9 views

Uploaded by Rajdeep Banerjee

kellen murphy ... overview of many world interpretation of quantum mechanics

- Photon - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia
- Spin as Primordial Self-referential Process
- Miraflores, Andalucia, Spain Workshop Slides
- Photon
- Physics
- The Thresholds of the Mind-SESHA
- 12766.full
- Entanglement e sincronicità 376-718-1-PB.pdf
- 1994 Quantum Statistics
- Free Energy - The Divine Oneness by David Wilcock
- Consciousness and Modern Science
- Quantum Physics
- Singh 2010
- UT Dallas Syllabus for phys3352.501.08s taught by Roy Chaney (chaneyr)
- Trayectoria Del Cuanto
- 00255___78206e6b66cd86e55c4d9cb4d64fd965
- Andreev Tunneling Into a One-dimensional Josephson Junction Array
- 21 Anomalous Effects from Dipole-Environment Quantum Entanglement.pdf
- supp17
- Quantum Computers

You are on page 1of 7

Kellen Murphy

May 28, 2007

Abstract

We explore the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics, beginning with a discussion of the original proposal by Everett, and extending to a discussion of modern manyworlds ideas, including discussion of some current criticisms of the many-worlds interpretation.

Introduction

The most interesting thing about quantum mechanics: it works. Despite the fact that almost every

explanation for why quantum mechanics actually works leads to unanswerable paradoxes, we all

have faith in it. After all, it gets results, right? Shut up and calculate! the advisors cry. We

leave the question of why for metaphysical thought and ponderance: the kind that blindsides you on

some idle Wednesday (probably during a seminar of some kind). The Many-Worlds Interpretation of

quantum mechanics was born out of such metaphysical wonderings in 1957 by Hugh Everett III, in

his Princeton Ph.D. thesis. A shorter paper, Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics

followed later in the year, and introduced the broader physics community to the ideas of a new

metatheory (as Everett himself described it) to the theory of quantum mechanics. One which

posited quantum mechanics, without all that silliness of wavefunction collapse, by providing a new

structure which eschewed the Copenhagen Interpretations idea of an external observer.

Everetts Relative State formulation was recharacterized as the Many Worlds Interpretation

by Bryce DeWitt in the 1960s. It serves as an Everett metatheory to the theory of nonrelativistic

quantum mechanics in that it is an underlying theory in which the nature and consistency, as well

as the realm of applicability, of the older theory can be investigated and clarified. [1] The ManyWorlds Interpretation attacks the most fundamental of problems of quantum mechanics: rectifying

many of the apparent paradoxes that the Copenhagen formulation of quantum mechanics admits.

Everetts original intention with the theory which is presented here was the goal of unifying

the realms of relativistic quantum mechanics and general relativity. So, in a sense, the Many

Worlds Interpretation (MWI) is a primitive attempt at a grand unified theory, which the physics

community searches for voraciously to this day. [2]

Before we move into the specifics of the Many-Worlds Interpretation, we first present a lightningfast review of the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) basic principles. The CI essentially gives the

following: a physical system is described in terms of its state function |i, a member of a Hilbert

Space (typically of square-integrable functions), and provides information to us based solely on

probabilities for the results of an observation. There are two ways one of these state functions, |i,

can change:

1. A continuous, deterministic change of the state with respect to time, arising from Schrodingers

Equation.

2. The discontinuous change from one state to another during collapse of the wavefunction.

2

The act of measuring an observable collapses the state function to an explicit eigenstate of the

aforementioned observables operator. (For example, Schrodingers cat. A cat is placed into a box

with a vial of poison, such that opening the box breaks the vial and leads to kittys untimely demise.

When in the box, the cat exists as a linear superposition of |alivei and |deadi. However, when we

open the box, the act of observing the cat as dead (either from poison or starvation - depending on

how long we left the experiment sit in the lab) places the cat into a pure eigenstate of the death

operator: |deadi.) This is collapse of the wavefunction.

