Many Worlds and the arrow of time

underworld
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
I had a couple of interesting thoughts today on the matter of Many Worlds. First is that, in a way, I think the so-called "branching" posited for MWI could be thought of as a derivative of time. For example, time is the derivative of space (i.e. using change in space with respect to time)... then branching is kind of exponential (infinite?) change with respect to both space and time. I can't think of a good way to represent this idea other than to say if space-time is a square, then space-time-branching is a cube. Or perhaps, branching is "every" space-time that's possible.

Which brings the next idea... that if this branching is indeed occurring, then that would force time to move forward only. My reasoning is that with each quantum moment, these branches continue "expanding" and branching more. Let's suppose that I decide to go back in time... I can't unless "me" in all of the associated branches also decide to go back in time. Because "me" has logically consistent choices that involve not going back in time, we know that some of them won't. Therefore, none of them actually could. Therefore, time can only go forward. The only exception would be if there were some way to eliminate the logical possibility of moving forward in time, which would force time to either stop, or move backward. The other, slight, possibility is that you could move backward in time, but that it would be imperceptible as the movement would be "complete" in that it would reverse all memories, knowledge, and information - as if you had never moved forward in time.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
no, there is nothing special in MWI with arrow of time.
You should look at it from 'birds's view' - looking at the Universe Wavefunction.
From that point of view, there is no 'branching' (the definition of branching is quite fuzzy: it is studied by Quantum Decoherence, but QD uses some basis, hence, it uses some frog's (observer) perspective).
 
MWI gives 'birth' to complete histories, and nothing about a QM Interpretation can be useful if it contradicts basic tenants of QM.
 
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