a model of quantum gravity

[Edgard Neuman]

Hi,

I read this article, and I have a theory   
https://www.zmescience.com/science/physics/physicists-are-a-step-closer-to-a-theory-of-quantum-gravity/

Let me explain : in model, 

- quantum theory use "virtual particles". In my model : particle are not virtual, but what we call "void" is filled with two kinds of real particles : matter and antimatter (or maybe some other kind of symmetry).. think of it like electric charges in a metal.. you have  two opposite charges but they globally cancel out each other. If the void is indeed filled with particles of matter and antimatter interacting, (but ! stable of course, because the high energy of the photons would constantly turns back into particles, for it to work, it has to come to some equilibrium state between annihilation and creation of particle that are not photons).. 
In that case : the void is full of particle that actually carries the information of all quantum scenaris, but in a limited quantity. This quantity is the "density of the void".. Because there would be a equilibrium of positive and negative particles, we can imagine that the void can contains more of less of both.
- that would also imply something else : the quantity of quantum parallel "versions" of systems would be finite : the void can't carry has much information as we want. That would perfectly fit with an other theory called Quantum Darwinism. Think about the Feynman diagrams. In this model, instead of exploding into infinite trees of possibilities, it would fit into a finite quantity of reality per units of void (because the void carries the information).  In that case, it would look like a limited width genealogy tree : some branch would constantly die out, will only one remain from the distant past. Decoherence would be explain like this : the one particle we see in the Young double slit experiment (for instance) would be like the common ancestor of all realities that remains (the other possibilities having died out, from the moment the wave hit the screen to it became macroscopic for us to see). The key idea is this : the quantity of parallel stories in each part of space is limited (because it's indeed carried by real particle in what we call the void).

- the density of the void would so define "permittivity" of information by the space. Relativity insure that a system is by itself organised by information (the speed of light). The reason the speed of light is constant is because light is the lightest possible information or the quantum of causality.. Information defines "distance" and "time" in the systems.. not the other way around. So if a system is in a space with some a certain permittivity of information, and we change the permittivity, the only difference is the speed of time.. the story would be the same, so we can't directly measure this (as we are "inside" the story).

I have a nice metaphor for that : think about "matter" and "relativity" as some kind of self organizing software running on a network, the network being the particle of void in equilibrium. The void, would then by the physical level of the network. The structure that the software take can only be influenced by the topology of the network (the software is self organizing : creating relative distance and relative reference frames between its parts), but not its average speed. A difference in the density of the void (the global speed of the network) wouldn't change what the software do and how it behave (and itself would be able to measure anything).. byt the speed of the computation, the speed of the story (relative to an outside observer) 

- So now, we can suppose that the density of the void is the gravitational field : (the curvature)... the variations of it would manifest exactly as general relativity does : a variation of time. (the gravitational force would be the local effect of gradient of efficiency : particle probabilities (for instance) would be greater in the direction of the more density : so the matter running on it would be in a accelerated frame, and information would take more time to go from a relative "fast network" to a slow network outside (causing what we see as curvature)

 

Edited August 10, 2019 by Edgard Neuman

[Mordred]

OK so you want particles and and antiparticles popping in and put. 

So let's use the field treatment of QFT. Now the positive frequency modes form the annihilation operators for particles with the negative frequency modes for the creation operators of anti particles.

[latex]\hat{a}^\dagger (\vec{k}) \hat{a}(\vec{k})[/latex] the former is creation the latter annihilation operators for particles 

For antiparticles 

[latex]\hat{b}^\dagger (\vec{k}) \hat{b}(\vec{k})[/latex]

Hence [latex]\hat{a}^\dagger (\vec{k})[/latex] creates a particle of energy [math]\hbar\omega[/math] and momentum [latex]\hbar k [/latex] same applies to the antiparticles

Now with the above you sum up the positive frequency parts with the negative frequency parts. 

[latex]\hat{\psi}(x)=\int\frac {d^3k}{(2\pi)^{\frac {3}{2}}\sqrt{2\omega_k}}[/latex][latex]\hat{a}(\vec{k})e^{-i(\omega_kx^0-\vec{k}\cdot\vec{x})}[/latex][latex]+\vec {b}^\dagger(\vec{k})e^{-i(\omega_kx^0-\vec{k}\cdot\vec{x})}[/latex]

How's that for a start to your model you now have the a scalar spacetime complex field of particles and antiparticles.

