Many-worlds interpretation

The many-worlds interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics.

It is also known as MWI, the relative state formulation, theory of the universal
wavefunction, parallel universes, many-universes interpretation or just many worlds.

Many-worlds asserts the objective reality of the wavefunction, but denies the reality of
wavefunction collapse. The subjective appearance of wavefunction collapse is explained by the
mechanism of quantum decoherence. By this means many-worlds claims to resolve all of the
correlation paradoxes of quantum theory, such as the EPR paradox[1][2] and Schrödinger's cat,[3]
since every possible outcome to every event defines or exists in its own "history" or "world". In
layman's terms, there is a very large – perhaps infinite[4] – number of universes, and everything
that could possibly have happened in our past (but didn't) has occurred in the past of some other
universe or universes.

Proponents argue that MWI reconciles how we can perceive non-deterministic events (such as
the random decay of a radioactive atom) with the deterministic equations of quantum physics.
Prior to many worlds reality had been viewed as a single "world-line". Many-worlds, rather,
views reality as a many-branched tree where every possible quantum outcome is realised.

The relative state formulation is due to Hugh Everett[5] who formulated it in 1957. Later, this
formulation was popularized and renamed many worlds by Bryce Seligman DeWitt in the 1960s
and '70s.[6][3][7][8] The decoherence approach to interpreting quantum theory has been further
explored and developed[9][10][11] becoming quite popular, taken as a class overall. MWI is one of
many Multiverse hypotheses in physics and philosophy. It is currently considered a mainstream
interpretation along with the other decoherence interpretations and the Copenhagen
interpretation.

The many worlds interpretation has, controversially, been seen by some as offering the
possibility of deriving the Born rule and the appearance of quantum probabilities from simpler
assumptions. In fact, this was first attempted by Everett and DeWitt in the 1950s. In a September
2007 conference[12] David Wallace reported on what is claimed to be a proof by Deutsch and
himself of the Born Rule starting from Everettian assumptions.[13] The status of these arguments
remains highly controversial. It is fair to say that some theoretical physicists have taken them as
supporting the case for parallel universes.[14][15] However, Howard Barnum and co-authors,[16]
David Albert, Adrian Kent,[17] and Huw Price, among others, have pointed out problems with the
arguments and claimed to refute them.

Outline
Although several versions of MWI have been proposed since Hugh Everett's original work,[5]
they all contain one key idea: the equations of physics that model the time evolution of systems
without embedded observers are sufficient for modelling systems which do contain observers; in
particular there is no observation-triggered wavefunction collapse which the Copenhagen
interpretation proposes. Provided the theory is linear with respect to the wavefunction, the exact
form of the quantum dynamics modelled, be it the non-relativistic Schrödinger equation,
relativistic quantum field theory or some form of quantum gravity or string theory, does not alter
the validity of MWI since MWI is a metatheory applicable to all linear quantum theories, and
there is no experimental evidence for any non-linearity of the wavefunction in physics.[18][19]
MWI's main conclusion is that the universe (or multiverse in this context) is composed of a
quantum superposition of very many, possibly even a non-denumerablely infinitely[4] many,
increasingly divergent, non-communicating parallel universes or quantum worlds.[8]

The idea of MWI originated in Everett's Princeton Ph.D. thesis "The Theory of the Universal
Wavefunction",[8] developed under his thesis advisor John Archibald Wheeler, a shorter
summary of which was published in 1957 entitled "Relative State Formulation of Quantum
Mechanics" (Wheeler contributed the title "relative state";[20] Everett originally called his
approach the "Correlation Interpretation", although in Everett's usage the term correlation is what
is now called quantum entanglement). The phrase "many worlds" is due to Bryce DeWitt,[8] who
was responsible for the wider popularisation of Everett's theory, which had been largely ignored
for the first decade after publication. DeWitt's phrase "many-worlds" has become so much more
popular than Everett's "Universal Wavefunction" or Everett-Wheeler's "Relative State
Formulation" that many forget that this is only a difference of terminology; the content of all
three papers is the same.

The many-worlds interpretation shares many similarities with later, other "post-Everett"
interpretations of quantum mechanics which also use decoherence to explain the process of
measurement or wavefunction collapse. MWI treats the other histories or worlds as real since it
regards the universal wavefunction as the "basic physical entity"[21] or "the fundamental entity,
obeying at all times a deterministic wave equation".[22] The other decoherent interpretations, such
as many histories, consistent histories, the Existential Interpretation etc, either regard the extra
quantum worlds as metaphorical in some sense, or are agnostic about their reality; it is
sometimes hard to distinguish between the different varieties. MWI is distinguished by two
qualities: it assumes realism,[21][22] which it assigns to the wavefunction, and it has the minimal
formal structure possible, rejecting any hidden variables, quantum potential, any form of a
collapse postulate (i.e. Copenhagenism) or mental postulates (such as the many-minds
interpretation makes).

Modifications of MWI which use einselection to explain how a small number of classical pointer
states can emerge from the enormous Hilbert space of superpositions have been proposed by
Wojciech H. Zurek. "Under scrutiny of the environment, only pointer states remain unchanged.
Other states decohere into mixtures of stable pointer states that can persist, and, in this sense,
exist: They are einselected."[23] These ideas complement MWI and bring the interpretation in line
with our perception of reality.

Many worlds is often referred to as a theory, rather than just an interpretation, by those who
propose that many worlds can make testable predictions (such as David Deutsch) or is falsifiable
(such as Everett) or that all the other, non-MWI, are inconsistent, illogical or unscientific in their
handling of measurements; Hugh Everett argued that his formulation was a metatheory, since it
made statements about other interpretations of quantum theory; that it was the "only completely
coherent approach to explaining both the contents of quantum mechanics and the appearance of
the world."[24]

Wavefunction collapse and the problem of interpretation

As with the other interpretations of quantum mechanics, the many-worlds interpretation is
motivated by behavior that can be illustrated by the double-slit experiment. When particles of
light (or anything else) are passed through the double slit, a calculation assuming wave-like
behavior of light can be used to identify where the particles are likely to be observed. Yet when
the particles are observed in this experiment, they appear as particles (i.e. at definite places) and
not as non-localized waves.

Some versions of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics proposed a process of

"collapse" in which an indeterminate quantum system would probabilistically collapse down
onto, or select, just one determinate outcome to "explain" this phenomenon of observation.
Wavefunction collapse was widely regarded as artificial and ad-hoc, so an alternative
interpretation in which the behavior of measurement could be understood from more
fundamental physical principles was considered desirable.

Everett's Ph.D. work provided such an alternative interpretation. Everett noted that for a
composite system (for example that formed by a particle interacting with a measuring apparatus,
or more generally by a subject (the "observer") observing an object (the "observed" system) the
statement that a subsystem (i.e. the observer or the observed) has a well-defined state is
meaningless – in modern parlance the subsystem states have become entangled – we can only
specify the state of one subsystem relative to the state of the other subsystem, i.e. the state of the
observer and the observed are correlated. This led Everett to derive from the unitary,
deterministic dynamics alone (i.e. without assuming wavefunction collapse) the notion of a
relativity of states of one subsystem relative to another.

Everett noticed that the unitary, deterministic dynamics alone decreed that after an observation is
made each element of the quantum superposition of the combined subject-object wavefunction
contains two relative states: a "collapsed" object state and an associated observer who has
observed the same collapsed outcome; what the observer sees and the state of the object are
correlated. The subsequent evolution of each pair of relative subject-object states proceeds with
complete indifference as to the presence or absence of the other elements, as if wavefunction
collapse has occurred, which has the consequence that later observations are always consistent
with the earlier observations. Thus the appearance of the object's wavefunction's collapse has
emerged from the unitary, deterministic theory itself. (This answered Einstein's early criticism of
quantum theory, that the theory should define what is observed, not for the observables to define
the theory).[25]

Since Everett stopped doing research in theoretical physics shortly after obtaining his Ph.D.,
much of the elaboration of his ideas was carried out by other researchers and forms the basis of
much of the decoherent approach to quantum measurement.
Advantages
• MWI removes the observer-dependent role in the quantum measurement process by
replacing wavefunction collapse with quantum decoherence. Since the role of the
observer lies at the heart of most if not all "quantum paradoxes," this automatically
resolves a number of problems; see for example Schrödinger's cat thought-experiment,
the EPR paradox, von Neumann's "boundary problem" and even wave-particle duality.
Quantum cosmology also becomes intelligible, since there is no need anymore for an
observer outside of the universe.
• MWI allows quantum mechanics to become a realist, deterministic, local theory making
it more akin to classical physics (including the theory of relativity), at the expense of
losing counterfactual definiteness.

The simplest way to see that the many-worlds metatheory is a local theory is to note that it
requires that the wavefunction obey some relativistic wave equation, the exact form of which
is currently unknown, but which is presumed to be locally Lorentz invariant at all times and
everywhere. This is equivalent to imposing the requirement that locality is enforced at all
times and everywhere. Therefore many-worlds is a local theory.
Another way of seeing this is to examine how macrostates evolve. Macrostates descriptions
of objects evolve in a local fashion. Worlds split as the macrostate description divides inside
the light cone of the triggering event. Thus the splitting is a local process, transmitted
causally at light or sub-light speeds.[26]

• MWI (or other, broader multiverse considerations) provides a context for the anthropic
principle which may provide an explanation for the fine-tuned universe.[27][28]
• MWI, being a decoherent formulation, is axiomatically more streamlined than the
Copenhagen and other collapse interpretations; and thus favoured under certain
interpretations of Ockham's razor.[29] Of course there are other decoherent interpretations
that also possess this advantage with respect to the collapse interpretations.

Objections
• The many worlds interpretation is very vague about the ways to determine when splitting
happens, and nowadays usually the criterion is that the two branches have decohered.
However, present day understanding of decoherence does not allow a completely precise,
self contained way to say when the two branches have decohered/"do not interact", and
hence many worlds interpretation remains arbitrary. This is the main objection opponents
of this interpretation raise,[citation needed] saying that it is not clear what is precisely meant
by branching, and point to the lack of self contained criteria specifying branching.

MWI response: the decoherence or "splitting" or "branching" is complete when the

measurement is complete. In Dirac notation a measurement is complete when:

where O[i] represents the observer having detected the object system in the i-th state.
Before the measurement has started the observer states are identical; after the
measurement is complete the observer states are orthonormal.[5][8] Thus a measurement
 defines the branching process: the branching is as well- or ill- defined as the
measurement is. Thus branching is complete when the measurement is complete. Since
the role of the observer and measurement per se plays no special role in MWI
(measurements are handled as all other interactions are) there is no need for a precise
definition of what an observer or a measurement is – just as in Newtonian physics no
precise definition of either an observer or a measurement was required or expected. In all
circumstances the universal wavefunction is still available to give a complete description
of reality.
Objections response: the MWI response states no special role nor need for precise
definition of measurement in MWI, yet uses the word "measurement" in part of its main
argument.
MWI response: "measurements" are treated a subclass of interactions, which induce
subject-object correlations in the combined wavefunction. There is nothing special about
measurements (they don't trigger any wave function collapse, for example); they are just
another unitary time development process. This is why no precise definition of
measurement is required in Everett's formulation.
Also, it is a common misconception to think that branches are completely separate. In
Everett's formulation, they may in principle quantum interfere with each other in the
future,[30] although this requires all "memory" of the earlier branching event to be lost, so
no observer ever sees another branch of reality.[31]

• There is circularity in Everett's measurement theory. Under the assumptions made by

Everett, there are no 'good observations' as defined by him, and since his analysis of the
observational process depends on the latter, it is void of any meaning. The concept of a
'good observation' is the projection postulate in disguise and Everett's analysis simply
derives this postulate by having assumed it, without any discussion.[32] Talk of probability
in Everett presumes the existence of a preferred basis to identify measurement outcomes
for the probabilities to range over. But the existence of a preferred basis can only be
established by the process of decoherence, which is itself probabilistic.[33]

MWI response: Everett's treatment of observations / measurements covers both idealised

good measurements and the more general bad or approximate cases.[34] Thus it is
legitimate to analyse probability in terms of measurement; no circularity is present.

• We cannot be sure that the universe is a quantum multiverse until we have a theory of
everything and, in particular, a successful theory of quantum gravity.[35] If the final theory
of everything is non-linear with respect to wavefunctions then many-worlds would be
invalid.[5][6][3][7][8]

MWI response: all accepted quantum theories of fundamental physics are linear with
respect to the wavefunction. Whilst quantum gravity or string theory may be non-linear in
this respect there is no evidence to indicate this at the moment.[18][19]

• Conservation of energy: Conservation of energy is grossly violated if every instant

infinite amounts of new matter are generated.
 MWI response: 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.[36]

• Occam's Razor rules against a plethora of unobservable universes – Occam would prefer
the one universe Copenhagen Interpretation.

