Many-worlds true quantum event generator

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the concept of a quantum event generator that could illustrate the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics, where choices lead to the splitting of realities. Participants debate the feasibility of experiencing such splits through a device, questioning whether true quantum events automatically create divergent worlds. Theoretical elegance is discussed, with some arguing that MWI avoids the need for hidden variables, while others find it counterintuitive and lacking in empirical support. The conversation also touches on the implications of chaos theory and the nature of quantum systems, emphasizing that every quantum event could lead to multiple outcomes. Ultimately, the MWI remains a contentious topic among physicists, with varying beliefs about its validity and implications.
  • #121
Dmitry67 said:
The values of "probabilities", or "intensity of existence" how it is called in MWI, have an exact value in MWI as it is defined by the wavefunction. Instead of 0.5/0.5 you have say 0.5-1^-23, which leaves a room for the interference terms. So it makes sense to assign a probability.
That doesn't make sense to me, are you assigning a distinct probability to the "interference terms"? If that 1^-23 possibility occurred, what kind of "world" would that be? Interference terms aren't distinct possible measurable states as I understand it (they aren't eigenstates of any observable), nor do I think it even makes sense to see them as distinct possible state vectors in a mixed state, since the number of terms in a density matrix can be greater than the number of state vectors in the statistical ensemble making up a true mixed state, see the simple example I looked at [post=3245596]here[/post] where there are just two possible state vectors in the ensemble but the density matrix has 4 possible entries.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
Well, you're right, I was not clear. Of course interference terms can't be associated with the distinct worlds/outcomes.

However, I don't understand the stress which StevieTNZ and Deutsch puts on the interference terms. Is it for the sake of mathematical purity? If so, then yes - it is NOT an axect mixture as interference terms are not exactly zero.

However, FAPP they are zero for the big macroscopic objects, which agrees with the observation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
47
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K