Now accepting that baryogenesis leaves a slight higher density of positive frequency parts (cause unknown) I will let you think about this in terms of the energy density values for different observers for the Unruh effect in your link above. Naturally the mass density valued will vary accordingly to field potential which will affect the path integrals described by the Feynman lines you referred to.

(I am going to up vote you +1 for coming up with a viable speculation model though we can improve your descriptive as we go )

Now continuing from above a complex field has an adjoint. 

[latex]\hat{\psi}^\dagger(x)=\int\frac {d^3k}{(2\pi)^{\frac {3}{2}}\sqrt{2\omega_k}}[/latex][latex]\hat{a}(\vec{k})e^{-i(\omega_kx^0-\vec{k}\cdot\vec{x})}[/latex][latex]+\vec {b}^\dagger(\vec{k})e^{-i(\omega_kx^0-\vec{k}\cdot\vec{x})}[/latex]

Now assuming you want bosons for an uncharged field. We can incorporate the Pauli exclusion symmetry to the Bose Einstein statistics 

So first we have normalize the vacuum to unity. In Dirac notation

[latex]\langle 0|0\rangle=1[/latex]. The ket [latex]|\rangle  [/latex] is the initial state the bra [latex]\langle | [/latex] is the final state.

So we need to compute the normalization  to an arbitrary state.

[math]|\vec{k}\rangle[/math] for that we need the inner product

[math]\langle\vec{k}|\acute{\vec{k}}\rangle[/math]

So [latex]\hat{a}^\dagger (\vec{k})|0\rangle=|\vec{k}\rangle[/latex]

with adjoint  [math]\langle 0|=\langle\vec{k}|\hat{a}(\vec{k})[/math]

Without going through all the steps

[math]\langle\vec{k}|\acute{\vec{k}}\rangle=\delta(\vec{k}-\acute{\vec{k}})[/math]

Now each k state represents the momentum of a single particle.

If they are bosons  then the following relation holds 

[latex]|\vec{k_1},\vec{k_2}\rangle=|\vec{k_2},\vec{k_1}\rangle[/latex] 

Now you have a complex spin zero boson field in momentum space.

Next lesson we apply thus to the four momentum of GR.

As we're dealing with a complex scalar boson field of particles/antiparticles  let's start with the Minkowskii metric

[latex]ds^2=-c^2dt^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2=\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}[/latex]

Apply coordinate notation [latex] (x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3x^4)=(ct,x,y,z)=x^\mu[/latex] Where the indice range is 0 to 3.

Four momentum is given here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-momentum

In the format I have provided using a particle number operator I will just latex the positive frequency modes as the negative frequency modes simply switch a to b.

[latex]\hat{N}=\hat{a}^\dagger (\vec{k})\hat{a}(\vec{k})[/latex]

The Hamilton is

[latex]\hat{H}=\int d^3k\omega_k [\hat {N}(\vec{k})+\frac{1}{2}][/latex] includes the harmonic oscillator.

The field momentum

[latex]\hat{P}=\int k\vec{k}[\hat {N}(\vec{k})+\frac{1}{2}][/latex]

Now there is an interesting consequence of this when you compute the energy of the field...it is related to the energy of the harmonic oscillator.

Can you guess what it is ? I will show the answer tomorrow.

PS to OP I hope your descriptive above needs considerable work however you have several details with  accuracy that although poorly described are applicable. So I hope you don't mind if I run the modelling gauntlet with the basis of particle/antiparticle creation and annihilation and it's effects. I will get to your network analogy later on as I can employ that analogy

 

 

 

Edited August 10, 2019 by Mordred

[Edgard Neuman]

On 8/10/2019 at 7:34 AM, Mordred said:

OK so you want particles and and antiparticles popping in and put. 

