Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Help wanted in understanding many worlds theory

  1. Mar 21, 2009 #1

    Can anybody direct me to a full explanation of the many-worlds theory, as proposed by Hugh Everett to replace the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics? I'm looking for something comprehensible to a layman, not too heavy on the maths if possible.

    Specifically, I wish to understand how this interpretation explains the EPR paradox.

    I be most grateful for any help, thanks for reading

  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 21, 2009 #2
    Try Michio Kaku's PARALLEL WORLDS...

    In general, in many worlds, each quantum activity results in the origin of a new universe...in one universe your newly emergent cancer cell dies and you live, in another the birth of a cancer cell kills you..

    Have you tried wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many_world_interpretation

    EPR depends on non local behavior and I'm not sure how that relates to many worlds. Check wiki under EPR and see if there are any hints/references....

    In other versions, manifolds/membranes of other worlds might be touching your nose right now...you can also try reading about membranes as that will also get you to parallel/multiple worlds....as will the term "multiverse"...
  4. Apr 21, 2009 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think these two articles are pretty good:

    Max Tegmark, The interpretation of quantum mechanics: Many worlds, or many words?

    Adrian Kent, Against many-worlds interpretations

    Tegmark's article is a short presentation of the standard MWI and contains as little math as possible. (An article with even less math would probably be useless). Kent's article is more difficult, but it's still an interesting argument against many-worlds interpretations.
  5. Apr 22, 2009 #4
    Frederick, BOTH articles were published in 1997.

    Before major improvement in the understandig of the Quantum Decoherence
    And before
    In fact, both articles are very pro-MWI because it appears that 1997 is the last year when there were any anti-MWI articles :)
  6. Apr 22, 2009 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I answered in the other thread.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook