Proof of Many Worlds: Decoherence and Hidden Variables Explained

  • Thread starter Thread starter I2004
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Many worlds Proof
I2004
Messages
57
Reaction score
0
http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_nist.asp

they have proof that a macroscopic object can exist in two distinct locations at once and decoherence just hides the many worlds? They even separate the states by pushing them apart. This must mean they were seperate?



If we ignore copenhagon, this experiement must mean hidden variables and all others must be false and many worlds right? or am I missing something.



I would really like some help please as this stuff depresses me a bit lol
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
This experiment does not prove or disprove any otherwise acceptable interpretation of QM, including many-worlds and hidden variables. It only disproves certain naive versions of the collapse postulate, which nobody serious believed in in the first place.
 
There is only one quantum theory today, and that's the one taught in textbooks. You don't need (any flavor) of Copenhagen/Princeton, de Broglie-Bohm, many worlds or even more esoterical "interpretations". The minimal statistiscal interpretation is enough to apply very successfully the quantum theory to real-world observations and experiments.

I can't say much about the experiment in the link. Perhaps one can find a serious presentation of it somewhere, so that one can try to understand it better. I'm sure it's somewhere published in a peer-reviewed journal (last but not least one of the authors is one of this year's Nobel prize winners :-)).

What I can say with certainty is that a particle is not at two places at once. It may well be that the particle is prepared in a quantum state that implies a probability distribution for its position that peaks at some different places. This doesn't mean, however that the particle is at these two places at once but simply that its position is not prepared to be determined better than with the probability given by the corresponding wave function.
 
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