Hallo Tom,
Everett hat seine Idee 1957 formuliert. Seitdem gibt es unterschiedliche Auslegungen seiner Idee - nicht nur rein populaerwissenschaftlicher Natur nach meinem Verstaendnis.
Zitat aus Schlosshauer Rev. Mod. Phys., 76, 2004
"Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of
quantum mechanics"
[...] Everett’s original (1957) proposal of a relative-state
interpretation of quantum mechanics has motivated sev-
eral strands of interpretation, presumably owing to the
fact that Everett himself never clearly spelled out how
his theory was supposed to work. The system-observer
duality of orthodox quantum mechanics introduces into
the theory external “observers” who are not described
by the deterministic laws of quantum systems but in-
stead follow a stochastic indeterminism. This approach
obviously runs into problems when the universe as a
whole is considered: by definition, there cannot be any
external observers. The central idea of Everett’s pro-
posal is then to abandon duality and instead (i) to as-
sume the existence of a total state |Psi> representing the
state of the entire universe and (ii) to uphold the univer-
sal validity of the Schrödinger evolution, while (iii) pos-
tulating that all terms in the superposition of the total
state at the completion of the measurement actually cor-
respond to physical states. Each such physical state can
be understood as relative (a) to the state of the other
part in the composite system (as in Everett’s original
proposal; also see, Rovelli, 1996; Mermin, 1998a), (b) to
a particular “branch” of a constantly “splitting” universe
(the many-worlds interpretations, popularized by De
Witt, 1970 and Deutsch, 1985), or (c) to a particular
“mind” in the set of minds of the conscious observer
(the many-minds interpretation; see, for example, Lock-
wood, 1996). In other words, every term in the final-state
superposition can be viewed as representing an equally
“real” physical state of affairs that is realized in a differ-
ent “branch of reality.”
Everett, H., 1957, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 454.
Rovelli, C., 1996, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 35, 1637.
Mermin, N. D., 1998a, Pramana 51, 549.
Deutsch, D., 1985, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 24, 1.
DeWitt, B. S., 1970, Phys. Today 23 (9), 30.
Lockwood, M., 1996, Br. J. Philos. Sci. 47, 159.
Vielleicht macht es doch Sinn, hier Schlossauers Ansatz zu folgen, und etwas Raum fuer die Interpretationen Everett's zu lassen. Ich weiss, das spielt dir jetzt nicht unmittelbar in die Karten. Aber ich glaube es wird so leichter zu kategorisieren wo Everett anfaengt und aufhoert, und vor allem, welche Interpretation auch immer, klarer, herauszustellen, warum es sich lohnt, zumindest ueber die orthodoxe Interpretation hinauszugehen.
