A Many Worlds versus Thermal interpretation

[A. Neumaier]

TL;DR Summary

Points out an interesting book by Bryce DeWitt on quantum gravity and its interpretation issues

The two volume treatise

• Bryce DeWitt, The global approach to quantum field theory, Oxford Univ. Press 2003.

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.

 

[Morbert]

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

 

[Quanundrum]

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

 

[Morbert]

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.

 

[Quanundrum]

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?

 

[Morbert]

If it doesn't define how one 'real' history occur, then it's just semantics?

To avoid hijacking this thread I started a new one here https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/many-worlds-versus-decoherent-histories.991824/