MWI response: Occam's razor actually is a constraint on the complexity of physical

theory, not on the number of universes. MWI is a simpler theory since it has fewer
postulates.[29] See the "advantages" section.

• Unphysical universes: If a state is a superposition of two states Ψ(A) and Ψ(B), i.e. Ψ
= (aΨ(A) + bΨ(B)), i.e. weighted by coefficients a and b, then if b << a, what
principle allows a universe with vanishingly small probability b to be instantiated on an
equal footing with the much more probable one with probability a? This seems to throw
away the information in the probability amplitudes. Such a theory makes little sense.

MWI response: The magnitude of the coefficients provides the weighting that makes the
branches or universes "unequal", as Everett and others have shown, leading the
emergence of the conventional probabilistic rules.[5][6][3][7][8][37]

• Violation of Relativity: MWI splitting is instant and total: this may conflict with
relativity, as an alien in the Andromeda galaxy can't know I collapse an electron over
here before she collapses hers there: the relativity of simultaneity says we can't say which
electron collapsed first – so which one splits off another universe first? This leads to a
hopeless muddle with everyone splitting differently. Note: EPR is not a get-out here, as
the alien's and my electrons need never have been part of the same quantum, i.e.
entangled.

MWI response: the splitting can be regarded and causal and relativistic, spreading at, or
below, the speed of light (e.g. we are not split by Schrödinger's cat until we look in the
box). [38]

Brief overview
Schematic representation of pair of "smallest possible" quantum mechanical systems prior to
interaction: Measured system S and measurement apparatus M.. Systems such as S are referred to
as 1-qubit
qubit systems.

In Everett's formulation, a measuring apparatus M and an object system S form a composite

system, each of which prior to measurement exists
exists in well-defined
well defined (but time-dependent)
time dependent) states.
Measurement is regarded as causing M and S to interact. After S interacts with M, M, it is no longer
possible to describe either system by an independent state. According to Everett, the only
meaningful descriptions
descriptions of each system are relative states: for example the relative state of S
given the state of M or the relative state of M given the state of S.. In DeWitt's formulation, the
state of S after a sequence of measurements is given by a quantum superposition of states, each
one corresponding to an alternative measurement history of S.

Schematic
matic illustration of splitting as a result of a repeated measurement.

For example, consider the smallest possible truly quantum system S,, as shown in the illustration.
This describes for instance, the spin-state
spin state of an electron. Considering a specific axis (say the z-
axis) the north pole represents spin "up" and the south pole, spin "down". The superposition
states of the system are described by (the surface of) a sphere called the Bloch sphere.
sphere To
perform a measurement on S,, it is made to interact with another similar system M. M. After the
interaction, the combined system is described by a state that ranges over a six-dimensional
six dimensional space
(the reason for the number six is explained in thethe article on the Bloch sphere). This six-
six
dimensional object can also be regarded as a quantum superposition of two "alternative histories"
of the original system S,, one in which "up" was observed and the other in which "down" was
observed. Each subsequent binary measurement (that is interaction with a system M)) causes a
similar split in the history tree. Thus after three measurements, the system can be regarded as a
quantum superposition of 8= 2 × 2 × 2 copies of the original system S.

The accepted terminology is somewhat misleading because it is incorrect to regard the universe
as splitting at certain times; at any given instant there is one state in one universe.

Relative state
The goal of the relative-state
relative state formalism, as originally proposed by Everett in his 1957 doctoral
dissertation, was to interpret the effect of external observation entirely
entirely within the mathematical
framework developed by Paul Dirac,
Dirac von Neumann and others, discarding altogether the ad--hoc
mechanism of wave function collapse. Since Everett's original work, there have appeared a
number of similar formalisms in the literature. One such idea is discussed in the next section.

The relative-state
relative state interpretation makes two assumptions. The first is that the wavefunction is not
simply a description of the object's state, but that it actually is entirely equivalent to the object, a
claim it has in common with some other interpretations.
interpretations. The second is that observation or
measurement has no special role, unlike in the Copenhagen interpretation which considers the
wavefunction collapse asas a special kind of event which occurs as a result of observation.

The many-worlds
many worlds interpretation is DeWitt's popularisation of Everett's work, who had referred to
the combined observer-object
observer object system as being split by an observation, each split corresponding
correspondi
to the different or multiple possible outcomes of an observation. These splits generate a possible
tree as shown in the graphic below. Subsequently DeWitt introduced the term "world" to
describe a complete measurement history of an observer, which corresponds
corresponds roughly to a single
branch of that tree. Note that "splitting" in this sense, is hardly new or even quantum mechanical.
The idea of a space of complete alternative histories had already been used in the theory of
probability since the mid 1930s for instance to model Brownian motion.
motion
Partial trace as relative state. Light blue rectangle on upper left denotes system in pure state.
Trellis shaded rectangle in upper right denotes a (possibly) mixed state. Mixed state from
observation is partial trace of a linear superposition of states as shown in lower left-hand
left hand corner.

Under the many-worlds

many worlds interpretation, the Schrödinger equation,
equation, or relativistic analog, holds all
the time everywhere. An observation or measurement of an object by an observer is modeled by
applying the wave equation to the entire system comprising the observer and the object.
object. One
consequence is that every observation can be thought of as causing the combined observer-
observer
object's wavefunction to change into a quantum superposition of two or more non-interacting
non interacting
branches, or split into many "worlds". Since many observation-like
observation e events have happened, and
are constantly happening, there are an enormous and growing number of simultaneously existing
states.

If a system is composed of two or more subsystems, the system's state will be a superposition of
products of the subsystems' states.
states. Once the subsystems interact, their states are no longer
independent. Each product of subsystem states in the overall superposition evolves over time
independently of other products. The subsystems states have become correlated or entangled and
it is no longer possible to consider them independent of one another. In Everett's terminology
each subsystem state was now correlated with its relative state,
state, since each
each subsystem must now
be considered relative to the other subsystems with which it has interacted.

Successive measurements with successive splittings

Comparative properties and experimental support

One of the salient properties of the many-worlds
many worlds interpretation is that observation does not
require an exceptional construct (such as wave function collapse) to explain it. Many physicists,
however, dislike the implication that there are infinitely many non-observable
non observable alternate
universes.

as of 2006,
2006, there are no practical experiments that distinguish between Many-Worlds
Many Worlds and
Copenhagen. There may be cosmological, observational evidence.
Copenhagen interpretation

In the Copenhagen interpretation, the mathematics of quantum mechanics allows one to predict
probabilities for the occurrence of various events. In the many-worlds interpretation, all these
events occur simultaneously. What meaning should be given to these probability calculations?
And why do we observe, in our history, that the events with a higher computed probability seem
to have occurred more often? One answer to these questions is to say that there is a probability
measure on the space of all possible universes, where a possible universe is a complete path in
the tree of branching universes. This is indeed what the calculations give. Then we should expect
to find ourselves in a universe with a relatively high probability rather than a relatively low
probability: even though all outcomes of an experiment occur, they do not occur in an equal way.
As an interpretation which (like other interpretations) is consistent with the equations, it is hard
to find testable predictions of MWI.

Quantum suicide

There is a rather more dramatic test than the one outlined above for people prepared to put their
lives on the line: use a machine which kills them if a random quantum decay happens. If MWI is
true, they will still be alive in the world where the decay didn't happen and would feel no
interruption in their stream of consciousness. By repeating this process a number of times, their
continued consciousness would be arbitrarily unlikely unless MWI was true, when they would be
alive in all the worlds where the random decay was on their side. From their viewpoint they
would be immune to this death process. Clearly, if MWI does not hold, they would be dead in
the one world. Other people would generally just see them die and would not be able to benefit
from the result of this experiment. See Quantum suicide.

The universe decaying to a new vacuum state

Any event that changes the number of observers in the universe may have experimental
consequences.[39] Quantum tunnelling to new vacuum state would reduce the number of
observers to zero (i.e. kill all life). Some Cosmologists argue that the universe is in a false
vacuum state and that consequently the universe should have already experienced quantum
tunnelling to a true vacuum state. This has not happened and is cited as evidence in favour of
many-worlds.

Many-minds

The many-worlds interpretation should not be confused with the many-minds interpretation
which postulates that it is only the observers' minds that split instead of the whole world.

Axiomatics
The existence of many worlds in superposition is not accomplished by introducing some new
axiom to quantum mechanics, but on the contrary by removing the axiom of the probabilistic
collapse of the wave packet: All the possible consistent states of the measured system and the
measuring apparatus (including the observer) are present in a physically real quantum
superposition, not just formally mathematical superposition, as in other interpretations. (Such a
superposition of consistent state combinations of different systems is called an entangled state.)

Hartle[40] showed that in Everett's relative-state theory, Born's probability law

The probability of an observable A to have the value a in a normalized state is the

absolute square of the eigenvalue component of the state corresponding to the eigenvalue
a:

no longer has to be considered an axiom or postulate. It can rather be derived from the other
axioms of quantum mechanics. All that has to be assumed is that if the state is an eigenstate
of the observable A, then the result a of the measurement is certain. This means that a second
axiom of quantum mechanics can be removed. Hartle's derivation only works in a theory (like
Everett's) that does not cut away ("collapse") any superposition components of the wave
function. In other interpretations it is not comprehensible why the absolute square is used and not
some other arbitrary, more complicated expression of the eigenvalue component say, the square
root or some polynomial of its norm.

As a consequence Everett's interpretation or metatheory is an alternative formulation of quantum

theory requiring fewer axioms than previously required and thus favoured by interpretations of
the "Occam's razor" heuristic that emphasize simplicity of the mathematical or logical structure
of a theory (as opposed to interpretations that emphasize a minimal number of hypothesized
entities or some other aspect).

One might argue that postulating the existence of many worlds is some kind of axiomatic
assumption, but each world is merely an element in the quantum superposition of the universal
wavefunction; quantum superpositions are a common and indispensable part of all interpretations
of quantum theory, as is most clearly illustrated in the path integral formulation of quantum
mechanics. Even the simple reflection of a photon from a mirror becomes amazingly convoluted
when looked at from this perspective, as the photon follows all paths instead of just following the
incident and reflected rays, and destructively interferes with itself on all paths save the classical.
Everett's theory just considers it a real phenomenon in nature and applies it to macroscopic
systems in the same way as it is conventionally applied to microscopic systems.

Example
MWI describes measurements as a formation of an entangled state which is a perfectly linear
process (in terms of quantum superpositions) without any collapse of the wave function. For
illustration, consider a Stern-Gerlach experiment and an electron or a silver atom passing this
apparatus with a spin polarization in the x direction and thus a superposition of a spin up and a
spin down state in z-direction. As a measuring apparatus, take a tracking chamber or another
nonabsorbing particle detector; let the electron pass the apparatus and reach the same site in the
end on either way so that except for the z-spin polarization the state of the electron is finally the
same regardless of the path taken (see The Feynman Lectures on Physics for a detailed
discussion of such a setup). Before the measurement, the state of the electron and the measuring
apparatus is:

The state is factorizable into a tensor factor for the electron and another factor for the
measurement apparatus. After the measurement, the state is:

The state is no longer factorizable

factorizable—regardless
regardless of the vector basis chosen. As an illustration,
understand that the following state is factorizable:

since it can be written as

(which might be not so obvious if another vector basis is chosen for the states).

The state of the above experiment is decomposed into a sum of two so-called
so entangled states
("worlds") both of which will have their individual history without any interaction between the
two due to the physical linearity of quantum mechanics (the superposition principle):
principle All
processes in nature are linear and correspond to linear operators acting on each
superposition component individually without any any notice of the other components being
present.

This would also be true for two non-entangled

non entangled superposed states, but the latter can be detected by
interference which is not possible for different entangled states (without reversing the
entanglement first): Different entangled states cannot interfere; interactions with other systems
will only result in a further entanglement of them as well. In the example above, the state of a
Schrödinger cat watching the scene will be factorizable in the beginning (before watching)
butt not in the end:

This
is example also shows that it's not the whole world that is split up into "many worlds", but
only the part of the world that is entangled with the considered quantum event. This splitting
tends to extend by interactions and can be visualised by a zipper or a D(A molecule which are
in a similar way not completely opened instantaneously but gradually, element by element.

Imaginative readers will even see the zipper structure and the extending splitting in the formula:

If a system state is entangled with many other degrees of freedom (such as those in amplifiers,
photographs, heat, sound, computer memory circuits,
circuits, neurons, paper documents) in an
experiment, this amounts to a thermodynamically irreversible process which is constituted of
many small individually reversible processes at the atomic or subatomic level as is generally the
case for thermodynamic irreversibility in classical or quantum statistical mechanics. Thus there
is—for thermodynamic reasons— —nono way for an observer to completely reverse the entanglement
entanglement
and thus observe the other worlds by doing interference experiments on them. On the other hand,
for small systems with few degrees of freedom this is feasible, as long as the investigated aspect
of the system remains unentangled with the rest of the world.

The MWI thus solves the measurement problem of quantum mechanics by reducing
measurements to cascades of entanglements.
entanglements

The formation of an entangled state is a linear operation in terms of quantum superpositions.

superpositions.
Consider for example the vector basis

and the non-entangled

non entangled initial state

The linear (and unitary and thus reversible) operation (in terms of quantum superpositions)
superpositions
corresponding to the matrix
(in the above vector basis) will result in the entangled state

Partial trace and relative state

The state transformation of a quantum system resulting from measurement, such as the double
slit experiment discussed above, can be easily described mathematically in a way that is
consistent with most mathematical formalisms. We will present one such description, also called
reduced state, based on the partial trace concept, which by a process of iteration, leads to a kind
of branching many worlds formalism. It is then a short step from this many worlds formalism to
a many worlds interpretation.

For definiteness, let us assume that system is actually a particle such as an electron. The
discussion of reduced state and many worlds is no different in this case than if we considered any
other physical system, including an "observer system". In what follows, we need to consider not
only pure states for the system, but more generally mixed states; these are described by certain
linear operators on the Hilbert space H. Indeed, as the various measurement scenarios point out,
the set of pure states is not closed under measurement. Mathematically, density matrices are
statistical mixtures of pure states. Operationally a mixed state can be identified to a statistical
ensemble resulting from a specific lab preparation process.

Decohered states as relative states

Suppose we have an ensemble of particles, prepared in such a way that its state S is pure. This
means that there is a unit vector in H (unique up to phase) such that S is the projection
operator given in bra-ket notation by

Now consider an experimental setup to determine whether the particle has a particular property:
For example the property could be that the location of the particle is in some region A of space.
The experimental setup can be regarded either as a measurement of an observable or as a filter.
As a measurement, it measures the observable Q which takes the value 1 if the particle is found
in A and 0 otherwise. As a filter, it filters in those particles in the ensemble which have the stated
property of being in A and filtering out the others.

Mathematically, a property is given by a self-adjoint projection E on the Hilbert space H:

Applying the filter to an ensemble of particles, some of the particles of the ensemble are filtered
in, and others are filtered out. Now it can be shown that the operation of the filter "collapses" the
pure state in the following sense: it prepares a new mixed state given by the density operator

where F = 1 - E.
To see this, note that as a result of the measurement, the state of the particle immediately after
the measurement is in an eigenvector of Q,, that is one of the two pure states

with respective probabilities

The mathematical way of presenting this mixed state is by taking the following convex
combination of pure states:

which is the operator

operator S1 above.

Remark.. The use of the word collapse in this context is somewhat different that its use in
explanations of the Copenhagen interpretation. In this discussion we are not referring to collapse
or transformation of a wave into something else, but rather
rather the transformation of a pure state into
a mixed one.

The considerations so far, are completely standard in most formalisms of quantum mechanics.
Now consider a "branched" system whose underlying Hilbert space is

where H2 is a two-dimensional
dimensional Hilbert space with basis vectors and . The branched space
can be regarded as a composite system consisting of the original system (which is now a
subsystem) together with a non-interac
non interacting
ting ancillary single qubit system. In the branched system,
consider the entangled state

We can express this state in density matrix format as . This multiplies out to:

The partial trace of this mixed state is obtained by summing the operator coefficients of
and in the above expression. This results in a mixed state on H.
H. In fact, this mixed state is
identical to the "post filtering" mixed state S1 above.
To summarize, we have mathematically described the effect of the filter for a particle in a pure
state ψ in the following way:

• The original state is augmented with the ancillary qubit system.

• The pure state of the original system is replaced with a pure entangled
entangled state of the
augmented system and

• The post-filter
post filter state of the system is the partial trace of the entangled state of the
augmented system.

Multiple branching

In the course of a system's lifetime we expect many such filtering events to occur. At each such
event, a branching occurs. In order for this to be consistent with the branching structure as
depicted in the illustration above, we must show that if a filtering event occurs in one path from
the root node of the tree, then we may assume it occurs in all branches. This shows that the tree
is highly symmetric, that is for each node n of the tree, the shape of the tree does not change by
interchanging the subtrees immediately below that node n.

In order to show this branching uniformity property, note that the same calculation carries
through even if original state S is mixed. Indeed, the post filtered
filtered state will be the density
operator:

The state S1 is the partial trace of

This means that to each subsequent measurement (or branching) along one of the paths from the
root of the tree to
to a leaf node corresponds to a homologous branching along every path. This
guarantees the symmetry of the many-worlds
many worlds tree relative to flipping child nodes of each node.
Superposition over paths through observation tree

General quantum
quantum operations

In the previous two sections, we have represented measurement operations on quantum systems
in terms of relative states. In fact there is a wider class of operations which should be considered:
these are called quantum operations.
operations. Considered as operations on density operators on the system
Hilbert space H,, these have the following form:

where I is a finite or countably infinite index set. The operators Fi are called Kraus operators.
operators

Theorem Let
Theorem.

Then

Moreover, the mapping V defined by

is such that

If γ is a trace-preserving
trace preserving quantum operation, then V is an isometric linear map

where the Hilbert direct sum is taken over copies of H indexed by elements of I.. We can consider
such maps Φ as imbeddings. In particular:

Corollary. Any trace-preserving

Corollary. trace preserving quantum operation is the composition of an isometric
imbedding and a partial trace.

This suggests that the many worlds formalism can account for this very general class of
transformations in exactly the same way that it does for simple measurements.

Branching

In general we can show the uniform branching property of the tree as follows: If

and

where

and

then a calculation shows

This also shows that in between the measurements given by proper (that is, non-unitary)
non unitary)
quantum operations, one can interpolate arbitrary unitary evolution.

Quantum probabilities explained by continuous branching

Dr. David Deutsch along with Oxford colleagues have demonstrated mathematically that the
bush-like
like branching structure created by the universe splitting into parallel versions of itself can
explain the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes. In the New Scientist article on the
discovery,
ry, Andy Albrecht, a physicist at the University of California at Davis, is quoted as
saying "This work will go down as one of the most important developments in the history of
science." Deutsch and his Oxford colleagues are thus seen to apparently bolster March - May '07
internet postings of Dr. David Anacker (to physics cognoscenti including Lisa Randall, Lee
Smolin, David Deutsch, G. 't Hooft, S. Glashow, S. Weinberg, M. Kaku, L. Susskind, et al.) via
internet archive earlier establishing agreement between predictive statistics of the Everett and
Copenhagen interpretations.[15]

Acceptance among physicists

There is a wide range of claims that are considered "many worlds" interpretations. It is often
claimed by those who do not believe in MWI[41] that Everett himself was not entirely clear as to
what he believed; however MWI adherents believe they fully understand Everett's meaning as
implying the literal existence of the other worlds. Additionally some MWI adherents point to
Everett's reported belief in quantum immortality,
immortality, which they also take to require belief in the
reality of all the many worlds represented by the components of the uncollapsed universal
wavefunction [42]
wavefunction.

"Many worlds"-like
worlds" like interpretations are now considered fairly mainstream within the quantum
physics community. For example,
example, a poll of 72 leading physicists conducted by the American
researcher David Raub in 1995 and published in the French periodical Sciences et Avenir in
January 1998 recorded that nearly 60% thought many worlds interpretation was "true". Max
Tegmark also reports the result of a poll taken at a 1997 quantum mechanics workshop.[43]
According to Tegmark, "The many worlds interpretation (MWI) scored second, comfortably
ahead of the consistent histories and Bohm interpretations."
interpretations." Other such polls have been taken at
Nielsen's blog[44] report on one such poll. Nielsen
other conferences: see for instance Michael Nielsen's
remarks that it appeared most of the conference attendees "thought the poll was a waste of time".
MWI sceptics (for instance Asher Peres)
Peres) argue that polls regarding the acceptance of a particular
interpretation within the scientific community, such as those mentioned above, cannot be used as
evidence supporting a specific interpretation's
interpretation's validity. However, others note that science is a
group activity (for instance, peer review)
review) and that polls are a systematic way of revealing the
thinking of the scientific community.
A 2005 minor poll on the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics workshop at the Institute for
Quantum Computing University of Waterloo produced contrary results, with the MWI as the
least favored.[45]

One of MWI's strongest advocates is David Deutsch.[46] According to Deutsch, the single photon
interference pattern observed in the double slit experiment can be explained by interference of
photons in multiple universes. Viewed in this way, the single photon interference experiment is
indistinguishable from the multiple photon interference experiment. In a more practical vein, in
one of the earliest papers on quantum computing,[47] he suggested that parallelism that results
from the validity of MWI could lead to "a method by which certain probabilistic tasks can be
performed faster by a universal quantum computer than by any classical restriction of it".
Deutsch has also proposed that when reversible computers become conscious that MWI will be
testable (at least against "naive" Copenhagenism) via the reversible observation of spin.[31]

Asher Peres was an outspoken critic of MWI, for example in a section in his 1993 textbook with
the title Everett's interpretation and other bizarre theories. In fact, Peres questioned whether
MWI is really an "interpretation" or even if interpretations of quantum mechanics are needed at
all. Indeed, the many-worlds interpretation can be regarded as a purely formal transformation,
which adds nothing to the instrumentalist (i.e. statistical) rules of the quantum mechanics.
Perhaps more significantly, Peres seems to suggest that positing the existence of an infinite
number of non-communicating parallel universes is highly suspect as it violates those
interpretations of Occam's Razor that seek to minimize the number of hypothesized entities.
Proponents of MWI argue precisely the opposite, by applying Occam's Razor to the set of
assumptions rather than multiplicity of universes. In Max Tegmark's formulation, the alternative
to many worlds is the undesirable "many words", an allusion to the complexity of von
Neumann's collapse postulate.

MWI is considered by some to be unfalsifiable and hence unscientific because the multiple
parallel universes are non-communicating, in the sense that no information can be passed
between them. Others[31] claim MWI is directly testable. Everett regarded MWI as falsifiable
since any test that falsifies conventional quantum theory would also falsify MWI.[24]

According to Martin Gardner MWI has two different interpretations: real or unreal, and claims
that Stephen Hawking and Steve Weinberg favour the unreal interpretation.[48] Gardner also
claims that the interpretation favoured by the majority of physicists is that the other worlds are
not real in the same way as our world is real, whereas the "realist" view is supported by MWI
experts David Deutsch and Bryce DeWitt. However Stephen Hawking is on record as a saying
that the "other worlds are as real as ours"[49] and Tipler reports Hawking saying that MWI is
"trivially true" (scientific jargon for "obviously true") if quantum theory applies to all reality.[50]
Roger Penrose agrees with Hawking that QM applied to the universe implies MW, although he
considers the current lack of a successful theory of quantum gravity negates the claimed
universality of conventional QM.[35]

Speculative implications
Speculative physics deals with questions also discussed in science fiction.
Choice and travel

Under the Many-Worlds interpretation, every choice a person makes results in the creation of
two or more "new" universes: one for each option in a given choice. Question: is it possible that
all of the universes necessary to accommodate every possible choice (most likely an infinite
amount of universes) were already created at the same instant as our own? Does the existence of
any single universe necessitate the existence of an infinite number of others? Price gives
evidence for both sides to the speculation. On the one hand he says that quantum effects rarely or
never affect human decisions. On the other hand he says that all possible decisions are realized in
some worlds.

In quantum terms each neuron is an essentially classical object. Consequently quantum noise in the brain
is at such a low level that it probably doesn't often alter, except very rarely, the critical mechanistic
behaviour of sufficient neurons to cause a decision to be different than we might otherwise expect. ... If
both sides of a choice are selected in different worlds why bother to spend time weighing the evidence
before selecting? The answer is that whilst all decisions are realised, some are realised more often than
others – or to put to more precisely each branch of a decision has its own weighting or measure which
enforces the usual laws of quantum statistics.[51]

It is further speculated that it might be possible to move "between" these universes, of which
there would be an infinite number or a very large finite number. Price believes that travel
between worlds is impossible.

According to our present knowledge of physics whilst it is possible to detect the presence of other nearby
worlds, through the existence of interference effects, it is impossible to travel to or communicate with
them. ...the interfering worlds can't influence each other in the sense that an experimenter in one of the
worlds can arrange to communicate with their own, already split-off, quantum copies in other worlds. ...
Since each component of a linear solution evolves with complete indifference as to the presence or
absence of the other terms/solutions then we can conclude that no experiment in one world can have any
effect on another experiment in another world. Hence no communication is possible between quantum
worlds. [51]

Quantum suicide

It has been claimed that there is an experiment that would clearly differentiate between the
many-worlds interpretation and other interpretations of quantum mechanics. It involves a
quantum suicide machine and an experimenter willing to risk death. However, at best, this would
only decide the issue for the experimenter; bystanders would learn nothing. The flip side of
quantum suicide is quantum immortality.

