Abstract The many-worlds view is one of the most discussed “interpretations” of quantum mechanics. As is well known, this view has some very controversial and much discussed aspects. This paper focuses on one particular problem arising from the combination of quantum mechanics with Special Relativity. It turns out that the ontology of the many-worlds view – the account of what there is and what branches of the universe exist – is relative to inertial frames. If one wants to avoid relativizing ontology, one has to argue either that there is an additional source of branching due to Special Relativity and thus additional branches or worlds. Or one has to argue that there are not only many worlds but also many universes (sets of worlds or world-branches); there is thus not only one tree of many world-branches but many frame-specific trees, a “forest” of many world-trees. The main problem here is how one can understand all or any of this.
Abstract The many-worlds view is one of the most discussed “interpretations” of quantum mechanics. As is well known, this view has some very controversial and much discussed aspects. This paper focuses on one particular problem arising from the combination of quantum mechanics with Special Relativity. It turns out that the ontology of the many-worlds view – the account of what there is and what branches of the universe exist – is relative to inertial frames. If one wants to avoid relativizing ontology, one has to argue either that there is an additional source of branching due to Special Relativity and thus additional branches or worlds. Or one has to argue that there are not only many worlds but also many universes (sets of worlds or world-branches); there is thus not only one tree of many world-branches but many frame-specific trees, a “forest” of many world-trees. The main problem here is how one can understand all or any of this.
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.
The nature of branching in the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics remains an open question, particularly regarding its locality and compatibility with special relativity. This paper challenges the conventional view that branching is either global or local, demonstrating instead that it is nonlocal for entangled systems. Through a new analysis of the EPR-Bohm experiment, I argue that global branching has several potential issues and can hardly be justified. At the same time, I argue that branching cannot be entirely local, as entangled particles exhibit simultaneous, spacelike-separated branching, manifesting an apparent action at a distance within individual worlds. However, while nonlocal branching suggests the emergence of a preferred Lorentz frame within each world, the multiverse as a whole retains full Lorentz invariance, ensuring no superluminal signaling. By refining the ontology of branching and resolving tensions between MWI and relativistic constraints, this analysis may help advance our understanding of quantum nonlocality and also strengthen MWI's standing as a viable interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Next year, there will be a 100-year celebration of quantum mechanics, but there is no consensus on the interpretation of this theory. This reprint presents recent works on one of the most intriguing interpretations, the many-worlds interpretation, presented at a workshop in October 2022 at Tel Aviv University. The many-worlds interpretation solves the measurement problem, avoids action at a distance and indeterminism, and does not contradict empirical evidence. The main question discussed in the workshop was as follows: why is it not in the consensus? Major issues such as preferred basis, the meaning of probability, non-locality, and alternative approaches were discussed, which are increasingly drawing attention in physics and philosophy. The contributions demonstrated a striking diversity in understanding the basic concepts. What are the worlds in the many-worlds interpretation? Do the worlds diverge or split? Is probability objective or subjective, or is it just an illusion? Can we avoid the non-separability of quantum mechanics? Many questions were raised and significant progress in understanding was achieved, but the papers showed that consensus is still far away. This reprint describes the current status of the research and will be invaluable for physicists and philosophers who want to resolve the long-standing problem of the interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Abstract David Wallace has argued that there is no special problem for free will in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, beyond the well-known problem of reconciling free will with physical determinism. I argue to the contrary that, on the plausible and popular “deep self” approach to compatibilism, the many-worlds interpretation does face a special problem. It is not clear on the many-worlds picture how our actions can issue from our most central character traits, given that copies of us in other branches are certain to act differently than we do.
abstract: This thesis attempts to explain Everettian quantum mechanics from the ground up, such that those with little to no experience in quantum physics can understand it. First, we introduce the history of quantum theory, and some concepts that make up the framework of quantum physics. Through these concepts, we reveal why interpretations are necessary to map the quantum world onto our classical world. We then introduce the Copenhagen interpretation, and how many-worlds differs from it. From there, we dive into the concepts of entanglement and decoherence, explaining how worlds branch in an Everettian universe, and how an Everettian universe can appear as our classical observed world. From there, we attempt to answer common questions about many-worlds and discuss whether there are philosophical ramifications to believing such a theory. Finally, we look at whether the many-worlds interpretation can be proven, and why one might choose to believe it. (abstract)