Why The Many Worlds and Copenhagen Interpretations Could Both Be Correct

[Lucius E.E]

I'm going to start this thread off with a quote I pulled from a blog post about this very topic written by a physicist named Luboš Motl, and I will post the link down below along with a video of Prof. Lawrence Krauss.

 

He had this to say:

 

"At any rate, we may prove that the probability that the electron exists in both mutually exclusive states simultaneously is zero. It can't happen. The derivation is identical for any other mutually excluding alternative properties of any physical system." - Lubo's Motl

 

 

I'm going to preface this by stating the obvious. Many Worlds and Copenhagen appear to be quite incompatible. I feel as though the central reason for this is the deterministic Many Worlds VS the random probability of Copenhagen. Now within the Many Worlds interpretation the wave function collapse doesn't matter, as all possible outcomes will occur. According to the Many Worlds all outcomes exist simultaneously, even though they don't have to, and I will explain why. After much though I now think it may be possible that there doesn't need to be a Multiverse for Many Worlds to be correct, although now it would make the name a bit of a misnomer.

 

Now to explain my line of thinking.

 

First before I begin let me say you should watch the video down below, and perhaps even read Lawrence's book or at least understand the concepts of causality and how it may not apply outside of this Universe. I also linked a forum thread that I started down below that goes into more detail about the way I look at the beginning of existence and the Universe(Hint: There isn't a beginning). My point here is simple, everything finite(like our Universe) needs a cause even if it goes on forever(although the Universe will die eventually). If you follow this logic then eventually you would need to reach a point of no beginning and no end. Let's for simplicity say that this point is the quantum vacuum that very well may exist outside of the Universe, contained within is virtual particles and random quantum fluctuations, Lawrence goes into much more detail about this topic in his book so I recommend you read it if you want more detail. This may be the beginning or perhaps it is some other cause, but ultimately the cause must undoubtedly have no beginning and no end to it.To put it simply if there's no beginning and no end then everything is random(nothing is linear) and thus everything repeats at some point.

 

Take this illustration and quote for a better mental picture:

 

 

"As viewed by cosmologists, there is no such thing as infinite time. The eternal universe had no beginning, not one an infinite time ago. No matter how many years you go into the past, it took a finite time to reach the present."

 

 

 

 

Now how does this apply to the quantum interpretations?

Well since the above is clearly TL;DR I will do my best to sum my conclusion up quickly....

In Many Worlds all possibilities are determined and exist simultaneously. Perhaps instead; what if there is only one Universe that exists at a time, but reoccurs at the Universe's death with the random potential for any possible given quantum wave function collapse, and these probabilities happen randomly as per the Copenhagen interpretation, however all possible outcomes do occur as in the Many Worlds interpretation due to the never ending time, and infinite repetition; they just do not exist simultaneously.

What do you guys think?

 

 

 

Edit:

 

**I also would like to add if any moderators find it necessary to move this thread over to the speculations section, please do so.**

 

 

 

 

 

 

Luboš Motl's Blog Post on Many Worlds -

 

http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/08/simple-proof-qm-implies-many-worlds.html

 

 

Lawrence Krauss on Infinity and Quantum Fluctuations -

 

Edited August 29, 2014 by Lucius E.E

[Ophiolite]

As a science fiction idea it has definite possibilities and I mean that as a genuine statement, not a thinly veiled put down. However, from the POV of science, how would you test this? If you could not, would that not make this indistinguishable from the Copenhagen Interpretation?

[Strange]

I'm going to start this thread off with a quote I pulled from a blog post about this very topic written by a physicist named Luboš Pilsen

 

That's Lubos Motl. (From Pilsen)

 

 

I'm going to preface this by stating the obvious. Many Worlds and Copenhagen appear to be quite incompatible.

 

As these are both interpretations (analogies to explain) the same underlying theory, they can't really be incompatible. (Well, apart from the fact you can only choose one interpretation at a time.) They are arbitrary philosophical choices. I don't like either (any) of them.

[Lucius E.E]

As a science fiction idea it has definite possibilities and I mean that as a genuine statement, not a thinly veiled put down. However, from the POV of science, how would you test this? If you could not, would that not make this indistinguishable from the Copenhagen Interpretation?

 

I'm not sure yet on how this would be tested, or if it ever could be tested.

 

How is it different?

 

It simply makes it plausible for Many Worlds and the Copenhagen to both be correct, at the same time.

The wave function collapse occurs via probability while all possibilities eventually happen with a nonzero quantum mechanical probability. Thus making both interpretations accurate minus the Multiverse.

 

 

That's Lubos Motl. (From Pilsen)

 

 

As these are both interpretations (analogies to explain) the same underlying theory, they can't really be incompatible. (Well, apart from the fact you can only choose one interpretation at a time.) They are arbitrary philosophical choices. I don't like either (any) of them.

 

Oops, lol!

Thank you for the correction.

 

If you don't like any of them, do you have a stance on quantum interpretation?

