How the Many Worlds Interpretation Brings Common Sense to Paradoxical Quantum Experiments
Open accessAbstract
This chapter argues that locality is a necessary condition for causal explanations to be commonsensical. It takes it as a requirement on an adequate physical theory that it be able to offer local causal explanations of all experimental outcomes. The chapter discusses how the demand for local causal explanation shaped classical physics. It introduces quantum physics in the context of a simple experiment, which although strange, can be explained locally. It specifies three refined common sense principles of locality. These principles are satisfied by classical physics and by the simple quantum experiment. The chapter also presents several quantum experiments that do seem to violate the principles and therefore defy common sense. It shows that common sense can be restored to quantum theory if we adopt the many worlds interpretation. The chapter also discusses the significance of our results to debates over the interpretation of quantum mechanics.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Recent pre- and postselected quantum paradoxes are resolved by parallel worlds with different postselections.
“Finally, recent paradoxes appearing in the description of pre and postselected quantum systems: the 3-box paradox [20], Hardy paradox [21], the quantum pigeon holes conundrum [22], and discontinuous traces in nested interferometers [23] are all resolved by the fact that there are parallel worlds with different postselections [14].”
From Why the Many-Worlds Interpretation? (2022) · cites this paper as [14]
Section 6 explains the nested-interferometer trace using parallel worlds with different detector outcomes; Section 3 explains that different postselections yield different traces. The copy does not extend that resolution to the three-box, Hardy, or quantum-pigeonhole paradoxes, so it supports only the nested-interferometer part of the claim. No page numbers are available in the indexed passages. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 1 · Cited by 8
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- Ducheyne, Steffen. 2014. "Newton on Action at a Distance." Journal of the History of Philosophy. 52(4): 675-702.
- Einstein, Albert, Boris Podolsky, Nathan Rosen. 1935. "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?" Physical Review. 47 (10): 777- 780.
- Elitzur, Avshalom C. and Lev Vaidman. 1993. "Quantum Mechanical Interaction-Free Measurements." Foundations of Physics. 23 (7): 987-997.
- Grangier, Philippe, Gérard Roger, and Alain Aspect. 1986. "Experimental Evidence for a Photon Anticorrelation Effect on a Beam Splitter: A New Light on Single-Photon Interferences." Europhys. Lett., 1 (4): 173-179.
- Janiak, Andrew. (ed.). 2004. Newton: Philosophical Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Papineau, David. 1995. "Probabilities and the Many Minds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics." Analysis, 55(4): 239-246.
- Quine, Willard Van Orman. 1957. "The Scope and Language of Science." British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 8: 1-17.
- Rauch, Helmut, Wolfgang Treimer, and Ulrich Bonse. 1974. "Test of a Single Crystal Neutron Interferometer." Physics Letters A 47: 369.
- Salih, Hatim. 2016. "Protocol for Counterfactually Transporting an Unknown Qubit." Front. Phys. 3: 94, arXiv:1404.2200 [quant-ph]. · arXiv
- Vaidman, Lev. 2015b. "Bell Inequality and Many-worlds Interpretation." In Quantum Nonlocality and Reality, Mary Bell and Gao Shan (eds.). Oxford University Press.
- Vaidman, Lev. 2019. "Analysis of counterfactuality of counterfactual communication protocols.' " arXiv: 1902.08473 [quant-ph]. · arXiv
- Authors
- McQueen, K. J., & Vaidman, L.
- ORCID
- McQueen, Kelvin J.
- Venue
- Scientific Challenges to Common Sense Philosophy
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2020-05-27
- Pages
- 40-60
- OpenAlex
- W3028883397
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 7.61
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- philpapers.org
- Locations
- Routledge eBooks (publishedVersion)
- PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
- Keywords
- many-worlds interpretation, locality, common sense, interpretation of quantum mechanics, quantum paradoxes, classical physics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
