Sean Carroll podcast on many worlds interpretation

[PeterDonis]

theoretically, we do need the entire wave function

Not if all you are doing is predicting further measurement results on a single decohered branch. And that's what you were talking about in the post of yours that I responded to: "development of a single branch". You don't need to know the entire wave function to calculate that. You only need to know that particular branch.

 

[Heikki Tuuri]

Not if all you are doing is predicting further measurement results on a single decohered branch.

Decoherence is never perfect. The idea is that one degree of freedom interacts with a large number of other degrees of freedom. For example, a single photon changes the state of a large number of silver and bromine atoms in a photographic film.

At which point the scientist inside the lab would be allowed to discard part of the wave function? The scientist himself may be a particle which is used in a double slit experiment. There is always a minuscule chance that the scientist will interfere with another version of himself who took a different route but arrived on the screen in the same state.

 

[PeterDonis]

Decoherence is never perfect.

It's perfect enough for us to make accurate predictions.

At which point the scientist inside the lab would be allowed to discard part of the wave function?

At the point when he can make accurate predictions by doing so.

The scientist himself may be a particle which is used in a double slit experiment.

No, he can't. The scientist has many orders of magnitude too many degrees of freedom which cannot be kept coherent for such an experiment.

 

[Minnesota Joe]

Like the GRW and de Broglie-Bohm people, in Something Deeply Hidden Sean Carroll writes that he seeks a "complete, unambiguous, realistic" theory but is discouraged by the difficulties of extending the theory once you add something in addition to Schrödinger equation. (pg 31-32).

He writes, "But we should also admit that the whole picture might be wrong, and something very different is required" page 40 and "I am defending one particular view of that reality...This shouldn't be taken to imply that the Everettian view is unquestionably right." pg 42. So I take him to be undogmatically defending his favorite.

At least some of the meaning of the statements he makes in his podcast are clearer. He reinterprets the solutions to the Schrödinger equation so of course all the other interpretations have "worlds" from that point of view, but that doesn't at all change my position that the claim is question-begging and he should stop using it.

I can see how the minimalism is attractive but on the flip side it means that if your interpretation is incorrect, you just carry the incompleteness of quantum mechanics forward.

Another attractive feature of MWI apparently is locality. Can someone please explain to me in what senses MWI is local if so? People sometimes conflate the various senses of 'local' and this caused all manner of confusion for me when I started reading quantum foundations. In particular, is it fair to say the violations of Bell's inequality are merely apparent under MWI? Or does it just mean Lorentz invariant? (I could be botching things myself I freely admit.)

 

[pinball1970]

Like the GRW and de Broglie-Bohm people, in Something Deeply Hidden Sean Carroll writes that he seeks a "complete, unambiguous, realistic" theory but is discouraged by the difficulties of extending the theory once you add something in addition to Schrödinger equation. (pg 31-32).

He writes, "But we should also admit that the whole picture might be wrong, and something very different is required" page 40 and "I am defending one particular view of that reality...This shouldn't be taken to imply that the Everettian view is unquestionably right." pg 42. So I take him to be undogmatically defending his favorite.

At least some of the meaning of the statements he makes in his podcast are clearer. He reinterprets the solutions to the Schrödinger equation so of course all the other interpretations have "worlds" from that point of view, but that doesn't at all change my position that the claim is question-begging and he should stop using it.

I can see how the minimalism is attractive but on the flip side it means that if your interpretation is incorrect, you just carry the incompleteness of quantum mechanics forward.

Another attractive feature of MWI apparently is locality. Can someone please explain to me in what senses MWI is local if so? People sometimes conflate the various senses of 'local' and this caused all manner of confusion for me when I started reading quantum foundations. In particular, is it fair to say the violations of Bell's inequality are merely apparent under MWI? Or does it just mean Lorentz invariant? (I could be botching things myself I freely admit.)

You should have put a spoiler on this post, I got the hard back yesterday. I am going to read it and possibly post a review on pf if that is allowed. This is a pop Science book after all.
He is doing real physics in this area so published paper references may let this through.
That's if I understand enough of it to review.

 

[Heikki Tuuri]

@Minnesota Joe ,

in the EPR experiment, Copenhagen people think that the measurement apparatuses at both ends "collapse" into definite classical states.

They kind of discard large parts of the wave function of the whole system, which includes also the measurement apparatuses.

In MWI there is never any collapse. When a scientist compares the results from the both ends in his mind, it is local operation.

The wave function in the Schrödinger equation develops in a local manner, and the hidden variables in the Bohm model develop locally.

But the Schrödinger equation is not relativistic. Locality is more a thing of Special relativity. We would need a relativistic wave function and a relativistic Bohm model.

