QM Ignorance is Bliss: Exploring the Limits of MWI

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) in quantum mechanics and its potential implications. The speaker argues against MWI based on quantum conservation of information, but also presents a counterargument that local MWI can be isolated and not violate overall quantum information conservation. The potential testability of this view is also mentioned. Ultimately, the conversation does not provide a clear mathematical justification for the arguments presented and the discussion is closed without further progress.
  • #1
.Scott
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
3,509
1,620
The purpose of this post is to describe what may be a useful way of viewing some aspects of QM. It probably doesn't rise to the point of a testable theory.

Over a year ago I argued against the Many Worlds Interpretation based on quantum conservation of information. My argument was this: Any universe that we create with MWI characteristics will progress to many worlds each containing more and more information. In essence there is a steady accumulation of "which world" information - and that accumulation, from the point of view of anyone world, would appear to violate quantum information conservation.

Now let me switch to another argument I made regarding black holes. It concerned some that Alice, the event horizon diver, has a much different experience of herself than Bob, the dive spectator. Whereas Alice believes that she passes through the horizon whole - soon to be spaghetified, Bob is of the opinion that her information stayed at the event horizon perhaps eventually to be Hawkings-radiated back. But how could Alice's information be so duplicated? My argument was that there was no single point of view where the information was duplicated - so, in real terms, there was no measurable violation on any QM rule.

I'll call this my "bliss" argument - as in "Ignorance is Bliss". And fully theoretically enforced ignorance is completely bliss.

One way of describing the concept I have in mind is this: That anti-MWI argument can be partly countered by that bliss argument. It is okay for a local part of the universe to go off into its own MWI evolution so long as the "main stream" universe never sees more information come out of it than went in. If there are encapsulating rules (HUP) that effectively isolate a local MWI cascade, the whole universe doesn't have to split in response to each random quantum selection.

In a sense I'm saying that yes, there is MWI, but its consequences are limited by the amount of information that can be channeled to the rest of the universe. What is "really" happening at a very local level may be a huge theoretical inflation of information through the MWI process, but the rest of the universe can be blissfully unaware of this. Those many individual worlds are like Alice's trip through the horizon. For Alice it's real, but only because she can't phone home.

There is one potentially testable corollary to this view. If the information channel between the environment and a local MWI increases, so should the number of "world" results that can result at the more global level. There is probably no way of detecting the difference between a "1 out of 1" (fully deterministic) event versus a "1 out of 2" ("random choice" yielding 1 additional bit) event, but there may be a way of demonstrating a longer term regional increase or decrease in information.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
.Scott said:
In essence there is a steady accumulation of "which world" information - and that accumulation, from the point of view of anyone world, would appear to violate quantum information conservation.

I don't quite know what you mean by information - is it entropy or information in general?

Information is interpreted by 'intelligence' - not by an intrinsic objective property of a system - quantum or otherwise - as any writer will attest to. Entropy is conserved and can be viewed as a kind of information - in that sense yes its conserved - in each world. But overall there is no reason for it to be conserved.

Thanks
Bill.
 
  • #3
Neither a testable theory, nor a clear mathematical justification... This is unlikely to start a productive thread and is closed.
As always, PM any mentor with specifics about what you'd like to add if you want it reopened to say more.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba

FAQ: QM Ignorance is Bliss: Exploring the Limits of MWI

1. What is MWI in the context of QM Ignorance is Bliss?

MWI stands for Many-Worlds Interpretation, which is a theory in quantum mechanics that suggests there are multiple parallel universes in which every possible outcome of a quantum event exists.

2. How does MWI relate to the concept of ignorance being bliss?

In the context of QM Ignorance is Bliss, MWI suggests that our ignorance about the true nature of reality allows us to maintain a sense of blissful simplicity, as opposed to grappling with the complexities of quantum mechanics and the possibility of multiple parallel universes.

3. What are the limits of MWI in QM Ignorance is Bliss?

The limits of MWI in QM Ignorance is Bliss lie in its inability to be proven or disproven. It is a theoretical interpretation of quantum mechanics and cannot be tested or observed directly.

4. How does QM Ignorance is Bliss explore the limits of MWI?

QM Ignorance is Bliss explores the limits of MWI by examining the philosophical implications of this interpretation of quantum mechanics. It raises questions about the nature of reality and our ability to understand it, and challenges the idea that ignorance can truly be bliss.

5. What are some criticisms of QM Ignorance is Bliss and MWI?

Some criticisms of QM Ignorance is Bliss and MWI include the lack of empirical evidence to support the theory, the inherent subjectivity and philosophical nature of the interpretation, and the difficulty in reconciling MWI with other established principles of physics.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
238
Replies
4
Views
960
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
283
Replies
3
Views
975
Replies
69
Views
5K
Back
Top