The interpretation of many worlds is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that affirms the objective reality of universal wave functions and denies the reality of the collapse of wave functions. Many worlds imply that all possible historical and alternative futures are real, each representing an actual "world" (or "universe"). In layman's terms, the hypothesis states there is an enormous amount - perhaps unlimited - of the universe, and everything that might have happened in our past, but no, has happened in the past of some universe or other universe. This theory is also referred to as MWI , relative state formulation , Everett's interpretation , theory of universal wave function , multi-universe interpretation , multiverse theory or just many-world .
The original state formulation was due to Hugh Everett in 1957. Later, the formulation was popularized and replaced by Bryce Seligman DeWitt in the 1960s and 1970s. Decoherency approaches to interpreting quantum theory have been explored and further developed, becoming very popular. MWI is one of many multiverse hypotheses in physics and philosophy. Currently considered a mainstream interpretation along with other decoherent interpretations, the theory of collapse (including historical Copenhagen interpretation), and the theory of hidden variables such as Bohmian mechanics.
Before many worlds, reality has always been seen as a single history revealed. Many worlds, however, view historical reality as a much branched tree, where every quantum result may be realized. Many worlds reconcile observations of non-deterministic events, such as random radioactive decay, with fully deterministic quantum physics equations.
In many worlds, the subjective appearance of the collapse of wave functions is explained by the quantum decoherence mechanism, and this should solve all paradoxes of correlation of quantum theory, such as EPR and Schrödinger paradoxes, as every possible outcome. each event defines or exists in its own "history" or "world".
Video Many-worlds interpretation
Origin
In Dublin in 1952, Erwin SchrÃÆ'¶dinger gave a lecture in which at one point he hastily warned his listeners that what he was about to say might be "looking crazy". He went on to assert that when the equation that won it the Nobel Prize seemed to portray some different histories, they were "not alternatives but all actually happened simultaneously". This is the earliest known reference to many worlds.
Maps Many-worlds interpretation
Outline
Although several versions of many worlds have been proposed since the original work of Hugh Everett, they all contain one key idea: a physics equation that modeled the evolution of system time without an embedded observer sufficient for the modeling system that did > contains the observer; in particular no wave-induced wave function is observed opposed by the Copenhagen interpretation. As long as the theory is linear with respect to wave function, the exact form of quantum dynamics is modeled, be it non-relativistic Schrö¶dinger equations, relativistic quantum field theory or some form of quantum gravity or string theory, does not alter the validity of MWI because MWI is a metateori which applies to all linear quantum theory, and there is no experimental evidence for any non-linearity of wave functions in physics. The main conclusion of MWI is that the universe (or multiverse in this context) is composed of a quantum superposition of many, if not many, parallel universes or a non-sequential quantum world.
The idea of ​​MWI comes from Princeton Ph.D. Everett. thesis "The Universal Wavefunction Theory", developed under the advisory thesis of John Archibald Wheeler, a shorter summary published in 1957 entitled "Relative Country Formulation of Quantum Mechanics" (Wheeler contributed the title of "relative state"; Everett originally called his approach "Interpretation of Correlation ", where" correlation "refers to quantum entanglement). The phrase "many-worldly" is due to Bryce DeWitt, who is responsible for the wider popularization of Everett's theory, which has been ignored during the first decade after publication. The "world-wide" DeWitt phrase has become much more popular than Everett-Wheeler's much-forgotten Everett or Everett-Wheeler "Everett Country Relation Formation" that this is just another terminology; the contents of both Everett papers and DeWitt's popular articles are the same.
The interpretation of many worlds shares many similarities with the subsequent "post-Everett" interpretation of quantum mechanics which also uses decoherence to explain the process of measurement or collapse of wave functions. MWI treats history or another world as real as it considers the universal wave function as "basic physical entity" or "fundamental entity, obeying every moment of deterministic wave equation". Other obscure interpretations, such as consistent history, Existential Exegesis, etc., regard the additional quantum world as a metaphor in a certain sense, or agnostic about their reality; sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between different varieties. MWI is distinguished by two qualities: it assumes realism, which is assigned to wave functions, and has the minimal formal structure possible, rejects hidden variables, quantum potentials, all forms of postulat collapse (ie, Copenhagenism) or mental postulates (like many-minded interpretations make).
The strict interpretations of many worlds use einselection to explain how a small number of classical pointer status can emerge from the vast space of Hilbert superposition has been proposed by Wojciech H. Zurek. "Under the supervision of the environment, only the bookmark of circumstances remains unchanged." Other states declare into a stable mix of stable states that can survive, and, in this sense, exist: They are elected. These ideas complement MWI and bring interpretation in line with our perception of reality.
Many worlds are often referred to as theories, not just interpretations, by those who propose that many worlds can make testable predictions (such as David Deutsch) or can be falsified (like Everett) or by those who propose all other, non-MW interpretations, inconsistent, illogical or unscientific in the handling of their measurements; Hugh Everett argues that its formulation is a metatheory, therefore making a statement about another interpretation of quantum theory; that it is "the only truly coherent approach to explaining the content of quantum mechanics and the appearance of the world." Deutsch underestimates that many-worlds are "interpretations", saying that calling it "like talking about dinosaurs as 'interpretations' of fossil records."
Interpreting the collapse of the wave function
Like other quantum mechanical interpretations, the interpretation of many worlds is motivated by behaviors that can be illustrated by double-slit experiments. When particles of light (or whatever) are passed through a double slit, calculations assuming wave-like behavior can be used to identify where the particles are likely to be observed. But when particles are observed in this experiment, they appear as particles (ie, in certain places) and not as non-local waves.
Some versions of Copenhagen's interpretation of quantum mechanics propose a process of "collapse" in which a probabilistic quantum system would probabilistically collapse upward, or select, only a definite result to "explain" the phenomenon of this observation. The collapse of the wavefunction is widely considered to be artificial and
Everett's Ph.D. provided jobs such as alternative interpretations. Everett states that for a composite system - for example the subject ("observer" or measuring device) observes an object (the "observed" system, like a particle) - a statement that the observer or observed has a defined state meaningless; in modern language, observers and observers have been entangled; we can only determine the relative one state relative to the other, that is, the observer state and the observed correlate after the observations are made. This caused Everett to come from the dynamics of unity, deterministic only (ie, without assuming the wavefunction collapsed) the notion of relativity of states .
Everett noticed that the only deterministic and unified dynamics that determined that after the observations were made each element of the quantum superposition of the combined subject-object wave function contained two "relative states": the "collapsed" object status â € "and the associated observer who had observed the results the same collapsed; what the observer observes and the state of the object has become correlated with the measurement or observation action. The subsequent evolution of each pair of relative object-state states continues with complete indifference regarding the presence or absence of other elements, as if the collapse of wave function has occurred, which has consequences that subsequent observations are always consistent with previous observations. Thus the appearance of the collapse of the function of the object wave has arisen from unity, the deterministic theory itself. (This answers Einstein's early criticisms of quantum theory, that theory must define what is observed, not for what can be observed to define theory). Since the wave function only appears to collapse, Everett reasoned, not necessarily assuming that he had collapsed. So, using Occam's razor, he erases the proposed collapse of the wave function of the theory.
Unreal interpretation
According to Martin Gardner, the "other" world of MWI has two different interpretations: real or unreal; he claimed that Stephen Hawking and Steven Weinberg both liked unreal interpretations. Gardner also claims that nonreal interpretation is favored by the majority of physicists, while the "realist" view is only supported by MWI experts such as Deutsch and Bryce DeWitt. Hawking said that "according to Feynman's idea", all other histories are just "real" to us, and Martin Gardner reports Hawking says that MWI is "trivially true". In a 1983 interview, Hawking also said that he regarded MWI as "self-evidently true" but underestimated the question of interpretation of quantum mechanics, saying, "When I heard the SchrÃÆ'¶dinger cat, I grabbed my gun." In the same interview, he also said, "But, see: All that really, is to calculate the conditional probability - in other words, probability A occurs, considering B. I think it is all the interpretation of the world a lot Some people coat it with a lot mysticism about the function of the wave split into different parts, but all you count is conditional probability. "Elsewhere Hawking compares his attitude to the physical" reality "with his colleague Roger Penrose, saying," He is a Platonist and I am a positivist.He is worried that the SchrÃÆ'¶dinger cat is in a quantum state, where he is, half alive and half-dead.He feels incompatible with reality.But it does not bother me.I do not demand a theory that fits the truth because I do not know what it is.Reality is not a quality you can test with litmus paper.I am worried there is is that the theory should predict the measurement results. Quantum theory does this very successfully. For his own part, Penrose agrees with Hawking that the QM applied to the universe implies MW, although he considers the lack of quantum theory of quantum success to negate the claim of the universality of conventional QM.
