# In which cases does superposition lead to splitting of worlds?

• I
• entropy1
In summary, the MWI states that the apparatus M becomes entangled with the electron being measured, resulting in two terms in the wave function that correspond to different spin outcomes. In the case of a photon being split with a half-silvered mirror, no entanglement occurs and superposition is a more appropriate term. Entanglement between measuring devices, as seen in the second case, is a common occurrence in quantum mechanics and is not considered to be a groundbreaking concept. However, it does raise questions about quantum nonlocality and the transfer of information between spacelike separated apparatuses.
entropy1
I don't know how to understand this:
• Suppose we measure the spin of an electron with apparatus M. M can yield spin-up or spin-down. According to MWI, M briefly becomes in superposition of measuring spin up and spin down. Extremely quick however, M gets split by the splitting into two universes, in one of which M yields spin-up and in the other spin-down.
• Now, if we split a photon with a half-silvered mirror, then the photon will become in superposition of being let through and being reflected:
So, what I don't understand is why in the first case, superposition leads to two worlds, and in the second case it doesn't. What do I not understand correctly?

entropy1 said:
According to MWI, M briefly becomes in superposition of measuring spin up and spin down. Extremely quick however, M gets split by the splitting into two universes, in one of which M yields spin-up and in the other spin-down.

This is not a correct description of what the MWI says. The MWI says that M becomes entangled with the electron, so that the wave function of the joint system of M + electron has two terms that correspond to "electron spin up, M measures spin up" and "electron spin down, M measures spin down". This is properly described as entanglement, not superposition, because superposition is basis dependent, but the entanglement of M and the electron is not.

entropy1 said:
if we split a photon with a half-silvered mirror, then the photon will become in superposition of being let through and being reflected

Yes, but this in itself does not entangle the photon with anything and no measurement occurs. Superposition is an appropriate term here.

entropy1 said:
what I don't understand is why in the first case, superposition leads to two worlds, and in the second case it doesn't.

What leads to two worlds in the first case is not superposition; it's the entanglement of the electron with M.

Heikki Tuuri
Ok thanks! So suppose we take the second case with a photon in superposition following two paths simultaneously. Suppose we put detection measuring devices on both paths, Ma and Mb. Does that mean that if Ma detects the photon, Mb doesn't detect it, and vice versa? And does that depend on spacetemporal ordening of Ma and Mb?

Another way of viewing the MWI splitting issue is to decree that splits only happen at entropically irreversible events, where ΔS >> k. If there is the possibility of significant future interference terms then the world(s) have not split or decohered from each other. A photon going through/reflecting off a half-silvered mirror is not an entropic event. The photon being detected by a photomultiplier, or caught on camera, is an irreversible event.

Michael Price said:
The photon being detected by a photomultiplier, or caught on camera, is an irreversible event.
As perhaps a digression, what puzzles me in the second case is, if Ma detects the photon, Mb doesn't and vice versa. This seems to me a kind of entanglement, not between particles, but perhaps between measuring devices (Ma/Mb). Is this correct?

entropy1 said:
As perhaps a digression, what puzzles me in the second case is, if Ma detects the photon, Mb doesn't and vice versa. This seems to me a kind of entanglement, not between particles, but perhaps between measuring devices (Ma/Mb). Is this correct?
Entanglement is not half as whacky or interesting as it is made out to be. Entanglement is the consequence of most many particle interactions, and is absolutely bog-standard QM. Yes, the states of Ma and Mb are correlated (or entangled, if you prefer) with each other - if one measuring device records the photon then the other can't. But is that so Earth shattering?

Michael Price said:
Yes, the states of Ma and Mb are correlated (or entangled, if you prefer) with each other - if one measuring device records the photon then the other can't. But is that so Earth shattering?
Well, it seems to me that one of the apparatusses doesn't know what the other measures, and yet their outcomes correlate. Ma and Mb can be setup spacelike separated. And I guess the photon, when in superposition of paths, travels no definite path. So there had to be some (FTL) communication between Ma and Mb, right? Just tell me if the wavefunction solves te paradox . Would be appreciated.

UPDATE: I realize that Ma doesn't have control over what its measurement outcome wil be, and likewise Mb, so that no information can be transferred FTL. So this is the solution to the paradox I think. However, this superposition seems to behave as an entanglement!

