Question about the Many Worlds Interperetation

[KipIngram]

Afternoon, folks. So, I've never been a fan of the Many Worlds Interpretation, and I've used several arguments against it over the years. But I'm not a "master physicist" by any means, and also I just haven't put the time specifically into that theory. So I do have some concern about whether I'm being fair or not. I'd like to list a couple of the arguments I've put forth in the past and let people here comment.

 

-----

 

I have a feeling the first one is simple, and I don't even know if it's a "real" problem (probably not, or MWI would never have appeared in the first place). Every time the universe splits, we get a new copy of the universe. That's a lot of mass energy. Where does that come from and what does this have to say about conservation of energy? It seems very... uneconomical.

 

-----

 

This one I have used more. My understanding of MWI says that as a result of all of these branching superpositions, anything that doesn't violate the laws of physics (anything that has a non-zero probability all the way back through all of its branches), exists or has existed in some one of the universes. And this has been going on since the beginning of time, so we've had a lot of time to build up universes. So, for example, we'd have a universe that includes a port town that we'll call "S." In this port town their are two prominent families, the H's (who are connected strongly with the town hospital) and the B's, who are prominent in the police force and the patriarch of which owns a pub. A major criminal figure (D) lives in this town. And so on.

 

For those of you who didn't click to it, I've just described the general plot of The Days of Our Lives (S=Salem, H=Horton, B=Brady, D=DiMera). But substitute your favorite - Many Worlds seems to imply they're all "out there" provided no laws of physics are broken. That strains my credulity past the breaking point.

 

-----

 

So those are my two items - please have at it.

 

Thanks,

Kip

 

[Strange]

Afternoon, folks. So, I've never been a fan of the Many Worlds Interpretation, and I've used several arguments against it over the years.

 

It is just an interpretation of quantum theory. If you argue against it, you are arguing against QM.

 

I have a feeling the first one is simple, and I don't even know if it's a "real" problem (probably not, or MWI would never have appeared in the first place). Every time the universe splits, we get a new copy of the universe. That's a lot of mass energy. Where does that come from and what does this have to say about conservation of energy?

 

There are a number of responses to this.

 

There is a popular "zero energy" hypothesis that suggests that the total energy of the universe is zero. So creating copies of the universe requires no energy.

 

The law of conservation of energy says that energy is conserved within each universe. Hence, even if "new matter" were being generated to create new universes, this would not violate conservation of energy.

 

Conservation of energy is not violated since the energy of each branch has to be weighted by its probability, according to the standard formula for the conservation of energy in quantum theory. This results in the total energy of the multiverse being conserved.

 

More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

 

 

 

That strains my credulity past the breaking point.

 

Not really a credible or scientific objection.

[KipIngram]

Oh, sure - I agree. I was just describing my own difficulties embracing the theory. When I relate that bit to others I leave it to them to decide if their own credulity can handle it.

 

But are you in fact saying that we could find the plot of any physically realistic work of fiction somewhere in the multiverse, being lived out by real people? That my "objection" is in fact describing a technically correct facet of MWI, but just isn't an objection? I thought maybe I was overlooking something and that a correct assessment wouldn't lead there.

Oh, that part about energy and probability is interesting - that seems to imply that each residual universe has less energy than the original. After all the time that has passed that would seem to imply that the universe has infinitesimal energy. But then again you just mentioned the "zero energy" hypothesis... so those two sort of go together.

 

Thanks for those - at first I missed the earlier parts of your answer because the quote block had them off the top of my screen. Interesting stuff.

 

Update, shortly later:

 

Ok, Strange - I'm chasing down zero energy hypothesis links and it looks like this is what I'm reading for the next day or two; I'm rather hooked already. I'd never run into this one before.

Edited April 12, 2017 by KipIngram