Many-worlds: When does the universe split?

  • #1
426
23

Main Question or Discussion Point

Hi,

I don't quite understand some central points of the many-world interpretation: When does the splitting happen, and is there superposition in a single universe? I see two alternatives:

1. There is superposition in a single, and this universe splits when we measure. This means we can start with only one universe which branches out more and more.
2. There is no superposition in a single universe. We just find out about which universe we're in when we measure.

Both of these alternatives are not satisfactory to me at all. In the first, I can't see the "advantages" over Kopenhagen, because the measurement is still a very special process, namely it causes a whole universe to split!
The second is even weirder, it would imply that from the beginning there are already enough universes (an enormous number) for all possible superpositions to come. But how do these universes know in which basis we are going to measure? We would have to give up every bit of free will. On the positive, a measurement would really be nothing special at all.

Which of the two is more accepted (or are there more interpretations)? Both seem very implausible to me.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
kith
Science Advisor
1,329
432
In the first, I can't see the "advantages" over Kopenhagen, because the measurement is still a very special process, namely it causes a whole universe to split!
In the MWI, decoherence is what splits the worlds and this is neither restricted to measurements nor is it special in the sense that it is introduced by hand like the measurements in Copenhagen. It can be derived from the Schrödinger equation.

What's special in the MWI is the interpretation of the decohered state and not the kind of processes which occur. MWI is the most literal interpretation of QM. It is what you get if you apply QM to the measurement process itself. However, not everyone agrees that it is a valid interpretation.
 
  • #3
phinds
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2019 Award
16,087
6,062
Both seem very implausible to me.
Personally, I think "implausible" is an extremely generous description of the various many-worlds / multiverse concepts. I tend to use words that are less acceptable in polite company.
 
  • #4
kith
Science Advisor
1,329
432
I think the basic idea is pretty compelling but it is not clear to me how it explains the probabilities we observe in experiments. Or if it is even meaningful to request such an explantion within the context of the MWI.
 
  • #5
1,006
105
I don't quite understand some central points of the many-world interpretation: When does the splitting happen, and is there superposition in a single universe?
In many-worlds, the central object is the wave function of the universe. The wave function evolves with time according to the Schrodinger equation. The wave function tends to contain localized lumps of probability. We can call these localized lumps "worlds." Each lump corresponds to a possible configuration of the universe, and each lump evolves independently.

It can happen that a localized lump of probability amplitude within the wave function splits in two. Then we can say that one of the worlds has split into two worlds. For example, one lump might describe a configuration of the universe in which a measuring device readout displays "electron with spin up," while the other lump might describe a configuration of the universe in which a measuring device readout displays "electron with spin down."

The point is that measurement is not special: the wave function of the universe simply evolves according to the Schrodinger equation at all times. Sometimes a lump of probability amplitude will split into two; if we like we can call this a "measurement."
 
  • #6
meBigGuy
Gold Member
2,323
405
I'm trying to understand what MWI is is really about. The sentence "MWI is the most literal interpretation of QM. " leaves me completely blank. I don't get the need for lumpy splitting to explain decoherence and the apparently classical world that results. What am I missing?
 
  • #7
kith
Science Advisor
1,329
432
The starting point of Everett was to wonder what happens if an observer A, who performs a measurement on a physical system, is observed himself by an external observer B. After collapse, A has a different wavefunction than B. This implies either that wavefunctions have no physical reality or that QM can not be applied to big systems like observers.

The MWI is the most literal interpretation of QM in the sense that it doesn't introduce additional elements (like dBB) but still disagrees with both statements. The wavefunction is the real thing (and not just knowledge about more fundamental unknown properties), and QM applies to everything.

Also note that the MWI doesn't explain decoherence. Decoherence is a measureable feature of QM which is present regardless of the interpretation.
 
