I How Does MWI Interpret Simultaneous Quantum Measurements?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Abdullah Naeem
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Events Mwi Qm
Abdullah Naeem
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Suppose there are two independent experiments taking place \left\vert \Phi\right\rangle =\alpha _{1}\left\vert \phi _{1}\right\rangle +\beta_{1}\left\vert \phi _{2}\right\rangle and \left\vert \Psi \right\rangle=\alpha _{2}\left\vert \psi _{1}\right\rangle +\beta _{2}\left\vert \psi_{2}\right\rangle. According to MWI, when \left\vert \Phi \right\rangle is measured, there are two "branches" of the world, one for each \left\vert\phi _{i}\right\rangle. Similarly, for \left\vert \Psi \right\rangle. My question is, what happens when a measurement for each \left\vert \Phi\right\rangle and \left\vert \Psi \right\rangle takes place simultaneously? As I see it, there are two worlds, one for each \left\vert \Phi \right\rangle but for these worlds but in these worlds, what happens to \left\vert \Psi \right\rangle? Is it that, in these two worlds, \left\vert \Psi \right\rangle has not taken place?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In this case the full state of the "multiverse" is ##\left\vert \Phi\right\rangle\left\vert \Psi \right\rangle##. If you do the multiplication explicitly, you will see that it contains 2x2=4 branches (4 "worlds").
 
Demystifier said:
In this case the full state of the "multiverse" is ##\left\vert \Phi\right\rangle\left\vert \Psi \right\rangle##. If you do the multiplication explicitly, you will see that it contains 2x2=4 branches (4 "worlds").

Thank you for your reply.
So the state of the world before measurement is \left\vert \Phi<br /> \right\rangle \left\vert \Psi \right\rangle =\alpha _{1}\alpha<br /> _{2}\left\vert \phi _{1}\psi _{1}\right\rangle +\alpha _{1}\beta<br /> _{2}\left\vert \phi _{2}\psi _{1}\right\rangle +\beta _{1}\alpha<br /> _{2}\left\vert \phi _{1}\psi _{2}\right\rangle +\beta _{1}\beta<br /> _{2}\left\vert \phi _{2}\psi _{2}\right\rangle. Four possibilities, right.
So, according to MWI, there will be four branches. I think my confusion
comes in the tensor product. I am thinking of two machines, \Phi and <br /> \Psi, each of which will enter two worlds. For the first machine \Phi,
the outcomes are either \left\vert \phi _{1}\right\rangle \left( \alpha<br /> _{2}\left\vert \psi _{1}\right\rangle +\beta _{2}\left\vert \psi<br /> _{2}\right\rangle \right) or \left\vert \phi _{2}\right\rangle \left(<br /> \alpha _{2}\left\vert \psi _{1}\right\rangle +\beta _{2}\left\vert \psi<br /> _{2}\right\rangle \right). How does it know that the other outcome is
either \left\vert \psi _{1}\right\rangle or \left\vert \psi<br /> _{2}\right\rangle?
 
The first machine does not know that the second machine must have one of the two outcomes. But the "world" consists of both machines together. If you are interested in only one machine, then you cannot call it a "world".
 
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
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...
This is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of interpretations per se. We often see discussions based on QM as it was understood during the early days and the famous Einstein-Bohr debates. The problem with this is that things in QM have advanced tremendously since then, and the 'weirdness' that puzzles those attempting to understand QM has changed. I recently came across a synopsis of these advances, allowing those interested in interpretational issues to understand the modern view...
Back
Top