Equation with de Broglie-Bohm interpretation
Kim Joris BostrÃÆ'¶m has proposed a theory of non-relativistic quantum mechanics that incorporates elements of de Broglie-Bohm mechanics and that is in Everett's many 'worlds'. Specifically, the unreal interpretation of MW from Hawking and Weinberg is similar to Bohmian's concept of an unreal 'blank' world of branches:
A second problem with Bohmian mechanics may at first look seem somewhat harmless, but which at a closer view develops considerable destructive force: the problem of an empty branch. This is a component of a post-measurement state that does not guide any particles because they do not have the actual configuration q in their support. At first glance, the empty branches do not appear problematic but are otherwise helpful because they allow the theory to explain the unique measurement results. Also, they seem to explain why there is an effective "collapse of wave function", as in ordinary quantum mechanics. However, at a closer view, one must admit that these empty twigs are not completely lost. When the wavefunctions are taken to describe the realm of existence, all their branches really exist and will evolve forever by the SchrÃÆ'¶dinger dynamics, no matter how many of them will become vacant in the course of evolution. Each branch of the global wave function potentially describes a complete world which, according to Bohm's ontology, is only a possible world that will become a real world if it is only filled with particles, and which in any case is identical to the corresponding world in Everett's theory. Only one branch at a time is occupied by particles, thus representing the real world, while all the other branches, though actually exist as part of a truly existing, empty and thus containing a kind of "zombie world" with planets, oceans, trees, cities, cars and people who talk like us and behave like us, but who really do not exist. Now, if Everett's theory could be blamed for ontological wastage, the Bohmian mechanics could be accused of ontological wasting. On top of the ontology of empty branches appears an additional ontology of particle positions which, based on the quantum equation hypothesis, are forever unknown to the observer. However, the actual configuration is never necessary for statistical prediction calculations in experimental reality, since this can be obtained only with the algebra of the wavefunction. From this perspective, Bohmian mechanics may emerge as a wasteful and excessive theory. I think that is a consideration like this which is the biggest obstacle in the way Bohmian's general acceptance of mechanics.
Probability
Efforts have been made, by many world and other supporters, over the years to get the Birth rules, rather than merely conventionally assuming them, so as to reproduce all the necessary statistical behavior related to quantum mechanics. There is no consensus on whether this has worked.
A frequency-based approach
Everett (1957) briefly derives the Born rule by pointing out that Born's rule is the only possible rule, and that its derivation is as justified as a procedure for determining probabilities in classical mechanics. Everett stopped doing research in the field of theoretical physics shortly after obtaining his Ph.D., but his work on the possibilities has been extended by a number of people. Andrew Gleason (1957) and James Hartle (1965) independently reproduced Everett's later extended work. This result is closely related to Gleason's theorem, a mathematical result which, by Born's probability measure, is the only one in Hilbert space that can be constructed purely from a quantum state vector.
Bryce DeWitt and his doctoral student R. Neill Graham then provide an alternative (and again) derivation for Everett's derivation of the Born rule. They show that the norm of the world in which the general statistical rules of quantum theory are destroyed disappears, within the limits at which the number of measurements goes to infinity.
Decision theory
A theoretical derivation of the Born from Everettarian assumptions rule, produced by David Deutsch (1999) and perfected by Wallace (2002-2009) and Saunders (2004). Some reviews have been positive, although the status of this argument is still very controversial; some theoretical physicists have regarded it as a supporting case for a parallel universe. In a New Scientist article, reviewing their presentation at the September 2007 conference, Andy Albrecht, a physicist at the University of California at Davis, was quoted as saying "This work will go down as one of the most important developments in the history of science."
Birth rules and collapse of wave functions have been obtained in the relative formulation of quantum mechanical formulations by Armando V. D. B. Assis. He has proved that Born's rule and the collapse of wave functions follow from the game-theoretical strategy, namely Nash's equilibrium in the zero-sum von Neumann game between nature and the observer.
Symmetry and invariant
Wojciech H. Zurek (2005) has produced derivatives of the Born rule, in which decoherence has replaced Deutsch's informatics assumptions. Lutz Polley (2000) has produced Birth rule derivations where informatics assumptions are replaced by symmetry arguments.
Charles Sebens and Sean M. Carroll, built on employment by Lev Vaidman, proposed a similar approach based on the uncertainty of self-determination. In this approach, decoherence creates many identical observers, who can establish trust to be in different branches using Born rules.
MWI Summary
In the Everett formulations, the M and the object system S form composite systems, each before measurement is in a well-defined (but time-dependent) state. Measurements are considered to cause M and S to interact. After S interacting with M , it is no longer possible to describe the system either by an independent state. According to Everett, the only meaningful description of each system is the relative state: eg relative state S given state M or relative state M given status < b> S . In the DeWitt formulation, the state of S after the measurement sequence is given by the state quantum superposition, each corresponding to an alternate measurement history S .
