Everett's MWI versus DeWitt's MWI

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jbergman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mwi
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the differences between Everett's original interpretation of the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics and the version popularized by DeWitt. Participants explore the historical context and nuances of these interpretations, seeking references and clarifications on the evolution of MWI.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Historical
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that Everett's original version of MWI placed less emphasis on the reality of branching universes compared to the interpretation popularized by DeWitt.
  • Others argue that under MWI, there is only one universe that is real, and that DeWitt's contributions helped bring this interpretation into broader awareness.
  • A participant mentions that they found a comprehensive overview contrasting Everett's interpretation with DeWitt's, noting that Everett does not suggest a splitting of worlds, whereas DeWitt does.
  • It is noted that DeWitt's peer-reviewed literature does not substantially differ from Everett's initial submissions, as explained by another participant.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the emphasis and implications of Everett's and DeWitt's interpretations, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain without a clear consensus.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations in the discussion include the lack of detailed references to specific texts beyond Everett's original thesis and the potential ambiguity in the interpretations of "reality" and "splitting" in the context of MWI.

jbergman
Messages
484
Reaction score
222
TL;DR
Looking for references on the differences between Everett's version of MWI and the more popular version of DeWitt
I've read from various sources that Everett's original version of the MWI is different than the current popular account of MWI which I believe is more due to DeWitt. Specifically, Everett's initial interpretation placed less emphasis on the reality of the branching universes.

I haven't found a good account that discusses these differences and the history of the MWI in depth. I am wondering if a) I am correct that Everett's views were different from his subsequent contemporaries and b) if there are any good references other than Everett's original thesis that discuss this in depth.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: AlexCaledin
Physics news on Phys.org
jbergman said:
Summary:: Looking for references on the differences between Everett's version of MWI and the more popular version of DeWitt

I've read from various sources that Everett's original version of the MWI is different than the current popular account of MWI which I believe is more due to DeWitt. Specifically, Everett's initial interpretation placed less emphasis on the reality of the branching universes.
Under MWI, there is but the one universe, and it is real. DeWitt coined 'MWI' and probably dragged the interpretation out of obscurity, but nobody suggests that there is some kind of metaphysically new thing created, especially one that is less real than the one we observe.

if there are any good references other than Everett's original thesis that discuss this in depth.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9709032.pdf which is ref 4 on wiki
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: AlexCaledin and jbergman
I found a good overview at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-everett/ that goes in depth into Everett's Interpretation and contrasts it with the later interpretation popularized by DeWitt. In particular, as a first approximation, Everett doesn't suggest a splitting of worlds whereas DeWitt does.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: EclogiteFacies

Similar threads

  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
7K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 174 ·
6
Replies
174
Views
14K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 115 ·
4
Replies
115
Views
15K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K