Global Branching and Everettian Probability: A Critique of Sebens and Carroll’s Proposal

IF 1.1 3区物理与天体物理 Q3 PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Foundations of Physics Pub Date : 2025-10-23 DOI:10.1007/s10701-025-00895-6

Shan Gao

{"title":"Global Branching and Everettian Probability: A Critique of Sebens and Carroll’s Proposal","authors":"Shan Gao","doi":"10.1007/s10701-025-00895-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Sebens and Carroll (Br. J. Philos. Sci. <b>69</b>(1), 25–74 1) propose that self-locating uncertainty, constrained by their quantum-specific Epistemic Separability Principle (ESP-QM), derives Born rule probabilities in Everettian quantum mechanics through a global branching model. This paper argues that their approach fails due to the loss of local amplitude information in global branching, particularly evident in an EPR-Bohm setup, where distant observers like Bob are assigned pure local states lacking the amplitude coefficients essential for Born rule probabilities. This flaw undermines the quantitative link to the Born rule, rendering their derivation empirically inadequate. Additional inconsistencies of global branching, including conflicts with decoherence dynamics, relativistic constraints, and limitations on superposition measurements, further weaken the model. Defenses invoking global amplitudes or benign non-locality fail to resolve these issues. This analysis underscores the need to reconsider branching mechanisms to secure a robust foundation for Everettian probabilities.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":569,"journal":{"name":"Foundations of Physics","volume":"55 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foundations of Physics","FirstCategoryId":"101","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-025-00895-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"物理与天体物理","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Sebens and Carroll (Br. J. Philos. Sci. 69(1), 25–74 1) propose that self-locating uncertainty, constrained by their quantum-specific Epistemic Separability Principle (ESP-QM), derives Born rule probabilities in Everettian quantum mechanics through a global branching model. This paper argues that their approach fails due to the loss of local amplitude information in global branching, particularly evident in an EPR-Bohm setup, where distant observers like Bob are assigned pure local states lacking the amplitude coefficients essential for Born rule probabilities. This flaw undermines the quantitative link to the Born rule, rendering their derivation empirically inadequate. Additional inconsistencies of global branching, including conflicts with decoherence dynamics, relativistic constraints, and limitations on superposition measurements, further weaken the model. Defenses invoking global amplitudes or benign non-locality fail to resolve these issues. This analysis underscores the need to reconsider branching mechanisms to secure a robust foundation for Everettian probabilities.

查看原文本刊更多论文

全局分支与埃弗里特概率：对赛本斯和卡罗尔建议的批判

赛本斯和卡罗尔(Br。j·费罗斯。科学，39(1),25-74 1)提出了一种自定位不确定性，在量子特定的认知可分性原理（ESP-QM）的约束下，通过全局分支模型推导出Everettian量子力学中的玻恩规则概率。本文认为，由于全局分支中局部振幅信息的丢失，他们的方法失败了，特别是在EPR-Bohm设置中，像Bob这样的远程观察者被分配纯局部状态，缺乏Born规则概率所必需的振幅系数。这一缺陷破坏了与玻恩法则的定量联系，使它们的推导在经验上不充分。全局分支的其他不一致性，包括与退相干动力学的冲突、相对论性约束和叠加测量的限制，进一步削弱了模型。援引全局振幅或良性非局部性的防御措施无法解决这些问题。这一分析强调了重新考虑分支机制的必要性，以确保埃弗里特概率的坚实基础。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Foundations of Physics 物理-物理：综合

CiteScore

2.70

自引率

6.70%

发文量

104

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： The conceptual foundations of physics have been under constant revision from the outset, and remain so today. Discussion of foundational issues has always been a major source of progress in science, on a par with empirical knowledge and mathematics. Examples include the debates on the nature of space and time involving Newton and later Einstein; on the nature of heat and of energy; on irreversibility and probability due to Boltzmann; on the nature of matter and observation measurement during the early days of quantum theory; on the meaning of renormalisation, and many others. Today, insightful reflection on the conceptual structure utilised in our efforts to understand the physical world is of particular value, given the serious unsolved problems that are likely to demand, once again, modifications of the grammar of our scientific description of the physical world. The quantum properties of gravity, the nature of measurement in quantum mechanics, the primary source of irreversibility, the role of information in physics – all these are examples of questions about which science is still confused and whose solution may well demand more than skilled mathematics and new experiments. Foundations of Physics is a privileged forum for discussing such foundational issues, open to physicists, cosmologists, philosophers and mathematicians. It is devoted to the conceptual bases of the fundamental theories of physics and cosmology, to their logical, methodological, and philosophical premises. The journal welcomes papers on issues such as the foundations of special and general relativity, quantum theory, classical and quantum field theory, quantum gravity, unified theories, thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, cosmology, and similar.