Quantum Mechanics as an approximation of some deterministic discrete theory: towards the Great Unifi… hidden variables

Michio Kaku in the prison of calculus

You probably remember Einstein’s famous saying: ‘God doesn’t play dice’. Yes, he probably does not if QM is an approximation of some (semi) discrete theory. Just imagine that. There are no such problems as wave-particle duality or wave function collapse anymore, Schrodinger’s cat is definitely dead (unfortunately, cats die) and there is a very simple explanation how energy can take the form of matter (‘mass’ is a quite vague definition). However, the world becomes a very strange timeless semi-deterministic place we already saw before. There is a hope for the freedom of will as an emergent phenomenon though. Can’t imagine? Read more.

Our experience dictates that in a continuous space-time represented by conventional calculus, quantum particles should act like waves and waves should act like particles – the problem known as the wave-particle duality. Quantum mechanics uses something called ‘wave function’ to describe particles in a continuous space and states that the value of the function is linked to probability of the observation of that system. To make waves look like particles QM introduces something called ‘wave function collapse’ – the ‘process’ in which wave function collapses into a particle when someone observes or interacts with one.

“Artist’s” representation of wave-particle duality

However, there is a little problem. For example, high-energy gamma-particles are scattering in mutual collisions, but less energetic photons do not interact with each other and are able to pass through concrete walls. Unbelievable! There is a very (really very) simple explanation. Let’s imagine that space isn’t continuous, but discrete and its elements are a little bit larger than dimensionless points (people who are trying to solve the GR/QM inconsistency often believe that the moving particles described by the wave are not dimensionless instead). 

The structure of quantized space, represented, for example, by quantum loops. Quantum loop theory says that loops actually may look not so square and may be placed in a less regular manner.
Voila, energy now travels as a discrete wave of particles of the background space, so the background particles may ‘collide’ altering the interacting waves when the wavelength is comparable with the particle size or with the size of their links. Therefore, now you do not need the wave function collapse and the notion of observer, the interaction is purely objective.  

Representation of a discrete wave generated by a computer program. Note that the particles do not travel but only oscillate. Therefore, the speed of light may be constant because of the constant amount of action needed to pass the impulse between particles. No one however knows, what elements of the background are like, how they are linked and how they may oscillate. 

But these are bosons which transmit interactions. What fermions (like electron) which represent matter may behave? May they be rotating twisted conglomerates of deformed 3-dimensional loops or their parts? They should rotate in an interesting manner then:

An ½-spin rotating point. Just imagine that potential fields are byproducts of the link ‘tensions’ created by such rotation and virtual photons, which hold or repel charged particles, are byproducts of  interactional rotary oscillations. May it be that gravity is some kind of uniform residual tension (so, it's not time is slowed down in GR, but just oscillations)? Brrr, how things should be complex down there. Some hidden variables are definitely should be on their place…
Could a purely deterministic quantum theory be created this way? As with the molecular dynamics, If the structure of space is static, the Existence turns into something like a giant jiggling n-body problem (without the existing but predetermined past and future - unlike the General Relativity, time is external to such system), a very hard problem to solve. So, the ‘observers’ still should operate with probabilities if they are trying to describe a finite set of isolated background waves. Some background elements will be objectively not on their predicted places, and this may explain, for example, the stochastic nature of the tunnel effect. Although still being a de Broglie wave, Shrodinger’s cat should be objectively killed (or objectively not) with a radioactive decay triggered (or objectively not) by a tunnel effect triggered, for example, by the proximity to such unaccounted background particle or phase. Probably only something wavelike inside a rotating electron or other system of the corresponding dimensions may exist, for example, in a quantum superposition of phases, but not the whole cat. It’s hardly possible to imagine it in a superposition of such complex non-uniform states.

If we look at Schrodinger’s cat from the outside of Universe at the scale comparable to the dimension of the background elements, we’ll see that it looks like a fuzzy weaving consolidation (which de Broglie probably predicted) in the rippling fabric of background particles. So, the calculational significance of this background rippling, almost avoided by the formalism of QM and not needed in classical scale of calculations, may define the border of classical and quantum scales.
 There is another interesting thought experiment, which tells us that QM is magically nonlocal and there are entangled particles: the semi-transparent mirror. If we assume that space is a network, there is nothing surprising in entanglement. Of course only if we allow entangled particles to be linked, for example, by some kind of a stretched element link, some synchronous phases of the connecting chain of elements, etc.

Split rays are connected by something synchronously oscillating with them. Somehow ‘observation’ of the one of these particles should break the synchronization and ‘localize’ the particle along with its quantum parameters at the place of ‘observation’. Too unusual? Is nonlocality a just another illusion such as time in General Relativity? Only time will probably show.
But if everything is predetermined, how about the free will? It may still be there, if the Universe experiences external influence. For example, quantum loops may breed in immense amount (you know that space is expanding), or something regularly knocks the system from the outside (so there is still place for that grey-haired bearded man on the cloud). This can subtle affect the overall system state by leaving the whole picture intact. Imagine that you want to smash a fly which bothers you. Will you kill it? Maybe a tunnel effect caused by external factors will decide this in your brain, so the picture is not predetermined completely. If you haven’t strong beliefs about the love to all living beings of course.
What is the conclusion? Einstein probably was right on Quantum Mechanics but a little bit wrong on the interpretation of his General Relativity.

No comments:

Post a Comment