Question about the Many Worlds Interpretation

Manchot
Messages
470
Reaction score
5
I was learning about the "Many Worlds" interpretation of QM, and it got me to thinking. In some ways, doesn't it contradict the laws of thermodynamics? I came up with the following thought experiment:

Suppose that you had a gas containing nitrogen and oxygen in a homogeneous mixture, in a container separated by a porous membrane. Now, I'm assuming that in each collision, the final positions and velocities of each molecule is at least somewhat determined by the instantaneous position of the molecules' electrons at the time of the collision. That means that there is a slight (nearly infinitesmal) possibility that all of the nitrogen will end up on one half of the membrane, and that all of the oxygen will end up on the other half. Now, since the probability is not zero, according to the Many Worlds interpretation of QM, there are at least a handful of universes in which this will indeed happen. Therefore, this means that the entropy of those universes has in fact decreased. Now, I was under the impression that the laws of physics of the every universe would be the same, and as a result, the entropy should not ever decrease. Isn't this an inherent contradiction?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Whose to say that the laws of physics in other universes are the same as ours?
 
QuantumDefect said:
Whose to say that the laws of physics in other universes are the same as ours?

Well you don't have to go onto the QM MWI to get the same result. With statistical classical mechanics you also have a non null probability (finite number of particles) to get the 2 gas separated again. It only takes a huge time to recover this configuration >> age of universe, a lot of work has been done on that subject -eg poincare theorem, poincare paradox, ergodism hypothesis ...) . This probability is very low for a finite time.

Now, for all experiments with a finite time, you can approximate this probability as a zero probability or you can consider the time to get such a configuration to be infinite (you cannot detect the infinitesimal differences). Therefore you can say that "entropy" works fall all experiments with a finite time (ie all the "laws" work within their domain of application). MWI does not change this fact.

Seratend.
 
QuantumDefect said:
Whose to say that the laws of physics in other universes are the same as ours?

Well, if not, then the "many worlds" interpretation becomes meaningless.
 
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