A longstanding issue in attempts to understand the Everett (many-worlds) approach to quantum mechanics is the origin of the Born rule: why is the probability given by the square of the amplitude? Following Vaidman, we note that observers are in a position of self-locating uncertainty during the period between the branches of the wave function splitting via decoherence and the observer registering the outcome of the measurement. In this period, it is tempting to regard each branch as equiprobable, but we argue that the temptation should be resisted. Applying lessons from this analysis, we demonstrate (using methods similar to those of Zurek's envariance-based derivation) that the Born rule is the uniquely rational way of apportioning credence in Everettian quantum mechanics. In doing so, we rely on a single key principle: changes to the environment alone do not affect the probabilities one ought to assign to measurement outcomes in a local subsystem. We arrive at a method for assigning probabilities in cases that involve both classical and quantum self-locating uncertainty. This method provides unique answers to quantum Sleeping Beauty problems, as well as a well-defined procedure for calculating probabilities in quantum cosmological multiverses with multiple similar observers. 1 Introduction 2 Preliminaries: Many-Worlds, Self-locating Uncertainty, and Branch-counting 2.1 The many-worlds interpretation 2.2 Self-locating uncertainty and the Everettian multiverse 2.3 Indifference and the quantitative probability problem 2.4 Against branch-counting 3 The Epistemic Irrelevance of the Environment 3.1 The epistemic separability principle 3.2 Deriving the Born rule 4 Varieties of Uncertainty 4.1 Epistemic separability principle and indifference 4.2 Mixed uncertainties

Here I explore a novel no-collapse interpretation of quantum mechanics which combines aspects of two familiar and well-developed alternatives, Bohmian mechanics and the many-worlds interpretation. Despite reproducing the empirical predictions of quantum mechanics, the theory looks surprisingly classical. All there is at the fundamental level are particles interacting via Newtonian forces. There is no wave function. However, there are many worlds.Comment: 25 page

One way of arriving at a quantum field theory of electrons and positrons is to take a classical theory of the Dirac field and then quantize. Starting with the standard classical field theory and quantizing in the most straightforward way yields an inadequate quantum field theory. It is possible to fix this theory by making some modifications (such as redefining the operators for energy and charge).Here I argue that we ought to make these modifications earlier, revising the classical Dirac field theory that serves as the starting point for quantization (putting positrons into that theory and removing negative energies). Then, quantization becomes straightforward. Also, the physics of the Dirac field is made more similar to the physics of the electromagnetic field and we are able to better understand electron spin.

No abstract

Some authors have claimed that there exists a minimum size (on the order of the Compton radius) for electron states composed entirely of positive-frequency solutions to the free Dirac equation. Other authors have put forward counterexamples to such claims. This article asks how the counterexamples of A. J. Bracken and G. F. Melloy [J. Phys. A. 32, 6127 (1999)] bypass two arguments against their possibility. The first is an old argument that, because of the prohibition on faster-than-light motion, the electron must be larger than a certain minimum size if it is to have the correct angular momentum and magnetic moment. This challenge can be addressed by analyzing the flow of energy and charge for the counterexample states. The second argument is an explicit proof (presented in C.-P. Chuu et al. [Solid State Commun. 150, 533 (2010)]) that there is a minimum size for purely positive-frequency electron states. This proof hinges on the assumption of a small spread in momentum space, which is violated by the counterexamples that have been put forward.