Even if there is only one World, there would still be a sort of Many Worlds
branching after each quantum observation, see here:


Many worlds in one
Authors: Jaume Garriga, Alexander Vilenkin
Comments: 9 pages, 2 figures, comments and references added
Journal-ref: Phys.Rev. D64 (2001) 043511

A generic prediction of inflation is that the thermalized region we inhabit
is spatially infinite. Thus, it contains an infinite number of regions of
the same size as our observable universe, which we shall denote as
$\O$-regions. We argue that the number of possible histories which may take
place inside of an $\O$-region, from the time of recombination up to the
present time, is finite. Hence, there are an infinite number of $\O$-regions
with identical histories up to the present, but which need not be identical
in the future. Moreover, all histories which are not forbidden by
conservation laws will occur in a finite fraction of all $\O$-regions. The
ensemble of $\O$-regions is reminiscent of the ensemble of universes in the
many-world picture of quantum mechanics. An important difference, however,
is that other $\O$-regions are unquestionably real.

----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
Van: "Jeff Bone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Verzonden: Monday, April 26, 2004 08:26 PM
Onderwerp: Many Worlds invalidated?

> Hot off the press, via Boingsters:
> http://www.boingboing.net/2004/04/26/many_worlds_theory_i.html
>   Many Worlds theory invalidated
> Kathryn Cramer breaks the story on a to-be-presented Harvard talk on an
> experiment that appears to invalidate both the "Many Worlds" and
> "Copenhagen" theories of quantum mechanics. Kathryn is the daughter of
> John Cramer, a physicist whose "Transactional Interpretetation"
> hypothesis is the only one left intact by the experiment's findings.
> It has been widely accepted that the rival interpretations of quantum
> mechanics, e.g., the Copenhagen Interpretation, the Many-Worlds
> Interpretation, and my father John Cramer's Transactional
> Interpretation, cannot be distinguished or falsified by experiment,
> because the experimental predictions come from the formalism that all
> such interpretations describe. However, the Afshar Experiment
> demonstrates in an interaction-free way that there is a loophole in
> this logic: if the interpretation is inconsistent with the formalism,
> then it can be falsified. In particular, the Afshar Experiment
> falsifies the Copenhagen Interpretation, which requires the absence of
> interference in a particle-type measurement. It also falsifies the
> Many-Worlds Interpretation which tells us to expect no interference
> between "worlds" that are physically distinguishable, e.g., that
> correspond to the photon's passage through one pinhole or the other.
> Link (Thanks, Kathryn!)
> http://www.kathryncramer.com/wblog/archives/000530.html

Reply via email to