So let's use the field treatment of QFT. Now the positive frequency modes form the annihilation operators for particles with the negative frequency modes for the creation operators of anti particles.

a^†(k⃗ )a^(k⃗ ) the former is creation the latter annihilation operators for particles 

For antiparticles 

b^†(k⃗ )b^(k⃗ )

Hence a^†(k⃗ ) creates a particle of energy ℏω and momentum ℏk same applies to the antiparticles

Now with the above you sum up the positive frequency parts with the negative frequency parts. 

ψ^(x)=∫d3k(2π)322ωk√ a^(k⃗ )e−i(ωkx0−k⃗ ⋅x⃗ ) +b⃗ †(k⃗ )e−i(ωkx0−k⃗ ⋅x⃗ )

How's that for a start to your model you now have the a scalar spacetime complex field of particles and antiparticles.

Now accepting that baryogenesis leaves a slight higher density of positive frequency parts (cause unknown) I will let you think about this in terms of the energy density values for different observers for the Unruh effect in your link above. Naturally the mass density valued will vary accordingly to field potential which will affect the path integrals described by the Feynman lines you referred to.

(I am going to up vote you +1 for coming up with a viable speculation model though we can improve your descriptive as we go )

Now continuing from above a complex field has an adjoint. 

ψ^†(x)=∫d3k(2π)322ωk√ a^(k⃗ )e−i(ωkx0−k⃗ ⋅x⃗ ) +b⃗ †(k⃗ )e−i(ωkx0−k⃗ ⋅x⃗ )

Now assuming you want bosons for an uncharged field. We can incorporate the Pauli exclusion symmetry to the Bose Einstein statistics 

So first we have normalize the vacuum to unity. In Dirac notation

〈0|0〉=1 . The ket |〉 is the initial state the bra 〈| is the final state.

So we need to compute the normalization  to an arbitrary state.

|k⃗ 〉 for that we need the inner product

〈k⃗ |k⃗ ´〉

So a^†(k⃗ )|0〉=|k⃗ 〉

with adjoint  〈0|=〈k⃗ |a^(k⃗ )

Without going through all the steps

〈k⃗ |k⃗ ´〉=δ(k⃗ −k⃗ ´)

Now each k state represents the momentum of a single particle.

If they are bosons  then the following relation holds 

|k1→,k2→〉=|k2→,k1→〉  

Now you have a complex spin zero boson field in momentum space.

Next lesson we apply thus to the four momentum of GR.

As we're dealing with a complex scalar boson field of particles/antiparticles  let's start with the Minkowskii metric

ds2=−c2dt2+dx2+dy2+dz2=ημνdxμdxν

Apply coordinate notation (x0,x1,x2,x3x4)=(ct,x,y,z)=xμ Where the indice range is 0 to 3.

Four momentum is given here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-momentum

In the format I have provided using a particle number operator I will just latex the positive frequency modes as the negative frequency modes simply switch a to b.

N^=a^†(k⃗ )a^(k⃗ )

The Hamilton is

H^=∫d3kωk[N^(k⃗ )+12] includes the harmonic oscillator.

The field momentum

P^=∫kk⃗ [N^(k⃗ )+12]

Now there is an interesting consequence of this when you compute the energy of the field...it is related to the energy of the harmonic oscillator.

Can you guess what it is ? I will show the answer tomorrow.

PS to OP I hope your descriptive above needs considerable work however you have several details with  accuracy that although poorly described are applicable. So I hope you don't mind if I run the modelling gauntlet with the basis of particle/antiparticle creation and annihilation and it's effects. I will get to your network analogy later on as I can employ that analogy

 

 

 

To be honest : I have no idea what you are talking about. That seems interesting, but I'm into explaining reality we are living in. So can you explain each part of you post ?
When I write with my simple english, my simple mind, I have no idea if I'm right. So how can you be sure you are write with such complicated ideas ?

[Mordred]

The first paragraph or so of your idea involved particle antiparticle pairs popping in and out of existence.

So I provided the QFT mathematics of such an environment.

[StringJunky]

4 hours ago, Edgard Neuman said:

To be honest : I have no idea what you are talking about. That seems interesting, but I'm into explaining reality we are living in. So can you explain each part of you post ?
When I write with my simple english, my simple mind, I have no idea if I'm right. So how can you be sure you are write with such complicated ideas ?

