pith. sign in

arxiv: 2601.17856 · v5 · submitted 2026-01-25 · 🪐 quant-ph

On Tunneling in the Quantum Multiverse

S.E. Ennadifi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 11:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum tunnelingEverettian multiversewavefunction branchingdecoherencetunneling probabilitybranching durationmacroscopic tunneling
0
0 comments X

The pith

In the Everettian multiverse, quantum tunneling is experienced only by the observer in the transmitted branch after the wavefunction splits at a barrier.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines quantum tunneling by embedding it in the Everettian many-worlds picture of quantum mechanics. After a particle encounters a potential barrier, the universal wavefunction decoheres into separate reflected and transmitted branches because of environmental interactions. Only the observer whose world corresponds to the transmitted branch actually experiences tunneling. The probability of this outcome is tied to the relative weights of the tunneled worlds, while the time taken is set by the duration of the branching process itself. The same relations are then used to estimate times for macroscopic quantum tunneling.

Core claim

In the Everettian quantum multiverse the universal wavefunction splits into decohered reflected and transmitted branches under the environmental effect after encountering a potential barrier. The observed tunneling is then experienced by the observer located in a tunneled world. The tunneling probability and the tunneling time are investigated in terms of the tunneled world relative weights and the branching duration, respectively.

What carries the argument

The splitting of the universal wavefunction into decohered reflected and transmitted branches under environmental effects after a potential barrier.

Load-bearing premise

The universal wavefunction splits into decohered reflected and transmitted branches under environmental effects after encountering a potential barrier, so that tunneling is experienced only in the transmitted branch.

What would settle it

A measurement of tunneling time or probability that does not match the branching duration or relative world weights derived from the same system would falsify the relation.

read the original abstract

Prompted by the longstanding interpretational controversy in quantum mechanics, quantum tunneling is heuristically addressed within the Everettian quantum multiverse. In this framework, the universal wavefunction splits into decohered reflected and transmitted branches under the environmetal effect after encountring a potential barrier. The observed tunneling is then experienced by the observer located in a tunneled world. The tunneling probability and the tunneling time are investigated in terms of the tunneled world relative weights and the branching duration, respectively. The macroscopic quantum tunneling, recently honored, is also discussed and the corresponding macroscopic tunneling time is approached based on the obtained results and known data.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper offers a heuristic treatment of quantum tunneling in the Everettian multiverse. It asserts that the universal wavefunction splits into decohered reflected and transmitted branches after encountering a potential barrier due to environmental effects, with observers in the transmitted branch experiencing the tunneling event. Tunneling probability is expressed via the relative weights of tunneled worlds and tunneling time via branching duration; the framework is then applied to macroscopic quantum tunneling using existing data.

Significance. If the heuristic identifications of probability with branch weights and time with branching duration could be placed on a rigorous footing derived from the time-dependent Schrödinger equation and a concrete decoherence model, the work would supply an interpretive bridge between standard tunneling calculations and many-worlds ontology. In its present form the absence of explicit derivations keeps the contribution at the level of conceptual suggestion rather than quantitative advance.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and main discussion of probability] The central identification of tunneling probability with the relative weights of tunneled worlds is not accompanied by an explicit formula or derivation showing how those weights are obtained from the wave-function amplitudes or transmission coefficients; the mapping therefore remains an assertion rather than a computed result.
  2. [Discussion of tunneling time] The claim that tunneling time equals branching duration lacks any derivation linking it to the time-dependent wave function or to a decoherence timescale; no expression for branching duration is supplied, rendering the relation to observed tunneling times an untested identification.
  3. [Macroscopic tunneling discussion] The extension to macroscopic quantum tunneling in the final section inherits the same un-derived relations and applies them to known data without error analysis or comparison to standard WKB or instanton methods, weakening the quantitative claim.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract contains typographical errors ('environmetal', 'encountring') that should be corrected for clarity.
  2. [Main text] The term 'branching duration' is introduced without a precise definition or reference to existing literature on decoherence timescales.
  3. [References] Standard references on tunneling-time definitions (e.g., Landauer-Büttiker or phase-time approaches) and on Everettian decoherence models are missing.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments. Our manuscript is explicitly framed as a heuristic treatment of tunneling within the Everettian multiverse, as stated in the abstract and introduction. We address each major comment below, clarifying the intended scope while acknowledging the absence of rigorous derivations from the time-dependent Schrödinger equation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and main discussion of probability] The central identification of tunneling probability with the relative weights of tunneled worlds is not accompanied by an explicit formula or derivation showing how those weights are obtained from the wave-function amplitudes or transmission coefficients; the mapping therefore remains an assertion rather than a computed result.

    Authors: We agree that no explicit derivation from the wave-function amplitudes or transmission coefficients is provided. The paper proposes a conceptual identification in which the tunneling probability corresponds to the relative weight of the transmitted branch, in keeping with the Born-rule interpretation standard in Everettian quantum mechanics. This mapping is presented heuristically rather than as a computed result derived from a specific decoherence model. We do not claim a first-principles derivation and therefore do not intend to add one; the contribution lies in the interpretive link rather than in new quantitative machinery. revision: no

  2. Referee: [Discussion of tunneling time] The claim that tunneling time equals branching duration lacks any derivation linking it to the time-dependent wave function or to a decoherence timescale; no expression for branching duration is supplied, rendering the relation to observed tunneling times an untested identification.

    Authors: The identification of tunneling time with branching duration is likewise heuristic and is not accompanied by an explicit expression derived from the time-dependent Schrödinger equation or a concrete decoherence timescale. Branching duration is invoked qualitatively as the interval over which environmental interactions produce decohered branches. We acknowledge that this remains an untested correspondence pending a detailed model; the manuscript does not attempt such a derivation because its aim is conceptual suggestion rather than quantitative prediction. revision: no

  3. Referee: [Macroscopic tunneling discussion] The extension to macroscopic quantum tunneling in the final section inherits the same un-derived relations and applies them to known data without error analysis or comparison to standard WKB or instanton methods, weakening the quantitative claim.

    Authors: The macroscopic section applies the same heuristic identifications to existing experimental data on macroscopic quantum tunneling. We do not perform error analysis or direct comparisons with WKB or instanton calculations because the section is intended to illustrate the interpretive consequences of the framework rather than to refine numerical predictions. We accept that this limits the quantitative strength of the claims and can add an explicit caveat emphasizing the heuristic character of the application. revision: partial

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Tunneling probability and time identified with branch weights and duration by definitional mapping

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Abstract]
    "The tunneling probability and the tunneling time are investigated in terms of the tunneled world relative weights and the branching duration, respectively."

    Probability is investigated 'in terms of' the relative weights of tunneled worlds, but the weights are defined by the branch splitting itself; the output probability is therefore equivalent to the input branch-weight assignment by construction rather than derived from barrier penetration dynamics.

  2. self definitional [Abstract]
    "The observed tunneling is then experienced by the observer located in a tunneled world."

    Tunneling is experienced only in the transmitted branch by definition of the framework; the claim reduces to restating the posited splitting rather than predicting an observable from the universal wavefunction.

full rationale

The paper's central results rest on positing decohered reflected/transmitted branches and then directly investigating probability via relative weights and time via branching duration. No explicit derivation from the time-dependent Schrödinger equation or standard tunneling formulas is supplied; the identifications function as redefinitions within the Everettian framing rather than independent predictions. The splitting assumption carries the load without further dynamical justification, producing partial circularity in the claimed observables.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework relies on standard Everettian assumptions about wavefunction branching and decoherence, with no explicit free parameters or invented entities detailed in the abstract; the central mapping of tunneling to branch weights appears definitional.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The universal wavefunction splits into decohered reflected and transmitted branches under the environmental effect after encountering a potential barrier.
    Invoked directly in the abstract as the basis for locating the observer in the tunneled world.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5390 in / 1208 out tokens · 25386 ms · 2026-05-16T11:15:16.432357+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Born, ”On the Quantum Mechanics of Collision Processes”, Zeitschrift fur Physik

    M. Born, ”On the Quantum Mechanics of Collision Processes”, Zeitschrift fur Physik. 37 (12): 863–867 (1926)

    work page 1926

  2. [2]

    Feynman, R

    R. Feynman, R. Leighton, M. Sands, ”The Feynman Lectures on Physics”. Vol. 3. Cali- fornia Institute of Technology. ISBN 978-0201500646 (1964)

    work page 1964

  3. [3]

    Jaeger, ”What in the (quantum) world is macroscopic?”, American Journal of Physics

    G. Jaeger, ”What in the (quantum) world is macroscopic?”, American Journal of Physics. 82 (9): 896–905 (2014)

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Einstein, B

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, ”Can quantum- mechanical description of phys- ical reality be considered complete?”, Phys. Rev. 47 777-80 (1935)

    work page 1935

  5. [5]

    H Zurek, ”Environment-induced superselection rules”, Phys

    W. H Zurek, ”Environment-induced superselection rules”, Phys. Rev. D. 26 1862 (1982)

    work page 1982

  6. [6]

    H. B. G. Casimir, ”On the attraction between two perfectly conducting plates”, Pro- ceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Series B, 51(6), 793-795 (1948)

    work page 1948

  7. [7]

    Gamow, ”Zur Quantentheorie des Atomkernes.” Zeitschrift f ¨ur Physik, 51(3-4), 204- 212 (1928)

    G. Gamow, ”Zur Quantentheorie des Atomkernes.” Zeitschrift f ¨ur Physik, 51(3-4), 204- 212 (1928)

    work page 1928

  8. [8]

    J. A. Wheeler,, & R. P . Feynman, ”Interaction with the Absorber as the Mechanism of Radiation”, Reviews of Modern Physics, 17(2), 157-181 (1945); 13

    work page 1945

  9. [9]