Another speculation is that the separate worlds remain weakly coupled (e.g. by gravity)
permitting "communication between parallel universes". This requires that gravity be a classical
force and not quantized.

The many-worlds interpretation has some similarity to modal realism in philosophy, which is the
view that the possible worlds used to interpret modal claims actually exist. Unlike philosophy,
however, in quantum mechanics counterfactual alternatives can influence the results of
experiments, as in the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb-testing problem or the Quantum Zeno effect.

Time travel

The many-worlds interpretation could be one possible way to resolve the paradoxes that one
would expect to arise if time travel turns out to be permitted by physics (permitting closed
timelike curves and thus violating causality). Entering the past would itself be a quantum event
causing branching, and therefore the timeline accessed by the time traveller simply would be
another timeline of many. In that sense, it would make the Novikov self-consistency principle
unnecessary.

Many worlds in literature and science fiction

Main article: Parallel universe (fiction)

The many-worlds interpretation (and the somewhat related concept of possible worlds) have
been associated to numerous themes in literature, art and science fiction.

Some of these stories or films violate fundamental principles of causality and relativity, and are
extremely misleading since the information-theoretic structure of the path space of multiple
universes (that is information flow between different paths) is very likely extraordinarily
complex. Also see Michael Clive Price's FAQ referenced in the external links section below
where these issues (and other similar ones) are dealt with more decisively.

Another kind of popular illustration of many worlds splittings, which does not involve
information flow between paths, or information flow backwards in time considers alternate
outcomes of historical events. According to many worlds, most of the historical speculations
entertained within the alternate history genre are realised in parallel universes.

See also
• Consistent histories • Garden of Forking Paths • Quantum decoherence
• Digital philosophy • Interpretation of quantum • Quantum entanglement
• EPR paradox mechanics • Quantum immortality - a
• Fabric of Reality • Many-minds thought experiment.
• Fredkin Finite Nature interpretation • Wave function collapse
Hypothesis • Multiverse
• Multiple histories

(otes
1. ^ Bryce Seligman DeWitt, R. Neill Graham, eds, The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum
Mechanics, Princeton Series in Physics, Princeton University Press (1973), ISBN 0-691-08131-X
 Contains Everett's thesis: The Theory of the Universal Wavefunction, where the claim to resolves
all paradoxes is made on pg 118, 149.
2. ^ Hugh Everett, Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics, Reviews of Modern Physics
vol 29, (1957) pp 454-462. The claim to resolve EPR is made on page 462
3. ^ a b c d Bryce Seligman DeWitt, Quantum Mechanics and Reality, Physics Today,23(9) pp 30-40
(1970) also April 1971 letters followup
4. ^ a b Stefano Osnaghi, Fabio Freitas, Olival Freire Jr, The Origin of the Everettian Heresy, Studies
in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 40(2009)97–123
5. ^ a b c d e Hugh Everett, Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics, Reviews of Modern
Physics vol 29, (1957) pp 454-462.
6. ^ a b c Cecile M. DeWitt, John A. Wheeler eds, The Everett-Wheeler Interpretation of Quantum
Mechanics, Battelle Rencontres: 1967 Lectures in Mathematics and Physics (1968)
7. ^ a b c Bryce Seligman DeWitt, The Many-Universes Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics,
Proceedings of the International School of Physics "Enrico Fermi" Course IL: Foundations of
Quantum Mechanics, Academic Press (1972)
8. ^ a b c d e f g Bryce Seligman DeWitt, R. Neill Graham, eds, The Many-Worlds Interpretation of
Quantum Mechanics, Princeton Series in Physics, Princeton University Press (1973), ISBN 0-
691-08131-X Contains Everett's thesis: The Theory of the Universal Wavefunction, pp 3-140.
9. ^ H. Dieter Zeh, On the Interpretation of Measurement in Quantum Theory, Foundation of
Physics, vol. 1, pp. 69-76, (1970).
10. ^ Wojciech Hubert Zurek, Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical, Physics
Today, vol. 44, issue 10, pp. 36-44, (1991).
11. ^ Wojciech Hubert Zurek, Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical,
Reviews of Modern Physics, 75, pp 715-775, (2003)
12. ^ Perimeter Institute, Many worlds at 50 conference, September 21-24, 2007
13. ^ Perimeter Institute, Seminar overview, Probability in the Everett interpretation: state of play,
David Wallace - Oxford University, 21 Sept 2007
14. ^ Breitbart.com, Parallel universes exist - study, Sept 23 2007
15. ^ a b Merali, Zeeya (2007-09-21), "Parallel universes make quantum sense", 4ew Scientist (2622),
http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19526223.700-parallel-universes-make-quantum-
sense.html, retrieved 2007-10-20 (Summary only).
16. ^ H. Barnum et al., arXiv:quant-ph/9907024
17. ^ A. Kent, arxiv:0905.0624
18. ^ a b Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory: The Search for the Fundamental Laws of
4ature (1993), ISBN 0-09-922391-0, pg 68-69
19. ^ a b Steven Weinberg Testing Quantum Mechanics, Annals of Physics Vol 194 #2 (1989), pg
336-386
20. ^ John Archibald Wheeler, Geons, Black Holes & Quantum Foam, ISBN 0-393-31991-1. pp 268-
270
21. ^ a b Everett 1957, section 3, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence
22. ^ a b Everett [1956]1973, "Theory of the Universal Wavefunction", chapter 6 (e)
23. ^ Zurek, Wojciech (March 2009). Quantum Darwinism. Nature Physics.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.5082.
24. ^ a b Everett
25. ^ "Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you use. It is the theory
which decides what can be observed." Albert Einstein to Werner Heisenberg, objecting to placing
observables at the heart of the new quantum mechanics, during Heisenberg's 1926 lecture at
Berlin; related by Heisenberg in 1968, quoted by Abdus Salam, Unification of Fundamental
Forces, Cambridge University Press (1990) ISBN 0-521-37140-6, pp 98-101
26. ^ Everett FAQ "Is many-worlds a local theory?"
27. ^ Paul C.W. Davies, Other Worlds, chapters 8 & 9 The Anthropic Principle & Is the Universe an
accident?, (1980) ISBN 0-460-04400-1
28. ^ Paul C.W. Davies, The Accidental Universe, (1982) ISBN 0-521-28692-1
29. ^ a b Everett FAQ "Does many-worlds violate Ockham's Razor?"
30. ^ Tegmark, Max The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Many Worlds or Many Words?,
1998. To quote: "What Everett does NOT postulate: “At certain magic instances, the world
undergoes some sort of metaphysical 'split' into two branches that subsequently never interact.”
This is not only a misrepresentation of the MWI, but also inconsistent with the Everett postulate,
since the subsequent time evolution could in principle make the two terms...interfere. According
to the MWI, there is, was and always will be only one wavefunction, and only decoherence
calculations, not postulates, can tell us when it is a good approximation to treat two terms as non-
interacting."
31. ^ a b c Paul C.W. Davies, J.R. Brown, The Ghost in the Atom (1986) ISBN 0-521-31316-3, pp. 34-
38: "The Many-Universes Interpretation", pp83-105 for David Deutsch's test of MWI and
reversible quantum memories
32. ^ Comments on the Everett FAQ, added comment May 13, 2003
33. ^ Many worlds interpretation shown to be circular, David J Baker, Princeton University, 11 April
2006
34. ^ Everett [1956]1973, "Theory of the Universal Wavefunction", chapter V, section 4
"Approximate Measurements", pp. 100-103 (e)
35. ^ a b Penrose, Roger (August 1991). "Roger Penrose Looks Beyond the Classic-Quantum
Dichotomy". Sciencewatch. http://www.sciencewatch.com/interviews/roger_penrose2.htm.
Retrieved 2007-10-21.
36. ^ Everett FAQ "Does many-worlds violate conservation of energy?"
37. ^ Everett FAQ "How do probabilities emerge within many-worlds?"
38. ^ Everett FAQ "When does Schrodinger's cat split?"
39. ^ Can Quantum Cosmology Give Observational Consequences of Many-Worlds Quantum
Theory? by Don N. Page
40. ^ James Hartle, Quantum Mechanics of Individual Systems, American Journal of Physics, vol 36
(1968), # 8
41. ^ Jeffrey A. Barrett, The Quantum Mechanics of Minds and Worlds, Oxford University Press,
1999. According to Barret (loc. cit. Chapter 6) "There are many many-worlds interpretations."
42. ^ Eugene Shikhovtsev's Biography of Everett, in particular see "Keith Lynch remembers 1979-
1980"
43. ^ Max Tegmark on many worlds (contains MWI poll)
44. ^ Michael Nielsen: The interpretation of quantum mechanics
45. ^ Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
46. ^ David Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes And Its Implications,
Penguin Books (1998), ISBN 0-14-027541-X
47. ^ David Deutsch, Quantum theory, the Church-Turing principle and the universal quantum
computer, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A 400, (1985), pp. 97–117
48. ^ A response to Bryce DeWitt, Martin Gardner, May 2002
49. ^ Award winning 1995 Channel 4 documentary Reality on the rocks [1] where Hawking states
that the "other worlds are as real as ours"
50. ^ Tipler, Frank J. (2006-11-26). "What About Quantum Theory? Bayes and the Born
Interpretation". arXiv, Cornell University. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0611245v1. Retrieved
2007-10-20. Page 1: "It is well-known that if the quantum formalism applies to all reality, both to
atoms, to humans, to planets and to the universe itself then the Many Worlds Interpretation is
trivially true (to use an expression of Stephen Hawking, expressed to me in a private
conversation)."
 51. ^ a b Everett FAQ "Could we ever communicate with the other worlds? Why do I only ever
experience one world? Why am I not aware of the world (and myself) splitting?"