Because he's not making it up and he''s been doing it a long time. He's giving you the conventional physics that has been learned and amalgamated over the last century or two. 

[Mordred]

Ok here is the thing, you started with quantum particle/antiparticle creation so I provided those mathematics. You are then discussing quantum Darwism. So this theory involves pointer states and Einselection. The Unruh effect is an observer effect in so far as different observers can measure different particle number densities.

I gave you a starting point. It is trivial to apply Unruh effect to the math I provided. 

Quantum Darwism may take a bit more work however it is plausible. 

 Keep in mind this is your theory while I will assist others in building their models I won't do all their work for them. You have a plausible hypothesis. As far as those I described. 

(I will warn you however that it will take considerable work to understand how pointer states work with the S-matrix) the mathematics above is simply a starter to the equations you will need. Particularly in terms of its fundamental purpose of defining locality vs non locality in terms of observables with coherence and decoherence terms. (The above will all apply to quantum gravity treatments as well) 

The mathematics I posted aren't restricted to any particle species they can be applied to the entirety of the SM model.

Edited August 25, 2019 by Mordred

[Edgard Neuman]

I think this should interest you : (and it's well explained)

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24332440-600-quantum-weirdness-isnt-real-weve-just-got-space-and-time-all-wrong/?utm_medium=SOC&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1566571542

On 8/10/2019 at 7:34 AM, Mordred said:

 

a^†(k⃗ )a^(k⃗ ) the former is creation the latter annihilation operators for particles 

 

ok so for me (and people like me) to begin to understand, here, what is the meaning of the letter "a" and what is the meaning of the letter "k" ? (you can just provide a wikipedia link)

Edited August 25, 2019 by Edgard Neuman

[Mordred]

That article certainly hit a huge media blitz but I wouldn't take it too far until you can review the pdf with the mathematics. 

[Edgard Neuman]

39 minutes ago, Mordred said:

That article certainly hit a huge media blitz but I wouldn't take it too far until you can review the pdf with the mathematics. 

it might as well be written in chinese.. somebody should explain with simple words.

For instance, you write : 
"Now accepting that baryogenesis leaves a slight higher density of positive frequency parts (cause unknown)"..
That's not coming from your equations (they describe the creation anhiliation events as an operator of the fields https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_annihilation_operators)..
You are referring to an hypothesis for the existence of matter over antimatter, supposedly because of CPT symmetry violation (in neutrinos).. you can't use that here (it's not part of my model, and it's not a even proven fact)
In my model, the number of particle and antiparticle doesn't come from differences in the operators, but in the fact that the "positive" and "negative" values are somewhat constants.. In the beginning you have m > a  (m particles of matter > a particle of antimatter).. because operator leaves the relation unchanged, we still have matter m+1> a+1 or m-1 > a-1.. (my model doesn't speak about the origin of matter)

I'll explain further : let's have a cube meter of space (we can make it topologically closed by identifying the opposite faces).. inside let's put a ton of matter and a ton of antimatter.. the classical theory says that they would annihilate into high energy radiation. But now let's imagine the radiation is so high that the probability of pairs of matter and antimatter coming from photons interacting photons become high enough. Let's suppose that everything is real (no "virtual"  things).. now you put some more matter. The matter would interact very often with high energy photon, some of it would interact with locally created antimatter to get into high energy, but overall, there would still be more matter than antimatter.. but because of the constant interactions and the high density of particles in the void, it would constantly pop in and out. More : the charges of the particle would dissolve into the void, and possibly be constantly shared with the void.. for instant the kinetic energy would be spread between different particle of the void, and other charges too. So here you have : the quantum waves. The particles don't have to be "wavy" at the start. The waves are waves of real particle in the void. 

Edited August 25, 2019 by Edgard Neuman

[Strange]

On 8/10/2019 at 5:32 AM, Edgard Neuman said:

I read this article, and I have a theory   

You have a "theory" but:

21 hours ago, Edgard Neuman said:

To be honest : I have no idea what you are talking about.

1 hour ago, Edgard Neuman said:

it might as well be written in chinese

 

So it seems you have no understanding of the underlying physics but believe you have a new "theory". I am sceptical. To say the least.

