Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

The Everett Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Many Worlds or None?

1984; Wiley; Volume: 18; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês

10.2307/2214881

1468-0068

Howard Stein,

Origins and Evolution of Life

The doctoral dissertation of Hugh Everett, III-written under the direction of J. A. Wheeler-was principally motivated by the wish to obtain a reasonable basis for the quantization of general relativity (see Everett [1], pp. 454, 455, 462; Wheeler [2], p. 465). To accomplish this aim, it seemed (and still does seem) necessary to eliminate from the formulation of the quantum theory the dualism of what von Neumann ([4], p. 351) called 1 2' -the former associated with of the system from outside, the latter consisting in the evolution of an isolated quantum system; for general relativity deals essentially with the universe as a whole, there no such thing as of the universe from outside. Thus Everett proposed to state the theory in such a way that all processes, including those of observation (or measurement), are of von Neumann's second type, governed uniformly by the quantum-dynamical law, the (timedependent) Schr6dinger equation. Now, it had been emphasized by von Neumann that, in distinguishing between object system apparatus-plus-observer -and, correlatively, between process 1 2 -there considerable latitude as to where to draw the line: in the direction of including more in the object system, according to von Neumann, one can go far into the body of the acual observer, can include within 2 the neural cerebral processes of sensation, as long as one does not trespass beyond the point where a result is perceived by the observer (see [4], pp. 351-2 pp. 418-420). Indeed, it not quite clear whether von Neumann intended even the last-mentioned restriction: he may have meant to allow the inclusion of arbitrary physiological occurrences within observers in process 2, to have insisted only that at some point a line must be drawn one must say and suchand-such perceived by the observer. In any case, it already implicit in Schr6dinger's famous example ([5]) of the (possibly)