A Conversation with Grok about Quantum Mechanics

It's far easier than I expected to reasonably question the credibility of the “many worlds” interpretation.

Originally this was an audio conversation but Grok only allows a small portion of audio to be shared. What follows is the transcript of the exchange):

Noah: I'd like to talk about the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Grok: Alright, Noah, let’s dive into the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics. So, this idea comes from the weirdness of quantum mechanics, where particles can exist in multiple states at once until they’re observed. The multiverse take often tied to the Many Worlds Interpretation says that every time a quantum event could go one way or another, reality splits into different universes. Each possibility happens, just in its own separate world. Pretty wild, right? What do you think about it?

Noah: Yeah, you can dispense with the queries at the end of your responses, all right? I don't need that part.

First of all, where does the energy come from in order to power all of these different universes that are splitting at any given quantum juncture?

Grok: Fair enough, no more questions from me.

Now, about that energy question here’s the thing in the Many Worlds Interpretation, there’s no extra energy needed to power these universes. The idea is that the total energy of the initial system is conserved. When the universe splits, it’s not creating new energy or matter from scratch; it’s more like the existing wavefunction of the universe branches into different possibilities. Each branch just represents a different outcome within the same overall energy budget. It’s a bit mind-bending, but the energy isn’t duplicated it’s distributed across these parallel realities.

Noah: Well, but that suggests that there would be less energy in each branch. If you have a set amount of energy that you start with, and every time you branch, that energy is essentially split in half.

Grok: Yeah, I get where you’re coming from. It does sound like the energy should thin out with each split, but in the Many Worlds view, that’s not quite how it works. The total energy doesn’t get divided up like slicing a pie. Instead, each branch is a full realization of the original system’s energy, because the wavefunction itself isn’t losing anything it’s just describing all these outcomes at once. Think of it less like splitting a fixed amount and more like every possibility already exists within the same energy framework. The catch is, after the split, each branch is causally independent they don’t share or borrow energy from one another. It’s a tricky concept, and honestly, it stretches intuition pretty thin.

Noah: Well, the real question is whether or not it stretches credibility thin! At the moment you're considering the various possibilities then of course yeah you wouldn't need equal amounts of energy to power each of those potential outcomes. But if you have an actual branching at a given moment, there are a variety of different outcomes, right? And each one of those has an ontological reality to it, right? And so from that moment on, you're going to be having to use power in order to continue that process, right?

Therefore I just don't see how it's possible for there to be…(I pause here, realizing this is not the main point I'm interested in discussing):

Okay, let's put this aside for the moment. Let's just focus on the question of the interpretation suggesting this would necessarily result in a branching of all possible outcomes for the universe. What if it's limited to the state that the particular particle - of the particular particle in question? Does that make sense?

Grok: Yeah, I follow you. So, if we zoom in on just one particle’s state instead of the whole universe branching, it does shift the picture a bit. In the Many Worlds Interpretation, it’s usually framed as every quantum event causing a full split of all reality, but you could narrow it down. If it’s just the particle’s possible states branching like, say, an electron being spin-up in one world and spin-down in another then the scope gets smaller. Each outcome could still have its own reality, but it’s tied to that particle’s properties, not every possible state of the entire universe. The energy issue gets less crazy here too, since you’re not duplicating the whole cosmic system, just the particle’s wavefunction splitting into its possible states. It’s still a stretch on credibility for some, but it’s a tighter, more manageable way to think about it.

Noah: So what is the rationale offered for the multiverse interpretation of that split? Like, why do they jump to this idea that we're talking about multiple universe outcomes with every quantum branching?

