Pure Wave Mechanics Research Articles

Everettian theory as pure wave mechanics plus a no-collapse probability postulate

Proposed derivations of the Born rule for Everettian theory are controversial. I argue that they are unnecessary but may provide justification for a simplified version of the Principal Principle. It’s also unnecessary to replace Everett’s idea that a subject splits in measurement contexts with the idea that subjects have linear histories which partition (Deutsch in Int J Theor Phys 24:1–41, 1985; The Beginning of Infinity. Allen Lane, London, 2011; Saunders and Wallace in Br J Philos Sci 59:293–305, 2008; Saunders, in: Saunders, Barrett, Kent, Wallace (eds) Many worlds? Everett, quantum theory, and reality, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 181–205, 2010; Wallace in The emergent multiverse, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012, Chapter 7; Wilson in Br J Philos Sci 64:709–737, 2013; The nature of contingency: quantum physics as modal realism, Oxford University Press, Oxford, forthcoming). Linear histories were introduced to provide a concept of pre-measurement uncertainty and I explain why pre-measurement uncertainty for splitting subjects is after all coherent, though not necessary because Everett’s original fission interpretation of branching can arguably be rendered coherent without it, via reference to Vaidman (Int Stud Philos Sci 12:245–66, 1998), Tappenden (Br J Philos Sci 62:99–123, 2011), Sebens and Carroll (Br J Philos Sci 69:25–74, 2018) and McQueen and Vaidman (Stud Hist Philos Mod Phys 66:14–23, 2019). A deterministic and probabilistic quantum mechanics can be made intelligible by replacing the standard collapse postulate with a no-collapse postulate which identifies objective probability with relative branch weight, supplemented by the simplified Principal Principle and some revisionary metaphysics.

Typical worlds

Hugh Everett III presented pure wave mechanics, sometimes referred to as the many-worlds interpretation, as a solution to the quantum measurement problem. While pure wave mechanics is an objectively deterministic physical theory with no probabilities, Everett sought to show how the theory might be understood as making the standard quantum statistical predictions as appearances to observers who were themselves described by the theory. We will consider his argument and how it depends on a particular notion of branch typicality. We will also consider responses to Everett and the relationship between typicality and probability. The suggestion will be that pure wave mechanics requires a number of significant auxiliary assumptions in order to make anything like the standard quantum predictions.

Quantum Worlds

http://dx.doi.org/10.5007/1808-1711.2016v20n1p45Because of the conceptual difficulties it faces, quantum mechanics provides a salient example of how alternative metaphysical commitments may clarify our understanding of a physical theory and the explanations it provides. Here we will consider how postulating alternative quantum worlds in the context of Hugh Everett III’s pure wave mechanics may serve to explain determinate measurement records and the standard quantum statistics. We will focus on the properties of such worlds, then briefly consider other metaphysical options available for interpreting pure wave mechanics. These reflections will serve to illustrate both the nature and the limits of naturalized metaphysics.

Typicality in Pure Wave Mechanics

Hugh Everett III's pure wave mechanics is a deterministic physical theory with no probabilities. He nevertheless sought to show how his theory might be understood as making the same statistical predictions as the standard collapse formulation of quantum mechanics. We will consider Everett's argument for pure wave mechanics, how it depends on the notion of branch typicality, and the relationship between the predictions of pure wave mechanics and the standard quantum probabilities.

Hugh Everett III’s Relative States and the Scientific Realism in Quantum Mechanics

The objective of the present work is to explore the kind of realism prevailing in the most usual interpretation adopted for Quantum Mechanics, that is, the Copenhagen Interpretation, opposing it to the realism of Everett’s Relative States Interpretation, based on a formalism of pure wave mechanics. Keywords: Copenhagen Interpretation, Relative States Interpretation, Complementarity Principle, Scientific Realism, Hugh Everett III.

Pure wave mechanics and the very idea of empirical adequacy

Hugh Everett III proposed his relative-state formulation of pure wave mechanics as a solution to the quantum measurement problem. He sought to address the theory’s determinate record and probability problems by showing that, while counterintuitive, pure wave mechanics was nevertheless empirically faithful and hence empirical acceptable. We will consider what Everett meant by empirical faithfulness. The suggestion will be that empirical faithfulness is well understood as a weak variety of empirical adequacy. The thought is that the very idea of empirical adequacy might be renegotiated in the context of a new physical theory given the theory’s other virtues. Everett’s argument for pure wave mechanics provides a concrete example of such a renegotiation.

The relative facts interpretation and Everett's note added in proof

In the published version of Hugh Everett III's doctoral dissertation, he inserted what has become a famous footnote, the “note added in proof”. This footnote is often the strongest evidence given for any of various interpretations of Everett (the many worlds, many minds, many histories and many threads interpretations). In this paper I will propose a new interpretation of the footnote. One that is supported by evidence found in letters written to and by Everett; one that is suggested by a new interpretation of Everett, an interpretation that takes seriously the central position of relative states in Everett's pure wave mechanics: the relative facts interpretation. Of central interest in this paper is how to make sense of Everett's claim in the “note added in proof” that “all elements of a superposition (all “branches”) are “actual,” none any more “real” than the rest.”

On the Faithful Interpretation of Pure Wave Mechanics

Given Hugh Everett III’s understanding of the proper cognitive status of physical theories, his relative-state formulation of pure wave mechanics arguably qualifies as an empirically acceptable physical theory. The argument turns on the precise nature of the relationship that Everett requires between the empirical substructure of an empirically faithful physical theory and experience. On this view, Everett provides a weak resolution to both the determinate record and the probability problems encountered by pure wave mechanics, and does so in a way that avoids unnecessary metaphysical complications. Taking Everett’s goal to be showing the empirical faithfulness of the relative-state formulation agrees well with his characterization of his project as one of seeking a model for observation in the correlation structure described by pure wave mechanics and seeking a measure of typicality over this empirical substructure that covaries with our empirically warranted expectations.

Everett’s pure wave mechanics and the notion of worlds

Everett (1957a, b, 1973) relative-state formulation of quantum mechanics has often been taken to involve a metaphysical commitment to the existence of many splitting worlds each containing physical copies of observers and the objects they observe. While there was earlier talk of splitting worlds in connection with Everett, this is largely due to DeWitt’s (Phys Today 23:30–35, 1970) popular presentation of the theory. While the thought of splitting worlds or parallel universes has captured the popular imagination, Everett himself favored the language of elements, branches, or relative states in describing his theory. The result is that there is no mention of splitting worlds or parallel universes in any of Everett’s published work. Everett, however, did write of splitting observers and was willing to adopt the language of many worlds in conversation with people who were themselves using such language. While there is evidence that Everett was not entirely comfortable with talk of many worlds, it does not seem to have mattered much to him what language one used to describe pure wave mechanics. This was in part a result of Everett’s empirical understanding of the cognitive status of his theory.

Abstract: 5 GUIDELINES IN SOUTH AMERICA

In the published version of Hugh Everett III's doctoral dissertation, he inserted what has become a famous footnote, the “note added in proof”. This footnote is often the strongest evidence given for any of various interpretations of Everett (the many worlds, many minds, many histories and many threads interpretations). In this paper I will propose a new interpretation of the footnote. One that is supported by evidence found in letters written to and by Everett; one that is suggested by a new interpretation of Everett, an interpretation that takes seriously the central position of relative states in Everett's pure wave mechanics: the relative facts interpretation. Of central interest in this paper is how to make sense of Everett's claim in the “note added in proof” that “all elements of a superposition (all “branches”) are “actual,” none any more “real” than the rest.”

WHAT IT FEELS LIKE TO BE IN A SUPERPOSITION. AND WHY

This paper attempts an interpretation of Everett's relative state formulation of quantum mechanics that avoids the commitment to new metaphysical entities like ‘worlds’ or ‘minds’. Starting from Everett's quantum mechanical model of an observer, it is argued that an observer's belief to be in an eigenstate of the measurement (corresponding to the observation of a well-defined measurement outcome) is consistent with the fact that she objectively is in a superposition of such states. “Subjective states” corresponding to such beliefs are constructed. From an analysis of these subjective states and their dynamics it is argued that Everett's pure wave mechanics is subjectively consistent with von Neumann's classical formulation of quantum mechanics. It follows from the argument that the objective state of a system is in principle unobservable. Nevertheless, an adequate concept of empirical reality can be constructed.