Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

I QM Ignorance is Bliss

  1. Dec 23, 2016 #1
    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 any one 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.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 23, 2016 #2

    bhobba

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I dont 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.
     
  4. Dec 23, 2016 #3

    Nugatory

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: QM Ignorance is Bliss
  1. Entanglement in QM (Replies: 38)

  2. Force in QM (Replies: 3)

Loading...