This thesis attempts to explain Everettian quantum mechanics from the ground up, such that those with little to no experience in quantum physics can understand it. First, we introduce the history of quantum theory, and some concepts that make up the framework of quantum physics. Through these concepts, we reveal why interpretations are necessary to map the quantum world onto our classical world. We then introduce the Copenhagen interpretation, and how many-worlds differs from it. From there, we dive into the concepts of entanglement and decoherence, explaining how worlds branch in an Everettian universe, and how an Everettian universe can appear as our classical observed world. From there, we attempt to answer common questions about many-worlds and discuss whether there are philosophical ramifications to believing such a theory. Finally, we look at whether the many-worlds interpretation can be proven, and why one might choose to believe it.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an analysis of entanglement and the particular problems it poses for some physicists. In addition to looking at the history of entanglement and non-locality, this paper will use the Bell Test as a means for demonstrating how entanglement works, which measures the behavior of electrons whose combined internal angular momentum is zero. This paper will go over Dr. Bell's famous inequality, which shows why the process of entanglement cannot be explained by traditional means of local processes. Entanglement will be viewed initially through the Copenhagen Interpretation, but this paper will also look at two particular models of quantum mechanics, de-Broglie Bohm theory and Everett's Many-Worlds Interpretation, and observe how they explain the behavior of spin and entangled particles compared to the Copenhagen Interpretation.

This paper analyzes the history and impact of the double-slit experiment on the world of physics. The experiment was initially created by Thomas Young in the early nineteenth century to prove that light behaved as a wave, and the experiment’s findings ended up being foundational to the classical wave theory of light. Decades later, the experiment was replicated once more with electrons instead of light and shockingly demonstrated that electrons possessed a dual nature of behavior in that they acted in some instances as particles and in others as waves. Despite numerous modifications and replications, the dual behavior of electrons has never been definitively explained. Numerous interpretations of quantum mechanics all offer their own explanations of the double-slit experiment’s results. Notably, the Copenhagen Interpretation states that an observer measuring a quantum system, such as the double-slit experiment, causes the electrons to behave classically (i.e. as a particle.) The Many Worlds Interpretation offers that multiple branching worlds come into existence to represent the physical occurrence of all probable outcomes of the double-slit experiment. In these and other interpretations, explanations of the double-slit experiment are key to proving their respective dogmas. The double-slit experiment has historically been very important to the worlds of both classical and quantum physics and is still being modified and replicated to this day. It is clear that it will continue to remain relevant even in the future of physics.

The relationship between science and religion in the modern day is complex to the point that the lines between them are often blurred. We have a need to distinguish the two from each-other for a variety of practical reasons. Various philosophies, theories, and tests have been suggested on the interaction between the two and how they are subdivided. One of the sets of criteria which has been shown to work was originally introduced in the opinion of Judge Overton in the case of McLean v Arkansas. McLean v Arkansas is a pivotal case in that it gave us a useful definition of what science is and isn’t in the context of the law. It used the already established Lemon test to show what counts as the establishment of religion. Given the distinction by Judge Overton, there are questions as to whether or not there is even overlap or tension between science and religion, such as in the theory of Stephen Jay Gould’s Nonoverlapping Magisteria (NOMA). What we find in this thesis is that the NOMA principle is doubtful at best. Through the discussion of McLean v. Arkansas, NOMA, and the commentaries of Professors Larry Laudan and Michael Ruse, this thesis develops a contextualization principle that can be used as a guide to develop further theories, particularly regarding the divisions between science and religion.