Quantum physics seems to prefer entangled timelines to branching ones. Perhaps because the former offers more interaction among timelines than only sharing specific origin points. Branching timelines, like tree branches, sprout from the same source, then don't intersect. Entangled timelines offer greater possible intersections. Entangled timelines offer greater, YET UNLIKELY, odds of changing the past.
Kuantum fiziğinde zaman parametresinin iç içe olmasının nedeni zamanın neredeyse ortaya atılan bütün kuantum ilke ve kanunlarda ortak terim olarak kullanılmasından kaynaklanır.
Entanglement is a key feature of the quantum theory.
Assuming the existence of alternate timelines, their rigorous description from a more general "multiversal" point of view would call for additional observables, yielding specific measurements allowing to determine in which timeline a event takes place.
As long as such measurements are not performed, alternate timelines "sharing a specific origin point" would be entangled by construction, unless (or until) some sort of decoherence process (which may or may not be said measurement) disentangles them, reducing them to mere "branching timelines", to use your description.
An intriguing question, from this perspective, would be : what is the conjugate observable (in Heisenberg sense) of this "timeline" observable ?
Alternate timelines following the concepts of Everett's 1957 model are certainly an "epic" interpretation of physics which is why in pop-cultural adaptations this is one of the most popular branches of modern theoretical concepts.
On the evidence side, there isn't really anything solid that would elevate this over the alternatives, though. So, alternate timelines in general already don't have a "scientific preference" and entanglement between those is even weaker in this regard.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Asia
- India