Skip to content
The Many-Worlds Interpretation

The Many-Worlds Interpretation

How Hugh Everett's 1957 Princeton thesis became the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, rejected in Copenhagen, revived in 1970, and still one of several competing ways to read the theory.

Chapter 1

Wave Mechanics Without Probability

0:47

In 1957, Princeton graduate student Hugh Everett III tackled a central mystery of quantum mechanics: the measurement problem. When observed, a particle in many states seems to instantly 'choose' just one. Everett's doctoral thesis, originally titled 'Wave Mechanics Without Probability,' proposed a radical alternative. What if there was no choice and no collapse? He argued the observer was just another part of the quantum system. When you measure a particle, you don't force it into one state. Instead, you become entangled with it. The universe branches, creating separate realities where each possible outcome occurs. In one branch you see one result, while a copy of you in another branch sees something different. All possibilities are physically real.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Many-Worlds Interpretation?

It is a theory in quantum physics first proposed by Hugh Everett III in 1957. It suggests that the universal wave function never collapses, and all possible outcomes of a quantum measurement are physically realized in separate, parallel branches of reality.

Why did Hugh Everett leave physics?

Everett left academic physics in 1956 to join the Pentagon’s Weapons Systems Evaluation Group, partly to avoid being drafted into the army. While he continued to defend his theory for several years, a discouraging 1959 trip to Copenhagen ended with Niels Bohr and Léon Rosenfeld rejecting his ideas, after which he focused entirely on military research.

Is the Many-Worlds Interpretation proven?

No, it is not proven. It is one of several competing interpretations of quantum mechanics, alongside others like the Copenhagen and Pilot Wave theories. While many physicists find it elegant, there is no definitive experiment that can confirm it over the others.

Learn more

To continue the story, download the Chunks Microlearning app

Or get it straight away: