"Relative State" Formulation of Quantum Mechanics
Everett's 1957 Princeton thesis — the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics
Tradition: Quantum foundations / philosophy of physics
No wave function collapse — the universal wave function branches, and every outcome is realised in a relative state
Hugh Everett's 1957 Princeton doctoral thesis, supervised by John Archibald Wheeler and published in condensed form in Reviews of Modern Physics, proposes a radical solution to the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. Instead of postulating wave function collapse (the Copenhagen interpretation), Everett argues that the universal wave function never collapses: every quantum measurement causes the universe to branch into relative states, each realising one possible outcome. The observer in each branch sees a definite result and is unaware of the other branches. Ignored for decades, the thesis was revived by Bryce DeWitt in the 1970s as the "many-worlds interpretation" and is now one of the leading interpretations of quantum mechanics.
Author
Editions cited
- "Relative State" Formulation of Quantum Mechanics (Reviews of Modern Physics 29, 1957, pp. 454–462)
- The Everett Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Collected Works 1955–1980 (Jeffrey Barrett and Peter Byrne, eds., Princeton, 2012)
- The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett III (Peter Byrne, Oxford, 2010)
School Embodiments
Everett's thesis is the founding text of the many-worlds interpretation — the single most influential multiverse proposal in physics.
"From the viewpoint of the theory, all elements of a superposition are equally 'real.'" (Everett, 1957, Reviews of Modern Physics)
Everett takes the wave function to be physically real — not merely a calculational device. The universal wave function is the fundamental ontology.
"We shall assume the wave function to be the basic physical entity." (Everett, 1957)
In Everett's formulation, the universal wave function evolves deterministically — all apparent randomness is a feature of the observer's relative state, not of the fundamental dynamics.
"The wave equation is satisfied at all times for the complete system — observer plus object." (Everett, 1957)
The thesis is motivated by realist dissatisfaction with the Copenhagen interpretation's instrumentalism — Everett wants a theory of what physically exists, not just what we can predict.
"The task of describing the theory is that of describing the nature of the physical reality." (Everett, long thesis, 1956)
Everett's approach treats the observer as a physical system within nature — no special observer-collapse postulate, no consciousness exception.
"The observer is treated as a physical system; there is no separate postulate for observation." (Everett, 1957)
The thesis raises foundational questions about theory choice, ontological parsimony, and the interpretation of formalism that have driven philosophy of physics for decades.
"The formalism is capable of yielding its own interpretation." (Everett, 1957)
Internal Tensions
The principal tension is the preferred-basis problem: if the universal wave function branches, what determines the basis in which it branches? Decoherence theory has partially addressed this, but the question remains open. A second tension is the probability problem: if all outcomes are realised, what does it mean to say one is more probable than another? Everett's answer (measure on the Hilbert space) has been extensively debated. A third tension: the theory was almost entirely ignored during Everett's lifetime; he left physics for defense consulting and died in 1982.
I. Time
Time in Everett's formulation is uni-directional and continuous — the universal wave function evolves deterministically under the Schrodinger equation. There is no collapse interrupting the flow.
Attributes
II. Space
Space is non-local: quantum entanglement — the very phenomenon the relative-state formulation is designed to handle — is fundamentally non-local. The branching structure means that spatially separated outcomes coexist.
Attributes
III. Matter
Matter is described by the universal wave function — substantival, conserved, and non-locally entangled. There is no fundamental distinction between matter and the wave function that describes it.
Attributes
IV. Observer
The observer is a physical subsystem, not a privileged entity. Each observer finds itself in a definite relative state (one branch) but cannot access the other branches. The observer is passive — observation does not cause collapse.
Attributes
V. Energy
Energy is conserved within the universal wave function's unitary evolution. The branching does not create or destroy energy — it redistributes it across relative states.
Attributes
VI. Information
Information is globally conserved (unitary evolution preserves it) but locally inaccessible across branches. Personal information is not conserved: the observer splits into multiple copies with no access to each other's information.
Attributes
Personas that cite this work
Personas with the nearest attribute fingerprint
Historical figures whose own classification on the same six-dimensional grid lands closest to this work's. Computed by attribute-agreement on coordinates both address.
Computed school proximity
The work's attribute fingerprint scored against all schools using the same quiz scorer. Useful as a sanity check on the hand-curated embodiments above.
How "Relative State" Formulation of Quantum Mechanics resolves each dilemma
51 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 10 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 6 unaligned.
Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.
Time · 9 dilemmas · 5 distinctive
Persistence, the future, and the direction of becoming.
4 mainstream positions
Matter · 7 dilemmas, all mainstream
Observer · 37 dilemmas · 4 distinctive
Mind, agency, and the knower's relation to the known.