4 ms·
The problem is that you wouldn't just need a superposition over a finite number of state, but for the theory to make sense the universe should be some superposi
by contravariant 11y ago
The problem is that you wouldn't just need a superposition over a finite number of state, but for the theory to make sense the universe should be some superposition over all possible physical states.
There are simply just too many possible states to meaningfully describe something like a distribution over them, which is what a superposition would be. Mathematics simply gives up when you try to integrate over an infinite number of dimensions.
- naasking 11y agoI don't know where you are seeing a relevant infinity. At any given time, there are a finite number of particles each with a finite number of observables. It's a large number, but finite.
- EGreg 11y agoHow do you know? All we can see is the visible universe, and the horizon is receding faster than the speed of light. Where do you get that there are finitely many particles?
- lmm 11y agoThere was (to the best of our knowledge) a single big bang, since when energy is conserved. That gives us a total energy for the universe, which is large but finite, which puts an upper bound on the number of particles at any given time.
- EGreg 11y agoThe big bang is just a theory that is obtained by extrapolating the current movement backwards. For all you know, the multiverse is infinite. And in fact so could the universe be -- the big bang could have happened much earlier and the universe could be much bigger. And when you say that there was only one big bang and there was a finite amount of energy, you are making too many asssumptions.