Many-Worlds Theory: Existence of Multiple Universes

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Emanresu56
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Many-worlds Theory
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics, specifically addressing the existence of multiple universes and the implications of an infinite multiverse. Participants explore theoretical, conceptual, and philosophical aspects of MWI, raising questions about its validity and implications.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about MWI, questioning why an infinite number of universes has not resulted in observable collisions between them.
  • Others clarify that the "worlds" in MWI do not occupy physical space and cannot be understood in terms of spatial relationships.
  • There is a suggestion that universes in MWI are overlapping and do not interact due to unexplained reasons.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of an infinite multiverse potentially leading to infinite regress, with some participants feeling that MWI may be a simplistic solution to complex problems.
  • Some argue that MWI serves as a way to explain randomness without requiring a definitive choice, positing that the universe permutes through all possible choices.
  • Participants note that MWI is an interpretation rather than a theory, making the same predictions as the Copenhagen interpretation without the possibility of empirical distinction.
  • There are discussions about the philosophical implications of treating observers within the quantum mechanical framework, as opposed to viewing them as external entities.
  • Some participants highlight the deterministic nature of MWI and its circular reasoning regarding observations and measurements.
  • Concerns are raised about the validity of assumptions made in MWI and whether it provides meaningful explanations or merely adds complexity without verification.
  • One participant humorously claims to be the center of all universes, while another expresses satisfaction with the growing acceptance of MWI over the Copenhagen interpretation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express a mix of skepticism and support for MWI, with no clear consensus on its validity or implications. Multiple competing views remain regarding the interpretation and consequences of an infinite multiverse.

Contextual Notes

Some arguments rely on assumptions about the nature of observations and measurements in quantum mechanics, which remain unresolved. The discussion includes references to philosophical critiques and the limitations of MWI without definitive empirical support.

  • #91
ccrummer said:
You're right, of course. A disturbing thing about MWI, though, is that these improbable outcomes occur in some universe every time the experiment is done, i.e. for Classical physics these improbable events *could* occur where for MWI they *do* occur. I don't see how the equivalent of the Born rule can exist for MWI, or maybe what it would even mean. An outside observer would see that the pathological universes are of measure zero. The problem is that first of all, for Everett there is no such observer and second of all how can a measure be defined over the universes so that one could make statements about zero measure? Insights?
Well, I'm not expert on this. I think Hurkyl is expert. Maybe Ivan. Anyway, my understanding of relative states is not so alarming. Invoke Born rule ad hoc whenever. Why does Born rule work? This is just wave mechanics. You want to know outcome at particular place and particular time, then invoke Born rule. Intensity. Wave amplitude at particular place and particular time. Resulting probabilities generally hold. Schroedinger equation therefore must in some way correspond to deeper reality. But how, why? This is what I'm asking you, Hurkyl, Ivan, etc. Why? How?

Anyway, this is just some layman consideration of physics. No need to think of 'other worlds' etc. relative state interpretation is not so silly. It's about taking the wave equation seriously, and quite possibly corresponding to salient features of the underlying reality. After all, it does predict a rather wide range of phenomena. So, question is, what is it about the SE that is most important? What is it that corresponds to the deeper reality? It isn't a question about whether it does or doesn't. Obviously, 'something' about it does. So, what is it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
Hurkyl said:
Only an "outside observer" would observe that. Inside observers are limited to "could".

No, inside observers whose worlds behave generally according to the laws of physics would observe these improbable events and in universes where there were strings of such events, the people would see them as miracles, things that defy the laws.

That mixed (relative) states can be described as a statistical distribution over pure states is basic QM.

Of course, you are right but that doesn't answer the problem of defining a "measure" over the set of universes. Such a measure would allow derivation of the Born rule and calculation of the Born probabilities.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 190 ·
7
Replies
190
Views
17K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
767
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
18
Views
2K