What did you THINK multiverse meant?
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Alan J Fletcher <[email protected]> wrote:
> The Multiverse Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
>
> Authors: Raphael Bousso, Leonard Susskind
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3796
>
> 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.
>
> (Being discussed all over the multiverse, eg
> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/05/26/are-many-worlds-and-the-multiverse-the-same-idea
> )
>
