- “When the multiverse and many-worlds collide” by Justin Mullins (The New Scientist; 2011.06.01) – http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028154.200-when-the-multiverse-and-manyworlds-collide.html
- “Are Many Worlds and the Multiverse the Same Idea?” by Sean Carroll (Cosmic Variance blog at Discover Magazine; ) – http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/05/26/are-many-worlds-and-the-multiverse-the-same-idea/
- “Physical Theories, Eternal Inflation, and Quantum Universe” by Yasunori Nomura (arXiv.org > hep-th > arXiv:1104.2324v2 [hep-th])- http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.2324
- Abstract:

*We present a framework in which well-defined predictions are obtained in an eternally inflating multiverse, based on the principles of quantum mechanics. We show that the entire multiverse is described purely from the viewpoint of a single “observer,” who describes the world as a quantum state defined on his/her past light cones bounded by the (stretched) apparent horizons. We find that quantum mechanics plays an essential role in regulating infinities. The framework is “gauge invariant,” i.e. predictions do not depend on how spacetime is parametrized, as it should be in a theory of quantum gravity. Our framework provides a fully unified treatment of quantum measurement processes and the multiverse. We conclude that the eternally inflating multiverse and many worlds in quantum mechanics are the same. Other important implications include: global spacetime can be viewed as a derived concept; the multiverse is a transient phenomenon during the world relaxing into a supersymmetric Minkowski state. We also present a theory of “initial conditions” for the multiverse. By extrapolating our framework to the extreme, we arrive at a picture that the entire multiverse is a fluctuation in the stationary, fractal “mega-multiverse,” in which an infinite sequence of multiverse productions occurs. The framework discussed here does not suffer from problems/paradoxes plaguing other measures proposed earlier, such as the youngness paradox, the Boltzmann brain problem, and a peculiar “end” of time.* - “The Multiverse Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics” by Raphael Bousso and Leonard Susskind (arXiv.org > hep-th > arXiv:1105.3796v1 [hep-th]) – http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3796
- 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.

## 2011.06.03

### Decoherence

## 2011.01.19

### Anthropic principle

- “Evidence Against Fine Tuning for Life” by Don N. Page (arXiv:1101.2444; 2011.01.12) – http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.2444
- Abstract:

*The effective coupling `constants’ of physics, especially the cosmological constant, are observed to have highly biophilic values. If this is not a hugely improbable accident, or a consequence of some mysterious logical necessity or of some simple principle of physics, it might be explained as a consequence either of an observership selection principle within a multiverse of many sets of effective coupling constants, or else of some biophilic principle that fine tunes the constants of physics to optimize life. Here evidence is presented against the hypothesis of fine tuning by a biophilic principle that maximizes the fraction of baryons that form living beings.*- “Evidence Emerges That Laws of Physics Are Not Fine-Tuned For Life” (Technology Review > The Physics arXiv blog; 2011.01.18) – http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26276/ –
*The value of the cosmological constant suggests that the laws of nature could not have been fine-tuned for life by an omnipotent being, says a cosmologist* - “Cosmological Constant Not Fine Tuned For Life” (SlashDot; 2011.01.18) – http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/01/18/1534216/Cosmological-Constant-Not-Fine-Tuned-For-Life
- Abstract:

*“A common argument one might encounter in intelligent design or the arduous process of resolving science with religion is that the physical constants of our world are*__fine tuned for life by some creator or designer__(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe). A University of Alberta theoretical physicist claims__quite the opposite when it comes to the cosmological constant__(http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26276/)). His paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.2444) says that our ever expanding universe has a positive cosmological constant and he explains that the optimum cosmological constant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant) for maximizing the chances of life in the universe would be slightly negative: ‘any positive value of the constant would tend to decrease the fraction of matter that forms into galaxies, reducing the amount available for life. Therefore the measured value of the cosmological constant, which is positive, is evidence against the idea that the constants have been fine-tuned for life.'”

- “Evidence Emerges That Laws of Physics Are Not Fine-Tuned For Life” (Technology Review > The Physics arXiv blog; 2011.01.18) – http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26276/ –
- Anthropic principle (WikiPedia) – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
- Fine-tuned Universe (WikiPedia) – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
- Cosmological constant (WikiPedia) – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant