At present, there are two possible, and equally plausible, explanations for the physics of quantum measurement. The first explanation, known as the many-worlds interpretation, does not require any modification of quantum mechanics, and asserts that at the time of measurement the Universe splits into many branches, one branch for every possible alternative. The various branches do not interfere with each other because of decoherence, thus providing a picture broadly consistent with the observed Universe. The second explanation, which requires quantum mechanics to be modified from its presently known form, is that at the time of measurement the wavefunction collapses into one of the possible alternatives. The two explanations are mutually exclusive, and up until now, no theoretical reasoning has been put forward to choose one explanation over the other. In this article, we provide an argument which implies that the collapse interpretation is favored over the many-worlds interpretation. Our starting point is the assertion (which we justify) that there ought to exist a reformulation of quantum mechanics which does not refer to a classical spacetime manifold. The need for such a reformulation implies that quantum theory becomes nonlinear on the Planck mass/energy scale. Standard linear quantum mechanics is an approximation to this nonlinear theory, valid at energy scales much smaller than the Planck scale. Using ideas based on noncommutative differential geometry, we develop such a reformulation and derive a nonlinear Schrödinger equation, which can explain collapse of the wavefunction. We also obtain an expression for the lifetime of a quantum superposition. We suggest ideas for an experimental test of this model.
At present, there are two possible, and equally plausible, explanations for the physics of quantum measurement. The first explanation, known as the many-worlds interpretation, does not require any modification of quantum mechanics, and asserts that at the time of measurement the Universe splits into many branches, one branch for every possible alternative. The various branches do not interfere with each other because of decoherence, thus providing a picture broadly consistent with the observed Universe. The second explanation, which requires quantum mechanics to be modified from its presently known form, is that at the time of measurement the wavefunction collapses into one of the possible alternatives. The two explanations are mutually exclusive, and up until now, no theoretical reasoning has been put forward to choose one explanation over the other. In this article, we provide an argument which implies that the collapse interpretation is favored over the many-worlds interpretation. Our starting point is the assertion (which we justify) that there ought to exist a reformulation of quantum mechanics which does not refer to a classical spacetime manifold. The need for such a reformulation implies that quantum theory becomes nonlinear on the Planck mass/energy scale. Standard linear quantum mechanics is an approximation to this nonlinear theory, valid at energy scales much smaller than the Planck scale. Using ideas based on noncommutative differential geometry, we develop such a reformulation and derive a nonlinear Schrödinger equation, which can explain collapse of the wavefunction. We also obtain an expression for the lifetime of a quantum superposition. We suggest ideas for an experimental test of this model.
At present, there are two possible, and equally plausible, explanations for the physics of quantum measurement. The first explanation, known as the many-worlds interpretation, does not require any modification of quantum mechanics, and asserts that at the time of measurement the Universe splits into many branches, one branch for every possible alternative. The various branches do not interfere with each other because of decoherence, thus providing a picture broadly consistent with the observed Universe. The second explanation, which requires quantum mechanics to be modified from its presently known form, is that at the time of measurement the wave-function collapses into one of the possible alternatives. The two explanations are mutually exclusive, and up until now, no theoretical reasoning has been put forward to choose one explanation over the other. In this article, we provide an argument which implies that the collapse interpretation is favored over the many-worlds interpretation. Our starting point is the assertion (which we justify) that there ought to exist a reformulation of quantum mechanics which does not refer to a classical spacetime manifold. The need for such a reformulation implies that quantum theory becomes non-linear on the Planck mass/energy scale. Standard linear quantum mechanics is an approximation to this non-linear theory, valid at energy scales much smaller than the Planck scale. Using ideas based on noncommutative | >=
There are fundamental reasons why there should exist a reformulation of quantum mechanics which does not refer to a classical space–time manifold. It follows that quantum mechanics as we know it is a limiting case of a more general nonlinear quantum theory, with the nonlinearity becoming significant at the Planck mass/energy scale. This nonlinearity is responsible for a dynamically induced collapse of the wave function, during a quantum measurement, and it hence falsifies the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. We illustrate this conclusion using a mathematical model based on a generalized Doebner–Goldin equation. The non-Hermitian part of the Hamiltonian in this norm-preserving, nonlinear, Schrödinger equation dominates during a quantum measurement, and leads to a breakdown of linear superposition.
Few, if any, issues in physics have engendered as much discussion as the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. It is generally agreed that the `normal' dynamical evolution of the state vector in quantum mechanics is given by a unitary map. The linearity of this map implies that the state vector will, in general, be found in a superposition of eigenstates of a given observable (or, similarly, that the density matrix describing a subsystem will not correspond to a definite value of this observable). However, when we make a measurement of an observable, we always obtain a define value—although it is impossible to predict with certainty which value will be obtained. The traditional response to this issue is to postulate that when a measurement is made, the wavefunction `collapses' to an eigenstate of the observable being measured, perhaps due to the inherent classicality of the measuring apparatus (Bohr), or to the consciousness of the observer (Wigner), or possibly to some modification of quantum dynamics that occurs even when observations are not being made. The main motivation for the Everett (`many worlds') interpretation is to avoid introducing any such collapse postulate. This volume commemorates the 50th anniversary of the publication of Everett's paper in 1957 and contains 20 original articles as well as the transcripts of several discussions that took place at meetings devoted to the Everett interpretation at Oxford University and the Perimeter Institute. The attractiveness of the Everett interpretation is very succinctly summarized by a sentence from Vaidman's contribution (p 582): `The collapse, with its randomness, non-locality and the lack of a well-defined moment of occurrence, is such an ugly scar on quantum theory, that I, along with many others, am ready to follow Everett and deny its existence.' But the main drawback of the interpretation is then equally succinctly stated in the next sentence: `The price is the many worlds interpretation, i.e., the existence of numerous parallel worlds.' In other words, if the state vector evolves to have a non-zero amplitude for two different values of an observable that I `measure' (i.e., interact with in an appropriate way), each of these alternatives remains equally `real', i.e., there is a `branch' of the wavefunction in which the observable takes the first value and I believe that it has this first value and a branch of the wavefunction where it takes the second value and I believe that it has this second value. Each of these `me's' sees a definite value for the observable, thus nicely accounting for what I believe I experience without invoking collapse. But then, it seems that I have to believe that there are many other `me's' around—even if they are very difficult for this particular me to access—and no way I can predict which `me' I will be in the future. Indeed, Saunders writes on p 192, `If Alice is a person (of course she is) then we must say, even prior to branching at tj that there are many Alices present, atom for atom duplicates...Alice should be uncertain after all— each Alice should be uncertain—for each as of tj does not (and as a matter of principle, cannot) know which of these branching persons she is.' Thus, if taken seriously, the Everett viewpoint leads directly to questions like `What determines which ``me'' I am now and/or will feel that I am in the future?' The response `You are all of them' somehow doesn't seem satisfying, and further pursuit of these issues would seem to lead to questions as fruitless as questions like `Why am I ``me'' and not ``you''?' I believe that this accounts for why the Everett interpretation does not have universal appeal. But enough of `me' for now (more later); let's discuss the book. Unlike many edited volumes and conference proceedings in physics—which often consist of hastily slapped-together re-hashes of previous papers—this volume meets very high standards in the choice of topics and authors and in the quality of the writing. Although each of the articles is closely tied in with the Everett interpretation, there are many articles of considerable value and interest in their own right, such as the discussion of quasiclassical realms by Hartle and and the discussion of the de Broglie–Bohm interpretation by Valentini. There is also an excellent introduction by Saunders to the quantum measurement problem and the main issues that arise in the Everett interpretation. A central issue in the Everett interpretation is the status of the `Born rule', which asserts that, for state ψ, the probability of obtaining a particular outcome of a measurement is ||Pψ||2, where P is the projection operator onto the eigensubspace associated with the measurement outcome. In traditional interpretations, the Born rule is simply postulated as part of the collapse hypothesis. In the Everett interpretation, it is far from obvious that the Born rule even has any meaning—if all outcomes occur, how can one talk about the probability of a particular outcome? Given the importance of this issue, it is highly appropriate that four chapters of the book (by Saunders, Papineau, Wallace, and Greaves and Myrvold) are devoted to addressing probability and the Born rule from the Everett viewpoint, and three chapters (by Kent, Albert, and Price) are devoted to criticising these views. As indicated by the above quote from Saunders' article, uncertainty and probability can enter the Everett interpretation via each Alice being uncertain as to which Alice she is or will be. However, in view of the difficulties to which this kind of argumentation will lead, it is perhaps not surprising that in the 123 pages of combined discussion by Saunders, Papineau, Wallace, and Greaves and Myrvold, there are only fleeting references to the use of probability along these lines. Rather, the approach taken is reminiscent of that of adept politicians: if you can't answer a question, then answer a different question, and answer it with conviction and detail. Instead of considering probabilities of outcomes—a highly problematical notion when all of the possible outcomes actually occur—consider only decision theory issues. In particular, Wallace gives a precise and detailed mathematical proof that, under certain hypotheses, the only rational strategy that a quantum observer can follow in making decisions is to weight the possible outcomes by Born rule probabilities. To illustrate this more graphically, suppose tomorrow's weather were determined by some quantum mechanical, Stern–Gerlach-like process. I would like to know whether it is likely to rain tomorrow. However, when I ask an Everett follower (who knows the state vector and has done the Born rule calculation), all she will tell me in direct response to my question is that `it will rain and it won't rain.' Nevertheless, she is willing tell me whether or not it is rational for me to take an umbrella. I suppose that if she tells me that it would be highly irrational for me to take an umbrella, I can take the hint and deduce that it is very unlikely to rain. However, there does seem something wrong with the fact that she is not allowed to say this directly. In any case, if the conclusion of a mathematically correct argument is that rational decision strategies require the Born rule, then there must be quite a bit lying in the assumptions. The articles by Kent, Albert, and Price do a good job of fleshing out these assumptions and pointing out the weaknesses and flaws in the probability and decision theory discussions within the Everett framework. I hope it is clear from what I have written above that this is an outstanding volume, which should be of great interest to anyone interested in the foundations of quantum theory. Indeed, I feel quite fortunate to be the particular `me' that happens to exist in the same branch of the wavefunction of the universe in which this book was published.
Abstract This article presents a revised and conceptually refined formulation of a previously proposed Temporal Interpretation of quantum measurement, explicitly addressing the physical nature of wavefunction collapse. While the original proposal emphasised relativistic aspects of momentum superpositions, the present work clarifies the interpretation within the standard formalism of quantum mechanics, without introducing new dynamics or experimental predictions. Unitary evolution is read as a process of differentiated phase accumulation between branches of a quantum state. In relativistic contexts, phase differentials can be structurally related to effective proper-time differentials, allowing the introduction of a notion of temporal compatibility that provides a physically grounded account of decoherence. When such differentials exceed a characteristic scale, interference between branches becomes operationally inaccessible, while global unitarity is preserved. The observer is treated as a physical system endowed with an irreversible proper time associated with macroscopic, entropic dynamics. Within this framework, collapse is explained as an emergent physical phenomenon arising from the irreversibility of the observer’s proper time, which prevents the reconstruction of phase coherence after an interaction. Collapse is therefore neither a fundamental dynamical mechanism nor an objective event in space-time, but a necessary consequence of temporal irreversibility in physical observers. This formulation sharpens the distinction between decoherence and collapse, preserves full consistency with the Born rule, and positions the Temporal Interpretation as a competing interpretative framework that provides a concrete physical explanation for the quantum–classical transition, improving and clarifying the original proposal. This version clarifies the operational status of the interaction time, refines Sections 5.3 and 5.4, and standardises references and editorial structure. No changes to the formalism or conclusions.
Abstract What does realism about the quantum state imply? What follows when quantum theory is applied without restriction, if need be, to the whole universe? These are the questions which are debated in this book. All the chapters start from the point of realism, and based on the need, or the aspiration, for a theory that unites micro- and macroworlds, at least in principle. But the further claim argued by some is that if you allow the Schrödinger equation unrestricted application, supposing the quantum state to be something physically real, then this universe is one of countlessly many others, constantly branching in time, all of which are real. The result is the many worlds theory, also known as the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics. The contrary claim sees this picture of many worlds as in no sense inherent in quantum mechanics, even when the latter is allowed unrestricted scope and even given that the quantum state itself is something physically real. For this picture of branching worlds fails to make physical sense, let alone common sense, even on its own terms. The status of these worlds, what they are made of, is never adequately explained. Ordinary ideas about time and identity over time become hopelessly compromised. The concept of probability itself is brought into question. This picture of many branching worlds is inchoate, it is a vision, an error. There are realist alternatives to many worlds, some even that preserve the Schrödinger equation unchanged. Twenty chapters, accompanied by commentaries and discussions, examine these claims and counterclaims in depth. They focus first on the question of ontology, the existence of worlds, second on the interpretation of probability, and third on alternatives or additions to many worlds. The introduction offers a helpful guide to the arguments for the Everett interpretation, particularly as they have been formulated in the last two decades.
Standard quantum theory is highly successful in all its applications, from photons and atoms, to semiconductors, superconductors, quarks, and so on. Yet the need to understand what the theory is really trying to tell us about the nature of the world beyond specific predictions forces us into the realm of philosophy, or, as some have dubbed it, quantum metaphysics: the study of the interpretation of quantum mechanics. There is a wide range of opinions regarding the philosophical foundations of quantum mechanics. This chapter focuses on two of the most prominent interpretations: the Copenhagen interpretation, and one alternative interpretation that has been gaining some support in recent years, the many-worlds interpretation (MWI), also known as the many universes interpretation. The central issues of contention are: firstly, that the measurement of some attribute of a quantum system generally involves the probabilistic collapse, or reduction, of the state vector where the probabilistic nature of the process is inherent—that is, not reducible to a more fundamental, deterministic explanation; and, secondly, the problem of bringing a measurement to a completion—a problem generally known as the measurement paradox.