Many Worlds Theory: What is it & is it True?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter pallidin
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Many worlds Theory
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Many Worlds Theory, proposed by physicist Hugh Everett in 1957, posits that our universe is one of an infinite number of universes that continuously split. This interpretation of quantum mechanics explains phenomena such as the double-slit experiment, where individual photons create interference patterns even when emitted one at a time. Despite its intriguing implications, the theory faces significant challenges, including questions about the origin of probability rules and the nature of quantum measurement. These unresolved issues contribute to the ongoing debate regarding the validity and acceptance of the Many Worlds interpretation among physicists.

PREREQUISITES
  • Quantum Mechanics fundamentals
  • Understanding of the double-slit experiment
  • Familiarity with the concept of wavefunctions
  • Knowledge of decoherence theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Born's rule in quantum mechanics
  • Explore the concept of decoherence and its role in Many Worlds Theory
  • Investigate David Deutsch's contributions to quantum computing and Many Worlds
  • Study alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as Copenhagen and pilot-wave theories
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, quantum mechanics students, and anyone interested in the philosophical implications of quantum theory and the nature of reality.

  • #31
Phantom: Yeah, how very lucky we were to be here is mindblowing... MWI will say that all those other trillion worlds with no life forms exists... but do they really? Everything in Quantum Physics talks of superposition and how it collapses when a mind observes it. Forgive my lack of understanding in this subject, but if those worlds have no one to observe them, aren't they in a infinite state of superposition (until someone can travel into that world and at that time collapse it into one reality)? Also, how did the big bang pan out the way it did, if there was no one observing it, shouldn't our universe have been in a state of superposition? I'm not a physics major or anything (didn't take it in college) so forgive me if I'm missing some vital fundamentals!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
I am not one who favors "observation" being the determinate factor in the MWT split. If a splitting occures, it would seem to me that is a consequence of action, as opposed to the mere thought of action.
That is, only reality can potentialize tangental aspects of it.
 
  • #33
Pallidin: Hmmm I never thought about it. I can definitely see action as something that would cause a MWT split (ie a guy in a motorcycle cutting someone off). I always thought observations by their very nature collapses superpositions, though, like in the two slit experiments? Then I realized I'm having a hard time defining an 'action' and 'observing' because in those experiments setting up the experiment can be seen as actions. It usually goes like: we think of the action, perform the action, we observe the results. I'm not even sure if time even has anything to do with it. But anyway going back to my possibly stupid question of big bang, who or what caused (by action or observing) the collapsing of superpositions back then? Or is it more like 'since I am here, it must of have been...'? This is messing with my head. Now I question if the collapsing of worlds by our choices is even a similar phenomenon as the existence of other worlds that contain no life, no observers?
 
  • #34
Well put, graffix. I especially like the way you pointed out that experiments designed to look at "observation-only" criteria are, in fact, prior-mode action based. Outstanding!
Your statements should lead some to seriously consider wherther or not a pure observational platform is even possible in some(or any!) experiments. Nice call.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 174 ·
6
Replies
174
Views
14K