It is just a kind of objective collapse theory. Especially if vacuum decay is gravitational in nature (i.e. is triggered by massive objects). I’ve been thinking about on and off that since 2005 if not earlier—the many worlds look like the kind of stuff that could be utilized to make a theory smaller by permitting unstable solutions.
edit: to clarify: the decay would result in survivor bias, which would change the observed statistics. If a particle popping up out of nowhere prevents decay in that region, you’ll see that particle popping up. Given that any valid theory with decay has to match the observations, it means that the survivor bias will now have to add up to what’s empirically known. You can’t just have this kind of vacuum decay on top of the laws of physics as we know them. You’d need different laws of physics which work together with the survivor bias to produce what we observe.
It is just a kind of objective collapse theory. Especially if vacuum decay is gravitational in nature (i.e. is triggered by massive objects). I’ve been thinking about on and off that since 2005 if not earlier—the many worlds look like the kind of stuff that could be utilized to make a theory smaller by permitting unstable solutions.
edit: to clarify: the decay would result in survivor bias, which would change the observed statistics. If a particle popping up out of nowhere prevents decay in that region, you’ll see that particle popping up. Given that any valid theory with decay has to match the observations, it means that the survivor bias will now have to add up to what’s empirically known. You can’t just have this kind of vacuum decay on top of the laws of physics as we know them. You’d need different laws of physics which work together with the survivor bias to produce what we observe.
Very cogent comment. Why was it voted down?