  • #8
9,369
2,422
I don't get the need for lumpy splitting to explain decoherence and the apparently classical world that results. What am I missing?
You have it about face. MWI doesn't explain decoherence - its part of the formalism of QM regardless of interpretation - it makes use of it.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #9
44
1
To me, the MWI is obviously the best interpretation of QM, because it is the simplest. It is nothing more or less than the idea that everything is described by QM and the Schrodinger equation, including measuring devices. Given the (remarkable) absence of any evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to doubt that, and I would say anyone that does has the burden of proof squarely on their shoulders.

As for when the universe splits - first, this is really a continuous process, so there's no perfectly well-defined "when". But more or less it happens whenever macroscopic objects (such as measuring devices or people) interact with anything. In other words, pretty much all the time.

It's also worth bearing in mind that given what we know about physics, all interactions are local, meaning that the split affects only the lightcone of an event.
 
  • #10
.Scott
Homework Helper
2,515
894
I'm trying to understand what MWI is is really about. The sentence "MWI is the most literal interpretation of QM. " leaves me completely blank. I don't get the need for lumpy splitting to explain decoherence and the apparently classical world that results. What am I missing?
The whole point of MWI is to explain the apparent random results you get from decoherence. Instead of looking for a cause for QM decoherence results, MWI allows us to say that there is no answer. From my way of looking at it, it's bad scientific attitude.

What is normally done in science is to presume that there is a modelable explanation for a measured result, hypothesize, and then test. So if you presume MWI, you have stopped doing science because you are resting on an untestable "theory".

A better attitude is to presume that decoherence isn't in principle random - presumably that there are discoverable non-local causes that can be modeled. This is not to say that such a model could be used to actually predict the outcome of decoherence event, but that model could be used to make other testable predictions.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
44
1
The whole point of MWI is to explain the apparent random results you get from decoherence. Instead of looking for a cause for QM decoherence results, MWI allows us to say that there is no answer. From my way of looking at it, it's bad scientific attitude.
I don't recognize what you're saying as the MWI, at least not its modern incarnation. The modern view is that MW is simply a consequence of Schrodinger evolution. The Schrodinger evolution of systems with many particles is decoherent, full stop. The "cause" is, well, Schrodinger's equation.

What is normally done in science is to presume that there is a modelable explanation for a measured result, hypothesize, and then test. So if you presume MWI, you have stopped doing science because you are resting on an untestable "theory".
Not so, as above.

A better attitude is to presume that decoherence isn't in principle random - presumably that there are discoverable non-local causes that can be modeled.
That's precisely what the MWI assumes. Differential equations (like the Schrodinger equation) are deterministic. So decoherence in MW is certainly not random.
 
  • #12
kith
Science Advisor
1,329
432
Today, we have all kinds of explanations for the randomness of QM: hidden variables, many worlds, retrocausality, etc. However, all of them have in common that the entities which are supposed to explain the radnomness can't be measured. My guess is that this will be true also for future theories and interpretations.
 
  • #13
.Scott
Homework Helper
2,515
894
It's also worth bearing in mind that given what we know about physics, all interactions are local, meaning that the split affects only the lightcone of an event.
I hope that I am allowed to agree and disagree with you on the same point at the same time.
To a certain extent, the light cone statement is true. But for this discussion, I would flip it around: Everything contributing to the outcome of a decoherence event will be contained within the historic light cone of that event.

However... you still need a form of non-locality to make it happen because the light cone isn't really a cone. It doesn't come to a point. There is no instant in time or point in space where the decoherence takes place. Instead, the transition occurs over a region of time and space.
 
  • #14
.Scott
Homework Helper
2,515
894
Today, we have all kinds of explanations for the randomness of QM: hidden variables, many worlds, retrocausality, etc. However, all of them have in common that the entities which are supposed to explain the radnomness can't be measured. My guess is that this will be true also for future theories and interpretations.
If you can't, in principle, test a theory, then it isn't a theory.
 
  • #15
.Scott
Homework Helper
2,515
894
That's precisely what the MWI assumes. Differential equations (like the Schrodinger equation) are deterministic. So decoherence in MW is certainly not random.
There is a big difference between the implications of differential equations and MWI. With the differential equations, you're allowing all of the "many worlds" to interact. With MWI, at decoherence they stop interacting with each other completely.

Put it another way, if Scroedinger's Cat was really subject to macroscopic QM effects, it wouldn't just come out dead or alive, it would escape with the experience of having interacted with it dead self. That's what the differential equations suggest.
 
  • #16
kith
Science Advisor
1,329
432
If you can't, in principle, test a theory, then it isn't a theory.
Yes, that's why they are called interpretations. But my guess is that also future theories won't be able to introduce observable elements which get rid of quantum randomness.
 
  • #17
.Scott
Homework Helper
2,515
894
Yes, that's why they are called interpretations. But my guess is that also future theories won't be able to introduce observable elements which get rid of quantum randomness.
I am also confident that they "won't be able to introduce observable elements which get rid of quantum randomness" - at least not in the sense that they will make it any more predictable. To do so would be a direct violation of Heisenberg Uncertainty. But they'll be able to demonstrate other side effects that are consistent with there being no net synthesis of information - that is, that the results, though random, can be modeled as fully determined by their historic light cone and are independent of anything like a many-world selection parameter.

Ahh, that's true. In the many-world theory, there would be a continuous influx of information into the universe - and as a result, there would be a continuous minimum physical size to the universe.

That would be, at least in principle, testable.

It would also mean that if you run time backwards, there would be a destruction of information. I'm not sure that's good for the MW theory.
 
  • #18
kith
Science Advisor
1,329
432
But they'll be able to demonstrate other side effects that are consistent with there being no net synthesis of information - that is, that the results, though random, can be modeled as fully determined by their historic light cone and are independent of anything like a many-world selection parameter.
I am very sceptical about this as well because I don't think that future theories will get rid of quantum non-seperability.

In the many-world theory, there would be a continuous influx of information into the universe
Why do you think so? The entropy of the universe doesn't change under unitary time evolution.
 
  • #19
1,006
105
There is a big difference between the implications of differential equations and MWI. With the differential equations, you're allowing all of the "many worlds" to interact. With MWI, at decoherence they stop interacting with each other completely.
What? You seem to think that in MWI something special happens when "worlds" split. Not so. The splitting of worlds, and their evolution before and after the splitting, is described by the Schrodinger equation.

Put it another way, if Scroedinger's Cat was really subject to macroscopic QM effects, it wouldn't just come out dead or alive, it would escape with the experience of having interacted with it dead self. That's what the differential equations suggest.
No! Stop! You don't understand MWI as well as you think you do. Schrodinger's equation is linear, which means that the two elements of a superposition evolve entirely independently of one another, without affecting each other. If you were placed into a superposition of two states, neither version of you would be able to detect or interact with the other version, precisely because of this linearity.

they'll be able to demonstrate other side effects that are consistent with there being no net synthesis of information - that is, that the results, though random, can be modeled as fully determined by their historic light cone and are independent of anything like a many-world selection parameter.
Pretty sure you've just postulated local hidden variables, which are ruled out by Bell's theorem. If you want the results of measurements to be fully determined by their past light cone, this is the same as having some hidden variable at each point in space with the hidden variables evolving in time according to local interactions. Any such model is ruled out by the observed violations of Bell's inequality.

In the many-world theory, there would be a continuous influx of information into the universe - and as a result, there would be a continuous minimum physical size to the universe.
What? The fact that worlds are constantly splitting does not imply a minimum size for the universe.

It would also mean that if you run time backwards, there would be a destruction of information. I'm not sure that's good for the MW theory.
The fact that worlds merge instead of splitting when you run time backwards is not a bad thing. It's a reflection of the second law of thermodynamics.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
jfizzix
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
755
352
The many worlds interpretation makes lots of sense if we do away with any notion that observers are somehow special, or that we are anything more than the total of all the atoms and their interactions making us up

That we observers happen to see a random chain of events is simply due to the fact that our memories are material accounts written in patterns of connected neurons, but written with materials made out of atoms nonetheless.

