MWI, decoherence, and interference

In summary, the conversation discusses the possibility of testing the many-worlds interpretation experimentally. It is suggested that observing interference between macroscopic systems in different "worlds" could provide evidence for MWI, but is hindered by decoherence. The idea is proposed that by considering "close enough" worlds, the Kronecker delta in the probability equations could be replaced with 1, allowing for interference effects to be observed. The conversation also touches on the idea of a lower branching ratio in MWI and the desire to prove it as the correct interpretation.
  • #1
Iamu
24
2
I've been thinking about the many-worlds interpretation and how one might test it experimentally. I'm wondering if it might be possible to observe interference between macroscopic systems in different "worlds".

We start with an isolated quantum system in superposition, and we let it interact with a macroscopic measuring device. If I understand correctly, according to the Copenhagen interpretation, we have collapsed the wavefunction of the system and it now exists in a single well-defined state, while according to MWI, we have entangled the system with the measuring device and together they exist in a superposition of states. So it seems that it may be possible to observe some additional interference in the MWI case except that this is hindered by decoherence, while according to the Copenhagen interpretation, once the measurement is made, things simply are what they are and there is no further opportunity for interference to be observed.

In MWI, the states most probably quickly decohere and no interference between the alternatives states of the measuring device can be observed; that is to say, the hidden degrees of freedom in the measuring device evolve randomly in each case of an alternative measurement and reduce the chances for interference between the superposed states to approximately zero.

But a logical rammification of MWI, is that for each possible evolution of the hidden degrees of freedom in the measuring device after the measurement is made, there should be a small subset of worlds in which every hidden degree of freedom has evolved in the exact same manner as in other worlds where the measurement returned a different result. This may be a technically impossible idealization, because the act of measuring may influence many hidden degrees of freedom, but I don't think this necessarily matters. Even if there is a difference in these hidden degrees of freedom, if the difference is small compared to the total degrees of freedom in the system, then the difference in the scalar products between the state vectors could be made arbitrarily small. Then, interference effects between these particular subsets of worlds could be observed. In other words, if [tex]|\psi>[/tex] is the state of the system being observed, and [tex]|\epsilon>[/tex] is the state of the environment or the measuring device, then the probability of transition from [tex]\psi[/tex] to [tex]\phi = |<\phi|\psi>|[/tex]2 = [tex]|\Sigma[/tex]i[tex]\psi[/tex]i*[tex]\phi[/tex]i|2 before the system and device are entangled and [tex]\Sigma[/tex]j[tex]|<after|\phi,\epsilon[/tex]j>|2 = [tex]\Sigma[/tex]j[tex]|\Sigma[/tex]i[tex]\psi[/tex]i[tex]*<i|\phi><\epsilon[/tex]i[tex]|\epsilon[/tex]j[tex]>|[/tex]2 afterwards. Generally, [tex]<\epsilon[/tex]i[tex]|\epsilon[/tex]j[tex]>[/tex] is taken to be approximately the Kronecker delta and then cross-terms cancels and probabilities become additive, but I think it can be made arbitrarily close to one by increasing the hidden degrees of freedom and/or reducing the effect of measurement on the system and only considering worlds which are "close enough" to the one in question, and then the last expression reduces to the first and interference terms are recovered.

I'm only an undergrad physics student and my knowledge of QM and math is limited, so I'll defer to other posters on this one; did I mangle this, or is it reasonable to think that we could replace the Kronecker delta with 1 by only considering "close enough" worlds? Do we have to consider all parts of the wavefunction, or can we select just the "close enough" parts that interest us in this case?

I'll withhold my speculation on how we could design an experiment to test MWI until after I hear other's opinions on this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Yes, really interesting.
It would be really nice to prove that MWI is right. I grew on popular books based one the Copenhagen interpretation, and when I learned about other interpretations I had a bad feeling... like all these books lied to me...

BTW I have some thoughts on the 'branching ratio' in MWI which might be much lower then we expect:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=277361
 

1. What is MWI and how does it differ from other interpretations of quantum mechanics?

The Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) is a theory in quantum mechanics that suggests that every possible outcome of a quantum measurement actually occurs in a separate universe. This differs from other interpretations, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, which suggests that only one outcome occurs and the others are "collapsed" or not real.

2. How does decoherence play a role in MWI?

Decoherence is the process by which quantum systems interact with their environment and become "entangled" or correlated with it. In MWI, decoherence is seen as the mechanism that creates the branching of universes, as it causes the different possible outcomes of a measurement to become isolated from each other.

3. Can we observe evidence of MWI and decoherence in action?

While we cannot directly observe other universes in MWI, there is evidence that decoherence occurs in our own universe. For example, the phenomenon of quantum tunneling is explained by decoherence, and experiments have been conducted that demonstrate its effects on quantum systems.

4. How does interference fit into MWI?

In MWI, interference is seen as a result of the superposition of states in different universes. When a quantum system is in a superposition of states, it exists in all of those states at the same time in different universes. This leads to interference patterns when the different states interact with each other.

5. What implications does MWI have for the concept of free will?

MWI suggests that every possible outcome of a measurement occurs in a separate universe, meaning that all possible choices are made in different universes. This raises questions about the concept of free will and whether it is truly "free" if all possible choices are made in different universes. However, this is a philosophical debate and not a scientific one, and there is no consensus on how MWI may impact our understanding of free will.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
7
Views
706
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
47
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
62
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
11
Views
669
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
13
Views
673
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
34
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
2
Views
444
Back
Top