Many-worlds true quantum event generator

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics, particularly in relation to the concept of quantum event generators and the implications of quantum choices on personal experience and reality. Participants explore theoretical and conceptual aspects of MWI, including its implications for consciousness, randomness, and the nature of quantum events.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant inquires about a device that can create a quantum choice, expressing a desire to experience the splitting of selves based on decisions.
  • Another participant suggests that if MWI were true, individuals would be splitting continuously, questioning the need for such experiments.
  • Some participants argue that splitting occurs only with quantum choices and that all particles obey quantum laws, implying that all possible states manifest in MWI.
  • Concerns are raised about the perceived silliness of MWI, with some participants questioning the percentage of physicists who believe in it and discussing its theoretical elegance compared to other interpretations.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of randomness in quantum events, with some asserting that many phenomena can be mathematically modeled, while others emphasize the role of chaotic systems and initial conditions in divergence of outcomes.
  • Participants debate the characteristics of different interpretations of quantum mechanics, particularly the Copenhagen interpretation versus MWI and Bohmian mechanics, noting the lack of consensus on the elegance and acceptance of MWI among physicists.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on MWI, with no clear consensus on its validity or acceptance among physicists. Some participants find it elegant and theoretically appealing, while others view it as counterintuitive or silly. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of MWI and the nature of quantum choices.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various interpretations of quantum mechanics, highlighting differences in mathematical definitions and conceptual clarity. The discussion includes assumptions about the nature of randomness, chaos theory, and the implications of quantum events on consciousness and reality.

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