 

[Minnesota Joe]

You should have put a spoiler on this post, I got the hard back yesterday.

Yes, my apologies, I'll try to remember that in the future, thank you.

 

[Minnesota Joe]

in the EPR experiment, Copenhagen people think that the measurement apparatuses at both ends "collapse" into a definite classical states.

They kind of discard large parts of the wave function of the whole system, which includes also the measurement apparatuses.

In MWI there is never any collapse. When a scientist compares the results from the both ends in his mind, it is local operation.

If I understand what you wrote correctly, that is what I meant by the violations being only apparent. Because we only see the set of statistics in our branch. Do you agree?

The wave function in the Schrödinger equation develops in a local manner, and the hidden variables in the Bohm model develop locally.

But the Schrödinger equation is not relativistic. Locality is more a thing of Special relativity. We would need a relativistic wave function and a relativistic Bohm model.

So do we prefer to use 'locality' to mean relativistic? What word do we use for instantaneous influence at large distances? Or, rather, the idea discussed long before Einstein that you ought not be able to influence a system without propagating some signal to where that system is? (Implying both finite time and intervening causes.)

 

[OCR]

You should have put a spoiler on this post. . .

Lol. . . ah, c'mon now pinball.

Spoiler: 👀

You would have looked, anyway. . . .

.

 

[pinball1970]

Lol. . . ah, c'mon now pinball.

Spoiler: 👀

You would have looked, anyway. . . .

.

Yes I still looked.
I saw a quote from page 32 on post #94 and I was barely through the introduction. My spoiler post was half in jest, it's not like @Minnesota Joe gave away the end of House season 4 or anything.

 

[romsofia]

The conclusion from the FANTASTIC lecture notes by Robert Geroch some 44 years ago called "Geometrical Quantum Mechanics".
There is a lot more information in these notes than what i quote, so go check out the lecture notes, very well written!

In short, the Everett interpretation asks that one take quantum mechanics, as is, very seriously, and learns to live with the resulting picture. One gives up the notion of certain classical possibilities being realized in favor of the introduction of certain regions of configuration space in which the wave function is small. One carries out the same calculations, and transmits the same information, but in slightly different language. One obtains precisely the same description of the Universe that would be obtained by some external observer O. This O, however, would do nothing except look on with satisfaction as the wave function of Universe evolves. We might as well dispense with him. One does not need a classical framework in which to anchor quantum mechanics: one can just let quantum mechanics drift on its own.

Finally, one might object: “All this seems awfully philosophical and rather pointless.” Imagine yourself in the following situation. You wake up one morning to discover that people always talk to each other by saying “In the region of configuration space corresponding to ... the wave function is small.” That’s just the way they always talk. You put up with this very confusing situation for a few days, and finally can’t stand it anymore. You ask a friend to come into see you. You say to him: “I want to reformulate quantum mechanics in such a way that classical possibilities actually occur in the Universe. I want to introduce smaller quantum systems, and observables, and breaks in the chain of instruments, on one side of which classical possibilities are actually realized. I want to modify, along these lines, the interface between quantum mechanics and what human beings actually observe. It is true that, in this program, I cannot provide details of the internal workings of people, but this feature is also common in other areas of physics.” After a pause, your friend replies: “All this seems awfully philosophical and rather pointless.”

 

[Minnesota Joe]

The conclusion from the FANTASTIC lecture notes by Robert Geroch some 44 years ago called "Geometrical Quantum Mechanics".
There is a lot more information in these notes than what i quote, so go check out the lecture notes, very well written!

"In short, the Everett interpretation asks that one take quantum mechanics, as is, very seriously, and learns to live with the resulting picture. "

Which I guess I understand now means just use the Schrödinger equation and reinterpret it. It is that reinterpretation that is difficult to believe.

My spoiler post was half in jest, it's not like @Minnesota Joe gave away the end of House season 4 or anything.

Sean Bean dies. Oops.

 

[pinball1970]

Which I guess I understand now means just use the Schrödinger equation and reinterpret it. It is that reinterpretation that is difficult to believe.Sean Bean dies. Oops.

Yes but he is also alive in one of the many other episodes in one of the other MW

 

[Heikki Tuuri]

@Minnesota Joe ,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

Bell's theorem says that we cannot assume local hidden variables which would determine the measurement result at the ends of the EPR experiment setup.

Quantum mechanics says that Bell's theorem is true. It has been empirically demonstrated many times.

MWI, of course, satisfies Bell's theorem, just like other interpretations. I never remember which way John Bell wrote the inequality. I assume QM breaks the inequality? And hidden variables would uphold the inequality?