Last edited:
entropy1 said:
According to MWI, M briefly becomes in superposition of measuring spin up and spin down. Extremely quick however, M gets split by the splitting into two universes, in one of which M yields spin-up and in the other spin-down.

That's not what MWI says. Where and what did you read that's what it does?

bhobba
That's not what MWI says. Where and what did you read that's what it does?
It's my own recollection.

entropy1 said:
So suppose we take the second case with a photon in superposition following two paths simultaneously. Suppose we put detection measuring devices on both paths, Ma and Mb. Does that mean that if Ma detects the photon, Mb doesn't detect it, and vice versa?

Yes, and that also destroys any interference between the two paths, so it changes the expected output after the second beam splitter. If both paths are open, all photons end up detected at just one detector (D2 in the case you illustrate, if I've understood the input state correctly). If only one path is open, each photon has a 50-50 chance of going to each detector.

bhobba
entropy1 said:
it seems to me that one of the apparatusses doesn't know what the other measures, and yet their outcomes correlate. Ma and Mb can be setup spacelike separated.

Yes, this is called "quantum nonlocality", and there is a huge amount of literature on it, including many PF threads, some quite recent. (Search on "quantum nonlocality" or "Bell's theorem" using the PF search feature.) It is well confirmed experimentally, and it is indeed highly counterintuitive. (Note: with only a single photon, you can't actually demonstrate quantum nonlocality; see my next post.)

entropy1 said:
So there had to be some (FTL) communication between Ma and Mb, right?

Not in the sense of being able to send information FTL; quantum nonlocality does not allow you to do that. The correlations between the measurements can violate the Bell inequalities, but you can't use them to send information, because in order to confirm that the correlations did in fact violate the Bell inequalities, each of the measurement results have to be communicated to some central location via ordinary slower than light means.

bhobba
entropy1 said:
Ma doesn't have control over what its measurement outcome wil be, and likewise Mb, so that no information can be transferred FTL.

Yes.

entropy1 said:
this superposition seems to behave as an entanglement!

No; if you only have a single photon in the apparatus at a time, there is no entanglement, because there's only one photon. You need at least two photons to have entanglement. The single photon case is actually simple enough that it can be described by an ordinary local model that does not violate the Bell inequalities. To get Bell inequality violations, you have to have a setup where you start with two entangled photons and then make spacelike separated measurements on them.

entropy1 said:
Well, it seems to me that one of the apparatusses doesn't know what the other measures, and yet their outcomes correlate. Ma and Mb can be setup spacelike separated. And I guess the photon, when in superposition of paths, travels no definite path. So there had to be some (FTL) communication between Ma and Mb, right? Just tell me if the wavefunction solves te paradox . Would be appreciated.

UPDATE: I realize that Ma doesn't have control over what its measurement outcome wil be, and likewise Mb, so that no information can be transferred FTL. So this is the solution to the paradox I think. However, this superposition seems to behave as an entanglement!
Yes, it is entanglement, and the two measuring devices are already spacelike separated. The two measuring devices can be arranged so the photon's wavefunction passes both simultaneously, which is when the splitting occurs. In one world Ma records a photon, but not Mb. In the other world Mb records a photon and not Ma.
'Timeline' is probably a better word than 'world'. Timelines split and diverge when things happen.

Michael Price said:
it is entanglement

To be clear for the OP's benefit, you are talking about entanglement of the photon with the measuring devices. In my previous post, I was only talking about entanglement of photons with other photons. Both are valid cases of entanglement, but they should be distinguished because entanglement with measuring devices is what, according to the MWI, causes splitting into multiple "worlds" (I agree that "worlds" is not the best term).

Michael Price
PeterDonis said:
To be clear for the OP's benefit, you are talking about entanglement of the photon with the measuring devices. In my previous post, I was only talking about entanglement of photons with other photons. Both are valid cases of entanglement, but they should be distinguished because entanglement with measuring devices is what, according to the MWI, causes splitting into multiple "worlds" (I agree that "worlds" is not the best term).
To be clear, yes, I agree.

PeterDonis said:
(I agree that "worlds" is not the best term).