For example, consider the smallest possible quantum system S , as shown in the illustration. This illustrates, for example, the spin-state of an electron. Taking into account certain axes (say z -axis) the north pole symbolizes the "upward" and south poles, spinning "down". The superposition state of the system is explained by a (surface) ball called the Bloch ball. To take measurements on S , it is made to interact with other similar systems M . After the interaction, the combined system is explained by circumstances that range above the six-dimensional space (the reason for number six is ​​described in the article on the Bloch ball). This six-dimensional object can also be regarded as a quantum superposition of two "alternative histories" of the original system S , which is where the "rises" are observed and the other where "down" is observed. Each subsequent binary measurement (ie interaction with the M system) causes the same separation in the history tree. So after three measurements, the system can be considered as a quantum superposition 8 = 2 ÃÆ'â € "2 ÃÆ'â €" 2 copies of the original system S .
The accepted terminology is somewhat misleading because it does not correctly assume the universe is split at certain times; at a certain moment there is one state in one universe.
Relative condition
In his 1957 doctoral dissertation, Everett proposed that rather than modeling an isolated quantum system subject to external observation, one could mathematically model objects and observers as pure physical systems in the mathematical framework developed by Paul Dirac, von Neumann and others, discarding all the ad hoc mechanism of the collapse of the wave function.
Because of Everett's original work, there emerged a number of similar formalisms in the literature. One is the relative state formulation. This makes two assumptions: first, the wave function is not just a description of the state of the object, but is actually fully equivalent to the object, the same claim as some other interpretations. Secondly, observation or measurement has no special laws or mechanics, unlike in the Copenhagen interpretation which considers the wave function to collapse as a special kind of event occurring as a result of observation. In contrast, the measurement in the relative state formulation is a consequence of the configuration changes in the observer memory described by the same basic wave physics as the modeled object.
The world-wide interpretation is DeWitt's population of Everett's work, which refers to a combined object-observer system as split by observation, any split corresponding to the different results or possibilities of an observation. This split yields a possible tree as shown in the graph below. Furthermore, DeWitt introduced the term "world" to describe the complete measurement history of an observer, which relates roughly to one branch of the tree. Note that "splitting" in this sense is hardly new or even quantum mechanics. The idea of ​​complete complete historical space has been used in probability theory since the mid-1930s for example to model Brownian motion.
Under the interpretation of many worlds, Schrödinger equations, or relativistic analogs, hold everywhere. Observations or measurements are modeled by applying the wave equations to the whole system consisting of observers and objects. One consequence is that each observation can be regarded as the cause of an observer-object wave function transforming into a quantum superposition of two or more non-interacting branches, or divided into many "worlds". Because many events such as observations have occurred and are constantly occurring, there are a large number of states simultaneously present.
If the system consists of two or more subsystems, the system status will be the product superposition of the subsystem status. Each product of the subsystem states in the overall superposition evolving over time independently of other products. Once the subsystem interacts, its status becomes correlated or entangled and it is no longer possible to assume it is independent of each other. In Everett's terminology every subsystem state is now correlated with its relative state, since each subsystem must now be considered relative to other subsystems that have interacted with it.
Property from theory
MWI removes the role that the observer relies on in the quantum measurement process by replacing the collapse of wave function with quantum decoherence. Because the role of the observer lies at the heart of most, if not all "quantum paradoxes", this automatically resolves a number of problems; see for example the SchrÃÆ'¶dinger cat thinking experiment, EPR paradox, von Neumann's "boundary problem" and even wave-particle duality. Quantum cosmology also becomes understandable, since it is no longer necessary for outside observers of the universe.
MWI is a realist, deterministic, and debatable local theory similar to classical physics (including the theory of relativity), at the expense of counterfactual loss of firmness. MWI achieves this by removing the collapse of wave function, which is indeterministic and non-local, of deterministic and local equations of quantum theory.
MWI (or other wider multiverse considerations) provides a context for an anthropic principle that can provide an explanation for a well-tuned universe.
MWI, as an obscure formulation, axiomatically leaner than Copenhagen and other fallen interpretations; and thus favored under certain interpretations of the Occam razor. Of course there are other decoherent interpretations that also have these advantages with respect to collapsed interpretations.
Comparative properties and possible experimental tests
One of the prominent traits of the interpretation of many worlds is that it does not require the method of collapse of a remarkable wave function to explain it. "There seems to be no experiment that distinguishes MWI from other non-collapse theories such as Bohmian mechanics or other variants of MWI... In most interpretations without collapse, the evolution of the quantum state of the universe is the same. It is conceivable that there are experiments that distinguish MWI from other non-collapse interpretations based on differences in correspondence between formalism and experience (experimental results). "
However, in 1985, David Deutsch published three related thought experiments that could test the theory vs. Copenhagen interpretation. This experiment requires the preparation of macroscopic quantum status and quantum removal by hypothetical quantum computers that are currently beyond the possibility of experimental. Since then Lockwood (1989), Vaidman and others have made similar proposals. This proposal also requires sophisticated technology capable of placing macroscopic objects in coherent superposition, other tasks that are uncertain would be possible to do. Many other controversial ideas have been proposed, such as the recent claim that cosmological observations can test the theory, and other claims by Rainer Plaga (1997), published in the Physical Foundation, that communication may be possible across the globe.
Copenhagen interpretation
In Copenhagen's interpretation, mathematical quantum mechanics allows one to predict the probability of occurrence of events. When an event occurs, it becomes part of a definite reality, and alternative possibilities are not. There is no necessity to say anything definite about what is not observed.
The universe decays to a new vacuum
Any event that changes the number of observers in the universe may have experimental consequences. Quantum tunneling to a new vacuum will reduce the number of observers to zero (ie, kill all life). Some cosmologists argue that the universe is in the wrong state of vacuum and consequently the universe should have undergone a quantum tunnel to the actual vacuum. This has not happened and is cited as evidence supporting many worlds. In some parts of the world, a quantum tunnel to the true state of vacuum has occurred but most other worlds have escaped from this tunnel and remain alive. This can be regarded as a variation on quantum suicide.
Mind-mind
The multi-minded interpretation is a multi-world interpretation that defines the separation of reality at the level of the minds of the observers. In this respect, it differs from the interpretation of many Everett worlds, where there is no particular role for the mind of the observer.
Popular Comments
Many-world interpretations are very unclear about ways to determine when separation occurs, and today the criterion is usually that the two branches are decohering.
Objection
Nevertheless, today's understanding of decoherence does not allow a truly appropriate and correct way of saying when two branches have taken out/"no interaction", and hence the interpretation of many worlds remains arbitrary. This objection says that it is not clear what is meant by branching, and shows the lack of self-determining criteria for branching.
-
- MWI response: decoherence or "splitting" or "branching" is completed when the measurement is complete. In Dirac notation the measurement is complete when:
- where represents an observer that detects system objects in the i state. Before measurement begins, the observer state is identical; after the measurement is complete, the observer's status is orthonormal. Thus the measurement defines the branching process: branching is well defined or unclear because the measurement is; branching complete complete measurement - which says that the delta function above represents the ideal measurement. While it is true "for all practical purposes" in reality the measurement, and therefore branching, is never fully complete, since the delta function is not real,
- Because the role of the observer and the measurement per se plays a special role in MWI (measurements are handled because of all other interactions) there is no need for precise definitions of what the observer or measurement - as in Newtonian Physics does not have the exact definition of either the observer or the required measurement or expected. In all circumstances the universal wave function is still available to provide a complete picture of reality.
- Also, it is a common misconception to think branches are completely separate. In Everett's formulations, they may be basically quantum disruptive (ie, "merge" instead of "splitting") with each other in the future, although this requires all the "memories" of previous missing branching events, so no observer has ever seen two branches of reality.
- MWI response: decoherence or "splitting" or "branching" is completed when the measurement is complete. In Dirac notation the measurement is complete when:
MWI states that there is no specific role, or the need for precise measurement definitions in MWI, but Everett uses the word "measurement" repeatedly throughout his exposition.
-
- MWI responses: "measurements" are treated as subclasses of interactions, which induce the correlation of subject-objects in a combined wave function. There is nothing special about measurements (such as the ability to trigger the collapse of wave function), which can not be handled by the usual unity time development process. This is why there are no precise measurement definitions in Everett's formulations, although some other formulations emphasize that measurements should be effectively irreversible or create classical information.
The separation of the world into the future, but not backward in time (ie, the incorporation of the world), is asymmetric time and does not correspond to the symmetrical nature of the time of the Schrödinger equation, or CPT invariance in general.
-
- MWI Response: Segregation is asymmetric time; the observed temporal asymmetry is due to the boundary conditions imposed by Big Bang
There is a circularity in Everett's measurement theory. Under the assumption made by Everett, there is no 'good observation' as defined by him, and since his analysis of the observation process depends on the latter, it has no meaning. The concept of 'good observation' is an undercover projection postulate and Everett's analysis simply obtains this postulate by assuming it, without any discussion.
-
- MWI Response: Everett's observation/measurement treatment involves both idealizing good measurements and bad cases or more general estimates. Thus it is legitimate to analyze probabilities in terms of measurement; no circularity.
The probability conversations at Everett assume the existence of a preferred basis for identifying measurement results for probabilities for more ranges. But the existence of a preferred base can only be formed by a process of decoherence, which is itself probabilistic or arbitrary.
-
- MWI Response: Everett analyzes branching using what we now call "measurement basis". The fundamental theorem of quantum theory that nothing can be measured or empirically altered by adopting a different basis. Therefore Everett is free to choose whatever basis he likes. The measurement basis is just the simplest basis for analyzing the measurement process.
