Many Worlds as Many Histories?

In summary, George Smoot's paper explores the idea that our universe could be encoded on the apparent horizon as the average of all possible histories, but it is unclear if this aligns with the Many Worlds Interpretation. Further clarification from Smoot is needed to determine his stance on this interpretation.
  • #1
Suekdccia
350
27
TL;DR Summary
Many Worlds as Many Histories?
I was reading this paper from George Smoot (https://arxiv.org/abs/1003.5952) where he assumes the holographic principle as true and conjectures that our universe would be encoded on the "surface" of an apparent horizon as the weighted average of all possible histories. In that way, there would be one world (or universe) that would be the average among all possible worlds.

However, I am not sure if Smoot refers to our Universe is the actual one in the sense that this is the one that we observe while the other histories would exist as different worlds (like in the Many Worlds Interpretation).

Can anyone find anything in the article that clarifies this (I've already tried but I didn't find anything)?

And if not, does anyone know what does Smoot think about the Many Worlds Interpretation?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2


I would like to first clarify that the holographic principle is a theoretical concept that is still being explored and debated in the scientific community. It is not yet a proven fact, but rather a hypothesis that is being investigated.

In regards to George Smoot's paper, it is important to note that he is presenting his own interpretation and conjecture based on the holographic principle. It is not stated explicitly in the paper whether he believes in the Many Worlds Interpretation or not. However, it is clear that his hypothesis is based on the idea that our universe is just one of many possible histories encoded on the "surface" of the apparent horizon.

It is possible that Smoot's theory could align with the Many Worlds Interpretation, as both propose the existence of multiple universes or histories. However, it is also possible that Smoot's theory differs in some aspects from the Many Worlds Interpretation. Without further clarification from Smoot himself, it is difficult to say for sure.

In conclusion, while Smoot's paper offers an interesting perspective on the holographic principle, it is not clear if he specifically supports or refutes the Many Worlds Interpretation. It may be worth reaching out to him directly for further clarification on his views.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top