Contact to the author: folor@bigmir.net

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

“We introduce into "relative-state theory", systems which represent observers. Such systems can be conceived as automatically functioning machines (servomechanisms) possessing recording devices (memory) and which are capable of responding to their environment. The behavior of these observers shall always be treated within the framework of wave mechanics. Furthermore, we shall deduce the probabilistic assertions of Process as subjective appearances to such observers, thus placing the theory in correspondence with experience. We are then led to the novel situation in which the formal theory is objectively continuous and causal, while subjectively discontinuous and probabilistic. While this point of view thus shall ultimately justify our use of the statistical assertions of the orthodox view, it enables us to do so in a logically consistent manner, allowing for the existence of other observers”

Multiworld interpretation (ÌWI) has validity in one of the specific conceptual forms of quantum mechanics, which arose in the 50th years of the last century. According to this concept, in addition to a directly cognizable world, there are many other similar worlds, which exist in parallel in the same space and time. One of the ultimate goals in the development of the ÌWI theory was an attempt to remove long-range action both from the quantum theory, and from all physical phenomena. The history of ÌWI begins with Everetta's inclusion of an infinite number of worlds in the universe, in addition to the world of our reality. In particular, each time quantum experiments having nonzero probability are carried out, ÌWI allows that each fixed result corresponds to various worlds, although we know that directly observable results belong only to our World [1, 2].

 The formulation of Everett's quantum mechanics can be attributed to the problemof deciding quantum measurements by the splitting process of the collapse of a wave function in Neumann's standard theory. For this purpose, empirical predictions of the standard theory were considered as subjective experiences of the observers, which are the physical systems described by the given theory. One of the main problems of the Everett's theory is the ambiguity in the practical realization of ÌWI. In due time, some attempts were made to reconstruct a non-collapsing theory of Everett's to explain the obvious definite results of quantum measurements. D.Uilera and B.Devitta's constructions are best known. Finally, these attempts have resulted in such formulations of quantum mechanics as Multiworld, multiple individual consciousnesses of the observers, many quantum histories and a chronoquantum Multiworld. In various ÌWI's it is possible to count the common features giving an image of the universe which never tests the condition of collapse and submits to the chronoquantum equation. Another feature of ÌWI consists in the assumption that this universal condition is a quantum superposition of several (and possibly and infinite number of) conditions that are identical, but non-interacting among themselves in parallel universes.

 In the present work some aspects of the application of the Multiworld interpretation in relational quantum mechanics are considered. On the basis of the theoretical results, further development of the theory of many-chronoquantum histories [3] is accomplished.

 The standard formulation of Neumann's quantum theory includes some basic principles:

 Representation of conditions: Probable physical conditions of system S are represented by separate vectors of individual length in space (which for the applied purposes of QP can be considered linear with internal properties).

Representation of properties: for each physical parameter P, which can be observed in system S, there is the linear projective operator P representing properties of the given quantum system.

Connection of own conditions and own values: system S definitely contains physical parameter P, if and only if P, influencing S, results in S. We speak then, that S is a condition P with value 1. Thus S definitely has no properties P, if and only if P, influencing S, results in 0.

Dynamics: If the above quantum system measurements are not carried out, then they develop continuously according to linear, determined dynamics which depend only on the power properties of the system. If in the above system, a measurement is carried out instantly and chaotically, it may result in a definite condition, or it will definitely have no measured property. The probability of realization of each condition in postmeasurement is determined by an initial condition of the system. More definitely, it is possible to tell that the probability of realization of a specific final condition is equal to the norm - the squared product of projections of initial and final conditions.

 So that the system definitely had some specific property, the vector representing the condition of the system should enter as a beam in the space of conditions representing the given property. To definitely not have such a property, the vector of the condition of the system should lay in a plane in this space. Generally speaking, the majority of vectors of a given condition will be in parallel to the given beam. Further, the standard determined dynamics of a quantum system cannot guarantee that the system will definitely have, or definitely not have some specific property. This is why the dynamics of a collapse is necessary in the standard formulation of quantum mechanics. It guarantees, that the system will either definitely have, or definitely not have a specific property, every time observation is carried out. But linear dynamics is also necessary to explain quantum effects. So the standard formulation of quantum mechanics has two dynamic laws: continuous and linear, described as the system develops when there are no measurements, and casual, faltering and nonlinear when measurements are carried out.

 To keep an internal organic unity in quantum mechanics and in substantive provisions, Everett has assumed that the standard formulation of a collapse could not be used for the description of systems with internal observers. For Everett, this restriction on applicability of quantum mechanics was inadmissible. Everett wanted quantum mechanics so that it could be applied to any physical system in general without division into classes of observers. To solve a problem of quantum measurements, Everett had suggested to lower the level of dynamics of a collapse and to deduce standard statistical predictions of quantum mechanics from the subjective experiences of observers, necessary for considering usual physical systems within the limits of the new theory.

