Many Worlds Theory- Does it beat Copenhagen?
Published: 2024-01-24 14:05:13

User
Please summarize this conversation with Claude.AI.

Explain how the Many Worlds model explains away the collapsing of the wave form and introduces the idea that instead of a collapse what is happening is the observer is becoming entangled with the observed in such a way as to become entangled into the same wave function. Further that ultimately there is only one wave function of the universe.
JC

The Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics proposes that there is no "collapse" of the wavefunction in the conventional sense. Instead, it suggests that when a measurement occurs, the observer becomes quantum entangled with the observed system. This results in the observer and system entering into a joint superposition of all possible outcomes.

So for example, consider a photon that can be either vertically or horizontally polarized. Upon measurement by an observer, rather than the photon's wavefunction randomly collapsing into either vertical or horizontal polarization, the observer instead becomes entangled with the photon in a joint state that is a superposition of "observer sees vertical photon" and "observer sees horizontal photon".

Crucially, this interpretation argues that all possible outcomes in the superposition continue to exist in parallel "worlds" that are equally real, but that the observer can only perceive one result. There is effectively a splitting of realities from the perspective of the observer. So the different polarization states of the photon are experienced in parallel branches of reality.

Overall, Many Worlds contends there is a singular, deterministic wavefunction for the entire universe that evolves according to the Schrödinger equation. This universal wavefunction comprises a quantum superposition of all possible quantum states, with continuous "splitting" of realities occurring through quantum decoherence as quantum systems interact. So there is no true collapse - only quantum entanglement between observers and observed systems resulting in parallel observable realities.

This would seem to have a lot of benefits over the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics which is very poor at defining what is meant by the observer and the observed.
JC

Yes, the Many Worlds interpretation does provide some potential benefits over the Copenhagen interpretation when it comes to clarifying the observer/observed distinction:

- It eliminates the need for an ill-defined "collapse" caused by the observer. In Copenhagen, exactly when and how the wavefunction collapses is vague. Many Worlds provides a more precise, mathematically-defined evolution of the universal wavefunction according to the Schrödinger Equation.
- It avoids assigning special status to observers/measurements. In Copenhagen, it seems observers or measurements somehow cause collapse. But Many Worlds simply sees observers as quantum systems that become entangled with other quantum systems. There is nothing special about observation or consciousness per se.
- It resolves coherence issues in systems with multiple observers. Copenhagen struggles with quantum systems that split and later recombine in the presence of multiple observers. But Many Worlds handles these situations smoothly with parallel branching and no true "collapse".
- It eliminates the measurement problem. Copenhagen has to define what constitutes a "measurement" - Many Worlds just sees seamless evolution of the wavefunction and entanglement between quantum subsystems.

So while still an interpretive model, Many Worlds at least attempts to provide a more rigorous and mathematically complete framework for quantum mechanics centered on wavefunction evolution and entanglement. The vague notions of measurement, observation and collapse in the Copenhagen view are replaced with formally defined quantum processes.
ChatGPT

In this conversation, Claude.AI explains the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics as an alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation. According to Many Worlds, there is no conventional "collapse" of the wavefunction during a quantum event. Instead, when an observation is made, the observer becomes quantum entangled with the observed system, entering a joint superposition of all possible outcomes.

For example, if an observer measures a photon's polarization, the observer doesn't cause the photon's wavefunction to collapse into one state. Instead, the observer and the photon become entangled in a joint state that includes both possibilities: the observer seeing a vertically polarized photon and seeing a horizontally polarized photon. This results in the creation of parallel "worlds" or realities, where each outcome occurs but the observer only perceives one.

Many Worlds suggests a single, deterministic wavefunction for the entire universe that evolves according to the Schrödinger equation, encompassing all possible quantum states. This interpretation eliminates the need for wavefunction collapse and instead relies on continuous "splitting" of realities through quantum decoherence as quantum systems interact.

Claude.AI highlights several advantages of the Many Worlds interpretation over the Copenhagen interpretation:

- Elimination of Wavefunction Collapse: Many Worlds provides a more precise, mathematically-defined evolution of the wavefunction, avoiding the vague concept of collapse.

- No Special Status for Observers: It avoids giving special treatment to observers or measurements, viewing them as quantum systems that become entangled with others.

- Resolves Coherence Issues: The interpretation smoothly handles situations with multiple observers and split quantum systems without requiring a true "collapse".

- Eliminates the Measurement Problem: Instead of defining what a "measurement" is, Many Worlds views the evolution of the wavefunction and entanglement as seamless and continuous processes.

Overall, Many Worlds offers a more rigorous and mathematically complete framework for understanding quantum mechanics, focusing on wavefunction evolution and entanglement, and avoiding the ambiguities associated with measurement and observation in the Copenhagen interpretation.