The discussion centers around finding suitable references for learning about the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics. Participants express their familiarity with quantum mechanics, particularly the Copenhagen interpretation, and seek recommendations for resources that cover MWI, its implications, and related interpretations.
Participants generally do not reach a consensus on a single best reference for learning about MWI, with multiple competing views and interpretations discussed throughout the thread.
Some participants express uncertainty about the coherence of MWI and its interpretations, highlighting the subjective nature of choosing references. The discussion also reflects varying degrees of comfort with concepts of determinism and probability in quantum mechanics.
PeroK said:I'd like to learn about the MWI. I know undergraduate level QM (Copenhagen) and can, within reason, cope with a mathematical formulation of it. What's the best reference for learning the MWI?
George Jones said:The choice of "best reference" for any subject is very subjective!
I did not know much about MWI, but I have just ordered "Foundations of Quantum Mechanics: An Exploration of the Physical Meaning of Quantum Theory" by Travis Norsen. This is more general than what you want, i.e., it has a chapter on MWI, and it also contains chapters on other interpretations: Copenhagen; pilot_wave; spontaneous collapse.
The review
http://www.ijqf.org/wps/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/IJQF2018v4n1p5.pdf
says that Norsen favours pilot-wave. Another review:
http://www.academia.edu/36011436/Review_of_Foundation_of_Quantum_Mechanics_by_Travis_Norsen
Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/3319658662/?tag=pfamazon01-20
This book does not have an index! Springer seems to encourage this, as this will be my third "blue Springer" that does not have an index. This is unacceptable,
PeroK said:The MWI on the other hand, I thought, was the favoured interpretation of many well-respected physicists, like Sean Carroll, so I've been meaning for some time to get a better understanding of it.
PeroK said:It's interesting to me, especially, as I see randomness and probabilities everywhere. I've never understood the need to have determinism restored to physics and probabilities banished, as I don't see much determinism in nature outside of a few well-controlled experiments and simple cases like the solar system.
atyy said:
Sorry, but are you still talking about Bohmian Mechanics here or do you mean it as criticism of MWI ... or both?PeroK said:It's interesting to me, especially, as I see randomness and probabilities everywhere. I've never understood the need to have determinism restored to physics and probabilities banished, as I don't see much determinism in nature outside of a few well-controlled experiments and simple cases like the solar system.
zonde said:Sorry, but are you still talking about Bohmian Mechanics here or do you mean it as criticism of MWI ... or both?
People who actually believe in MWI would probably disagree. But for me, MWI also clicked when I have seen an explanation by a Bohmian. It was the explanation of MWI in the book D. Bohm, The Undivided Universe.DarMM said:I agree with @George Jones , the chapter in Norsen's book is probably the best reference for learning about MWI.
PeroK said:It's not a criticism. It's just that probabilities seem to chime with some of us and upset, or even offend, others. If someone has an aversion to probabilities, then I can understand why they get interested in a theory that provides a deterministic underpinning of QM. But, it doesn't interest me so much, because it doesn't trouble me that probability is at the heart of QM.
Contrary to a wide misconception, the main motivation for Bohmian mechanics is not determinism. The main motivation is clear microscopic ontology. The determinism is a byproduct.PeroK said:It's not a criticism. It's just that probabilities seem to chime with some of us and upset, or even offend, others. If someone has an aversion to probabilities, then I can understand why they get interested in a theory that provides a deterministic underpinning of QM. But, it doesn't interest me so much, because it doesn't trouble me that probability is at the heart of QM.
Demystifier said:Contrary to a wide misconception, the main motivation for Bohmian mechanics is not determinism. The main motivation is clear microscopic ontology.
Why?PeroK said:Even worse!
Demystifier said:Why?
You're probably right, most recommend this text, but I personally found Wallace's book a bit hard to follow, mixing Wallace's personal philosophy of physics with formal (in the sense of non-rigorous) mathematics and various proposals for how MWI might be brought into a fully coherent interpretation.akvadrako said:I would recommend starting with that one, Emergent Multiverse: Quantum Theory According to the Everett Interpretation by David Wallace. He's a prominent advocate and researcher of many worlds. If you want to understand why others find the theory appealing, better to get it from the horse's mouth.
I'd bear in mind that the main thing hard to understand about QM is the non-classical correlations. Even a fundamentally stochastic but local world, where the probabilities are the typical ones with the state drawn from a sample space (i.e. Kolmogorov probability), wouldn't have entanglement.PeroK said:It's not a criticism. It's just that probabilities seem to chime with some of us and upset, or even offend, others. If someone has an aversion to probabilities, then I can understand why they get interested in a theory that provides a deterministic underpinning of QM. But, it doesn't interest me so much, because it doesn't trouble me that probability is at the heart of QM.
The problem with probability is that the notion is not really well-defined outside a deterministic pre-context.PeroK said:probabilities seem to chime with some of us and upset, or even offend, others. If someone has an aversion to probabilities, then I can understand why they get interested in a theory that provides a deterministic underpinning of QM.