Einstein protested the "spooky action at a distance" in the EPR experiment. In MWI, there is no spooky action at a distance for the simple reason that all data processing happens in the head of a single scientist, and there are no great distances inside a single head.

Note that Bell's theorem is just a special case of a general rule: you cannot discard parts of the wave function if you want to calculate correctly. Hidden variables would mean that we discard the relevant wave function immediately after we have prepared the two particles in the EPR experiment.

A classical analogue: if you want to calculate the route of a toy boat on waves of water, you need to know the full wave pattern. You cannot discard the information about the waves and calculate from the location of the boat alone.

 

[DarMM]

Well Copenhagen views takes the formalism "as is" as well. It's just that they read it differently, i.e. that $\psi$ is a generalized probability distribution rather than a physical degree of freedom.

 

[DarMM]

MWI, of course, satisfies Bell's theorem, just like other interpretations. I never remember which way John Bell wrote the inequality. I assume QM breaks the inequality? And hidden variables would uphold the inequality?

Local Classical theories satisfy Bell's inequality, all interpretations of QM break it.

Bell's theorem has nothing to do with discarding or keeping parts of the wavefunction.

 

[OCR]

My spoiler post was half in jest. . .

Yeah, mine was too. . . .

it's not like Minnesota Joe gave away the end of House season 4 or anything.

Yes, that would be unforgivable. . . .
Wait, what!?

Sean Bean dies.

Oh, my. . .! .

Lol. . . carry on.
.

 

[Heikki Tuuri]

Bell's theorem has nothing to do with discarding or keeping parts of the wavefunction.

Let me explain. To calculate correct results, you have to use a QM superposition state for the EPR two particles. That is a "wave function".

If there is some mechanism which codes in hidden variables the spin state already right at the preparation, then the system is classical and does not have a wave function in the QM sense.

In the double slit experiment we need the wave function to calculate the pattern on the screen. The Bohm model utilizes both the wave function and hidden variables. It would not work without the wave function.

Are there wave phenomena where one could do with just a few, real number, hidden variables and would not need any kind of a wave function? Yes! A free planar wave is an example. We do not need complex information in the planar wave pattern, because the wave pattern is trivially simple.

 

[PeterDonis]

I assume QM breaks the inequality?

Yes. Which means that saying Bell's theorem is "true" and the MWI "satisfies" Bell's theorem is a rather confusing way of speaking.

you cannot discard parts of the wave function if you want to calculate correctly

You can if decoherence has happened and you are only concerned with one decohered branch (the one corresponding to the measurement result you observed). We've been through this before.

 

[DarMM]

Let me explain. To calculate correct results, you have to use a QM superposition state for the EPR two particles. That is a "wave function".

If there is some mechanism which codes in hidden variables the spin state already right at the preparation, then the system is classical and does not have a wave function in the QM sense.

In the double slit experiment we need the wave function to calculate the pattern on the screen. The Bohm model utilizes both the wave function and hidden variables. It would not work without the wave function.

Are there wave phenomena where one could do with just a few, real number, hidden variables and would not need any kind of a wave function? Yes! A free planar wave is an example. We do not need complex information in the planar wave pattern, because the wave pattern is trivially simple.

Bell's inequality is proven in a general framework called the ontological models framework. This framework essentially encodes the idea of a "classical" theory, i.e. causal and with one world. If such a classical theory is local we get the inequality. Observed correlations in for example the famous Aspect experiments break this inequality.

None of this is really related to discarding or keeping parts of the wavefunction, it just says what facets of a local classical theory must be lost to avoid contradicting the predictions of QM. The alternate theory may include the wave function (Bohmian Mechanics) or it may not (various alternate causality models). Thus the theorem isn't really about retaining parts of the wave function.

 

[Minnesota Joe]

Bell's theorem says that we cannot assume local hidden variables which would determine the measurement result at the ends of the EPR experiment setup.

Quantum mechanics says that Bell's theorem is true. It has been empirically demonstrated many times.

MWI, of course, satisfies Bell's theorem, just like other interpretations. I never remember which way John Bell wrote the inequality. I assume QM breaks the inequality? And hidden variables would uphold the inequality?

Yes, sorry, my phrasing was terrible. I am not saying that for MWI there are no Bell violations.I was taking a point of view where all outcomes occur, not the point of view of any single world. So forget about that please. Hopefully I explain what I was on about better below.

My original question is what sense is the MWI considered a local theory. And--this should go without saying but bears repeating--I'm not claiming I'm correct in my understanding, just discussing it in hopes I will be corrected by all you smart people here if I'm wrong.

Einstein protested the "spooky action at a distance" in the EPR experiment. In MWI, there is no spooky action at a distance for the simple reason that all data processing happens in the head of a single scientist, and there are no great distances inside a single head.