Further reading
• Jeffrey A. Barrett, The Quantum Mechanics of Minds and Worlds, Oxford University
Press, Oxford, 1999.
• Julian Brown, Minds, Machines, and the Multiverse, Simon & Schuster, 2000, ISBN 0-
684-81481-1
• Asher Peres, Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1993.
• Mark A. Rubin, Locality in the Everett Interpretation of Heisenberg-Picture Quantum
Mechanics, Foundations of Physics Letters, 14, (2001) , pp. 301–322, arΧiv:quant-
ph/0103079
• David Wallace, Harvey R. Brown, Solving the measurement problem: de Broglie-Bohm
loses out to Everett, Foundations of Physics, arΧiv:quant-ph/0403094
• David Wallace, Worlds in the Everett Interpretation, Studies in the History and
Philosophy of Modern Physics, 33, (2002), pp. 637–661, arΧiv:quant-ph/0103092
• Paul C.W. Davies, Other Worlds, (1980) ISBN 0-460-04400-1
• John A. Wheeler and Wojciech Hubert Zurek (eds), Quantum Theory and Measurement,
Princeton University Press, (1983), ISBN 0-691-08316-9
• James P. Hogan, The Proteus Operation (science fiction involving the many-worlds
interpretation, time travel and World War 2 history), Baen, Reissue edition (August 1,
1996) ISBN 0671877577
• Frank J. Tipler, Testing Many-Worlds Quantum Theory By Measuring Pattern
Convergence Rates, arXiv:0809.4422v1
• Adrian Kent, One world versus many: the inadequacy of Everettian accounts of
evolution, probability, and scientific confirmation, arxiv:0905.0624
• Stefano Osnaghi, Fabio Freitas, Olival Freire Jr, The Origin of the Everettian Heresy,
Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 40(2009)97–123. A study of the
painful three-way relationship between Hugh Everett, John A Wheeler and Niels Bohr
and how this affected the early development of the many-worlds theory.

External links

• Everett's Relative-State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics - Jeffrey A. Barrett's article

on Everett's formulation of quantum mechanics in the Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy.
• Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics - Lev Vaidman's article on the many
worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• Michael C Price's Everett FAQ -- a clear FAQ-style presentation of the theory.
• The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics - a description for the lay reader
with links.
• Against Many-Worlds Interpretations by Adrian Kent
• Many Worlds is a "lost cause" according to R. F. Streater
• The many worlds of quantum mechanics by John D Sankey
• Max Tegmark's web page
• Henry Stapp's critique of MWI, focusing on the basis problem
• Translation of Schrödinger's Cat paper.
• Everett hit count on arxiv.org
• Many Worlds 50th anniversary conference at Oxford
• "Many Worlds at 50" conference at Perimeter Institute
• Scientific American report on the Many Worlds 50th anniversary conference at
Oxford[dead link]
• Highfield, Roger (September 21, 2007), Parallel universe proof boosts time travel hopes,
The Daily Telegraph,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/09/21/sciuni121.xml,
retrieved 2007-10-26.
• HowStuffWorks article