As far as probabilities go, keep in mind we never determine a probability experimentally with a single measurement. We have to measure many many times and look at the ensemble as a whole. Also for a large number of measurements, these random outcomes overwhelmingly conform to specific probability distributions.

As for what determines those distributions in the first place, I haven't figured that out yet.
 
  • #21
9,369
2,422
As for what determines those distributions in the first place, I haven't figured that out yet.
Then you might be interested in Gleason's Theorem:
http://kof.physto.se/theses/helena-master.pdf [Broken]

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
615
35
One the one hand, the Many Worlds Interpretation is just a way to visualise QM rather than a theory, so the criticism that it makes no testable predictions seems to miss the point.

On the other hand, as a member of a class of multiverse theories. There is, in principal at least, some way to distinguish them.

If it is demonstrated that our universe has evolved in such a way that didn't require particularly fortunate, chance events then we would have no evidence to support a multiverse theory.

This sort of analysis seems a long way off and it's not clear that it could distinguish between different multiverse arrangements, but we do have access to information in order to perform a test.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
44
1
There is a big difference between the implications of differential equations and MWI. With the differential equations, you're allowing all of the "many worlds" to interact. With MWI, at decoherence they stop interacting with each other completely.
No, that's not the case. They do not "stop interacting with each other completely". The wavefunction evolves according to the Schrodinger equation, and it's not possible under Schrodinger evolution for two branches to form and then entirely cease to interfere.

What does happen is that the wavefunction becomes very, very close to a diagonal density matrix in the appropriate basis, and interference between the branches is very small.

Put it another way, if Scroedinger's Cat was really subject to macroscopic QM effects, it wouldn't just come out dead or alive, it would escape with the experience of having interacted with it dead self. That's what the differential equations suggest.
No, it's not. Again - decoherence is a feature of Schrodinger evolution. It's not some extra assumption.
 
  • #24
.Scott
Homework Helper
2,515
894
Let me address the issue of information and minimum universe size.
If you assert the many-world interpretation, then in order to predict the outcome of certain QM events, you not only need to have information from the historical light cone of the event, but you also must know which universe you end up in. (I realize I just use grammatical tense in an odd way - but you know what I mean.)

So if an event splits into 200 possibilities, you get 200 possible worlds each "tagged" with a different result, one of 200 possible results. That means that that universe is now 7+ bits bigger than it was before the split, the amount of information it would take to make that universe different from all of its 199 siblings.

So how does this affect the minimum size of the universe? It increases the Berkenstein bound.

Unless there was a way of remerging universes, the result would be a universe that was continuously growing.

Here's another way of looking at it. The many worlds view hasn't been worried about creating an arbitrarily large number of universes. However, in order for there to be an arbitrarily large number of universes, there needs to be something different about each of those universes. That means that each universe must hold at least as many bits as it would take to count all of its siblings, cousins, second cousins, etc. Since that is the binary logarithm of a number that is allowed to grow arbitrarily large, it is a number of bits that is also allowed to grow arbitrarily large. And since the number of bits in our universe will grow arbitrarily large, our universe must also, over time, grow arbitrarily large.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
9,369
2,422
That means that that universe is now 7+ bits bigger than it was before the split, the amount of information it would take to make that universe different from all of its 199 siblings.
Run that by me again. Cant follow that at all.

Pour a glass of water into two separate containers. No information lost or gained but the water in each container can evolve in two totally different and independent ways.

The many worlds view hasn't been worried about creating an arbitrarily large number of universes.
There is only one universe. When the universal wave-function encounters decoherence it becomes an improper mixed state and each 'element' of that mixed state is considered a separate world - nothing is created or destroyed - we still only have one universe, but it is simply partitioned differently as it evolves.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on Many-worlds: When does the universe split?

Replies
48
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
8K
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
28
Views
6K
Top