We can not be sure that the universe is a quantum multiverse until we have a theory about everything and, in particular, quantum gravity success theory. If the final theory of everything is not linear with respect to the wave function then many of the world will become invalid.
-
- MWI Response: All the accepted fundamental quantum physics theories are linear with regard to the wave function. While quantum gravity or string theory may not be linear in this case there is no evidence to indicate this current.
Energy conservation is completely violated if at any moment new material that is virtually unlimited is generated to create a new universe.
-
- MWI responses: There are two responses to this objection. First, the law of conservation of energy says that energy is preserved in every universe. Therefore, even if "new material" is generated to create a new universe, this will not violate energy conservation. Second, conservation of energy is not violated because the energy of each branch must be weighed by its probability, in accordance with the standard formula for energy conservation in quantum theory. This produces a conserved total multiverse energy.
Occam's razor rule against most universes that can not be observed - Occam will prefer only one universe; ie, any non-MWI.
-
- MWI Response: Occam's razor is actually a constraint on the complexity of physical theory, not on the number of universes. MWI is a simpler theory because it has fewer postulates. Occams razors are often quoted by MWI adherents as an advantage of MWI.
Alam semesta nonfisik: Jika sebuah negara merupakan superposisi dari dua negara dan , yaitu, , yaitu, dibobot dengan koefisien a dan b , lalu jika
-
- Respons MWI: Besarnya koefisien member bobot yang membuat cabang atau alam semesta "tidak setara", seperti yang pernah ditunjukkan oleh Everett dan lainnya, memimpin munculnya aturan probabilistik konvensional.
Violation of the principle of locality, as opposed to special relativity: the breakdown of MWI is instant and total: this may be contrary to relativity, because aliens in the Andromeda galaxy can not know I shrank the electrons here before it gouges it there: the relativity of simultaneity says we can not say which electrons collapse first - so which one separates the other universe first? This leads to a hopeless chaos with everyone splitting differently. Note: EPR is not in and out here, because my aliens and electrons do not have to be part of the same quantum, that is, entangled.
-
- MWI Response: separation can be regarded as causal, local and relativistic, spread in, or below, the speed of light (for example, we are not split by Schrö¶dinger cats until we look into the box). For separated spacelike separation you can not tell what happened first - but this is true of all spacelike spacer events, the simultaneity is not defined for them. Splitting is no exception; many-worlds are local theories.
Reception
There are various claims that are considered to be interpretations of "many worlds". It is often claimed by those who do not believe in MWI that Everett himself is not entirely clear about what he believes; however, MWI followers (such as DeWitt, Tegmark, Deutsch, and others) believe they fully understand Everett's meaning as implying literal existence from another world. In addition, a recent biographical source explains that Everett believed in the literal reality of the other quantum world. Everett's son reports that Hugh Everett "never hesitated in his belief in the theory of many worlds". Also Everett reportedly believes "his many world theory guarantees his eternity".
One of MWI's strong supporters is David Deutsch. According to Deutsch, the single photon interference pattern observed in a double slit experiment can be explained by photon disturbances in various universes. Viewed in this way, single photon interference experiments can not be distinguished from multiple photon interference experiments. In a more practical vein, in one of the earliest papers on quantum computing, he suggested that parallelism resulting from the validity of MWI could cause " a method in which certain probabilistic tasks can be performed more quickly by a universal quantum computer. with that classic restriction ". Deutsch has also proposed that when a reversible computer becomes aware that MWI will be testable (at least against "naive" Copenhagenism) through reversible reversal observations.
Asher Peres is a vocal critic of MWI. For example, the section in his 1993 textbook has the title Everett's interpretation and other strange theories . Peres not only questions whether MWI is really "interpretation", but, if any the interpretation of quantum mechanics is required at all. Interpretation can be considered a purely formal transformation, which adds nothing to the rules of quantum mechanics. Peres seems to suggest that placing the existence of an infinite number of parallel universes that are not communicating is strongly suspected by those who interpret it as an Occam razor offense, that is, that it does not minimize the number of hypothesized entities. However, it is understood that the number of elementary particles is not a severe violation of the Occam razor, one of which calculates its type, not a token. Max Tegmark states that the alternatives to many worlds are "many words", an allusion to the complexity of the von Neumann proposition. On the other hand, the same "many word" qualities of humiliation are often applied to MWI by critics who see it as obscure wordplay rather than clarifying with dizzying von Neumann branching out of the world possible with SchrÃÆ'¶dinger's parallelism from many worlds in superposition.
MWI is considered by some to be unjustifiable and therefore unscientific because some parallel universes do not communicate, in the sense that no information can be passed between them. Others claim MWI directly tested. Everett considers MWI to be forged because every test that fabricates conventional quantum theory will also fabricate MWI.
Polling
MWI advocates often cite a poll of 72 "leading cosmologists and other quantum field theorists" conducted by American political scientist David Raub in 1995 showing a 58% deal with "Yes, I think MWI is right".
However, polls are still controversial. For example, Victor J. Stenger states that the work published by Murray Gell-Mann explicitly rejects the existence of a parallel universe simultaneously. Collaborating with James Hartle, Gell-Mann is working towards the development of a more "pleasing" post-Everett quantum mechanics . Stenger thinks it's fair to say that most physicists reject the interpretation of much of the world as too extreme, while noting it "has the benefit of finding a place for observers within the system being analyzed and doing away with the troubled notion of the collapse of wave function".
Max Tegmark also reported the results of an "extremely unscientific" poll taken at the 1997 quantum mechanics workshop. According to Tegmark, "Many world interpretations (MWI) scored the second goal, comfortably in front of a consistent history and Bohm's interpretation." Such voting has been taken at other conferences, for example, in response to Sean Carroll's observations, "No matter how it sounds, most physicists working into buying into many-world theory" Michael Nielsen replied: "at the quantum computing conference at Cambridge in the year 1998, many people observed the audience of about 200 people... Many worlds are fine, gathering support at a level comparable to, but somewhat below, Copenhagen and decoherence. "However, Nielsen notes that it seems that most participants regard it as time wastage: Asher Peres "gets a big and sustained applause... when he gets up at the end of the vote and asks 'And who here believes the laws of physics are determined by democratic votes?'"
A 2005 poll involving less than 40 students and researchers taken after a course on Quantum Mechanics Interpretation at the University of Waterloo's Quantum Computing Institute found "Much of the World (and decoherence)" became the least liked.
The 2011 poll of 33 participants at the Austrian conference found 6 supported UMIs, 8 "Information-based/information-theoretical", and 14 Copenhagen; the authors commented that the results were similar to those of the previous 1998 Tegard poll.
Speculative implications
Offers speculative physics with questions that are also discussed in science fiction.
Quantum suicidal thoughts trial
Quantum suicide , as a thought experiment, was published independently by Hans Moravec in 1987 and Bruno Marchal in 1988 and further developed independently by Max Tegmark in 1998. It attempts to distinguish between the Copenhagen interpretation of mechanics quantum and interpretation of many Everett worlds through experimental variations of SchrÃÆ'¶dinger's cat thinking, from a cat's point of view. Timelessness refers to the subjective experience of quantum suicide irrespective of its possibilities.
Clutch weak
Another speculation is that a separate world remains weakly paired (eg, by gravity) allowing "communication between parallel universes". A possible test using a quantum-optical apparatus is described in the 1997 article The Physics Foundation by Rainer Plaga. It involves isolated ions in ion traps, quantum measurements that will produce two parallel worlds (their difference is only in the detection of one photon), and ion excitation from only one of these worlds. If excited ions can be detected from other parallel universes, then this will be direct evidence to support the interpretation of many worlds and will automatically exclude orthodox, "logical", and "many-history" interpretations. The reason the ion is isolated is to make it not immediately participate in the decoherence that isolates the parallel branches of the world, thus allowing it to act as a gate between two worlds, and if the size apparatus can perform measurements fast enough before the ion gateway is separated then the test will succeed (with electronic computer time windows the necessary between the two worlds will be in a millisecond or nanosecond time scale, and if the measurements are taken by humans then a few seconds will still be enough). R. Plaga shows that macroscopic decoherence time scale is a possibility. The proposed test is based on the technical equipment described in the 1993 article Physical Review by Itano et al. and R. Plaga says that this level of technology is sufficient to realize the proposed inter-world communications experiment. The technology required for single ion precision measurements has been around since the 1970s, and the recommended ions for excitation are 199 Hg . The excitation methodology is described by Itano et al. and the time it takes for it is given by the formula of dropping the Rabbi.
The test as described by R. Plaga would mean that energy transfer is possible between parallel worlds. This does not violate the basic principles of physics because it requires energy conservation only for the entire universe and not for a single parallel branch. Both single ion excitation (which is the degree of freedom of the proposed system) leads to decoherence, something evidenced by the Weg Welcher detector that can stimulate atoms without momentum transfer (leading to loss of coherence).
The proposed test will enable inter-world communication of low bandwidth, bandwidth limiting factor and time dependent on equipment technology. Since the time required to determine the state of a partially isolated ion excited declared by Itano et al. Methodology, Ions will cease when the circumstances are determined during the experiment, so Plaga's proposal will miss enough information between the two worlds to confirm their parallel existence and nothing more. The author contemplates that with the increase in bandwidth, one can even transfer the image of the television in a parallel world. For example, the methodology of Itano et al. Can be increased (by decreasing the time required for the determination of the state of excited ions) if more efficient processes are found to detect fluorescence radiation using 194Ã, nm photons.
A 1991 article by J. Polchinski also supports the view that inter-world communication is a theoretical possibility. Other writers in preprinted articles in 1994 also thought of similar ideas.
The reason for inter-world communication seems like a possibility is that the decoherence that separates the parallel world is never fully complete, therefore the weak influence from one parallel world to another can still pass between them, and this should be measurable by advanced technology. Deutsch proposes such an experiment in the 1985 International Journal of Theoretical Physics, but the technology required involves man-made intelligence.
Timeline does not make sense/very impossible
Many MWI supporters assert that any event that may be physically represented in a multiversal pile, and by this definition will include scenarios and timelines that are highly unlikely. Bryce Seligman DeWitt has stated that "Everett/Wheeler/Graham does not ultimately exclude the superposition element: All the world is there, even where everything goes wrong and all statistical laws are broken." Murray Gell-Mann has stated that "Everything that is not prohibited is mandatory." (citation taken from T.H. White to illustrate the implications of the Totalitarian principle) Max Tegmark has confirmed in various statements that unlikely/highly unlikely events can not be avoided under MWI interpretation. To quote Tegmark, "Things that are inconsistent with the laws of physics will never happen - others will... be important to track statistics, because even if everything is possible somewhere, a really strange event just happens exponentially. " Frank J. Tipler, though a strong advocate for the interpretation of many worlds, has expressed some skepticism about this aspect of the theory. In a 2015 interview he states "We do not know... it is possible that the modulus of the wave function of that possibility [ie a highly unreasonable but physically possible event] is zero in which no such world exists. universe out there, you can imagine that... will not be actualized. "
The similarity with capital realism
Many-world interpretations have some similarities to the capital of realism in philosophy, which is the view that the world might be used to interpret capital claims to exist and similar to the real world. Unlike the possible world of philosophy, however, in quantum mechanics, counterfactual alternatives may influence experimental results, as in the problem of testing the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb or the Quantum Zeno effect. Moreover, while the world of interpretation of many worlds all share the same physical law, capital realism postulates the world for everything imaginable.
Time travel
The interpretation of many worlds can be one possible way to resolve the paradox that one would hope to emerge when travel time was permitted by physics (allowing near time curves to close and thus breaking causality). Entering the past itself will be a quantum event that causes branching, and therefore the time line accessed by time travelers will only be another time line of many people. In that case, it would make Novikov's self-consistency principle unnecessary.
Many worlds in literature and science fiction
The interpretation of many worlds (and possibly world related concepts) has been linked to themes in literature, art and science fiction.
Some of these stories or films violate fundamental principles of causality and relativity, because the theoretical information structures of the pathways of the various universes (ie, the flow of information between different paths) are very likely to be complex.
Another type of popular illustration of many of the world's gaps, which does not involve the flow of information between paths, or the flow of information backwards in time considering alternative results from historical events. According to the interpretation of many worlds, all the historical speculation entertained in the alternative historical genre is manifested in a parallel universe.
The many world interpretations of reality were anticipated with extraordinary allegiance in the 1937 Star Macer fiction novel Olaf Stapledon in a paragraph describing one of the many universes created by the Star Maker god of the title. "In a cosmically incomprehensible cosmos, every time a creature is confronted with several possible actions, it leads them all, thus creating many different temporal dimensions and different histories of the cosmos, because in every sequence of evolution from the cosmos there are so many creatures, and each of them is constantly confronted with many possible courses, and the combination of all their countless, infinite programs of different universes are exfoliated from every moment of each time sequence in this cosmos. "
Star Trek uses a lot of the world in many stories. In Original Series , Spock and Kirk make a crossover into a mirrored world and find their own version of the other universe. In an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, Worf crossed into a parallel universe while driving a shuttlecraft and managed to confront some of the other universes. The TNG finale "All Good Things" uses the concept of weight as Picard jumps over time. This was continued in Star Trek: Deep Space 9 with a curved episode between the kingdom of Terran and the Alliance, where Sisko and Kira also found a mirrored version of themselves and other characters currently dead in the central universe. , or die in a parallel universe.
Author Neal Stephenson describes the theory of many worlds for several aspects of his novel in 2008 Anathem .
A newer iteration, Rick and Morty on the Adult Swim channel, uses the interpretation of many worlds as the basis for events in the show. The cartoon also makes metaphors for the Schrö¶dinger Cat in an episode where they divide their existence into two hypotheses, possibly the same existence.
In episode 5 of the Netflix series, Stranger Hal , the protagonist high school teacher Scott Clarke specifically mentions the many-world theory when asked about the possibility of an alternative dimension of â € Å"toreticsâ €.
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments