World selection in case of entanglement measurement

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of entanglement measurements in the context of the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics. Participants explore how measurement outcomes relate to the existence of different worlds and the nature of correlations between measurements made by entangled particles.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the orientation of measurement devices (SG machines) determines the worlds in which outcomes are realized, questioning how correlations are established in a local MWI framework.
  • Another participant counters that in MWI, there is no concept of a "joint world" with unknown outcomes, asserting that all measurement outcomes exist in separate worlds.
  • It is argued that correlation does not exist in MWI for a single run of an experiment, as each outcome occurs in its own world without knowledge of the overall wave function's amplitudes.
  • A quote from a document is presented, suggesting that no physical probabilities are assigned to the worlds, raising questions about the nature of correlation in this interpretation.
  • A later reply agrees with the assertion that the lack of physical probabilities implies that correlation remains undefined within the MWI framework.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the interpretation of worlds and correlations in MWI. There is no consensus on how to reconcile measurement outcomes with the existence of multiple worlds or the nature of correlations in this context.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference the lack of physical meaning assigned to certain constants in the MWI framework, highlighting unresolved issues regarding the interpretation of probabilities and correlations.

entropy1
Messages
1,232
Reaction score
72
Suppose we have a pair of spin entangled electrons, measured by resp. Alice and Bob. The basises of Alice and Bob make an angle of α=10°. If Alice and Bob wind up in a joint world where Alice measures ##|u\rangle##, then the probability that, in that world, Bob measures ##|d\rangle## is ##\cos^{2}\alpha##. So does that mean that the physical oriëntation of the SG machines determine which world(s) we end up in?

If there is a correlation by definition, how is it realized if MWI is local?

(How) Does the correlation follow from the (MWI) formalism?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
entropy1 said:
If Alice and Bob wind up in a joint world where Alice measures ##|u\rangle##, then the probability that, in that world, Bob measures ##|d\rangle## is ##\cos^{2}\alpha##.

No, it isn't. If you're talking about the MWI, there is no "joint world" where Alice measures some definite result but Bob's result is somehow unknown and there are probabilities for different ones. There are just worlds in which Alice and Bob measure some particular pair of results.

entropy1 said:
does that mean that the physical oriëntation of the SG machines determine which world(s) we end up in?

There is no such thing as "which world(s) we end up in". In the MWI all of the worlds exist.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba
entropy1 said:
If there is a correlation by definition

There is no "correlation" in the MWI if you are talking about a single run of the experiment. If ##\alpha## is 10 degrees, as you say, then there will be four worlds after the experiment is over, corresponding to the four possible pairs of results that Alice and Bob can get. In the complete wave function for the whole system, which includes all the worlds as terms in a superposition, the terms will have different amplitudes, but the "copies" of Alice and Bob in each world have no way of measuring or knowing those amplitudes, so they have no way of knowing what the overall wave function actually is. All they know is the particular results they both observed.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba
In this document, I read on page 12:

"Thirdly, in any case, no physical meaning has been attached to the constants |a|2 and |b|2 . They are not to be interpreted as the probabilities that their respective branches are realized; this is the whole point of Everett’s proposal. It can not be said that a proportion |a|2 of the total number of worlds is in state φ0 ⊗ Φ0; there is nothing in the axioms to justify this claim. (Note that if the two worlds picture were justified, then each state would correspond to one world, and it must be explained why each measurement does not have probability ##\frac{1}{2}## .) Nor can one argue that the probability of a particular observer finding herself in the world with state φ0 ⊗ Φ0 is |a|2 ; this conclusion again is unsupported by the axioms."

I have to read the entire document, but if this quote cuts wood, doesn't that mean that there are no physical probabilities assigned to the worlds, so that correlation is left in the dark?
 
entropy1 said:
doesn't that mean that there are no physical probabilities assigned to the worlds, so that correlation is left in the dark?

This is basically what I was saying in post #2, yes.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K