Indeed - Gell-Mann has trouble with it as well:

As do I

Interesting side - I think many people here are wary of discussing Lubos Motol's views on things - he can be, how to put it, rather 'prickly'. But like me he is very keen n Gell-Mann's view of QM:
https://motls.blogspot.com/2014/09/murray-gell-mann-on-foundations-of.html
Sad day of course that Murray Gell-Mann died recently. Everyone justifiably admires Feynman and his rather different 'personality' revealed in Surely Your Joking Mr Feynman - Murray used to call it Feynman's book of jokes - but I do not think that's quite true of the second book which had some profound things to say about his time on the Challenger disaster. But sadly not as many had Gell-Mann on the same pedestal. They were great friends and collaborators at first, but the relationship soured a bit towards the end due to Feynman's quirks annoying Murray. But Feynman was unwavering in his scientific admiration for Gell-Mann - on a number of occasions calling him the greatest living physicist. Great praise indeed for a great man.

Thanks
Bill

bhobba said:
Indeed - Gell-Mann has trouble with it as well:

As do I

Interesting side - I think many people here are wary of discussing Lubos Motol's views on things - he can be, how to put it, rather 'prickly'. But like me he is very keen n Gell-Mann's view of QM:
https://motls.blogspot.com/2014/09/murray-gell-mann-on-foundations-of.html
Sad day of course that Murray Gell-Mann died recently. Everyone justifiably admires Feynman and his rather different 'personality' revealed in Surely Your Joking Mr Feynman - Murray used to call it Feynman's book of jokes - but I do not think that's quite true of the second book which had some profound things to say about his time on the Challenger disaster. But sadly not as many had Gell-Mann on the same pedestal. They were great friends and collaborators at first, but the relationship soured a bit towards the end due to Feynman's quirks annoying Murray. But Feynman was unwavering in his scientific admiration for Gell-Mann - on a number of occasions calling him the greatest living physicist. Great praise indeed for a great man.

Thanks
Bill

Gell-Mann is misrepresenting Everett.
First he says Wheeler suggested the MWI idea to Everett, which is not true. In fact Wheeler was never that keen on the idea, although he thought it deserved a decent analysis and was supportive of Everett's work. But Everett was not happy with the way Wheeler forced him to rewrite his published synopsis.
Second, Gell-Mann says Everett was only interested in QM as a problem, not as a physicist, moving swiftly on to other military problems. In fact Everett was very bitter (as recent biographies testify) about MWI's reception and left physics in disgust. Working for the WSEG was also a way of avoiding the draft.

## 1. What is superposition and how does it relate to the splitting of worlds?

Superposition is a principle in quantum mechanics that states that a particle can exist in multiple states at the same time. This means that it can be in multiple places or have multiple properties simultaneously. The splitting of worlds refers to the idea that when a particle is in superposition, it creates multiple parallel universes where each possible outcome exists.

## 2. How does superposition lead to the splitting of worlds?

When a particle is in superposition, it exists in multiple states or locations simultaneously. This means that there are multiple possible outcomes for any measurement or observation. According to the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics, each of these possible outcomes creates a separate parallel universe, leading to the splitting of worlds.

## 3. Are there any real-life examples of superposition and the splitting of worlds?

Yes, there are several real-life examples of superposition and the splitting of worlds. One famous example is the double-slit experiment, where a particle can behave as both a wave and a particle at the same time. This experiment demonstrates the principle of superposition and the splitting of worlds, as each possible path the particle can take creates a separate parallel universe.

## 4. Is the splitting of worlds a proven scientific concept?

The splitting of worlds is a theoretical concept that is based on the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. While this interpretation is widely accepted by many scientists, it is still a topic of debate and has not been definitively proven. However, there is evidence that supports the idea of multiple parallel universes, such as the double-slit experiment and quantum entanglement.

## 5. What are the implications of the splitting of worlds for our understanding of reality?

The splitting of worlds challenges our traditional understanding of reality and raises philosophical questions about the nature of existence. If there are multiple parallel universes, it means that every possible outcome of any event exists in some form. This also has implications for concepts like free will and determinism, as it suggests that all possible choices and outcomes already exist in parallel universes.

Replies
124
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
52
Views
5K
Replies
140
Views
10K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
69
Views
7K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K