Probability in MWI and the Copenhagen interpretation

Probably the answer for MWI is: all pairs get to be experienced.No, the answer is that all pairs are experienced in different branches of the wave function.
  • #1
entropy1
1,230
71
Suppose we have an operator with three eigenvectors/eigenvalues ##e_1##, ##e_2## and ##e_3##. The operator measures wavefunction ##\psi##. Could we say that we find outcome ##e_x## with probability ##P(\psi,e_x)##, and could we extend this to an infinite dimensional operator as a spectrum of probability?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
entropy1 said:
Suppose we have an operator with three eigenvectors/eigenvalues ##e_1##, ##e_2## and ##e_3##. The operator measures wavefunction ##\psi##. Could we say that we find outcome ##e_x## with probability ##P(\psi,e_x)##, and could we extend this to an infinite dimensional operator as a spectrum of probability?

I assume you are asking how this question would be answered in the Copenhagen interpretation and the MWI, in order to compare and contrast the answers.

In the Copenhagen interpretation the answer is a simple "yes".

In the MWI the answer (unless you come up against a true hard-core MWI proponent who is willing to abandon the concept of "probability" altogether and just answer "no") will be a complicated explanation of how it's still ok to use the term "probability" even though all of the possible outcomes are realized.
 
  • Like
Likes entropy1
  • #3
PeterDonis said:
In the MWI the answer (unless you come up against a true hard-core MWI proponent who is willing to abandon the concept of "probability" altogether and just answer "no") will be a complicated explanation of how it's still ok to use the term "probability" even though all of the possible outcomes are realized.
I see it kind like this: In MWI, if we pair the (possible) outcomes with the probability of getting them, we practically end up with Copenhagen. The MWI in a way is the (preservation of the) probability distribution, while Copenhagen is the result of partitioning the measured wavefunction in orthogonal components given by the eigenvectors, causing that only one of those components can yield an outcome (because the possible outcomes are orthogonal). If I see it correctly, with Unitarity the probability distribution is preserved in the propagation of the wavefunction. We have entanglement between measured and measuring, no collapse yielding an outcome, but rather the process of decoherence that converges to a macroscopic result.

Perhaps is it also possible that the different macro-worlds of MWI are optional, and that choosing one of them retrocausally determines the microscopic outcome (like a collapse as a result of getting macroscopic by decoherence, a kind of "snap". Could that be possible?).
 
Last edited:
  • #4
entropy1 said:
In MWI, if we pair the (possible) outcomes with the probability of getting them, we practically end up with Copenhagen.

I have no idea what you mean here. MWI says all possible outcomes are realized. Copenhagen says only one is.

entropy1 said:
Copenhagen is the result of partitioning the measured wavefunction in orthogonal components given by the eigenvectors

This has nothing to do with Copenhagen; it's part of the basic math of QM, which applies to all interpretations. The same thing happens in MWI; the only difference is that all of the orthogonal components are realized, whereas in Copenhagen only one is.

entropy1 said:
causing that only one of those components can yield an outcome (because the possible outcomes are orthogonal)

This is not correct. The wave function is the same regardless of interpretation, including all of the components being orthogonal, but all of the components are realized in the MWI.

entropy1 said:
If I see it correctly, with Unitarity the probability distribution is preserved in the propagation of the wavefunction

I don't know what you mean by this.

entropy1 said:
We have entanglement between measured and measuring, no collapse yielding an outcome, but rather the process of decoherence that converges to a macroscopic result.

No, the process of decoherence realizes all of the possible results. It doesn't just realize one.

entropy1 said:
Perhaps is it also possible that the different macro-worlds of MWI are optional

This is personal speculation and is off limits here. It also makes no sense as a version of the MWI, since the whole point of the MWI is that nothing is "optional": unitary evolution all the time requires that all components of the wave function remain real always.
 
  • Like
Likes mattt
  • #5
entropy1 said:
Suppose we have an operator with three eigenvectors/eigenvalues ##e_1##, ##e_2## and ##e_3##. The operator measures wavefunction ##\psi##. Could we say that we find outcome ##e_x## with probability ##P(\psi,e_x)##, and could we extend this to an infinite dimensional operator as a spectrum of probability?
Are you familiar with the von Neumann theory of quantum measurements? If not, I think you should first familiarize with it before asking such questions.
 
