Pretty much as my title says... are Superdeterminism and Many Worlds compatible quantum interpretations? It seems to me that they might be compatible, or close to it, maybe even the stronger statement that they are essentially equivalent? But I feel like I am missing some important differences between the two.
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
1
-
$\begingroup$ See my comment on alanf's answer. Also, MWI is bogus but superdeterminism cannot be ruled out. After all, if a particle's wavefunction actually represents the non-local reality of the particle (rather than being a calculation tool), then it's not inconsistent to have superdeterminism. On the other hand, there's no way to rule out non-determinism either, as we simply cannot physically analyze non-physical aspects of the world (if any). $\endgroup$– user21820Commented Apr 28, 2022 at 13:03
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
11
Superdeterminism is the idea that measuring devices and the systems they measure are somehow correlated in advance of the measurement. Advocates of this theory say it would account for the results of EPR type experiments and that this theory could be local. I have explained some problems with this idea in another answer.
The many worlds interpretation (MWI) doesn't require superdeterminism and isn't equivalent to it. The MWI just claims that quantum mechanics is an accurate description of how the world works and that it implies the existence of a structure called the multiverse that looks like a collection of parallel universes in some approximations. The MWI is local since quantum systems are described in terms of local equations of motion so that changes in quantum observables propagate at or below the speed of light. This doesn't require that measuring instruments are correlated with the systems being measured in advance. For more on the explanation for EPR type correlations see this answer.
-
$\begingroup$ Thanks. I think my point is that MWI posits a single universal wavefunction that evolves unitarily with time. Isn't that compatible with SD given it could potentially (I think???) lead to said system-measuring device correlations as posited by SD? $\endgroup$– MooksCommented Mar 29, 2022 at 10:49
-
$\begingroup$ @Mooks In principle the states of systems could have loads of pre-existing correlations in the MWI, but no such correlations are required and explaining their existence produces more problems. $\endgroup$– alanfCommented Mar 29, 2022 at 10:58
-
$\begingroup$ Ah yes. So MWI doesn't require these correlations, but these correlations aren't inconsistent with it. So I guess the answer is that they are (potentially) compatible but not necessarily equivalent? (Glossing over those other problems you mention, of course). Thank you. $\endgroup$– MooksCommented Mar 29, 2022 at 10:59
-
$\begingroup$ Our comments got deleted for no good reason. My response to you was that I do not have time to write obvious stuff about hundreds of bogus hypotheses out there. At the same time, since most physicists are strongly emotionally attached to either Copenhagen or MWI, they won't say what I say either (which is that both are wrong). In case my latest comment gets deleted, I'll reproduce it here: $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 28, 2022 at 12:54
-
$\begingroup$ Both CI (Copenhagen interpretation) and MWI variants arise from the plain refusal to accept that particles are intrinsically non-local. If one does not make the philosophically silly assumption that a particle must have a specific position upon a measurement, then one will not need any kind of collapse or multiple worlds. A measurement device simply causes a measured particle's wavefunction to evolve to localize for the measured quantity. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 28, 2022 at 12:59