Skip to main content
Log in

When Worlds Collide: Quantum Probability from Observer Selection?

Foundations of Physics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In Everett's many worlds interpretation, quantum measurements are considered to be decoherence events. If so, then inexact decoherence may allow large worlds to mangle the memory of observers in small worlds, creating a cutoff in observable world size. Smaller world are mangled and so not observed. If this cutoff is much closer to the median measure size than to the median world size, the distribution of outcomes seen in unmangled worlds follows the Born rule. Thus deviations from exact decoherence can allow the Born rule to be derived via world counting, with a finite number of worlds and no new fundamental physics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. H. Everett, “‘Relative state’ formulation of quantum mechanics,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 454–462 (1957).

    Google Scholar 

  2. B. S. DeWitt and N. Graham, The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1973).

    Google Scholar 

  3. M. Namiki, S. Pascazio, and H. Nakazato, Decoherence and Quantum Measurements (World Scientific, Singapore, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  4. H. F. Dowker and J. J. Halliwell, “Quantum mechanics of history: The decoherence functional in quantum mechanics”, Phys. Rev. D 46(4), 1580–1609 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  5. E. Joos, “Elements of environmental decoherence,” in Decoherence: Theoretical, Experimental, and Conceptual Problems, P. Blanchard, D. Giulini, E. Joos, C. Kiefer, and I.-O. Stamatescu, eds. (Springer, Berlin, 2000), pp. 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  6. A. Kent, “Against many-worlds interpretations”, Internat. J. Mod. Phys. A 5, 1745–1762 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  7. G. Auletta, Foundations and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (World Scientific, Singapore, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  8. M. B. Weissman, “Emergent measure-dependent probabilities from modified quantum dynamics without state-vector reduction”, Found. Phys. 12, 407–426 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  9. D. Albert and B. Loewer, “Interpreting the many-worlds interpretation”, Synthese 77, 195–213 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  10. D. Deutsch, “Quantum theory of probability and decisions”, Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A 455, 3129–3197 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  11. D. Wallace, “Quantum probability and decision theory, revisited”, quant-ph/0211104 (2002).

  12. A. M. Gleason, “Measures on the closed subspaces of a Hilbert space”, J. Math. Mech. 6, 885–894 (1957).

    Google Scholar 

  13. H. F. Dowker and J. J. Halliwell, “The decoherence functional in the Caldeira–Leggett model”, in Physical Origins of Time Asymmetry, J. J. Halliwell, J. Perez-Mercader, and W. H. Zurek, eds. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994), pp. 234–245.

    Google Scholar 

  14. W. G. Unruh and W. H. Zurek, “Reduction of a wave packet in quantum Brownian motion”, Phys. Rev. D 40, 1071–1094 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  15. C. Anastopoulos, “Frequently asked questions about decoherence”, quant-ph/0011123 (2001).

  16. R. Hanson, “Drift-diffusion in mangled worlds quantum mechanics”, quant-ph/0303114 (2003).

  17. R. I. Sutherland, “A suggestive way of deriving the quantum probability rule”, Found. Phys. 13, pp. 379–386 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hanson, R. When Worlds Collide: Quantum Probability from Observer Selection?. Foundations of Physics 33, 1129–1150 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025642019178

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025642019178

Navigation