 If ÌWI is applied to laboratory measurements by observer D, in a condition of readiness D (0), in what is essentially a dual parameter x of some quantum physical system S (for example, back in position a and b), then is possible to determinee the following variations:

|D(0)> |S[x(a)]> => |D[x(a)]> |S[x(a)]>; (1)

|D(0)> |S[x(b)]> => |D[x(b)]> |S[x(b)]>. (2)

 From (1) and (2), it follows that if the observer measures a system, which is determined by a certain prior direction, there will be a given determination in its report. Now we shall consider a case when the observer fixes the parameters of a system, which is determined by imposing its own prior conditions:

 c(1) |S[x(a)]> + c(2) |S[x(b)]>. (3)

 Th process of measurement is similar to (1) and (2), and in such complex systems will look like:

 |D(0)> {c(1) |S[x(a)]> + c(2) |S[x(b)]>} =>

c(1) |D[x(a)]> |S[x(a)]> + c(2) |D[x(b)]> |S[x(b)]>. (4)

 The formulation of quantum collapse reductions in standard theory, during the measurement of the initial condition (3), would collapse and reduce to a condition composed of the right part (4) with probabilities c (1) or c (2). But, on Everett’s interpretation, a collapse does not occur. In agreement with ÌWI, there is a specific condition of postmeasurement which is confusing as a result of imposing registration of the result of measurement by the observer and applying a condition of the quantum system with a certain parameter. Here, it is necessary to notice that Everett always recognized that a condition of postmeasurement similar to (4) is one of the most difficult interpretive positions of ÌWI. So, according to ÌWI’s paradigm, as a result of interaction of the observer with a quantum subsystem there is a specific condition of the measuring device (4), which is not capable of independent definition of the parameters. Subsequently, the definition of objective characteristics of quantum systems is dependent on stand-alone "external" laboratories to detected conditions of the quantum object as a whole.

 This uncertain behaviour seems a contradiction to our daily experience, as physical objects in environmental reality always have a certain disposition. We shall analyse the given situation, presenting the laboratory observer as a subsystem of a complex system: the observer + object. Then, in the interactions of a given subsystem (4), the separate condition of the observer will not exist. However, complex conditions of the system will be imposed where each element contains the certain condition of the observer connected with the fixed condition of the system of objects. Besides as we see for everyone, the relative conditions of the system of objects, results in a value received by the observer who is described by the same element imposed. Thus, each final element describes the observer who has a fixed, certain and in general, various result and to which, it seems, that the condition of the system of objects has passed, corresponding to the observers own condition. In this sense usual statements about a collapse of a wave function, are reduced to the subjective level of perception of each observer described by imposed elements.

 In this aspect, the so-called principle registered by Everett applies a fundamental relativity to quantum mechanical conditions. On this principle, the judgement of a specific condition is based on the observers who have registered certain parameters of a quantum object (for example, prior position), can declare that the measured quantum subsystem is in a given condition. But this principle cannot provide in itself, the certain fixed measurements given in standard quantum theory with the formulation of the collapse of a wave function. The standard formulation predicts that the condition of complex system collapses and reduces precisely to one of the following two conditions:

 |D[x(a)]> |S[x(a)]> or |D[x(b)]> |S[x(b)]>. (5)

Thus, the unique variant of the condition of a quantum subsystem is carried out.

 This brief analysis shows that in the case of ÌWI, the problem will be that there is a break in the Everett's description, in what it intends to explain and what it finally states. It intends to explain why observers receive precisely the same reports on measurements as the standard formulation of a collapse predicts, but it is not clear how the observer reports the information after a typical measurement. As it is not clear, how with help ÌWI, to explain the concrete fixed results of measurements. Also, why it is necessary to expect that final laboratory reports will correspond to standard quantum statistics. This is a blank in the description of Everett's results in many mutually incompatible reconstructions of ÌWI quantum mechanics. Each of these various interpretations has the purpose of explaining how laboratory reports of observers can be fixed by subjective or objective images. Similarly, variations in ÌWI should contain the precise answer to the question on the role and value of the world outlook status of the detector in the condition of postmeasurement of quantum conditions.

 A number of the above-stated critical remarks could be removed in the cardinal image, having entered in theory of ÌWI as a paradigm [5-7]. Temporal analysis of substantive provisions of ÌWI can include the following:

1. Replacement of spatial probability on the temporal.

2. Data temporal borders in the collapse of wave functions to chronoquantum scales.

3. Designing of time’s arrow.

Replacement underspace probability on the temporal assumes the presence of a new generalized form for expressions (1) aned (2):

 |D[t(0)]> |S[x(i)]> =t> t(j)-t(0) =t> |D{t[x(j)]}> + |S{t [x(j)]}>, (6)

 Where D – temporal detector, S[x(i)] – i-parameter’s quantum subsystem; t(j)-t(0) – a time interval of detecting; =t> - temporal transition in borders allocated chronoquantum [8].

Accordingly, for a complex case of temporal reductions of dual superposition (4), we receive,

|D(0)>{c(1) |S[x(a)]> + c(2) |S[x(b)]>} =t(1)> c[t(1)] |D{t(1) [x(a)]}> + |S{t(1) [x(a)]}, (7)

|D(0)>{c(2) |S[x(a)]> + c(2) |S[x (b)]>} =t(2)> c[t(2)] |D{t(2) [x(a)]}> + |S{t(2) [x(a)]}. (8)

 Where temporal ÌWI appears, is one more variant in the interpretation of quantum representations, which assumes the existence of consecutive universes in time. In each of them, the same laws of nature operate with a set of the same world constants, but all of them are in different temporal conditions. In a certain sense, in temporal ÌWI it is possible to consider a refusal of the collapse of a wave function, which accompanies the concept of "measurement" in the Copenhagen interpretation. The temporal aspects of ÌÌÈ are based on the phenomenon of temporal quantum complexity. For an explanation of the effects occuring at measurement, we must look to the phenomenon of temporal decoherence which occurs when conditions cooperate with an environment at the borders of the allocated chronoquantum.

 Since the first original works on quantum chrono-dynamics, some new versions of temporal ÌWI already were offered. Two basic moments are peculiar to all of them. The first will consist in the existence of temporal functions of a condition for all universes which is described by quantum ratios and which never tests undetermined collapses. The second moment will consist in the assumption, that this universal condition is a chronoquantum superposition of several conditions of uneven age where the consecutive universes cooperate among themselves.

Temporal ÌWI is one of many multiworld hypotheses in physics and philosophy. For today it has certain prospects of development, along with standard ÌWI, the Copenhagen interpretation and interpretation of coordinated histories.

 As well as other interpretations, temporal ÌWI give the dispersion of quanta of electromagnetic radiation results in the classical experiment of the two-slot-hole. We remind of the elementary facts, that when quanta pass through a two-slot-hole their resulting position is defined by the requirements of wave-corpuscle duality. To explain the transition from wave to corpuscular representations, the process of a so-called collapse of wave function is used, according to the Copenhagen interpretation

 To return to the sources of the given phenomenon, it is necessary to recollect the original postulate of duality in changes to the wave function. It agrees with evolution or the spasmodic casual change caused by supervision and measurement, or may be determined temporally according to quantum equations. Still, Einstein recognized that the phenomenon of the collapse of awave function suggested by the Copenhagen interpretation is an artificial depiction that requires a search for other interpretations.

 Temporal ÌWI offers one of many alternatives. After ÌWI, we shall consider that for compound systems, the statement that any subsystem is in a certain condition is incorrect. This at once results in a conclusion about the temporally-relative character of the condition of one system in relation to another.

 Formulations of quantum chronodynamic, leads us to an understanding of the process of the collapse of a wave function; an event at measurement, mathematically equivalent to the chronoquantum superposition of wave functions. In the formulation of temporally ÌWI, the measuring device and object of measurement form a compound system, each subsystem, before measurement, exists in temporally determined conditions in the borders of allocated chronoquanta. Then also, we can consider the process of measurement as a process of temporal interactions between elements of subsystems. In the final result of the interaction, it is possible to identify relative conditions as superpositions of certain alternative histories.

1.  Deutsch D. Quantum theory of probability and decisions// Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. 1999. - A455. – P.3129.
2.  Feygin O.O. Synthetic gnosiology of discrete temporalogy// Proceedings of the UAS. 2005. – Vol.1. - P.147.
3.  Feygin O.O. Chronophysical concepts of quantum mechanics// Proceedings of the UAS. 2005. – Vol.1. – P.152.
4.  Feygin O.O. Separate conceptual positions of discrete temporalogy // Proceedings of the UAS, 2005. – P.158.

5.  Feygin O.O. Epistemological Analysis of Discrete Physical Reality. http://www.wbabin.net/science/feygin.pdf

6.  Feygin O.O. Atemporal Reinterpretation of Quantum Mechanical Representation. - http://www.wbabin.net/science/feygin2.pdf
7.  Feygin O.O. Concepts of Chronoquantum Decoherence. – http://www.wbabin.net/science/feygin3.pdf

Back