    R. P . Feynman, ”The Feynman Lectures on Physics”, Volume 3: Quantum Mechanics. Addison-Wesley (1965)

    work page 1965

  10. [10]

    Landauer and Th

    R. Landauer and Th. Martin, ”Barrier interaction time in tunneling ”, Rev. Mod. Phys. 66, 217 (1994)

    work page 1994

  11. [11]

    A. M. Steinberg, P . G. Kwiat, and R. Y. Chiao, ”Measurement of the single-photon tun- neling time”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 708 (1993)

    work page 1993

  12. [12]

    Enders and G

    A. Enders and G. Nimtz, ”Zero-time tunneling of evanescent mode packets”, J. Phys. I France 3, 1089 (1993)

    work page 1993

  13. [13]

    Ranfagni, P

    A. Ranfagni, P . Fabeni, G.P . Pazzi, and D. Mugnai, ”Anomalous pulse delay in mi- crowave propagation”, Phys. Rev. E 48, 1453 (1993)

    work page 1993

  14. [14]

    Steinberg, ”Quantum tunnelling time and the speed of light”, Physics World 16, (12), 19 (2003)

    A.M. Steinberg, ”Quantum tunnelling time and the speed of light”, Physics World 16, (12), 19 (2003)

    work page 2003

  15. [15]

    Bohm, ”Quantum Theory”, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River (1951)

    D. Bohm, ”Quantum Theory”, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River (1951)

    work page 1951

  16. [16]

    J. S. Bell, ”On the problem of hidden variables in quantum theory”, Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 447–452 (1966)

    work page 1966

  17. [17]

    Haddad, P

    Jian Ping Sun, G.I. Haddad, P . Mazumder, J.N. Schulman, ”Resonant tunneling diodes: models and properties”, IEEE Vol. 86, no. 4 (1998)

    work page 1998

  18. [18]

    Verreck, G

    D. Verreck, G. Groeseneken, A. Verhulst, ”The Tunnel Field-Effect Transistor, Electrical and Electronics Engineering, (2016)

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    Tersoff and D

    J. Tersoff and D. R. Hamann, ”Theory of the scanning tunneling microscope”, Phys. Rev. B 31, 805 (1985)

    work page 1985

  20. [20]

    Gamow, ”Zur Quantentheorie des Atomkernes”, Z

    G. Gamow, ”Zur Quantentheorie des Atomkernes”, Z. Physik 51, 204 (1928)

    work page 1928

  21. [21]

    Devoret, D.B

    M.H. Devoret, D.B. Schwartz, J.M. Martinis, A.J. Leggett, and J. Clarke, ”Resonant Ac- tivation from the Zero-Voltage State of a Current-Biased Josephson Junction”, Physical Review Letters, (1984)

    work page 1984

  22. [22]

    Martinis, Devoret, and Clarke, ”Energy-Level Quantization in the Zero-Voltage State of a Current-Biased Josephson Junction”, Physical Review Letters, (1985)

    work page 1985

  23. [23]

    M. H. Devoret, J. M. Martinis, and J. Clarke, ”Measurements of Macroscopic Quan- tum Tunneling out of the Zero-Voltage State of a Current-Biased Josephson Junction”, Physical Review Letters, (1985); 14

    work page 1985

  24. [24]

    Everett et al., ”The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, Princeton Series in Physics

    H. Everett et al., ”The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, Princeton Series in Physics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. p. v. ISBN 0-691-08131-X (1973)

    work page 1973

  25. [25]

    Everett, III

    H. Everett, III. ”Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics”, Reviews of Modern Physics, 29(3), 454–462 (1957)

    work page 1957

  26. [26]

    Caves, C.A

    C.M. Caves, C.A. Fuchs, R. Schack, ”Quantum probabilities as Bayesian probabilities”, Phys. Rev. A, 65, 022305 (2002)

    work page 2002

  27. [27]

    Penrose, ”On Gravity’s role in Quantum State Reduction”, General Relativity and Gravitation

    R. Penrose, ”On Gravity’s role in Quantum State Reduction”, General Relativity and Gravitation. 28 (5): 581–600 (1996)

    work page 1996

  28. [28]

    M. F. Pusey, J. Barrett, T. Rudolph, ”On the reality of the quantum state”, Nature Physics. 8 (6): 475–478 (2012)

    work page 2012

  29. [29]

    Bohr, ”Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?”Physical Review, 48(8), 696–702 (1935)

    N. Bohr, ”Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?”Physical Review, 48(8), 696–702 (1935)

    work page 1935

  30. [30]

    J. A. Wheeler and W.H. Zurek, ”Quantum theory of measurement”, Princeton series in physics (1983)

    work page 1983

  31. [31]

    Heisenberg, ” ¨Uber den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik.”Zeitschrift f ¨ur Physik, 43, 172–198 (1927)

    W. Heisenberg, ” ¨Uber den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik.”Zeitschrift f ¨ur Physik, 43, 172–198 (1927). 15

    work page 1927