Many Worlds versus Thermal interpretation

In summary, the conversation discusses various interpretations of quantum mechanics, specifically the many worlds interpretation (MWI) and the thermal interpretation. It is argued that both interpretations share the virtue of making sense in the context of quantum gravity. The Decoherent Histories (DH) interpretation is also mentioned as having this virtue and being easily applicable to quantum gravity. However, there are important differences between MWI and DH, as MWI claims all histories occur while DH says only one history occurs. The conversation also briefly touches on the issue of defining a "real" history in DH.
  • #1
A. Neumaier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
8,604
4,636
TL;DR Summary
Points out an interesting book by Bryce DeWitt on quantum gravity and its interpretation issues
The two volume treatise
which discusses the canonical approach to dynamical quantum gravity, is probably responsible for the fact that the many worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics has a sizable support in the theoretical physics community. His emphasis on the MWI is not to my taste and seems to me far too superficial, sweeping all the difficulties under the carpet.

But one can replace his interpretation discussion without any loss of substance by a reference to my thermal interpretation, since the latter shares the main reason why DeWitt championed MWI:

In both interpretations, the state of the universe makes sense (a necessary prerequisite of any theory of quantum gravity) , and no other covariant interpretation has this virtue.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
In both interpretations, the state of the universe makes sense (a necessary prerequisite of any theory of quantum gravity) , and no other covariant interpretation has this virtue.

I believe Decoherent Histories also shares this virtue, and is as readily generaliseable to quantum gravity.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.04605
 
  • #3
Morbert said:
I believe Decoherent Histories also shares this virtue, and is as readily generaliseable to quantum gravity.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.04605

Isn't DH the same as Everett? Reading James B. Hartle it's hard not to conclude that
 
  • #4
Quanundrum said:
Isn't DH the same as Everett? Reading James B. Hartle it's hard not to conclude that

There are important differences. E.g. Given a set of decoherent histories of a closed system, both Both MW and DH would resolve a pure initial state into orthogonal branches corresponding to the histories. But MW says all histories occur, while DH says only one history occurs.
 
  • #5
Morbert said:
There are important differences. E.g. Given a set of decoherent histories of a closed system, both Both MW and DH would resolve a pure initial state into orthogonal branches corresponding to the histories. But MW says all histories occur, while DH says only one history occurs.

If it doesn't define how one 'real' history occur, then it's just semantics?
 
  • Like
Likes A. Neumaier

What is the Many Worlds interpretation?

The Many Worlds interpretation is a theory in quantum mechanics that suggests the existence of multiple parallel universes. According to this interpretation, every possible outcome of a quantum event actually occurs, but in different universes. This theory was first proposed by physicist Hugh Everett in the 1950s.

What is the Thermal interpretation?

The Thermal interpretation is a competing theory to the Many Worlds interpretation in quantum mechanics. It suggests that quantum events are fundamentally random and that the appearance of multiple parallel universes is a result of the observer's lack of knowledge about the system. This theory was proposed by physicist David Bohm in the 1950s.

What are the main differences between Many Worlds and Thermal interpretation?

The main difference between Many Worlds and Thermal interpretation is their explanation for the appearance of multiple parallel universes. While Many Worlds suggests that all possible outcomes of a quantum event actually occur in different universes, Thermal interpretation argues that the appearance of multiple universes is a result of our limited knowledge about the system. Additionally, Many Worlds is a deterministic theory, while Thermal interpretation is non-deterministic.

Which interpretation is more widely accepted in the scientific community?

Currently, the Many Worlds interpretation is more widely accepted in the scientific community, although it is still a topic of debate and research. This is because Many Worlds offers a more complete and elegant explanation for the quantum world, and it has been supported by various experiments and mathematical models. However, both interpretations have their own strengths and weaknesses, and further research is needed to fully understand the nature of quantum mechanics.

Are there any experiments that can distinguish between Many Worlds and Thermal interpretation?

There are ongoing experiments that aim to distinguish between Many Worlds and Thermal interpretation. One example is the delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment, which suggests that the Many Worlds interpretation is more consistent with the observed results. However, more research and experimentation are needed to definitively determine which interpretation is correct.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
11
Views
654
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
5
Replies
174
Views
9K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
4
Replies
120
Views
9K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
8
Views
2K
Back
Top