Apart from which, a theory requires a mathematical model and supporting evidence, neither of which you have provided. Unless you can provide those, this thread will be closed for not meeting the standards required by the rules.

[MigL]

I would think Mordred is trying to impress upon you the amount of mathematics involved in just the 'set-up' for any viable theory.
Never mind the actual theory itself.

A 'theory' is not something whipped up in a couple of paragraphs of written words.

[Edgard Neuman]

If you can't understand my idea, why do you answer ? I put this in "speculation" for a good reason. I'm not here to receive a lesson on the classical accepted theory. I'm here to propose an alternative. In my theory, particle are not wave. They are particle. The wave behavior emerge from the statistical properties of a void "full" of particles.  
As always, you people are not able to understand me.. and decide you don't even want to try. How should I react ? I'm just sorry.
 

Edited August 25, 2019 by Edgard Neuman

[Mordred]

How can the particle only view possibly work with decoherence which is of  wave nature ? Quantum Darwism involves wave properties.

Edited August 25, 2019 by Mordred

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

I put this in "speculation" for a good reason.

You still need to present a scientific argument. So where is your model, the predictions and the evidence?

7 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

As always, you people are not able to understand me

Ironic comment from they guy who says he can’t understand the answers given. 

9 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

I'm not here to receive a lesson on the classical accepted theory. I'm here to propose an alternative

You can’t provide an alternative until you understand current theory. 

10 minutes ago, Edgard Neuman said:

In my theory, particle are not wave.

You havent got a theory. You have a vague idea with no evidence. That is not how science works. 

[Mordred]

Tell me do you even understand how Quantum Darwism, Unruh radiation  or particle/antiparticle pairs work with each other ?

You mentioned  three mainstream theories but then complain when I give you the mainstream basis of the simplist one to model.

To answer an earlier question  of a post you edited later on. A is the creation operator under QFT. A with the dagger is the annihilation operator.

The B is the operators for antiparticles.

K corresponds to the momentum operator hence it is a vector.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_annihilation_operators

The wiki article covers mainly the QM treatment but position is downgraded to a propogator and the field is upgraded to operator under QFT. Which uses the Klein Gordon and Dirac  equations to better handle Lorentz invariance. The Schrodinger equation of QM isn't Lorentz invariant.

Edited August 25, 2019 by Mordred

[Edgard Neuman]

the three results seems to fit with my idea.... you won't see it until you understand it.. My theories have to respect results of experiments, not your models. The unruh effect is something you can measure. The fact that a void reacts to a body accelerating in it, tend to prove my idea that the void is not void, and that what you call particle are indeed just charges shared between a whole lot of void particles..
Particle and antiparticle are opposed by the charge and parity,  to get a particle from an antiparticle, you invert "C" and "P".. It's the other solutions for a given energy when you invert the frame in special relativity. So yes, I think I understand. 

What I try to explain to you, is very simple.
In the first times of quantum theory, people couldn't figure out how a particle propagate as a wave. So they described the wave and came to quantum mechanics. In my idea, the particle for instance from a emitter never reach the screen : it's interact very closely with the void. For my model to work, the density of the void must be enormous. I suppose, (no I have no proof, sorry) that particle truly travel in average no longer than the scale of planck length. But because the void is full of as much particle of matter and antimatter, each interaction cancels out, and the thing that travel is a average surplus of positive kinetic energy (and eventually a surplus of charge). 

So If you can show me how that wouldn't explain the quantum behavior, I'll be happy to read it.

 

24 minutes ago, Mordred said:

To answer an earlier question  of a post you edited later on. A is the creation operator under QFT. A with the dagger is the annihilation operator.

The B is the operators for antiparticles.

K corresponds to the momentum operator hence it is a vector.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_annihilation_operators

The wiki article covers mainly the QM treatment but position is downgraded to a propogator and the field is upgraded to operator under QFT. Which uses the Klein Gordon and Dirac  equations to better handle Lorentz invariance. The Schrodinger equation of QM isn't Lorentz invariant.