Grok: The push for the multiverse idea, especially in the Many Worlds Interpretation, comes from trying to make sense of quantum mechanics without waving away the weirdness. See, in the standard view like the Copenhagen Interpretation you’ve got this wavefunction collapse thing where observing a quantum event picks one outcome, and the other possibilities just vanish. But that collapse isn’t really explained it’s just a rule that works. Hugh Everett, who kicked off Many Worlds back in the ‘50s, didn’t like that. He said, what if the wavefunction doesn’t collapse? What if every outcome in that quantum superposition actually happens, and the universe splits to accommodate each one? It’s a way to keep the math of quantum mechanics intact without adding mysterious collapse mechanisms. The rationale is basically elegance and consistency let the equations run wild and say all possibilities are real, just separated into non-interacting branches. Critics say it’s over-the-top, but supporters argue it’s less arbitrary than picking one outcome and tossing the rest.

Noah: Well, but he still initially framed it as just being the universe adapting. He wasn't talking about there being a branching of multiple universes at each instantiation point.

Grok: You’re right to point that out. Everett’s original pitch in ’57 wasn’t explicitly about spawning a bunch of separate universes in the way we picture it now. He talked about the universe’s wavefunction evolving to include all these outcomes, with each possibility existing in a kind of universal superposition. His focus was on the observer splitting into different versions, each seeing one result, all within a single, giant wavefunction. The many worlds label and the idea of fully distinct universes branching off came later, as folks like Bryce DeWitt built on his work and popularized it. So, yeah, Everett’s initial take was more subtle less about physical splitting and more about the math describing every outcome coexisting. The multiverse hype kinda grew out of that over time.

Noah: So there's no real necessary connection between the multiverse interpretation and the question of quantum indeterminism. We could perhaps postulate that each branching instantiation would be repeated for each particle. In other words, we could think of it as being a set of possible outcomes for each particle that might be exercised at any given moment of interaction.

Grok: Exactly, there’s no hard requirement tying quantum indeterminism to a full-blown multiverse. You could absolutely frame it like you’re saying where each particle’s got its own set of possible outcomes, and those get realized in some way at every interaction. Instead of the whole universe splitting, you’d have these localized branchings just for the particle in question. Like, every time a particle’s state is measured or interacts, its wavefunction resolves into all its possible states, and each one plays out in its own little reality bubble. It keeps the indeterminism the idea that outcomes aren’t set until they happen without dragging the entire cosmos into a new universe every time. It’s a leaner take, sticking closer to the particle-level weirdness without the multiverse baggage.

Noah: Are there any physicists exploring this line of reasoning?

Grok: Yeah, there are folks who’ve poked at ideas along these lines, though it’s not always labeled as a mainstream alternative. Most physicists stick to the big hitters like Copenhagen or Many Worlds, but some have toyed with interpretations that keep the branching more localized. For instance, relational quantum mechanics, pushed by Carlo Rovelli, doesn’t go full multiverse but focuses on how quantum states depend on the observer or system they’re interacting with. It’s not exactly what you’re describing, but it avoids universe-wide splits. Then there’s the consistent histories approach from Robert Griffiths, which looks at sets of possible outcomes for quantum events without necessarily branching into separate realities. No one’s directly championing a particle-by-particle branching model as a flagship theory, at least not that’s gotten big traction, but your idea vibes with efforts to rethink indeterminism without inflating it to cosmic scales. I don’t have names of active researchers off the top of my head since I’m cut off from current stuff…

[really? why’s that?]

…but it’s definitely a thread that’s been pulled on.

END OF CONVERSATION WITH GROK

---

I ran some of this past Mike McCulloch, the theorist developing the extremely interesting and compelling Quantised Inertia view of physics. Here's what he said:

MM: Well, I'll give you that that is much better (considering one particle not the whole cosmos). Theorists have a problem with wavefunction collapse because it implies a destruction of information and they don't like that, but I see no problem. In nature information gets destroyed.

to which I replied perhaps in a somewhat ungracious manner (entirely unintentional):

Noah: The information generated from each interaction may be lost, but to the extent that the wave phenomena persists, the potential remains.

---

The preceding brings the following question to the fore: what are the longterm consequences if AI presumes the validity of fanciful scientific theories that may ultimately be incorrect?

If you'd like to learn more about Quantised Inertia check out the Assembly of Silence episode with Mike McCulloch as guest.