Edited August 29, 2014 by Lucius E.E

[imatfaal]

You gotta be careful with Lubos Motl - whilst he is clearly a gifted and special physicist he is also a bit too laden down with vitriol and automatic disdain for his colleagues. You have to be very very clued up (far more than me) to be able to unweave the excellent and incisive physics from the comments designed to merely criticise and wound or the automatic contradiction of the views of those he does not agree with.

 

"It's hard to ignore Lubos, but I find it always repays the effort" John Baez

[Strange]

If you don't like any of them, do you have a stance on quantum interpretation?

 

Yes, I don't like them! Like all analogies, they are a necessary evil for communicating the basic ideas. And they appear to be useful to philosophers and even physicists. But, as far as I can tell, they don't represent any sort of "reality," they are just interpretations of the theory - attempts to explain it in terms that make sense to humanoid apes. But there is no real reason why it should make sense...

Edited August 29, 2014 by Strange

[imatfaal]

 

Yes, I don't like them! Like all analogies, they are a necessary evil for communicating the basic ideas. And they appear to be useful to philosophers and even physicists. But, as far as I can tell, they don't represent any sort of "reality," they are just interpretations of the theory - attempts to explain it in terms that make sense to humanoid apes. But there is no real reason why it should make sense...

 

yep - they become interesting when one can delineate between them through observation or use the implications of a interpretation to make a prediction; but at that point they stop being interpretations and become part of the actual physics. And to this date none of the ideas have made that leap

[swansont]

 

If you don't like any of them, do you have a stance on quantum interpretation?

 

Copenhagen was usually the one discussed when I was taking classes, but I'm more of a shut-up-and-calculate guy.

[imatfaal]

 

Copenhagen was usually the one discussed when I was taking classes, but I'm more of a shut-up-and-calculate guy.

 

How much time is devoted to the interpretations in the sort of academic course you took / you taught?

[Lucius E.E]

 

Copenhagen was usually the one discussed when I was taking classes, but I'm more of a shut-up-and-calculate guy.

 

I would imagine this is the most held view when talking about quantum interpretations. In many ways I posted this to be a plausible means of explaining a method by which the main idea behind Many Worlds could be incorporated into Copenhagen.

 

As a science fiction idea it has definite possibilities and I mean that as a genuine statement, not a thinly veiled put down. However, from the POV of science, how would you test this? If you could not, would that not make this indistinguishable from the Copenhagen Interpretation?

 

Also would like to add to my original responce and say that perhaps someday we could test this; we just may not have a viable means of doing so now. Also just because it cannot be tested yet doesn't automatically mean it's not plausible. For example many physicists believe in string theory as it answers many questions and it's a direction science may be pointing towards, although it has been around since the late 1960's. We're just now coming up with methods to test string theory.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Lucius E.E

[Ophiolite]

Also would like to add to my original responce and say that perhaps someday we could test this; we just may not have a viable means of doing so now. Also just because it cannot be tested yet doesn't automatically mean it's not plausible. For example many physicists believe in string theory as it answers many questions and it's a direction science may be pointing towards, although it has been around since the late 1960's. We're just now coming up with methods to test string theory.

I have absolutely no disagreement with that. However, until and unless we can test it then it seems to me that everything would look like Copenhagen, since the alternatives would never be seen. Am I explaining myself clearly? I fear not.

[swansont]

How much time is devoted to the interpretations in the sort of academic course you took / you taught?

I know we discussed it in QM at some point, and it was the framework for other discussions and explanations (e.g. every time one says "collapse the wave function"), but I don't think we spent more than one class period formally discussing anything. And I get the impression that 30 years ago, Many-Worlds wasn't as popular as it is today.

 

I never taught a class in QM.

[Lucius E.E]

I have absolutely no disagreement with that. However, until and unless we can test it then it seems to me that everything would look like Copenhagen, since the alternatives would never be seen. Am I explaining myself clearly? I fear not.

 

You're fine; I fully comprehend what you're saying. Empirically the only interpretation as of right now we know to be correct is Copenhagen which is observable, and Many Worlds is just speculation as we cannot see this. I completely agree with you. I was just stating my own interpretation of Many Worlds which could work with Copenhagen without the need for a Multiverse that exists simultaneously.

[Strange]

 

You're fine; I fully comprehend what you're saying. Empirically the only interpretation as of right now we know to be correct is Copenhagen which is observable, and Many Worlds is just speculation as we cannot see this.

 

As far as I understand it, all interpretations are equally valid and "right". They are all just human-level attempts to describe what the math says.

 

I do quite like the relational interpretation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Relational_quantum_mechanics

Edited August 29, 2014 by Strange

[Lucius E.E]

 

As far as I understand it, all interpretations are equally valid and "right". They are all just human-level attempts to describe what the math says.

 

I do quite like the relational interpretation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Relational_quantum_mechanics

 

This one if fairly interesting, after doing a bit of reading it would appear as though it is very similar to the Copenhagen interpretation except instead the quantum world and classical world are both capable of breaking standard linear predictability after interaction. Unless I'm misinterpreting it, please correct me if I'm wrong; I like this interpretation as well.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Lucius E.E