0
$\begingroup$

I am writing to check I have my understanding of the MWI interpretation / theory of QM correct, inspired by an article in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The Many-Worlds Interpretation" - see: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/

I am not a scientist, but have been intrigued, uplifted, shocked and struggled due to the issues and ramifications of QM.

Firstly, a couple of definitions - I say "universe" to be the sum total of all "worlds", so it is the universal wave function / Schrodinger equation of the universe that continues "uncollapsed" on its merry way.

My understanding is, putting aside mathematical and technological limitations, the following is "true" in the theory: 1. A quantum system can be anything (e.g. a human body) - it does not have to be a quantum system that exhibits the "weird" effects of QM (a quantum system can be that, too)

  1. A quantum event is any interaction / entanglement of any quantum systems (e.g. a husband and wife copulating)

  2. The before* and after states of the interaction can be explained by MWI even if both are "very macro" - e.g. the wife did (not) become pregnant. Indeed, both occur with 100% probability, because the husband and wife "split" into "copies" of themselves, but can only experience one of the realities (pregnant / not).

    • All before states factor in the wavefunction of the evolution of the quantum system - e.g., for the husband or wife, the history includes factoring in the Big Bang, the fact that all the atoms in the man and lady were created during epochs of the Big bang (e.g. nucleosynthesis); that atoms are stable (per QM explanations re electron shells, nucleus etc); the atoms became molecules became cells became systems, such as musculoskeletal and cardiovascular.
  3. The interaction / entanglement / measurement would be handled by MWI / QM mathematical calculations factoring in the before state and what happens - e.g. ejaculation, impregnation / not etc.

  4. Once an outcome is determined (e.g. pregnant), then that world continues without having to re-measure itself.

I would be very grateful if you could confirm I have this correct, or amend it where not.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ The nonmathematical language this is written in is just not precise enough to make this a meaningful question. $\endgroup$
    – user4552
    Oct 24 '19 at 2:56
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Ben. I am sorry, but I don't know the math. Am hoping someone can still understand my questions and provide answers :-) $\endgroup$ Oct 24 '19 at 4:59
  • $\begingroup$ My advice would be not to spend too much time wondering about what this interpretation says about the nature of physical reality, because it brings in large amounts of unobservable physical processes and objects that are claimed to be 'real' (i.e. all the other branches of the purported universal wavefunction), but it struggles to put any content to that claim beyond that it might be so. But it might also not be so, and until someone provides some physical evidence I would not get too attached to this interpretation. $\endgroup$ Oct 24 '19 at 11:49
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Andrew - appreciated. $\endgroup$ Oct 25 '19 at 7:53
0
$\begingroup$

There are umpteen variations of the MWI, none of which is authoritative. They form a spectrum from the physically reasonable to the outlandish. There is no way of saying which of your scenarios is 'true in the theory' because it depends upon which version of the 'theory' you mean.

The person most commonly credited with developing the ideas that underpin MWI was Hugh Everett. His PhD thesis in which he set-out those ideas is available on line. I cannot see any way to reconcile his PhD thesis with the scenarios you describe.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ In parallel with posting my questions on this forum, I sent an email to a Professor of Quantum Physics at a prestigious UK University. I got a response that, quote: “Strangely enough, I don’t think I’ve ever agreed to a six points made by anyone before but in this case you are absolutely right.“ For what it's worth to this community... $\endgroup$ Oct 24 '19 at 22:35
0
$\begingroup$

There is nothing unique to quantum mechanics about the multiversal method of mathematical modeling. It is a standard aspect of Lagrangian (analytical, variational) dynamics. This is what Schrodinger meant when he protested the acausal interpretation of QM by reiterating that his wave equations described waves in configuration space, not in physical space.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Steven - appreciated. $\endgroup$ Oct 25 '19 at 7:54
0
$\begingroup$

David, Your picture is more or less correct, but re 4. you don't have to worry about everything that happened since the big bang, although it is all included in the Universal Wavefunction it probably has minimal effect on us. Everything that is historically possible occurs - screwing wifie and having all possible permutations of kids in different Everett worlds doesn't depend on antics in the constellation of Aquarius, for example.

Think of the quantum worlds as timelines. Everytime something happens the timeline splits or divides, with each possible outcome.occurring in one of the now-many timelines. On pay rise day for example, in many timelines you get a rise and promotions,.in many others you get the sack, and in some (still a large number, but fewer) you never make it to work because you die of a heart attack /stroke/ earthquake/ asteroid strike etc

BTW,to answer your question, yes MWI caters on all scales, from the smallest to the largest.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks Michael - appreciated. $\endgroup$ Oct 25 '19 at 7:54
-6
$\begingroup$

I am a non conventional Physics researcher. Your question is a good one. The finite universe is, and within that constraint all physics phenomena including atomic magnetism , mass gravity etc. are constant. Any two points in the universe are connected by a constant curvilinear constant of 1:6 curve. Numbers are constant in placement by Prime numbers as I have just now published the first of section 1 paper on the inverse placement of created prime numbers at two precise predictable spirals ( Journal of advances in Physics, Author Vinoo Cameron). I might be a pariah to current Quantum physics but at least I base my assertion by precise published mathematics, section 1 published, section 11 in review. I have avoided inbred mainline physics journals in favor of this journal of advances in physics, a very pragmatic journal

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Vinoo and Aaron - appreciated. $\endgroup$ Oct 25 '19 at 7:54
  • $\begingroup$ DAVID KELLY, Aaron Please Also a paper in international journal of mathematics also just accepted. Please do not confused by abstract -1, here is my explanation in code to you David and Aaron, that you must understand as the mainline will not. The composite of infinity 4=<---- ---- ---- ----> ; you minus the last---- and upright it at precise 90 degrees as -1 you get Pythagoras 1;3 at "-1 zero". The composite of infinity is at -null zero. The space created at 1;3 is -1 zero, and its span is value 6 by Katie's equation , its limit is the value prime 19 as in published paper. God Bless $\endgroup$ Oct 25 '19 at 15:21
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, Vinoo $\endgroup$ Oct 26 '19 at 22:01

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.