  • #6
@PeterDonis. If I understand correctly, under certain conditions, with measurement, the microscopic outcome entangles with the macroscopic outcome. So am I right saying that means that microscopic outcome ##e_x## corresponds to macroscopic outcome ##M_x##? So would that mean that if we find ourselves reading macroscoping outcome ##M_x## off the measurement device, the microscopic outcome is (assumed to be) ##e_x##?
 
Last edited:
  • #7
entropy1 said:
If I understand correctly, under certain conditions, with measurement, the microscopic outcome entangles with the macroscopic outcome.

This doesn't just happen under "certain" conditions; it always happens. The question is what happens next. In the MWI, all of the outcomes are realized: each entangled pair is a branch of the wave function and all branches are real. In Copenhagen, only one outcome is realized: one entangled pair gets picked according to the Born rule as the one that is realized.

entropy1 said:
would that mean that if we find ourselves reading macroscopic outcome ##M_x## off the measurement device, the microscopic outcome is (assumed to be) ##e_x##?

Yes.
 
  • #8
PeterDonis said:
In the MWI, all of the outcomes are realized: each entangled pair is a branch of the wave function and all branches are real. In Copenhagen, only one outcome is realized: one entangled pair gets picked according to the Born rule as the one that is realized.
Is the mechanism that determines which pair gets to be experienced completely unknown? Probably the answer for MWI is: all pairs get to be experienced.
 
  • #9
entropy1 said:
Is the mechanism that determines which pair gets to be experienced completely unknown?

Of course not. It's the interaction that entangles the measuring device, and the observer, with the measured system. Each branch of the entangled wave function that results from that interaction matches up a particular state of the measured system with the corresponding states of the measuring device and the observer.

entropy1 said:
Probably the answer for MWI is: all pairs get to be experienced.

Of course.
 

Related to Probability in MWI and the Copenhagen interpretation

1. What is the difference between the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) and the Copenhagen Interpretation of probability?

The Copenhagen Interpretation of probability, also known as the standard interpretation, states that the act of observation or measurement causes a collapse of the wave function, resulting in a single outcome. This means that only one reality exists at any given time. On the other hand, the Many-Worlds Interpretation proposes that every possible outcome of a quantum event actually occurs in a different universe, resulting in a branching or splitting of realities.

2. How does the concept of probability apply in the Many-Worlds Interpretation?

In the Many-Worlds Interpretation, probability is used to describe the likelihood of a particular outcome occurring in a specific universe. This means that each possible outcome has a unique probability of occurring in its respective universe. However, since all possible outcomes do occur in different universes, the total probability of all outcomes is 1.

3. Can the Many-Worlds Interpretation and the Copenhagen Interpretation coexist?

Some scientists believe that both interpretations can coexist, as they are simply different ways of understanding and interpreting quantum mechanics. However, others argue that the two are fundamentally incompatible, as the Many-Worlds Interpretation suggests the existence of multiple realities, while the Copenhagen Interpretation suggests a single reality.

4. How does the Many-Worlds Interpretation explain the concept of quantum superposition?

In the Many-Worlds Interpretation, quantum superposition is explained as the coexistence of multiple states in different universes. This means that an object or particle can exist in multiple states simultaneously, each in a different universe. This is in contrast to the Copenhagen Interpretation, which explains superposition as a temporary state that collapses upon observation.

5. Is there any evidence to support the Many-Worlds Interpretation?

Currently, there is no direct evidence to support the Many-Worlds Interpretation. However, some scientists argue that it is a valid interpretation of quantum mechanics, as it is consistent with the mathematical equations and predictions of quantum theory. Others argue that the lack of evidence and the inability to test the theory make it unscientific.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
20
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
47
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
13
Views
929
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
3
Replies
84
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
9
Replies
309
Views
9K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
42
Views
5K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
21
Views
2K
Back
Top