The CI is indeed powerful medicine, which works nicely for calculations, but what of its fundamental basis as a physical theory? Why must the act of measurement change a system? It is this

very question which Everett pondered:

This formulation describes a wealth of experience. No experimental evidence is known

which contradicts it. Not all conceivable situations fit the framework of this mathematical formulation. Consider for example an isolated system consisting of an observer or

measuring apparatus, plus an object system. Can the change with time of the state

of the total system be described by [Process 1]? If so, then it would appear that no

discontinuous probabilistic process like [Process 2] can take place. If not, we are forced

to admit that systems which contain observers are not subject to the same kind of

quantum-mechanical description we admit for other physical systems. [1]

What Everett claims is that in invoking the contemporary Copenhagen Interpretation, in essence

we are limiting ourselves to a special class of problems, where we are unwilling to admit observers

on more than some mechanistic basis: a light turns on, a chirp is heard, etc. where the state of

our mechanical observer does change. This limiting of problems then is the principal weakness of

the CI.

The MWI foregoes the contemporary two postulate Copenhagen Interpretation, and instead adopts

the Everett Postulate:

All isolated systems evolve according to the Schrodinger Equation:

d

|i

dt

= hi |i. [3]

This may seem like straightforward repetition of the tenets of the CI, but there are some rather

important consequences of this single postulate:

The entire universe evolves according to the Schrodinger Equation. (The universe is, in as far

as we can comprehend, an isolated system).

There are no definite outcomes of measurements in quantum mechanics, since there can be

no collapse of the wavefunction (it would most definitely violate the Everett Postulate).

People often regard the MWI as being completely equivalent to Everetts Relative State formulation, however, the MWI is only one of many Everett Postulate-based interpretations of quantum

mechanics. The calculation of probabilities for various acts of measurement is not determined mechanistically and axiomatically as with the CI, but is instead derived from the Hamiltonian dynamics

of a system by computing decoherence rates. [3]

The concept of an event having no definite outcome is one with which to wrestle: how does

it make sense that nothing in the quantum universe is tenable and determinant? Philosophically

speaking; is the sky not always blue? We live in a world that is macroscopic, and hence deterministic,

so it makes sense that indeterminacy makes no sense. Why can we not extend our acceptance of

natural indeterminacy in quantum mechanics to further acceptance that what we did think was

certain - quantum mechanically - is not quite as it appears. After all, time is the thing that uncovers

deeper levels of complexity, is it not acceptable to believe our understanding of uncertainty is not

as certain as our physics ancestors (Schrodinger, Dirac, et al.) thought?

4

As a simple example, let us consider the case of an experimentalist observing the spin of an

electron. Lets assume that our observer lives in the Hilbert Space consisting of the three states

|happyi, |sadi, and |mehi, and that the electron is either in the |upi or |downi states. Further

supposing our observer has some affinity for spin-up electrons, dislikes spin-down electrons, and

that a time evolution operator U = exp(iHt/

h) exists for our isolated experiment, we can say:

U|upi |mehi = |upi |happyi

(1)

(2)

and

These results would follow from the CI, however, what if our initial state of the electron was in

some superposition of the |upi and |downi states, with amplitudes and respectively? According

to the CI, measuring would collapse the state of the electron into either pure-|upi or pure-|downi,

and the act of observing would result in one of the above final states of our observer. But according

to Everett, the final state for our observer would remain a superposition:

U(|upi + |downi) |mehi = |upi |happyi + |downi |sadi.

(3)

[3]

The common misconception regarding the Many-Worlds Interpretation is the at some instance

the universe splits into two magic, seperate copies where one universe observed the outcome of a

measurement one way, and the other universe observed the outcome to be another. This represents

a fundamental misunderstanding of Everetts ideas, because this is inconsistent with the Everett

Postulate: the two separate terms in Eqn. 3 could exhibit interference. According to the MWI,

there is only one wavefunction, with results obtainable from that wave function by decoherence

calculations alone, not postulates.

5

One of the common criticisms of the Many Worlds Interpretation was that it doesnt explain randomness without the sort of instantly changing states (i.e. collapse) exists in the Copenhagen

Interpretation. However, Everett shows us that indeed the MWI does perceive of randomness

despite the fact that the Schrodinger Equation is causal.

Another criticism often voiced is that it doesnt explain why we perceive of weird superpositions,

or that the theory in general is just too weird to be true. This subjective idea of weirdness is

usually based on with what philosophical basis the observer of MWI lives in; the outside view,

that mathematical language is more fundamental than human understanding, or the inside view,

that human understanding is based on that which is physically real, and mathematics is merely our

approximation of what we see. Critics of the MWI tend to be proponents of the inside view, and

are actually saying that the two opposite views tend to contrast one another, and is saying that

they are uncomfortable with living in the other side.

No matter what your opinion of the philosophical nature of the universe, it is important to

recognize that the MWI gaining more and more popularity and adherents within the scientific

community. However, like all questioned theories it has an uncertain future. One thing we can

be certain of: whether or not the final word on the structure of quantum mechanics will be the

MWI or not is a moot point, as the entire idea behind science is enlightened debate about the

fundamental structure of the universe, so surely metaphysical questioning of this sort will continue

to be as prevalent as it is today (even if it only occurs during boring seminars).

References

[1] Everett, H. Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics. Review of Modern

Physics 29, 454 (1957).

[2] Albert, D. Z., and B. Loewer Interpreting the Many Worlds Interpretation, Synthese

77, pp. 195, (1998).

[3] Tegmark, Max The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Many Worlds or Many

Words? arXiv:quant-ph/09032v1, (1997).

[4] Clown, Marcus The Illusion of Reality in a Quantum World, New Scientist, Issue 2595,

(17 March 2007).

[5] Page, Don Can Quantum Cosmology Give Observational Consequences of ManyWorlds Quantum Theory?, arXiv:gr-qc/0001001v1, (2000).

- Photon - Wikipedia, The Free EncyclopediaUploaded byMaxim Šporki
- Spin as Primordial Self-referential ProcessUploaded byQuantumDream, Inc.
- Miraflores, Andalucia, Spain Workshop SlidesUploaded bysalaharami
- PhotonUploaded byAnonymous gUjimJK
- PhysicsUploaded byauatipu
- The Thresholds of the Mind-SESHAUploaded byadrirm
- 12766.fullUploaded byAbhishekChatterjee
- Entanglement e sincronicità 376-718-1-PB.pdfUploaded byroberto59
- 1994 Quantum StatisticsUploaded byFxHartanto
- Free Energy - The Divine Oneness by David WilcockUploaded byCharlie
- Consciousness and Modern ScienceUploaded byHaris_Isa
- Quantum PhysicsUploaded byCurtis Flores
- Singh 2010Uploaded byaldo
- UT Dallas Syllabus for phys3352.501.08s taught by Roy Chaney (chaneyr)Uploaded byUT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- Trayectoria Del CuantoUploaded byEvangelina Carricondo
- 00255___78206e6b66cd86e55c4d9cb4d64fd965Uploaded byKetan
- Andreev Tunneling Into a One-dimensional Josephson Junction ArrayUploaded byAngelo Dottore
- 21 Anomalous Effects from Dipole-Environment Quantum Entanglement.pdfUploaded byIJAERS JOURNAL
- supp17Uploaded byGilberto Ruiz
- Quantum ComputersUploaded byv_gurucharan
- Ejtpv3i12p117 Vic via FSUploaded byAnonymous 0U9j6BLllB
- anadawan-1Uploaded byMareld Dyzelle Ecija
- 5Uploaded byBasava Raja
- Quantum Optic12Uploaded byNeha singhal
- Theoretical Study of Photoinduced Superconductivity in 2 2 2 8d Bi Sr Cacu o Bi2212 With Two Band ModelUploaded bysunaina agarwal
- Lotte Holmegaard et al- Control of rotational wave-packet dynamics in asymmetric top moleculesUploaded byMddl2a
- Worm WholesUploaded byDeea Maanth
- Computational Genetic ChemistryUploaded byJames Bonnar
- Waves and ParticlesUploaded byJoey Cena
- Computación Cuántica en enseñanza mediaUploaded byÁlvaro Suárez

- Mahan Chap1Uploaded byRajdeep Banerjee
- To Have Been a Student of Richard FeynmanUploaded byDevaucay
- The Prisoner of Yakutsk - The New Indian ExpressUploaded byRajdeep Banerjee
- Tutorial DefectsUploaded byRajdeep Banerjee
- Tutorial DefectsUploaded byRajdeep Banerjee
- Mandel Shaw QFTUploaded byRajdeep Banerjee
- Berry's phase and Hall effect in topological insulatorsUploaded byRajdeep Banerjee
- spin orbit couplingUploaded byRajdeep Banerjee
- Lecture_13_basic Principles of Quantum Statistical MechanicsUploaded byRajdeep Banerjee
- Simulation of Sinw Junctionless_ansariUploaded byRajdeep Banerjee
- navakantUploaded byRajdeep Banerjee
- Iwai H_NWFETUploaded byRajdeep Banerjee
- Dimtri_ESD_LNA2005Uploaded byRajdeep Banerjee
- Simmond_QWI_APL2008Uploaded byRajdeep Banerjee
- AKR_a Review of His WorkUploaded byRajdeep Banerjee

- ConvertXtoDVD v4 ManualUploaded bybartmanhi
- Lpn24 Ug Enb01wUploaded byJorgeCalzadilla
- pmckids-montessori-school-prospectus.pdfUploaded byHamza Shabbri
- Gross Profit Variation Analysis Study MaterialUploaded byRussel
- Kawasaki Turbine SetUploaded byBuBu Rittirut
- Load and Execute SSIS Packages in Microsoft WindowsUploaded byジョン ロバート
- Computer Studies Questions2Uploaded byJerome Otu
- serini-ts skillsUploaded byapi-285995223
- Introduction to Steelmaking July 2013Uploaded byKhairol Anuar Mohammed
- 163133655-Jet-EtihadUploaded byShobhit Aggarwal
- (C. Du, F. Z.,1999).pdfUploaded bysamuel raj
- Chap 011Uploaded byLi Yichao
- computer class write up 3 - resumeUploaded byapi-211430360
- lehc109Uploaded bykumarajay_ndim
- G ST IP Application Guide R1.0Uploaded bysivakumar
- TK_i500_QSG-US_rev1Uploaded byjbloggs2007
- Publications FinalUploaded byMrWaratahs
- Softbank SprintUploaded byTechCrunch
- Lewatit-S-1668-L RESIN.pdfUploaded bycelina podetti
- 128_ERP605_BPD_FR_FRUploaded byPatrick Sun
- Energy Code Climate ZonesUploaded bymyemenu
- FHM Magazine India Jan 2013Uploaded byshamurailatpam
- Nucor PresentationUploaded bydrankitamayekar
- Design and Analysis of ANFIS Based BLDC MotorUploaded byRedy Starwars
- Discrete Modelling and Experimental Data.pdfUploaded byAmrYassin
- INSURANCE OMBUDSMANUploaded byTejashree Waze
- SimplifyUploaded byMulangira Mulangira
- Cirata Hydroelectric Power Project Indonesia - GEOUploaded byAditia C Purnomo
- Vibration Analysis on Tractor BonnetUploaded byIJIRST
- Presentation Intro SurveyUploaded byHalina Hamid