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

What is the current status of quantum darwinism ?

  1. Dec 12, 2014 #1
    I see quantum darwinism mentioned quite a lot and it seems almost as it is being accepted by the world of academia as a solution to the preferred basis problem. The claim is that the "classical world" is the result of all the contradictory states just keeping records, leaving only pointer states as the reality we interact with. If correct this would solve an outstanding problem of Many Worlds.

    So what is the current view people hold about its validity?
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 12, 2014 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Leifer http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Leifer_FQXi2013.pdf
    "In the context of the many-worlds interpretation, the Deutsch-Wallace [18, 19, 20, 21] and Zurek [31, 32] derivations of the Born rule are arguments of this type, where the quantum stuff is simply the wavefunction. ... A subjective Bayesian analysis of noncontextuality indicates that it can only be derived within a realist approach to physics. At present, this type of derivation has only been carried out in the many-worlds interpretation, but I expect it can be made to work in other realist approaches to quantum theory, including those yet to be discovered."

    Carroll http://www.preposterousuniverse.com...ion-of-quantum-mechanics-is-probably-correct/
    "In what sense are there probabilities at all, if the theory is completely deterministic? These are the serious issues for EQM, as opposed to the silly one that “there are just too many universes!” The “why those states?” problem has essentially been solved by the notion of pointer states — quantum states split along lines that are macroscopically robust, which are ultimately delineated by the actual laws of physics (the particles/fields/interactions of the real world). The probability question is trickier, but also (I think) solvable."

    Sebens and Carroll http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1405.7577
    "However, there are serious objections to the approaches already explored and many remain unconvinced, so we offer this derivation as a novel alternative. We seek to provide an epistemic - as opposed to a decision-theoretic derivation of the Born rule ... This approach shares formal features with Zurek's (2003a; 2003b; 2005) argument based on the idea of envariance, while offering a clearer explanation of the way in which probabilities arise in a deterministic setting."

    Wallace http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.0149
    "Subsequently, I have presented various expansions and developments on the proof (Wallace 2007,2006c), and Zurek (2003b, 2005) has presented another variant of it. It remains a subject of controversy whether or not these ‘proofs’ indeed prove what they set out to prove."
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook