>Under QIT, a measurement is just the propagation of a mutually entangled state to a large number of particles.
eyeroll so it's MWI in disguise, but MWI is quantum realism. Illusion they talk about is that the observed macroscopic state is a part of the bigger superposition (incomplete observation). But that's dumb, even if it's a part of a bigger state, it's still real, because it's not made up, but observed.
That's kind of like saying that GRW is Copenhagen in disguise. It's not wrong, but only because it's making the word "disguise" do some pretty heavy lifting.
> MWI is quantum realism
No, it isn't because it can't account for the Born rule. See:
It's a strange conclusion. You seemingly consider one measurement and expect to see Born rule, and when it doesn't manifest, then MWI is wrong? But Born rule doesn't manifest at sample size one in any interpretation, it manifests only in a long string of measurements. If you consider a long string of measurements, you will see Born rule as <Ψ|Born rule> = 1 - O(exp(-N)), which is basically a definition of empirical tendency.
Well, now I see that QIT isn't quite there. You say classical behavior emerges by tracing, mathematically, not as a physical process? In MWI classical behavior emerges as a physical process, not by tracing. That "look at part of the system (in which case you see classical behavior)" is provided by linear independence of different branches, so each observer naturally observes their branch from inside, and it looks isolated from other branches.
> You seemingly consider one measurement and expect to see Born rule
Huh??? No, of course not. The Born rule is about probabilities. It cannot manifest in a single measurement.
> classical behavior emerges by tracing, mathematically, not as a physical process?
No. The mathematical description of classical outcomes emerges by tracing, which is to say, by discarding information. The physical interpretation of that is left open.
> In MWI classical behavior emerges as a physical process
That's right. MWI commits to a physical interpretation of the math. But there is no scientific or philosophical justification for this, and in fact, when you dig into the details all kinds of problems emerge that are swept under the rug by its proponents. Nonetheless, many MWI proponents insist that it is the One True Interpretation, including some who really ought to know better.
> each observer naturally observes their branch from inside, and it looks isolated from other branches.
Yes, I know. But this doesn't solve the problem. In order to get a mathematical description of me I have to trace the wave function in my preferred basis, which is to say, I have to throw out all of the other branches. And this is not just a computational hack. It's mathematically necessary. Discarding information is the only way to get classical, irreversible processes (like measurement) out of the unitary dynamics of the wave function. So a reasonable interpretation of the math is that I exist only if parallel universes don't. And I'm pretty sure I exist.
I'm not telling you this because I expect you to accept it, merely to show you that the MWI is not self-evidently the One True Interpretation.
In the blog post you say that tracing lets you consider a subset of an entangled system in isolation from the rest of the system. That was consistent with MWI where states are isolated from each other and not discarded. Mathematically discarding isn't necessary, isolation is sufficient.
Sure. So? MWI is not mathematically untenable, it's just incomplete (because it can't account for the Born rule) and IMHO philosophically untenable because it requires that no experiment can demonstrate the existence of a fully isolated universe, i.e. a universe whose macroscopic configuration is different from ours [1]. This feature of the MWI is what I call an IPU -- an Invisible Pink Unicorn -- something that the theory insists exists despite the fact that the theory also requires it to be unmeasurable even in principle. If you want to believe it exists, fine. Just don't call it science, and definitely don't insist that anyone who doesn't accept it is being irrational. It's attitudes like that that turn Rationalism (with a capital R) into a cult.
That blog post associates for me with the indirect observation of branching that I mentioned. Double slit experiment with one detector has a seemingly impossible phenomenon when the interference pattern disappears without measurement in our branch, so without branching this phenomenon can't be explained as "pattern disappears due to measurement", because measurement didn't happen. In MWI in this case the pattern disappears due to measurement in the other branch, that branch splits from our with the measured part of the photon and the pattern disappears in our branch. Our branch isn't privileged in this case, actually it's affected by the other branch, and the situation is symmetric: when measurement happens in our branch, pattern disappears in the other branch without measurement there. Well, technically if the other branch is destroyed by measurement there, the result for our branch is the same I guess. And if this phenomenon can't be explained without branching, then it's almost direct evidence for branching.
> Double slit experiment with one detector has a seemingly impossible phenomenon when the interference pattern disappears without measurement in our branch
Then you don't understand quantum mechanics at all. You should read this:
The TL;DR is that measurement and entanglement are the same phenomenon. A particle can become entangled with a detector even if the detector doesn't register anything.
But that is neither here nor there. Why do you get interference with no detectors? Your theory is that a detector at one slit is somehow paired with a "virtual detector" in a parallel branch at the other slit. But why would that "virtual detector" go away when the real detector is removed? Why is it never the case that there is a "virtual detector" at either slit unless there is a real detector at one of them?
Before measurement it's one detector, then it interacts with half photon, which is superposition |photon>+|no photon>, and the detector's state splits, the first state interacts with the |photon> state and measures it, nothing happens to the second state, because there's nothing to measure in the |no photon> state, but the first state splits away from the second state and leaves it alone, that's how the second state ends up alone with pure |no photon> state, but this really was done to it by the first state, the second state can't do it by itself. For this to happen in the second branch you need measurement to happen in the first branch, so when you are in the second branch, the first branch still needs to exist even though you don't see it, otherwise your branch won't be able to be as it is.
When you remove detector and start next measurement, you start with your one branch, branches from previous measurements don't affect it, the phenomenon happens during decoherence, nothing happens after it.
Your article explains this with branching without saying the word.
It's a part of photon's state at the slit with detector, the other part is at another slit. It's superposition of photon near detector and no photon near detector.
In MWI the Born rule is a tendency of statistics of a long string of measurements. You tried to get this statistics from one measurement, which didn't work. If you want to see how MWI produces the Born rule, you should calculate statistics of a long string of measurements and see that this statistics is asymptotically close to Born statistics.
Other branches can be demonstrated indirectly by 1) quantitatively verifying unitary dynamics, 2) indirectly observing branching, 3) demonstrating that other theories are wrong. Branches are just superposition, if you want to eliminate branches, you should eliminate superposition with pilot wave or superdeterminism or something like that. This kind of unobservability isn't unique to MWI, in general theory of relativity we observe only a part of the universe, the rest being beyond event horizon and is unobservable. Do you believe only observable part of the universe exists and beyond it nothing exists?
> You tried to get this statistics from one measurement
Huh??? When?
> Other branches can be demonstrated
Sure, that's just QM 101. What you cannot demonstrate experimentally, not even in principle, is the existence of other branches with different macroscopic configurations than our own. Such branches are IPUs.
Again, huh??? Where in that blog post do I try to "get this [sic] statistics from one measurement"?
> I provided 3 ways to demonstrate it experimentally, even in principle, not sure what problem you have.
No, you didn't. You apparently don't understand what is meant by "branches with different macroscopic configurations than our own" and I don't have time to explain it to you. Sorry. Go read up on decoherence, and then come back and describe an experiment that can demonstrate the existence of a fully decohered branch. You can't, because if you could it would by definition not be fully docohered.
>Where in that blog post do I try to "get this [sic] statistics from one measurement"?
In the discussion how different people place bets on A and B outcomes of experiment. Well, you didn't state clearly why you believe that MWI doesn't account for Born rule. MWI accounts for Born rule as statistics of measurements, and the discussion of bets is the closest this in that blog post to consideration of statistics of measurements, but that discussion seemingly considers one measurement, that's why it doesn't see statistics.
>Go read up on decoherence, and then come back and describe an experiment that can demonstrate the existence of a fully decohered branch.
It looks like a logical problem to me. You suggest that decoherence both produces and doesn't produce fully decohered branches? Violation of the law of excluded middle? If the law of excluded middle doesn't work, I don't think experiments can demonstrate anything.
> you didn't state clearly why you believe that MWI doesn't account for Born rule
That's what the whole post was about. The MWI doesn't account for the Born rule unless you add additional, questionable assumptions like branch indifference to the SE.
> You suggest that decoherence both produces and doesn't produce fully decohered branches?
No, that is not even remotely what I am saying. You are beginning to sound like a troll.
If you insist that MWI must mean "a discrete number of clearly separated worlds", then yes, such interpretation would have a problem with the Born rule.
(That is apparently the definition the author of the linked article uses, guessing by his reaction: "Wait, what??? There is no 'well defined notion of how many branches there are?'")
I can only say that I have never met a proponent of MWI who meant this.
> I can only say that I have never met a proponent of MWI who meant this.
What can I say? There are a lot of MWI proponents who profess to believe this. Here, for example, is Sean Carroll answering the question, "How many parallel universes are there?"
Of course, he doesn't actually give a concrete answer, but he very strongly implies that the question has an answer, i.e. that the question is a meaningful one to ask, and that implies that the MWI does in fact mean that there is a discrete number of clearly separated worlds.
In fact, I challenge you find a single example of a prominent MWI proponent saying something in public (which is to say, in a public forum or a publication whose target audience is the general public) that even implies that the many-worlds of the MWI are not distinct, countable entities. I only know of one example, and it is very well hidden.
There is a more fundamental problem: if the MWI does not mean "a discrete number of clearly separated worlds" then it fails as an interpretation of QM, i.e. as a solution to the measurement problem. The whole point is that measurements appear to produce discrete outcomes despite the fact that the math says that everything is one big quantum superposition. If all you have to say about this is, "Yeah, it's all one big quantum superposition" then you have failed to solve the problem. You have simply swept the hard part under the rug.
> Of course, he doesn't actually give a concrete answer, but he very strongly implies that the question has an answer, i.e. that the question is a meaningful one to ask, and that implies that the MWI does in fact mean that there is a discrete number of clearly separated worlds.
In the video, Sean Carroll talks to a non-expert audience, so he must simplify some things, and then it is your or my guess about what the unsimplified version was supposed to be. He says something like: "we don't know, even whether it is finite or infinite, but if it is finite it is a very large number such as 10^10^123". But notice that he also uses as an analogy an interval from 0 to 1, which can be split to half as many times as you need.
You see this as him believing in discrete separated universes, of which there is a definite number (potentially infinite). Yes, that makes sense.
I see another possible understanding, that he is talking about "meaningfully different" universes, because that is what we care about on the macro level. To explain what I mean, imagine that we observe two particles. Any of them can be in a huge number of possible positions, moving in a huge number of possible directions, at a huge number of possible speed. But if we ask whether those two particles hit each other and transformed into another particle, that kinda collapses this huge possibility space into a "yes / no" question. Out of practically infinity, two meaningfully different options.
On a macro level, either the cat is alive or it is dead. Those are two meaningfully different states. If we focus on one particle in the cat's body, there is a continuum of where precisely that particle could be, and what momentum it has. So from the particle's perspective, there is a continuum of options. But from the cat's perspective, and the cat's owner's perspective, this continuum does not matter; unless it changes the macro state, i.e. the particle kills the cat, or at least maybe hits its neuron and makes it do something differently. So it seems possible to me that Sean Carroll talks about the number of worlds that are different from human perspective.
Then there is another problem in physics that we don't know how/whether the very space and time are quantized. We use the mathematical abstraction of a "real number" that has an infinite number of digits after the decimal dot, but of course that infinite number of digits can never be observed experimentally. We don't know. Maybe it is something like what Wolfram says, that on a deep level, spacetime is a discrete graph evolving according to some rules. If something like that would be the case, that would reduce the possible number of states in the universe, even on the micro level, to a huge but finite number. And the mixed state of the multiverse would consist of this finite number of branches, each of them assigned a tiny complex amplitude. So that's another way how things could get finite.
And I am saying this just as a random guy who never studied these things, I just sometimes read something on the topic, and some ideas feel to me like obvious consequences of the stuff that is "in the water supply". So I believe that if I see a solution to a problem, then if it makes sense, someone like Sean Carroll is 10000x more likely to notice the problem and the solution, and develop it much further than I ever could. Or when you make a survey, and a half or a third of people who study quantum physics for living say that some version of MWI seems like the correct interpretation to them, I don't believe there is a simple devastating argument against it that all of these people have simply missed.
> I am saying this just as a random guy who never studied these things
OK, well, let me tell you as a non-random guy who has studied these things extensively that the MWI is very commonly misrepresented. It is not a case of simplification for a lay audience, it is flat-out lying, at least most of the time. The math does not say that there are parallel universes. All the math tells you is that in order to recover the results of experiments you have to throw away some of the information contained in the wave function. MWI proponents interpret this by saying that the discarded information has to correspond to something real, and they call that thing "parallel universes". But there are three problems with this. First, the MWI does not explain the Born rule. Second, the math doesn't tell you whether or not the discarded parts of the wave function describe something real or not. It is possible that mathematical operation of discarding parts of the wave function actually corresponds to real physical phenomenon, i.e. that whatever is described by the discarded parts of the wave function actually ceases to exist. This is a tenable scientific hypothesis. It's not easy to actually make it work, but it can be done and has been done. It's called GRW collapse [1]. So anyone who tells you that the MWI is the only possible scientifically tenable interpretation of QM is lying. And anyone who leaves open even the possibility that the "parallel universes" contained in the wave function are discrete is also lying. The only MWI proponent I've ever seen being intellectually honest about this.David Deutsch in his book "The Beginning of Infinity" chapter 11.
The third problem with the MWI is something called the "preferred basis problem". This one is harder to describe succinctly, and some people claim it has been solved, but I don't agree with them. In a nutshell, all two-state QM experiments rely on some macroscopic apparatus to split a particle into a superposition of two states. But if you model the entire universe as a quantum system, this apparatus is itself a quantum system that can be in a superposition of states, so you can't say, "The polarizing beam splitter is aligned vertically or it is aligned horizontally" any more than you can say "the cat is alive or it is dead" without begging the question.
You got the preferred basis problem backward. It's one branch interpretations that have this problem, since the extant branch is absolute reality and its basis is absolute reality basis, hence the problem of privileged basis. In MWI all branches are relative and none is absolute reality, so their basis can't be thought of as absolute reality basis, branches and basis exist, but they are equal to others. This produces other criticism: universal wave function thus becomes spaghetti in which classical behavior is difficult to see when you look at it from outside, because the basis of classical behavior isn't privileged.
No, MWI has this problem too because it still has to account for the branch I am in.
The only interpretation that does not have this problem is the NCI because in that interpretation I am part of the fundamental ontology, at least some of the time.
> The math tells that there are no privileged parts of wave function.
That's true. But my senses tell me that there is a privileged part of the wave function, namely, the branch that I'm in.
The way I think about it nowadays is that QM is like a Necker cube. You can look at it in two different ways. You can take the God's-eye view and look at the entire wave function, or you can take the mortal's eye view and look at only a proper subset of the wave function (which is necessary in order to recover classical reality). But you can't do both at the same time. For my day-to-day life, I have no choice but to take the mortal's-eye view because I am a mortal. All of the things that matter to me depend on classical reality, and so depend on my suspension of disbelief and acting as if my branch of the multiverse is privileged, even if I can intellectually jump out of the system momentarily and recognize that the mortal's eye view is necessarily incomplete.
> Didn't you admit yourself that if MWI works it's a big deal and will kick the chair from under other interpretations?
That depends on what you mean by "works". If someone can derive the Born rule from the Schrodinger equation that will be a big deal, a slam-dunk Nobel prize. But no one has done it, and I'm pretty sure it can't be done. I'm pretty sure that the Born rule is an emergent property of our branch of the multiverse. I believe the same is true of the Second Law and even three-dimensional space. You can slice-and-dice the wave function to give you physical spaces with any number of dimensions, but three is the magic number that gives you atoms and stars and planets with stable orbits [1] and so on. So I'm pretty sure the Born rule can only be explained by the anthropic principle. There's probably a Nobel prize waiting for the person who turns that intuition into a theorem.
>But my senses tell me that there is a privileged part of the wave function, namely, the branch that I'm in.
You could also sense that your location is privileged, because the observable universe is neatly centered at it, but science will prioritize Copernican principle over your senses.
>But you can't do both at the same time.
This doesn't match what you do. Tracing extracts mortal's-eye view from God's-eye view, so in God's-eye view you have both.
>depend on my suspension of disbelief and acting as if my branch of the multiverse is privileged
If your branch exists, it's sufficient for your day to day life, there's not much else to disbelieve. There's no need for it to be privileged. Do you worry that Earth isn't more privileged than Mars?
>But no one has done it, and I'm pretty sure it can't be done.
But quantum physics doesn't allow it. It's quantitative science where all observed phenomena are computable. If they aren't computable, then quantum physics doesn't predict them and thus diverges from observation. And Schrödinger equation is how predictions are made, collapse and measurement only act on what already exists before them and don't create anything new. So if Born rule is an observed phenomenon, it must be computable from Schrödinger equation. Also if Born rule holds with certainty, then it's a pure state, and observation won't do anything to it, so Born rule can't be created by observation.
>There's probably a Nobel prize waiting for the person who turns that intuition into a theorem.
> You could also sense that your location is privileged, because the observable universe is neatly centered at it
Yes, that's right. This is not an easy problem to solve. This is why it took thousands of years for mankind to realize that the earth is not at the center of the universe. The difference between that and the MWI is that there is actual evidence against geocentrism. There is no evidence against my-branch-centrism. Not only that, but the theory itself predicts that there cannot possibly be any such evidence. So the MWI is self-defeating. The only way there could be evidence for it is if it's wrong.
> in God's-eye view you have both
Nope. The mortal's-eye view is fundamentally incompatible with the god's-eye view. This is the reason that the measurement problem is a thing in the first place.
> if Born rule is an observed phenomenon, it must be computable from Schrödinger equation
Only if the SE is a complete description of reality, and it manifestly is not.
(If you want to argue that the Born rule is not "an observed phenomenon" then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe go hang out with the flat-earthers and lunar landing denialists. You may find kindred spirits there.)
> This was argued by Max Tegmark
Yes, the 3-D space part. That is old news. It's the Born Rule that (AFAIK) no one has yet derived.
I think there's evidence for MWI and it's of the same character as evidence against geocentrism, you just question it, because evidence isn't airtight and geocentric prejudice is compelling because you reject Copernican principle and don't believe in relativity. But evidence against geocentrism isn't airtight either and can be questioned, and geocentrism can be hypothesized and is internally consistent, so why not, especially if you reject Copernican principle.
One branch interpretations are based on geocentric prejudice that the observer's state isn't changed much by observation (because observer doesn't feel change), and when the observer's state doesn't change much, we get geocentrism. But mathematics of quantum physics shows otherwise: the observer's state suffers decoherence and splits into macroscopic superposition, which is a big change and thus debunks assumption of unchanged observer's state. When observer's state changes significantly, observation becomes subject to relativity effect just like in case of spinning Earth.
>The only way there could be evidence for it is if it's wrong.
And what it means when there's no such evidence?
>The mortal's-eye view is fundamentally incompatible with the god's-eye view.
But then tracing must be fundamentally unable to extract mortal's-eye view from god's-eye view. What you say doesn't match what you do.
>If you want to argue that the Born rule is not "an observed phenomenon" then I don't know what to tell you.
I argue that Born rule is an observed phenomenon, and all observed phenomena are purely quantitative physical processes computable from Schrödinger equation, Born rule is the same, otherwise quantum physics wouldn't predict observation of Born rule.
Formally you might need measurement, but the trick is to convert the given problem into a problem of certainty, then measurement is trivial, and prediction is completely calculated from Schrödinger equation. Coincidentally Born rule is such a certain fact, so it doesn't matter if you measure it or not, measurement doesn't do much to certain facts, it's sufficient if you only calculate this certain fact and leave it as is without measuring it.
What do you mean by that? It still exists doesn't it? Albeit in a probabilistic sense that becomes non-probabilistic at larger scales.
I don't know much about quantum other than the high level conceptual stuff.