TomS
Registriertes Mitglied
Da das Thema immer wieder diskutiert wird, ohne dass die eigentlichen Grundlagen und tatsächlichen Inhalte und Aussagen ausreichend bekannt wären, kommt es häufig zu Missverständnissen. Kritisiert wird dann nicht die Everettschen Quantenmechanik = die „Many Worlds Interpretation“ bzw. ihre modernen Weiterentwicklungen nach Zeh, Deutsch, Wallace et al., sondern das, was irgendeine unzuverlässige Quelle als „Many Worlds Interpretation“ glaubt verstanden zu haben, was jedoch häufig irreführend bis falsch ist.
Deswegen möchte ich hier einiges an inhaltlich präziser und korrekter Literatur zusammenfassen. Die ersten Links sind leider recht anspruchsvoll und technisch, ich werde jedoch noch weitere und hoffentlich einfachere Links zusammentragen.
Auf Basis der im wesentlichen identischen Mathematik haben sich einige Varianten entwickelt, die sich darin unterscheiden, wie und warum - auf Basis derselben Mathematik - man von diesen mathematischen Strukturen zu den wahrgenommen physikalischen Phänomenen gelangt. Zeh, Deutsch, Saunders, Wallace et al. argumentieren teilweise unterschiedlich. Dies darf m.E. tatsächlich als „Interpretation“ bezeichnet werden.
Ziel sollte hier eine korrekte Darstellung der wesentlichen Inhalte, nicht jedoch eine Argumentation pro oder contra sein - ich bitte das zu beachten.
——————
Zunächst eine der wohl aktuellsten und umfassendsten Darstellungen, insbs. unter Beachtung moderner Entwicklungen wie Positive Operator-Valued Measures (POVM)und Decoherence, sowie einer einer ausführlichen Argumentation pro-Everett.
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-emergent-multiverse-9780198707547?cc=de&lang=en&
The Emergent Multiverse -
QuantumTheory according to the Everett Interpretation
David Wallace
This book defends the view that the Everett interpretation of quantum theory, often called the ‘many worlds theory’, is not some new physical theory or some metaphysical addition to quantum theory, but simply quantum theory itself understood in a straightforwardly literal way. As such ‐ despite its radical implications for the nature of our universe ‐ the Everett interpretation is actually the conservative way to approach quantum theory, requiring revisions neither to our best theories of physics, nor to conventional philosophy of science. The book is in three parts. Part I explains how quantum theory implies the existence of an emergent branching structure in physical reality, and explores the conceptual and technical details of decoherence theory, the theory which allows us to quantify that branching. Part II is concerned with the problem of probability, and makes the case that probability, far from being the key difficulty for the Everett interpretation, actually makes more sense from a many‐worlds viewpoint. Part III explores the implications of an Everettian perspective on a variety of topics in physics and philosophy.
Zusammenfassung und kurze Nennung einiger möglicher Kritikpunkte:
https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/the-emergent-multiverse-quantum-theory-according-to-the-everett-interpretation/
——————
Ausführlicher Sammelband editiert von und mit Beiträgen von Befürwortern sowie Kritikern!
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/many-worlds-9780199560561?cc=de&lang=en&
Many Worlds?
Everett, Quantum Theory, and Reality
Simon Saunders, Jonathan Barrett, Adrian Kent, and David Wallace
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.
——————
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/12408/
Many Worlds: an introduction
This is a self-contained introduction to the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics (a.k.a. the many-worlds theory). It is the introductory chapter of Many Worlds? Everett, quantum theory, and reality, S. Saunders, J. Barrett, A. Kent, and D. Wallace (eds.), Oxford University Press (2010).
——————
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-everett/
Everett’s Relative-State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics
Jeffrey Barrett, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Hugh Everett III’s relative-state formulation of quantum mechanics is a proposal for solving the quantum measurement problem by dropping the collapse dynamics from the standard von Neumann-Dirac formulation of quantum mechanics. Everett intended to recapture the predictions of the standard collapse theory by explaining why observers nevertheless get determinate measurement records that satisfy the standard quantum statistics. There has been considerable disagreement over the precise content of his theory and how it was suppose to work. Here we will consider how Everett himself presented the theory, then briefly compare his presentation to the many-worlds interpretation and other no-collapse options.
——————
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~everett/abstracts.htm
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~everett/docs/Proposal.pdf
The Everett interpretation: 50 years on
Simon Saunders
The EQM as presently construed breaks down into three components (i) an account of structure and ontology (ii) a theory of evidence, and (iii) a theory of probability. I shall present some background to (i) and (iii), and talk briefly about (ii) in the context of Everett's original paper, 'Relative-state formulation of quantum mechanics'.
Der erste Link bezieht sich auf einen Vortrag, der zweite auf die zugrundeliegende Veröffentlichung.
——————
Deswegen möchte ich hier einiges an inhaltlich präziser und korrekter Literatur zusammenfassen. Die ersten Links sind leider recht anspruchsvoll und technisch, ich werde jedoch noch weitere und hoffentlich einfachere Links zusammentragen.
Auf Basis der im wesentlichen identischen Mathematik haben sich einige Varianten entwickelt, die sich darin unterscheiden, wie und warum - auf Basis derselben Mathematik - man von diesen mathematischen Strukturen zu den wahrgenommen physikalischen Phänomenen gelangt. Zeh, Deutsch, Saunders, Wallace et al. argumentieren teilweise unterschiedlich. Dies darf m.E. tatsächlich als „Interpretation“ bezeichnet werden.
Ziel sollte hier eine korrekte Darstellung der wesentlichen Inhalte, nicht jedoch eine Argumentation pro oder contra sein - ich bitte das zu beachten.
——————
Zunächst eine der wohl aktuellsten und umfassendsten Darstellungen, insbs. unter Beachtung moderner Entwicklungen wie Positive Operator-Valued Measures (POVM)und Decoherence, sowie einer einer ausführlichen Argumentation pro-Everett.
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-emergent-multiverse-9780198707547?cc=de&lang=en&
The Emergent Multiverse -
QuantumTheory according to the Everett Interpretation
David Wallace
This book defends the view that the Everett interpretation of quantum theory, often called the ‘many worlds theory’, is not some new physical theory or some metaphysical addition to quantum theory, but simply quantum theory itself understood in a straightforwardly literal way. As such ‐ despite its radical implications for the nature of our universe ‐ the Everett interpretation is actually the conservative way to approach quantum theory, requiring revisions neither to our best theories of physics, nor to conventional philosophy of science. The book is in three parts. Part I explains how quantum theory implies the existence of an emergent branching structure in physical reality, and explores the conceptual and technical details of decoherence theory, the theory which allows us to quantify that branching. Part II is concerned with the problem of probability, and makes the case that probability, far from being the key difficulty for the Everett interpretation, actually makes more sense from a many‐worlds viewpoint. Part III explores the implications of an Everettian perspective on a variety of topics in physics and philosophy.
Zusammenfassung und kurze Nennung einiger möglicher Kritikpunkte:
https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/the-emergent-multiverse-quantum-theory-according-to-the-everett-interpretation/
——————
Ausführlicher Sammelband editiert von und mit Beiträgen von Befürwortern sowie Kritikern!
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/many-worlds-9780199560561?cc=de&lang=en&
Many Worlds?
Everett, Quantum Theory, and Reality
Simon Saunders, Jonathan Barrett, Adrian Kent, and David Wallace
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.
——————
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/12408/
Many Worlds: an introduction
This is a self-contained introduction to the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics (a.k.a. the many-worlds theory). It is the introductory chapter of Many Worlds? Everett, quantum theory, and reality, S. Saunders, J. Barrett, A. Kent, and D. Wallace (eds.), Oxford University Press (2010).
——————
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-everett/
Everett’s Relative-State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics
Jeffrey Barrett, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Hugh Everett III’s relative-state formulation of quantum mechanics is a proposal for solving the quantum measurement problem by dropping the collapse dynamics from the standard von Neumann-Dirac formulation of quantum mechanics. Everett intended to recapture the predictions of the standard collapse theory by explaining why observers nevertheless get determinate measurement records that satisfy the standard quantum statistics. There has been considerable disagreement over the precise content of his theory and how it was suppose to work. Here we will consider how Everett himself presented the theory, then briefly compare his presentation to the many-worlds interpretation and other no-collapse options.
——————
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~everett/abstracts.htm
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~everett/docs/Proposal.pdf
The Everett interpretation: 50 years on
Simon Saunders
The EQM as presently construed breaks down into three components (i) an account of structure and ontology (ii) a theory of evidence, and (iii) a theory of probability. I shall present some background to (i) and (iii), and talk briefly about (ii) in the context of Everett's original paper, 'Relative-state formulation of quantum mechanics'.
Der erste Link bezieht sich auf einen Vortrag, der zweite auf die zugrundeliegende Veröffentlichung.
——————
Zuletzt bearbeitet:
