Possible webpage title: Can Two Universes Be Exactly the Same in MWI?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Laurelion
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Doubt Mwi
Laurelion
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi to all. :)

First of all I'm not cleary a physician, not even an amateur, only a writer and i hope that a so low level of knowledge don't offend anyone ^^' (my bad level and my broken english :look: )

So:

I have a question about the MWI. According with the most serious interpretation: we don’t have new universes that have been “create” every time, we already have “all” universe growing up in the same time, I have a doubt: how it can possible that two universe are “literally” the same universe except for one, single quantum event?

I mean: our universe is the result of billions and billions and billions and billions (ecc) of elements that reactive each other in a billions and billions and billions and billions of different way for a very, very, very, very, very long time. How is possible that two universe product the same result?Now I try to see the problem in this way.

In the Schrodinger experiment I put in the box George W. Bush (enough cat, poor animal… let him alone), with poison, electron and measurement tool. With spin positive I have a Bush live, with spin negative I have Bush not very well (I don’t want to write “dead” cause I’m scared of the agency :look: ).

Ok the experiment begin and in our universe the spine is positive, Bush is stile alive. This means that there is another universe with a Bush “not very well”?

No, means that in another universe there is an electron with a negative spin, but in a different position or state, very probably there is no bush, no box, no poison and no earth.This way to see is compatible with the MWI? If not I return to first question, how is possible that so many variation are almost perfectly the same?Sorry for my broken English.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Laurelion said:
According with the most serious interpretation: we don’t have new universes that have been “create” every time, we already have “all” universe growing up in the same time,

No problem about the English.

In MW the universe simply evolves - that's it.

To understand further you need to become acquainted with decoherence:
http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_decoherence.asp

As a result you end up with what's called an improper mixed state purely by quantum evolution. Each outcome is 'in' that state and the interpretation is they are separate worlds.

Its a bit difficult to discuss the detail at the beginner level. However for completeness the following gives the detail:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0312059v4.pdf

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
This is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of interpretations per se. We often see discussions based on QM as it was understood during the early days and the famous Einstein-Bohr debates. The problem with this is that things in QM have advanced tremendously since then, and the 'weirdness' that puzzles those attempting to understand QM has changed. I recently came across a synopsis of these advances, allowing those interested in interpretational issues to understand the modern view...
Back
Top