Many-worlds true quantum event generator

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
121 replies · 18K views
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
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.