How to envision particles in superposition in Many Worlds presplitting

[g564321]

Should particles in superposition before quantum decoherence (many worlds) be envisioned in the same exact way as they are envisioned before wave function collapse (Copenhagen)?

Clearly, the particle in Many Worlds is in a sort of superposition, but with all of the talk about one universal wave function, as well as not much talk about the specifics of this particularly, as well as the ability to rotate things with interpretations like how many worlds technically did away with entanglement, I was wondering if the two should be envisioned in the same exact way.

In many worlds, before interaction, and world splitting as a result, would you envision all the particles around you in that same type of blurry superposition state that’s used in Copenhagen, or does there end up being a more classical picture that can be formed with the interpretation?

 

[PeterDonis]

Moderator's note: Moved thread to QM interpretations forum.

 

[PeterDonis]

Should particles in superposition before quantum decoherence (many worlds) be envisioned in the same exact way as they are envisioned before wave function collapse (Copenhagen)?

What does "envisioned" mean? The math is the same regardless of which interpretation you choose.

 

[g564321]

I realize that the math is the same, but there is also how you think about what is occurring in the physical world. For instance, the math is the same in special relativity and lorentz ether theory, but the two are saying different things in relation to what the physical world is doing.

So, I'm just trying to confirm that the math can't be interpreted in any other way than the particle being in the blurry state (or whatever other common terms that are prevalent to describe the superposition of particles in the standard Copenhagen interpretation) like it is in Copenhagen.

While I think that the answer is that it has to be thought of in the same way, a potential example is that the many worlds would somehow allow for the superposition to be thought of differently than the regular blurry state like the ether in Lorentz ether theory allows people to think of things in such a way to restore absolute time.

 

[PeterDonis]

I'm just trying to confirm that the math can't be interpreted in any other way than the particle being in the blurry state (or whatever other common terms that are prevalent to describe the superposition of particles in the standard Copenhagen interpretation) like it is in Copenhagen.

First you need to explain what you mean by "the blurry state". Writing down the actual math that you think describes the state would help.

 

[g564321]

Sorry, I don't know what the math is, but the state that I'm describing is a particle in superposition before wave function collapse. I've linked some examples below.

https://quantumatlas.umd.edu/entry/superposition

"For example, an electron orbiting an atom doesn’t sit at a definite point in space like the Earth does as it orbits the sun. Rather, it gets smeared out into a cloud of possibilities called an orbital. That orbital cloud is really a three-dimensional quantum wave, with peaks and valleys that fluctuate in time and represent the chance of finding an electron at a particular spot."

https://www.sciencealert.com/quantu...uture-might-influence-the-past-retrocausality

"We all know quantum mechanics is weird. And part of that weirdness comes down to the fact that at a fundamental level, particles don't act like solid billiard balls rolling down a table, but rather like a blurry cloud of possibilities shifting around the room.

This blurry cloud comes into sharp focus when we try to measure particles, meaning we can only ever see a white ball hitting a black one into the corner pocket, and never countless white balls hitting black balls into every pocket."

It's a common way to reference the particle while it's still in the superposition state in the articles that I've read. So, I'm wondering if the particles would have to be thought of in that same exact way in the many-worlds interpretation, or if somehow the picture of the physical world that many worlds paints allows for the superposition state of particles to be thought of in a more classical way.

 

[PeroK]

So, I'm wondering if the particles would have to be thought of in that same exact way in the many-worlds interpretation, or if somehow the picture of the physical world that many worlds paints allows for the superposition state of particles to be thought of in a more classical way.

Superposition in MWI is much the same as superposition in other interpretations. If anything, MWI paints a less classical picture in that any classical behaviour is not the whole story. In Copenhagen, for example, if an electron is detected at point X, then that is in some agreement with classical physics - in terms of a single, measurable event. In MWI, on the other hand, the detection of the electron at point X is merely one branch of the wave-function. And then it becomes very difficult even to find words to describe the complete phenomenon of there being other branches where the electron was detected everywhere else. The idea that "everything in a sense happens", you could argue, is even further from classical notions than Copenhagen.

 

[PeterDonis]

I don't know what the math is

Then I would strongly suggest taking some time to learn at least the basics. For starters, you can try this Insights article:

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/the-7-basic-rules-of-quantum-mechanics/

the state that I'm describing is a particle in superposition before wave function collapse

Whether wave function collapse even happens at all is interpretation dependent.

I've linked some examples below

These are not good sources if you actually want to learn the physics. If nothing else, the term "superposition" is being used in a very vague and unhelpful fashion.

I'm wondering if the particles would have to be thought of in that same exact way in the many-worlds interpretation

IMO these ordinary language descriptions are unhelpful no matter what interpretation you are trying to use.