Thanks a lot for this answer.
And do you confirm that an "operator" is a function of the state of the field to an other state of the field (the field of particles for instance). I understand how  creation and annihilation are operator (the effect of the "interactions" on the values of the field).. 
OK but the problem is, in my model, particle are not wave.. (so when you start to speak about frequencies, it's already not in my model)  they are classical particles with classical trajectories.. you may think "but how could it fit the Young slit experiment for instance.. ??" because in my model, what you call particle (the wavy thing) is in fact the surplus of momentum and charges that are statistically emerging from local perturbation of the otherwise neutral void.. 

Edited August 25, 2019 by Edgard Neuman

[Mordred]

An operator is an Observable quantity. The external lines of the Feymann diagrams you mentioned in your OP. Propogators are the internal lines they contain the information of how states change to other states.

 The problem is you cannot have decoherence on particles unless you are describing their wave functions. So you wouldn't have quantum Darwism.

[Edgard Neuman]

13 minutes ago, Mordred said:

 The problem is you cannot have decoherence on particles unless you are describing their wave functions. So you wouldn't have quantum Darwism.

No, because the void can carry the information that is temporally missing. If the void is full of particle, it can move globally and fill the gaps.. we wouldn't see the difference, because, all particle of the void are the same. It's all about what is stable configuration and what is not, in the long terme. Collectively, particle can behave like wave, and finally one situation that is the simplest stable situation emerge.. (in the young slit experiment, the thing that make decoherence is that the energy of the photon can be absorbed and reemitted only by one atom of the screen, probably because of some conservation principle that insure the photon that is seen has the same energy level as the photon emitted, so it can't be divided)..
 

Edited August 26, 2019 by Edgard Neuman

[Mordred]

The term void isn't really applicable under either QFT or QM. For that matter not even under GR. Your far better off describing fields  than voids. Under field treatments the propogator action is spread out onto the field. The propogators propogate  the operators and the operators operate upon the propogators.

If you think about that statement it's much the same as spacetime tells particles  how to move while particles tells spacetime  how to curve.

I recognize your looking for the distinctions between observable and non observable quantities this is the basis behind Quantum Darwism  but you don't need to invent new physics to define that. There is tons of research on those distinctions already out there if you study them in detail.

Tests on quantum Darwism literally shows that even in the Macroscopic world that wavefunctions of QM occur.

Edited August 26, 2019 by Mordred

[Edgard Neuman]

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

The term void isn't really applicable under either QFT or QM. For that matter not even under GR. Your far better off describing fields  than voids. Under field treatments the propogator action is spread out onto the field. The propogators propogate  the operators and the operators operate upon the propogators.

If you think about that statement it's much the same as spacetime tells particles  how to move while particles tells spacetime  how to curve.

no but my idea is to suppose any part of empty space where we see, for instance "1 electron"..
is in fact full (for instance, I've no idea of the density) of 100000001 classical electrons and 100000000 classical positrons (and many many more high energy photons and a lot of other things... all of this would interact, but all the effect of all those interactions would cancel out, and would only be some noise at very little scale.
The term field describe a function space => value (or vector)..  Here the void is really the important thing that explain the behavior of what we call matter.
 

[Mordred]

Sorry but that last doesn't make much sense.

A field is an abstract device describing a set of values/mathematical objects that have a coordinate basis. So a void with spatial components would have a set of values at each coordinate. Even if the value for say as an example the energy density is zero it is still treatable as a field as we can assign coordinates to any void.

[Edgard Neuman]

31 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Sorry but that last doesn't make much sense.

A field is an abstract device describing a set of values/mathematical objects that have a coordinate basis. So a void with spatial components would have a set of values at each coordinate. Even if the value for say as an example the energy density is zero it is still treatable as a field as we can assign coordinates to any void.

I agree with that (the description of a what is a field), but what I'm saying in my model, is that - hypothetically - we could make a true "void" empty of energy (neither matter nor antimatter). In that space, a particle would stop to behave "quantumly" and behave like a classical particle (with a defined trajectory).. In that space, the particle wouldn't interact with anything being there, the momentum wouldn't be spreaded and it would behave exactly like a classical point.
So in my model "the void" is what explains it all. The problem with using fields (although I understand it's the only way of studying a nearly infinitely big set of objects of course) is that it's already a statistical version of the reality you describe. I know you work with fields, so you work with "probabilities" of particle being there or there.. but I try to find an other way to explain reality without starting to believe the field is actually the reality.(I don't know if I'm clear).. I'm on the side of those who think quantum theory is just a statistical tool, and that the strangeness can be explained by classical means.

