The quote you refer to in #11 was hardly a scientific statement.

 

[entropy1]

The quote you refer to in #11 was hardly a scientific statement.

Oh, I thought post #9 was in response to Nugatory about opening threads, but I must be mistaking. The reason (for #9) could also have been this:

This thread is about MWI, and there is no collapse in MWI.

If it was, it is pretty unclear, I agree.

 

[PeterDonis]

I thought post #9 was in response to Nugatory about opening threads, but I must be mistaking.

You mean you don't know what you were responding to when you posted post #9?

 

[entropy1]

You mean you don't know what you were responding to when you posted post #9?

I can only say that I thought that #9 was in response to Nugatory advising me to open another topic because I went off topic. And I see he has edited his post. So it could be that that is the confusion.

 

[Nugatory]

I can only say that I thought that #9 was in response to Nugatory advising me to open another topic because I went off topic. And I see he has edited his post. So it could be that that is the confusion.

The edit was to remove an unnecessary punctuation mark, not changing the meaning of anything I said. You asked three questions, and I answered all three in order.

“This thread is about MWI, and there is no collapse in MWI” seems like a clear enough answer to your question “And does that mean the wavefunction has to collapse?” when you’ve started this thread asking about MWI.

 

[entropy1]

The edit was to remove an unnecessary punctuation mark, not changing the meaning of anything I said.

Then this was probably the reason I started about starting threads:

This thread is about MWI, and there is no collapse in MWI.

Now I think of it, I think it was. I figured that if I could not talk about Copenhagen in this thread because the word "Copenhagen" was not in the title of the thread, that I should start a new thread. But because I only started this thread to ask the question to which I could not find the answer anywhere, I did not do that. Furthermore I responded to Nugatory, among which with four questions I didn't plan but I was very glad to have that opportunity to ask.