Did you actually read https://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.3796.pdf ? As best as I can tell the multiverse he describes is not the type with varying laws of physics. He's using yet another definition of the term.
The Multiverse Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
Raphael Bousso, Leonard Susskind
2011 · arXiv
- HN score
- 0
- Mentions
- 5
- Readers
- 5
- Months
- 4
From the abstract
We argue that the many-worlds of quantum mechanics and the many worlds of the multiverse are the same thing, and that the multiverse is necessary to give exact operational meaning to probabilistic predictions from quantum mechanics. Decoherence - the modern version of wave-function collapse - is subjective in that it depends on the choice of a set of unmonitored degrees of freedom, the "environment". In fact decoherence is absent in the complete description of any region larger than the future light-cone of a measurement event. However, if one restricts to the causal diamond - the largest region that can be causally probed - then the boundary of the diamond acts as a one-way membrane and thus provides a preferred choice of environment. We argue that the global multiverse is a representation of the many-worlds (all possible decoherent causal diamond histories) in a single geometry. We propose that it must be possible in principle to verify quantum-mechanical predictions exactly. This requires not only the existence of exact observables but two additional postulates: a single observer within the universe can access infinitely many identical experiments; and the outcome of each experiment must be completely definite. In causal diamonds with finite surface area, holographic entropy bounds imply that no exact observables exist, and both postulates fail: experiments cannot be repeated infinitely many times; and decoherence is not completely irreversible, so outcomes are not definite. We argue that our postulates can be satisfied in "hats" (supersymmetric multiverse regions with vanishing cosmological constant). We propose a complementarity principle that relates the approximate observables associated with finite causal diamonds to exact observables in the hat.
Metadata: arXiv. Abstracts retain their original authors’ rights.
In the conversation
Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels
5 selected excerpts · 5 total mentions
> The multiverse and the many worlds have nothing to do with each other. Some examples "The theory is also referred to as MWI, the relative state formulation, ... multiverse theory or just many-worlds. [...] MWI is one of many multiverse hypotheses in physics and philosophy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation For those who don't know, the Everett mentioned in the following is the person who came up with the Many Worlds view. "The Multiverse Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics", by Raphael Boussoa and Leonard Susskind Abstract: We argue that the many-worlds of quantum mechanics and the many worlds of the multiverse are the same thing, and that the…
Read the full comment
multiverse is necessary to give exact operational meaning to probabilistic predictions from quantum mechanics. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.3796.pdf "Identity and probability in Everett's multiverse", by P Tappenden. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Volume 51, Issue 1, 1 March 2000, Pages 99–114 https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/51.1.99 "The Structure of the Multiverse", by David Deutsch 1. Introduction The idea that quantum theory is a true description of physical reality led Everett (1957) and many subsequent investigators (e.g. DeWitt and Graham 1973, Deutsch 1985, 1997) to explain quantum-mechanical phenomena in terms of the simultaneous existence of parallel universes or histories. https://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/quant-ph/0104033
I just mean like this: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/06/30/why-the-... "We wouldn’t think of our pre-measurement state (1) as describing two different worlds; it’s just one world, in which the particle is in a superposition. But (2) has two worlds in it. The difference is that we can imagine undoing the superposition in (1) by carefully manipulating the particle, but in (2) the difference between the two branches has diffused into the environment and is lost there forever." (State 1 is when the particle is in a superposition by itself and state 2 is when it's entangled with a macroscopic apparatus.) My issue is that he uses words like "forever" and…
Read the full comment
"impossible." These convey a sense of finality, but the decision of where to draw the boundary is subjective. The worlds can in principle (and under certain cosmological models, must) recohere. See, for example: https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3796 "Decoherence - the modern version of wave-function collapse - is subjective in that it depends on the choice of a set of unmonitored degrees of freedom, the "environment"." See in particular Section 3.2 (Failure to irreversibly decohere: A limitation of finite systems) (Edit: I should mention that I am not a physicist, by a long shot. Just a curious amateur.)
I see your point, but Wikipedia isn't super reliable on the more unsettled parts of theoretical physics. For example, a cursory search gives me https://www.technologyreview.com/s/424073/multiverse-many-wo..., but while I can't judge https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3796 on my own, it does appear the idea is new, and for something as new, and as vaguely defined as the multiverse (MWI itself is quite old), I probably should ask for more than a Wikipedia summary. I mean, it's fine by me if there's some kind of disagreement within physics, but to assume they are the same thing would require more, no?
If you want some really wacky stuff, try this: The Multiverse Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics - Leonard Susskind and Raphael Bousso http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3796 By the way, this ain't your daddy's multiverse. This is a whole new and extended multiverse theory which says that the multiple universes used to explain tuning of constants and the multiple universes used to explain quantum decoherence are THE SAME THING! Then, for balance read this guy who thinks they're on crack: http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/05/bousso-susskind-hypermulti...
Keep following the thread.
More in PhysicsMore from the same topics.
On proof and progress in mathematics
William P. Thurston
In response to Jaffe and Quinn [math.HO/9307227], the author discusses forms of progress in mathematics that are not captured by formal proofs of theorems, especially in his own work in the theory of foliations and geometrization of 3-manifolds and dynamical systems.
Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4
Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan +11
Artificial intelligence (AI) researchers have been developing and refining large language models (LLMs) that exhibit remarkable capabilities across a variety of domains and tasks, challenging our understanding of learning and cognition.
A Critique of the CAP Theorem
Martin Kleppmann
The CAP Theorem is a frequently cited impossibility result in distributed systems, especially among NoSQL distributed databases.
Dissolving the Fermi Paradox
Anders Sandberg, Eric Drexler, Toby Ord
The Fermi paradox is the conflict between an expectation of a high {\em ex ante} probability of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe and the apparently lifeless universe we in fact observe.