If "Willow" Works, Many Worlds Fails: Debunking the Multiverse Myth in Quantum AI

Gabriel Boboc
May 7
5 min read

In the age of quantum computing, fiction is beginning to blur with reality. But there’s a fine line between forward-thinking science and intellectual fraud. Lately, some YouTubers and tech evangelists have been peddling the idea that Google's quantum processor “Willow” is performing calculations across multiple universes. Their evidence? The ever-abused Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics.

This needs to be exposed—not just as a misunderstanding, but as an absurd misuse of theoretical physics to fuel a marketing-friendly fantasy. If Willow does in fact interact with or resonate with alternate realities, it would be proof that MWI is wrong, not right.

Let’s tear this open.

Quantum Computing: Reality, Not Replication

Quantum computing is revolutionary, yes. But it's not magic. It works by manipulating quantum bits (qubits) that can exist in a superposition of states. Through entanglement and interference, these systems explore many computational paths in parallel. But crucially, they yield one final result, harvested via measurement—which collapses the system into a specific state.

Now here's the trick: that collapse is absolutely essential. Without it, quantum computation produces nothing useful. MWI, however, denies collapse altogether. In MWI, all outcomes happen, in separate, branching universes. So how can you build a computer that gives you one answer in a framework that says all answers happen in unreachable branches?

You can’t.

MWI: Elegant Math, Broken Physics

The Many Worlds Interpretation is often praised for its mathematical elegance: no need for messy collapses or measurement paradoxes. But its elegance comes at the cost of physical absurdity. It proposes that with every quantum event, the entire universe splits, duplicating every atom, every photon, every bit of energy, across an ever-expanding tree of realities.

Here’s what they don’t tell you:

This requires an infinite and ever-increasing energy budget to support all those universes.
It violates any notion of conservation unless you redefine energy across “meta-realities” that we can never measure.
It postulates a complete copy of the cosmos for every decision you make, from blinking to sneezing.

Even worse, this vast branching is totally non-interactive. Once a branch occurs, it decoheres. There’s no going back. No communication. No interference. So how exactly is Willow supposed to compute across these unreachable domains?

Simple: it isn’t.

The Real Nature of Parallel Universes: Potentials, Not Copies

Let’s put forward a more grounded, testable framework. One that preserves quantum computing’s power without invoking metaphysical nonsense.

Parallel universes may exist—but not as full copies of the cosmos. Instead, think of them as fields of possibility, regions in a multidimensional wavefunction representing alternate causal pathways. These aren't other Earths with duplicate yous brushing their teeth—these are small-scale divergences, most of which are unstable, incoherent, or self-correcting.

In this picture:

The wavefunction isn't collapsing because of us, but because of decoherence—the loss of phase information due to entanglement with the environment.
Some alternate histories may persist briefly, forming bubbles of instability: domains where events played out differently.
These may be macroscopic (engulfing a planet) or microscopic (millimeters across). But never entire cloned universes at every quantum fork.
Over time, most histories converge into a shared macro-consensus. The fringe possibilities collapse, fade, or blend back in.

And yes, such unstable history bubbles could be detectable—if you had the right probe.

Willow as a Tangent Derivative of Multidimensional Probability

This brings us to Willow.

If Willow’s processing fluctuates across space or time, if its coherence time changes subtly depending on environmental quantum fields, then it may be doing something extraordinary—not traveling across universes, but sampling the multidimensional probability cloud that underlies quantum reality.

And even more profoundly: Willow is not a mere quantum chip—it is the tangent derivative of a multidimensional wave function, a kind of node or mathematical anchor where many quantum functions intersect. Its volume is not just a spatial object but a local projection of high-dimensional probability gradients, with each tangent representing a path of physical evolution through alternate quantum outcomes.

In this view:

Willow isn’t hopping between worlds—it is computing from within a dense web of converging quantum pathways.
It resonates where possible histories meet, and the result it produces is a compressed expression of those tangled, mutually influencing trajectories.
Its outcome reflects the dominant attractor basin in a space of branching but interacting potentials—something MWI simply does not allow.

Now imagine taking Willow across space—into orbit, or toward a gravitational anomaly. You could theoretically map fluctuations in its performance and chart the local quantum landscape. You could begin to trace the shape of alternate histories, detect quantum scars where events may have once played out differently.

You wouldn’t need MWI to do this. In fact, MWI would forbid it.

The Infinite Hilbert Space Bluff

MWI defenders often cling to the claim that the Hilbert space is infinite, therefore infinite realities must be real.

Let’s address that:

The infinite dimensionality of Hilbert space is a mathematical abstraction—not an experimental fact.
No lab has ever measured an “infinite” basis of states. That’s purely theoretical.
Treating Hilbert space as proof of physical universe duplication is like treating the infinity of π as evidence for infinite pizzas.

And don’t let them retreat into common sense either. You’ll hear phrases like, “Well, it’s self-evident that all outcomes must occur.” No. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not lazy metaphors.

You don’t get to claim infinite branching, infinite energy, and infinite Earths without a shred of empirical proof. Especially when your only experimental justification is...a computing chip that outputs one number at a time.

Conclusion: If Willow Works, MWI Fails

The reality is this:

If Willow computes using resonance across alternate histories or quantum potentials, it is probing something MWI forbids: cross-branch interaction.
If we can detect processing fluctuations and map alternate history bubbles, then parallel domains do exist—but not as fully cloned realities.
And if quantum AI is the beginning of multi-potential resonance detection, then it might be the key to unlocking the real structure of quantum spacetime—not by duplicating it, but by feeling its depth.

And we must emphasize: Willow is not computing across universes. It is computing within a region of the wave function where many futures brush shoulders, and its design allows it to follow the gradients of this multidimensional space, collapsing a function of maximum mutual compatibility.

Many Worlds fails, not because the math is bad, but because it insists on a fantasy of separation. In reality, the quantum world is not separated—it’s entangled, dense, and convergent.

So let’s stop repeating myths.

MWI is a philosophical dead end dressed up in theoretical formalism. It provides no mechanism, no test, and no explanatory power in the context of quantum computing.

If we are on the edge of discovering other layers of reality, it won’t be through science fiction branching—it will be through quantum coherence, decoherence mapping, and the brave new field of multi-potential resonance detection.

And Willow? It just might be the first of its kind.

But Many Worlds? Never.

References:

Many-worlds interpretation. Wikipedia
Quantum Mechanics Study Challenges Need for Wave Function Collapse in High-Fidelity Measurements. Quantum Zeitgeist
Why do we need infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces in physics? Physics Stack Exchange
Google claims quantum chip may prove existence of parallel universes. New York Post
Against Many-Worlds Interpretations. arXiv:9703089