Many Worlds versus Thermal interpretation

  • #1
A. Neumaier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
7,894
3,753
Summary:
Points out an interesting book by Bryce DeWitt on quantum gravity and its interpretation issues
The two volume treatise
which discusses the canonical approach to dynamical quantum gravity, is probably responsible for the fact that the many worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics has a sizable support in the theoretical physics community. His emphasis on the MWI is not to my taste and seems to me far too superficial, sweeping all the difficulties under the carpet.

But one can replace his interpretation discussion without any loss of substance by a reference to my thermal interpretation, since the latter shares the main reason why DeWitt championed MWI:

In both interpretations, the state of the universe makes sense (a necessary prerequisite of any theory of quantum gravity) , and no other covariant interpretation has this virtue.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
253
170
In both interpretations, the state of the universe makes sense (a necessary prerequisite of any theory of quantum gravity) , and no other covariant interpretation has this virtue.

I believe Decoherent Histories also shares this virtue, and is as readily generaliseable to quantum gravity.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.04605
 
  • #3
40
12
I believe Decoherent Histories also shares this virtue, and is as readily generaliseable to quantum gravity.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.04605

Isn't DH the same as Everett? Reading James B. Hartle it's hard not to conclude that
 
  • #4
253
170
Isn't DH the same as Everett? Reading James B. Hartle it's hard not to conclude that

There are important differences. E.g. Given a set of decoherent histories of a closed system, both Both MW and DH would resolve a pure initial state into orthogonal branches corresponding to the histories. But MW says all histories occur, while DH says only one history occurs.
 
  • #5
40
12
There are important differences. E.g. Given a set of decoherent histories of a closed system, both Both MW and DH would resolve a pure initial state into orthogonal branches corresponding to the histories. But MW says all histories occur, while DH says only one history occurs.

If it doesn't define how one 'real' history occur, then it's just semantics?
 
  • Like
Likes A. Neumaier

Related Threads on Many Worlds versus Thermal interpretation

Replies
94
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
58
Views
11K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
6K
Replies
119
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
0
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
36
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
62
Views
5K
Top