I have an other example to illustrate the  idea that using abstract theory can be deceitful (ok it's not maths). you have for instance the fact that if you put 2 polarized filter opposed by 90° you cut all the light. But if you put a third one inclined by 45° between the 2, you get some light to pass.. everybody see this and think "it's the magic of quantum theory ! how can adding a filter increase the passing light ? It's impossible".. but it's in fact very easy to get the same result by a simple classical way. 
Let's represent the possible incoming light wave orientation as a 2d surface (all the possible vector of the wave on a plane perpendicular to propagation).. if the filter project the wave on a plane (parallel to the propagation vector), it would project the surface on a line. So for instance the first filter would project a circle into a horizontal line, and the 2 filter would project the horizontal line on the vertical axis, so a point at 0 (and so : no light pass). But if you put a 45° filter between the two, the first unity horizontal line would then be projected into the 45° line (a none zero length line). And then this, line, when projected into the vertical axis, would not be 0. There's no "quantum magic" here : it would work on classical waves as well.. (it would be funny to do it with sound waves)

Edited August 26, 2019 by Edgard Neuman

[MigL]

This 'distinction', where you see particles with classical trajectories not really moving, but their properties translating due to the interactions of a multitude of intermediate particles already present in the 'void', would require an extremely large particle density, and an equally large void energy.
Wouldn't these properties of the 'void' be measurable, and provide some observational evidence ?

[Mordred]

Ok first off fields don't necessarily involve probability. For example one can model our macroscopic atmosphere as a scalar field.

 Secondly if you wish a deterministic theory I am fine with that but you have to be careful not to include theories that involve a probability nature quantum Darwism does just that. You can get away with Unruh effect in classical terms but decoherence invariably does involve probability.

[Edgard Neuman]

31 minutes ago, MigL said:

This 'distinction', where you see particles with classical trajectories not really moving, but their properties translating due to the interactions of a multitude of intermediate particles already present in the 'void', would require an extremely large particle density, and an equally large void energy.
Wouldn't these properties of the 'void' be measurable, and provide some observational evidence ?

If the particles of matter and antimatter are really exact opposites, every interaction is perfectly symmetrical and the photons (and all the rest) are in perfect anisotropic distribution, why would they ? The law of large numbers would insure that in the long runs every interactions cancels out. There would only be a noise (some sort of brownian movement) at very small scale. And the important thing is that there is no "virtual" particle and "real particle". Imagine the electron emitted in that space : it would instantaneously hit a positron and become 2 photons. So now where is the positive charge ? The interaction did also remove a positron, so the void that was neutral now have a electron more than a positron. The electron is still there, it's now another one that was already here. while the momentum is carried now by the photons. The photons (that are asymmetrical) hit an other photon, and create a pair with a momentum.. those 2 particle then interact etc.. the momentum is shared between all particle.. Now you start to see how the whole thing behave like a wave, while no wave are used. 
The effect, would probably only be seen when accelerating (the unhru effect). And my next idea is that "this void", I mean the potentially varying density of particle IS actually the gravitational field. (It could also explain the expansion : this void would indeed spread like a gas)

28 minutes ago, Mordred said:

 You can get away with Unruh effect in classical terms but decoherence invariably does involve probability.

no, I don't think so. You use probability to describe what happen, but it's not a necessary property of the system.
(I'm sorry, i have no other way to explain my idea than with a bad metaphor. )
Imagine a town full of people. You throw somebody in it. At some point, because there's too many people, the village will decide to throw somebody out. Who will it be ? We can't know. But we know it's going to be a full somebody, and he is going to pop out from somewhere well defined.
Now the screen in the double slit can perfectly behave this way. It's a threshold effect.

What is tricky is the interference.. but If you assume the void is full of two type of particle that cancel each others, it maybe normal that when something is propagating into it, it alternates between two opposite extreme of the perturbation.. I don't know more details

Edited August 26, 2019 by Edgard Neuman