Preferred Basis solution in MWI

  • Thread starter Thread starter mieral
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Basis Mwi
mieral
Messages
203
Reaction score
5
For the difficulty of getting a preferred basis in the unitary only MWI. I saw this message by Fredrik:

"If we just let it go, it seems very natural to me to (if we insist on trying to interpret QM as a description of the universe) postulate something like "every 1-dimensional subspace of the Hilbert space of the universe represents a world". This eliminates the preferred basis problem."

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-qm.676537/page-5

What is your objection to Fredrik solution that "every 1-dimensional subspace of the Hilbert space of the universe represents a world"?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
My objection is that we never observe such 1-dimensional worlds. If the point is to explain our observations, then such an interpretation doesn't help.
 
  • Like
Likes mieral and fresh_42
Demystifier said:
My objection is that we never observe such 1-dimensional worlds. If the point is to explain our observations, then such an interpretation doesn't help.

Does 1-dimensional world mean a basis orthogonal to each other? can you please use other words for it that I can look up?

He who calls himself Fredrik (science adviser) was last seen in Dec 24, 2016. Is he still in our branch/world? Hope he is ok.
 
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