Firstly, if the universe is distributions of complex amplitudes in configuration space, then shouldn’t we describe our knowledge of the world as probability distributions of complex amplitude distributions? Is there some incredibly convenient simplification I’m missing?
Secondly, have I understood correctly that the universe, in quantum mechanics, is a distribution of complex values in an infinite-dimensional space, where each dimension corresponds to the particular values some atribute of some particle in the universe takes? With some symmetries across the dimensions to ensure indistinguishability between particles?
If that is true, and the perceptible universe splits off into alternate blob universes basically all the time, shouldn’t the configuration space be packed full of other universe-blobs already, meaning that the particular state of the universe blob we are in has more than one predecessor? After all, there are about 3*(number of particles) dimensions in complex-amplitude space, but every particle is splitting off at about the same rate, so the full complex-amplitude space the universe is in should be “filling up” at about the same rate as if it contained only one particle in it.
Or have I gotten this all wrong and is the universe actually a distribution of complex values over three (or four) dimensional space, one for each force, with each particle corresponding to a particularly high magnitude distribution in a field at a point? If that is true, can somebody explain exactly how decoherence works?
Firstly, if the universe is distributions of complex amplitudes in configuration space, then shouldn’t we describe our knowledge of the world as probability distributions of complex amplitude distributions?
More or less.
Is there some incredibly convenient simplification I’m missing?
I find I get a lot of mileage out of using words. It does lose a lot of information—which I suppose is rather the point.
What I meant by that is that distributions of other distributions are the sort of thing you would kind of expect to be incredibly impractical to use, but also could have some handy mathematical ways to look at them. Since I am unfamiliar with the formalisms involved, I was wondering if anybody could enlighten me.
I think I may be incredibly confused.
Firstly, if the universe is distributions of complex amplitudes in configuration space, then shouldn’t we describe our knowledge of the world as probability distributions of complex amplitude distributions? Is there some incredibly convenient simplification I’m missing?
Secondly, have I understood correctly that the universe, in quantum mechanics, is a distribution of complex values in an infinite-dimensional space, where each dimension corresponds to the particular values some atribute of some particle in the universe takes? With some symmetries across the dimensions to ensure indistinguishability between particles?
If that is true, and the perceptible universe splits off into alternate blob universes basically all the time, shouldn’t the configuration space be packed full of other universe-blobs already, meaning that the particular state of the universe blob we are in has more than one predecessor? After all, there are about 3*(number of particles) dimensions in complex-amplitude space, but every particle is splitting off at about the same rate, so the full complex-amplitude space the universe is in should be “filling up” at about the same rate as if it contained only one particle in it.
Or have I gotten this all wrong and is the universe actually a distribution of complex values over three (or four) dimensional space, one for each force, with each particle corresponding to a particularly high magnitude distribution in a field at a point? If that is true, can somebody explain exactly how decoherence works?
More or less.
I find I get a lot of mileage out of using words. It does lose a lot of information—which I suppose is rather the point.
What I meant by that is that distributions of other distributions are the sort of thing you would kind of expect to be incredibly impractical to use, but also could have some handy mathematical ways to look at them. Since I am unfamiliar with the formalisms involved, I was wondering if anybody could enlighten me.