How does quantum mechanics work? (A new Hypothesis)

[Wigberto Marciaga]

Hypotheses about the functioning of subatomic particles

The universe is made up of space-time, according to the relativistic position, and time and space are inseparable.

Furthermore, in quantum mechanics we find something practically incomprehensible, which would be how such small particles can contain so much energy.

This hypothesis proposes the following:

In the universe there would be unobservable places, as if it were another dimension, which would connect points within the observable universe. They would be like channels through which subatomic particles travel.

Subatomic particles would be like access keys or passwords to these channels, through which the energy observed in nuclear reactions is transported. A certain behavior of the particles will open these channels through which more or less energy will arrive, depending on the reaction or behavior of the particles.

These channels would not only be unobservable by current human technology, but would be like a box separating them from the effects of space-time.

Conclusion

I think that the hypothesis in question, which, in summary, proposes that the universe would be connected by channels and that subatomic particles would be like passwords or keys that open those channels, could give meaning to quantum processes.

This would explain practically inexplicable, although observable, phenomena, such as the superposition of particles or that in some cases subatomic particles seem to exceed the speed of light (a physical limit that has been proposed for all objects).

Another similar hypothesis would propose that there is another dimension in itself where the energy of nuclear reactions comes from. But, it would not be necessary considering how enormous the universe is.

Edited June 28 by Wigberto Marciaga

[joigus]

27 minutes ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

Furthermore, in quantum mechanics we find something practically incomprehensible, which would be how such small particles can contain so much energy.

This is not a conceptual problem for quantum mechanics.

Then you just dissolve into vagueness: "it would be like", "a certain behavior", "would be like" three or four more times, "more or less energy" etc.

Too vague to even make sense.

And no, particles cannot exceed the speed of light, not even "in some cases."

So-called virtual particles --if that's what you're refering to--, are not actual particles, they are modes of the quantum field that cannot be measured but must be included in the calculations.

[Wigberto Marciaga]

Quantum mechanics does not make sense, as some scholar of this discipline said, that if you say you understand quantum mechanics it is because in reality you have not understood it yet. I think it was Niels Bohr, but perhaps I'm paraphrasing a bit what he said. And perhaps quantum mechanics is not only counterintuitive, which would be the least of it, but even absurd, but observable.

That such a small particle contains so much energy does not seem understandable, just because you accept it because it is what you observe does not mean that you understand it and can explain it reasonably.

Regarding the speed of light, I understand that this has happened, since objects in the universe are observed in places that should not be found according to the current standard model. Quantum tunneling or Cherenkov radiation are also mentioned.

In summary, my proposed hypothesis is that the energy of atomic reactions would come from other points in space-time and would not be contained in subatomic particles as previously thought.

Upon entering these channels, the subatomic particles stop being influenced by time, since the channels would be like insulating boxes that separate objects of these magnitudes. So contrary to what one might previously think, that subatomic particles could be in two states at the same time, or be faster than light by their very nature, the hypothesis in question proposes that this is not the case and that what What happens is that they leave the observable space-time zone by entering an isolated bridge or channel that separates them from the magnitude of observable time, where time would not have the same influence.

[joigus]

7 minutes ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

Quantum mechanics does not make sense, as some scholar of this discipline said, that if you say you understand quantum mechanics it is because in reality you have not understood it yet. I think it was Niels Bohr, but perhaps I'm paraphrasing a bit what he said. And perhaps quantum mechanics is not only counterintuitive, which would be the least of it, but even absurd, but observable.

Niels Bohr said it. But he didn't say QM is absurd. To say that QM is extremeley counter-intuitive is one thing. Quite a very different thing is to say that it is absurd. No physicist would say such a silly thing. The quote is frequently phrased as,

Quote

 

Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum mechanics cannot possibly have understood it.

 

After a few weeks you're over it, as you should if you want to do physics and complete the exercises. An uneasiness can stay with you for a while, but then you finally accept it. Why wouldn't you? It's the way things behave.

22 minutes ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

In summary, my proposed hypothesis is that the energy of atomic reactions would come from other points in space-time and would not be contained in subatomic particles as previously thought.

Conservation of energy is a local conservation principle, within the allowance of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, even in QM. So we know this not to be true.

It is well known that QM introduces a tension between reality (the possibility that the output of an experiment can be predicted with certainty for certain groupings of observables) and locality (the fact that information, energy, angular momentum, and every other conserved quantity must propagate through space, and cannot disappear here and appear there, so to speak).  

If you want to introduce a model that proposes non-local propagation of the amplitudes, it would be strange, but I don't think it could be ruled out based of first principles. But you've done nothing of the kind. You haven't introduced any hypothesis. You just have a vague idea: Something non-local happens that somehow explains something in some cases.

Not the most promising of starts.

[Wigberto Marciaga]

Then Bohr would be treating Einstein as an inexperienced person in the quantum field, who, furthermore, as far as he knows, never fully understood or assimilated it.

My point is that quantum mechanics, as a scientific discipline (human understanding), is meaningless and not only counterintuitive, it is simply absurd. For this reason, I think that the observations made are not precise enough to understand the quantum phenomenon in a satisfactory way, to really understand it.

You may not even consider my proposal as a hypothesis, but you could not satisfactorily contradict it either.

I notice that quantum mechanics is like going back to the scientific past and seeing those who realized that there were natural phenomena, and took advantage of those phenomena to develop technological systems, but were incapable of understanding and explaining them adequately.

[MigL]

Practically incomprehensible, counterintuitive, absurd, and not understandable are a poor choice of words to substitute for probabilistic.
In the 20s and 30s, probabilistic Quantum Mechanics was a huge paradigm shift from the determinism of Classical Mechanics ( even for A Einstein ); seems some are still having problems with this change in world view 100 years later.

22 minutes ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

I think that the observations made are not precise enough to understand the quantum phenomenon

On the contrary, they are precise enough to put close to 100 billion transistors on the die of the thumbnail sized CPU in your computer.
Pretty amazing for a science that is incomprehensible.

1 hour ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

So contrary to what one might previously think, that subatomic particles could be in two states at the same time

Two probable states.

1 hour ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

That such a small particle contains so much energy does not seem understandable

The energy liberated in nuclear reactions is not contained in the particles, rather it 'contains' the particles, as potential energy can simply be stated as the configuration of a system.
IOW, arranging, or binding, the particles a specific way results in a change of the energy of the system of particles.

[joigus]

1 hour ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

You may not even consider my proposal as a hypothesis, but you could not satisfactorily contradict it either.

 

Vagueness cannot be proven false, but that is no virtue. Try to contradict this:

"There is something about something that could explain something in some cases."

It's falsifiable ideas that get the ball rolling.

There are other things: Explanatory power, prediction, economy of ideas, etc.

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

Then Bohr would be treating Einstein as an inexperienced person in the quantum field, who, furthermore, as far as he knows, never fully understood or assimilated it.

My point is that quantum mechanics, as a scientific discipline (human understanding), is meaningless and not only counterintuitive, it is simply absurd. For this reason, I think that the observations made are not precise enough to understand the quantum phenomenon in a satisfactory way, to really understand it.

You may not even consider my proposal as a hypothesis, but you could not satisfactorily contradict it either.

I notice that quantum mechanics is like going back to the scientific past and seeing those who realized that there were natural phenomena, and took advantage of those phenomena to develop technological systems, but were incapable of understanding and explaining them adequately.

The term "quanta" was invented by Einstein, who got his Nobel Prize for his foundational work on quantum mechanics (Photo-Electric Effect). Einstein was all over quantum mechanics. Bose-Einstein statistics? Einstein transition probabilities? 

As for not being able to contradict your proposal, "Prove me wrong" has been the cry of the crank, down the ages. 😉

 

Edited June 28 by exchemist

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

Quantum mechanics does not make sense, as some scholar of this discipline said, that if you say you understand quantum mechanics it is because in reality you have not understood it yet. I think it was Niels Bohr, but perhaps I'm paraphrasing a bit what he said. And perhaps quantum mechanics is not only counterintuitive, which would be the least of it, but even absurd, but observable.

That such a small particle contains so much energy does not seem understandable, just because you accept it because it is what you observe does not mean that you understand it and can explain it reasonably.

Regarding the speed of light, I understand that this has happened, since objects in the universe are observed in places that should not be found according to the current standard model. Quantum tunneling or Cherenkov radiation are also mentioned.

In summary, my proposed hypothesis is that the energy of atomic reactions would come from other points in space-time and would not be contained in subatomic particles as previously thought.

Upon entering these channels, the subatomic particles stop being influenced by time, since the channels would be like insulating boxes that separate objects of these magnitudes. So contrary to what one might previously think, that subatomic particles could be in two states at the same time, or be faster than light by their very nature, the hypothesis in question proposes that this is not the case and that what What happens is that they leave the observable space-time zone by entering an isolated bridge or channel that separates them from the magnitude of observable time, where time would not have the same influence.

Quote

 

My point is that quantum mechanics, as a scientific discipline (human understanding), is meaningless and not only counterintuitive, it is simply absurd. For this reason, I think that the observations made are not precise enough to understand the quantum phenomenon in a satisfactory way, to really understand it.

 

Quantum mechanics might not make sense to you, but to claim that observations are not precise enough is absurd. QM makes quantifiable predictions that agree with experiment, as opposed to your conjecture here, which make no quantifiable predictions.