I don't understand your explanation in terms of the head of a single scientist. But "spooky action at a distance" is the sense of local I'm getting at.

In EPR, Alice becomes entangled locally with electron 1 and on the other end Bob becomes entangled locally with electron 2. (Electrons 1 and 2 were themselves entangled locally at the beginning of the experiment of course.) But on MWI entanglement means that multiple worlds result. Yet a person in any particular world only ever sees a subset of all the outcomes and this happens in such a way as to explain the correlations or the "spooky action at a distance". And all the physics for Alice, say, occurred locally. Nothing but the Schrödinger equation is involved.

Contrast that with de Broglie-Bohm where there really is spooky action at a distance. Non-local hidden variables.

So sometimes I hear people say that MWI goes through the horns of Bell's dilemma and provides a local hidden variable theory or something like that. It is both local and realist. At the cost of many worlds of course.

Note that Bell's theorem is just a special case of a general rule: you cannot discard parts of the wave function if you want to calculate correctly. Hidden variables would mean that we discard the relevant wave function immediately after we have prepared the two particles in the EPR experiment.

I'm not sure what you mean...it almost sounds like you are saying you won't get the correct statistics if you use the "collapsed" state after the first measurement (the preparation I guess). I think that is true. You have to use the full entangled state if you are measuring a different property of electron 2.

Is that what you mean? So "discard" is like "collapse"?

A classical analogue: if you want to calculate the route of a toy boat on waves of water, you need to know the full wave pattern. You cannot discard the information about the waves and calculate from the location of the boat alone.

I like the analogy, so I'll be sure to steal it. ;)

 

[PeterDonis]

on MWI entanglement means that multiple worlds result

Yes, and this is how MWI evades the conclusion of Bell's Theorem, since the proof of the theorem assumes that measurements have single outcomes, but in the MWI measurements have multiple outcomes (every possible outcome is realized).

 

[Minnesota Joe]

If the many worlds interpretation is local and realist that is an attractive feature it must be admitted. And since it is just the Schrödinger equation it can be extended to relativity (Klein-Gordon is an example) so it is local in that sense too.

The cost is only a very, very, very large number of worlds, possibly an uncountable infinity of worlds. Come on, you know you want to buy it. Perhaps on credit.

 

[PeterDonis]

If the many worlds interpretation is local and realist

That depends on what you mean by "local" and "realist". Measurements having multiple outcomes violates many people's definition of "realist". And having wave functions that entangle spatially separated systems violates at least some people's definition of "local".

 

[Michael Price]

@Minnesota Joe ,
. I never remember which way John Bell wrote the inequality.

Nah, I can never remember that, either!

Well Copenhagen views takes the formalism "as is" as well. It's just that they read it differently, i.e. that $\psi$ is a generalized probability distribution rather than a physical degree of freedom.

Except that your 'generalized' probability distribution is nothing like a probability distribution.

 

[DarMM]

Except that your 'generalized' probability distribution is nothing like a probability distribution

That's contrary to the last thirty years of Quantum Information. The wave-function behaves as a generalized probability distribution, up to obeying things like a de Finetti theorem.

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0601158
For an example that makes it easier, one can see that Classical probability with an epistemic limit behaves very like QM.

 

[Minnesota Joe]

That depends on what you mean by "local" and "realist". Measurements having multiple outcomes violates many people's definition of "realist". And having wave functions that entangle spatially separated systems violates at least some people's definition of "local".

Both are good points. Encountering some of these different definitions is why I was discussing locality in the first place. I haven't even gotten around to considering the "realist" angle and only lumped the multiple outcome problem into MWI's probability problem, so the comment about multiple outcomes is appreciated. I'll keep in mind that there is disagreement on the matter.

 

[vanhees71]

That depends on what you mean by "local" and "realist". Measurements having multiple outcomes violates many people's definition of "realist". And having wave functions that entangle spatially separated systems violates at least some people's definition of "local".

Indeed, a measurement device which doesn't show a clear outcome when measuring something usually has to be sent to the shop to be repaired. It's not considered to prove the existence of many worlds in a experimentalist's lab. SCNR.

 

[Minnesota Joe]

Indeed, a measurement device which doesn't show a clear outcome when measuring something usually has to be sent to the shop to be repaired. It's not considered to prove the existence of many worlds in a experimentalist's lab. SCNR.

But you wouldn't complain about several measurement devices that all reliably measured what they were supposed to, right?

I can't even make out an experimentalist's lab from this thread. If there is one, it is much too far away.

 

[vanhees71]

Well, that's a bug rather than a feature in all these debates about "interpretation"