Has it even been proposed that just as evettianism claims to solve the measurement problem (of orthogonal outcomes) by having both outcomes occurring in a different world, that likewise the wave function collapses in a previous meta branching in every basis, that is along all basess, one basis to each world, wherepon each such world then branches again into its orthogonal outcomes.? Or would this make problems for the measure of existence, as preferred bases are not in a superposition; so that the measure of existence would grow from 1, to infinity, value one each for of the infinitely many branchings.
This would also have the issue of definitely giving an eternalist outlook, as soon as the initial conditionals are sets everything would have already collapsed; and im not sure if you ever get definite outcomes at all, because as soon as the second stage begins where one basis branches into two orthogonal outcomes, one each worlds, these worlds would already have to immediately collapse along their subsequent bases
-- also in everettianism, is the collapse global or local; does it collapse as an entire world slice, or just with each time, the environment becomes entangled with the observable so as to induce a superposition
Mannerism is probably the best answer. New ways to allow absurdities for mathematicians, who don't understand a single bit of physics.
Hi William,
I believe that you are suggesting that under the many worlds approach there could be a multiplicity of preferred bases.
I doubt very much whether that already extravagant interpretation could be stretched that far. Consider the problem of the cat. It could be dead or alive or as Schrodinger suggested a superposition of those states, but the preferred basis is dead or alive and nothing else. According to the decoherence program these are the only states sufficiently robust to survive decoherence.
Schrodinger described the possibility of a cat being in some smeared out state as quite ridiculous and of course he was engaging in a reductio ad absurdum.
I believe he would have felt the same about many worlds and the supposed preferred basis problem which in my own view is illusory.
Dan
“…the cat. It could be dead or alive or as Schrodinger suggested a superposition of those states…”
- that is Schrodinger’s cat. But Multiverse – and just so this QM interpretation differs from other, i.e., “Oneverse” interpretations [including Schrodinger’s one] – claims that really simultaneously there are infinite number of every cats – or, in this case, “basics”; so this thread’s question seems as not so extravagant.
Simply from the Multiverse hypothesis such “extravagant” inferences are indeed possible, because of it is indeed rather strange , though having an active PR.
Including seems as rather evident that an existence of some “Multiverse” is impossible by the energetic reason – even to create our one Universe at Beginning a huge potion of the energy was spent, so to create some Multiverse is necessary to spent an infinite number of huge portions. Omnipotence seems as not too scientific approach…
Cheers
Dear sergey;
"Including seems as rather evident that an existence of some “Multiverse” is impossible by the energetic reason – even to create our one Universe at Beginning a huge potion of the energy was spent, so to create some Multiverse is necessary to spent an infinite number of huge portions. Omnipotence seems as not too scientific approach…"
would this apply to the standard many worlds approach which resolves the or purports to resolve the issues of wave function collapse and schrodringer cats states by having it split along orthogonal events in one basis, or does your comment only apply the tentative conjecture I have suggested about splitting along all bases as in the question above; i ask this because in the standard everettian approach, the decomposed orthogonal elements of the superposition have less 'measure of existence' the an the original world from which they split and thus their sum total is still only that of the original universe; whilst if you have it splitting along all preferred bases, presumably each of these would have measure of existence 1, equal to the entire universe, and so it would appear, as you appear to suggest, that something comes from nothing or that extra energy or matter was created etc.multiplied>version
Dear William,
As it seems to me, any interpretation of indeed fundamental QM puzzle – what is “the collapse of wave function” doesn’t contain anything besides some phenomenology. At that every concrete wave function in every concrete case has unique concrete basis of sates and variants of results of the collapses; and this basis rather probably can be considered here as “preferred” basis.
The difference between “Multiverse” and other approaches is seems only in that when in other approaches concrete collapse variant is realized from “implicitly existent set of virtual variants”, when in the Multiverse approach the of variants really exist always.
For me the Multiverse approach seems as unreal because of it requires unreal energy involved.
At that in the “The Information as Absolute” conception [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute ]it is shown that all what humans now observe as happening in our Universe [here more correct – in Matter] – and all what had/have happened before and will happen in Universe in future, had happened always, i.e. absolutely infinite times; and, simultaneously, is happening always. Humans now simply exist in a concrete version of the movie “concrete [but unique!] Universe evolution” and observe this movie; when the movie always go according to unique scenario, where all collapses of all wave functions have happened and are/will happening with identical results.
Cheers
Article the Information as Absolute
Dear Daniel, when you say 'according to the decoherence program these are the only states sufficiently robust to survive decoherence' by this do you mean that along other bases; the states would not decohere into individual eigenvalues/measurement outcomes, but remain in some kind of quasi-super-position. So that one could not have a unique outcome, and one could not disentangle the two worlds correponding to the two possible orthogonal eigenstates along that basis (they would be still be somewhat part of the same world)
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics
- Statistics
- Probability