Help wanted in understanding many worlds theory

[craigmcewan]

Hi

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

Craig

 

[Naty1]

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"...

 

[Fredrik]

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.

 

[Dmitry67]

Frederick, BOTH articles were published in 1997.

Before major improvement in the understandig of the Quantum Decoherence
And before

"The many worlds interpretation has, controversially, been seen by some as offering the possibility of deriving the Born rule and the appearance of quantum probabilities from simpler assumptions. In fact, this was first attempted by Everett and DeWitt in the 1950s. In a September 2007 conference[11] David Wallace reported on what is claimed to be a proof by Deutsch and himself of the Born Rule starting from Everettian assumptions[12]. "

In fact, both articles are very pro-MWI because it appears that 1997 is the last year when there were any anti-MWI articles :)

 

[Fredrik]

I answered in the other thread.