I How does MWI deal with the destruction of interference?

Nickyv2423
Messages
46
Reaction score
3
How does MWI deal with the destruction of interference in the double slit experiment when a detector is placed at the slits? Since the wave function never collapses, and the universe doesn't actually split in MWI, how does the interference go away? Does the measuring device at the slits reshape the wave function in a way that makes it impossible to interfere with itself?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Nickyv2423 said:
How does MWI deal with the destruction of interference in the double slit experiment when a detector is placed at the slits?

In the MWI, the wave function branches when the particle traversing the experiment reaches the detector. In one branch, the detector fires, and in the other, it doesn't. The state of the particle, the detector, and everything else in the universe in each branch is the appropriate one for the detector result (fire/not fire) for that branch.

Nickyv2423 said:
how does the interference go away?

It goes away in each branch because the state of everything in each branch has to be consistent with the detector result for that branch.

Nickyv2423 said:
Does the measuring device at the slits reshape the wave function in a way that makes it impossible to interfere with itself?

In the MWI, the particle by itself doesn't have a wave function. Only the entire system does. The presence of the detector at the slits changes the way the wave function of the entire system evolves, yes, because it changes the interactions that are present.
 
PeterDonis said:
In the MWI, the wave function branches when the particle traversing the experiment reaches the detector. In one branch, the detector fires, and in the other, it doesn't. The state of the particle, the detector, and everything else in the universe in each branch is the appropriate one for the detector result (fire/not fire) for that branch.
It goes away in each branch because the state of everything in each branch has to be consistent with the detector result for that branch.
In the MWI, the particle by itself doesn't have a wave function. Only the entire system does. The presence of the detector at the slits changes the way the wave function of the entire system evolves, yes, because it changes the interactions that are present.
But in MWI, the universe doesn't actually branch/split off into new universes, that's a misconception. The universe already exists in a superposition, where all possible universes already exist.
 
Nickyv2423 said:
in MWI, the universe doesn't actually branch/split off into new universes, that's a misconception

If that terminology bothers you, just say the wave function of the overall system branches. The physics is the same either way.

Nickyv2423 said:
The universe already exists in a superposition, where all possible universes already exist.

If you're going to use this terminology, the set of "all possible universes" changes with time: it is different after the particle has passed the detectors at the slits because it now includes branches for the different possible measurement results at the detectors. So you could say the set of "all possible universes" is what branches. You're still just describing the same physics in different words.
 
PeterDonis said:
If that terminology bothers you, just say the wave function of the overall system branches. The physics is the same either way.
If you're going to use this terminology, the set of "all possible universes" changes with time: it is different after the particle has passed the detectors at the slits because it now includes branches for the different possible measurement results at the detectors. So you could say the set of "all possible universes" is what branches. You're still just describing the same physics in different words.
Oh, I think I miss understood you then. Are you saying that when a measurement is made the universe splits and creates new universes?
 
Nickyv2423 said:
Are you saying that when a measurement is made the universe splits and creates new universes?

No. I'm saying that the various descriptions you have suggested are not different possible ways things could be; they're just different ordinary language descriptions of the same physics, the same way things are (according to the MWI).
 
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In her YouTube video Bell’s Theorem Experiments on Entangled Photons, Dr. Fugate shows how polarization-entangled photons violate Bell’s inequality. In this Insight, I will use quantum information theory to explain why such entangled photon-polarization qubits violate the version of Bell’s inequality due to John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt known as the...
This post is a spin-off of the original post that discussed Barandes theory, A new realistic stochastic interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, for any details about the interpretation in general PLEASE look up for an answer there. Now I want this post to focus on this pre-print: J. A. Barandes, "New Prospects for a Causally Local Formulation of Quantum Theory", arXiv 2402.16935 (2024) My main concerns are that Barandes thinks this deflates the anti-classical Bell's theorem. In Barandes...
Back
Top