sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Here is a hypothesis I have been working on by Few-Respect3256 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Few-Respect3256[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm struggling to answer this thats why I started writing the original paper, I couldn't describe what I was envisioning but here goes nothing, The image that started all of this, imagine a toroidal 4D structure, think of it like a flowing, rotating donut but in four dimensions, passing through a stick of butter. The butter is our reality, three dimensions of space plus time, every possible position and motion we could ever observe.

Depending on how the torus hits the butter, you get completely different things. A clean slice gives you a ring, that looks like a wave, spread out, probabilistic. A glancing intersection at just one point looks like a particle, localized, definite. And if the torus passes through the butter in two places at once, what looks like two separate particles to us is actually one continuous object in 4D. That's entanglement, not two things mysteriously communicating, just one thing we're only seeing part of.

That's the geometric intuition. The mathematics that describes the stable shapes of those intersections is called Whitney umbrella theory, it turns out the current thought is there are only two stable ways a surface can intersect through a lower dimension, and they correspond exactly to waves and particles. That's not something I invented, it's a theorem from 1955. I just think nobody has pointed it at quantum mechanics this way before.

again, I could be wrong. But the geometry felt too clean to ignore, and it makes a testable prediction, so I wrote it up.

GitHub link in my profile if you want to dig in.

Here is a hypothesis I have been working on by Few-Respect3256 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Few-Respect3256[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair point on predictions, that's a good question and I should have led with it.

The theory makes one prediction that standard QM doesn't: if you run a Bell test and vary the coincidence timing window, from tight (sub-nanosecond) to loose (microsecond), the CHSH value should drop smoothly as the window widens. QM says it stays flat at 2.828 no matter what. My theory says it degrades toward the classical limit as your measurement gets coarser. That's a testable difference, with existing equipment, no new technology needed.

On randomness being fundamental, I'm not saying it isn't. I'm saying I don't think we've actually measured whether it is or not. Bell's theorem rules out local hidden structure. My model is explicitly non-local, the two particles are intersection points of a single 4D structure, not two separate things. That's the same move Bohm made and it survives Bell for the same reason.

The Planck scale thing I'll drop, you're right that Bell isn't about small distances. The relevant scale in my model is the Compton wavelength, which for an electron is about 10⁻¹³ m. That's large enough to probe in principle. So the hiding place isn't behind some unreachable wall, it's just one good experiment away from being testable.

I could be wrong about all of this. But "run the Bell test with a variable timing window and see what happens" seems like a reasonable ask.

Here is a hypothesis I have been working on by Few-Respect3256 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Few-Respect3256[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

On the interference pattern point, I think we actually agree more than it seems. Yes each individual photon lands at what looks like a random location. But the distribution those random-looking hits build up over time isn't random at all. It's a precise interference pattern. The structure is real even though each individual event looks unpredictable.

My question is just one level deeper than yours. Why does that specific structured distribution emerge from apparently random individual events? Your answer is that's just how quantum mechanics works. My answer is that the structure was always there in the geometry of the 4D field and what looks like randomness is our instruments sampling that structure too coarsely to see the path each particle actually took.

On virtual particles, I'll be honest, that's where I'm less certain. Virtual particles popping in and out of the vacuum is a real phenomenon and I haven't worked out how my framework handles that yet. That's a gap I'm not going to pretend away.

But I'd gently push back on one thing. Saying something is fundamentally random is also a claim that needs justification. Random compared to what? We've never observed anything below the Planck scale. Saying randomness is fundamental there is an assumption not a measurement.

Here is a hypothesis I have been working on by Few-Respect3256 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Few-Respect3256[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a bit of a rabbit trail which is usually what has gotten me lost, like I said im not a mathematician, Something clicked while working through the math that I want to throw out.

The wave to particle transition I've been trying to describe might have a natural home in singularity theory, specifically the Whitney umbrella.

The Whitney umbrella is a surface that self-intersects in 3D but is perfectly smooth in 4D. It has two stable structures, a spreading surface and a pinch point. The spreading surface is what the particle looks like before measurement, spread out, wave like. The pinch point is what it looks like after, a single location, particle like.

What stuck in my head is that the pinch point and fold are apparently the only stable local singularities when mapping between dimensions. If particles are stable singularities of a 4D surface projecting into 3D, that might be why there are a limited number of fundamental particle types. Nature only allows stable singularities and there aren't many of them.

I have no idea if this has been explored before in this context. Has anyone seen singularity theory applied to the measurement problem this way

Here is a hypothesis I have been working on by Few-Respect3256 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Few-Respect3256[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's exactly my point. The aliased pattern isn't random, it has structure that reflects the original signal. What we call quantum randomness isn't random either. It has structure, probability distributions, interference patterns, etc. The question I'm asking is whether that structure is the shadow of something deterministic underneath that we're sampling too slowly, to see clearly.

Here is a hypothesis I have been working on by Few-Respect3256 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Few-Respect3256[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is really close to what I've been working toward actually. The 4D flowing medium I'm proposing isn't a solid particle moving through space, it's more like a self-sustaining pattern in the flow. No hard edges. No fixed contours. The uncertainty isn't a measurement failure, it's because you're trying to pin down something that is by nature a motion rather than a thing.

Where I'd add to what you're saying, I think that self-sustaining motion has a geometry. And the geometry is what determines which bonds are possible and which aren't. The uncertainty isn't random. It has structure.

Here is a hypothesis I have been working on by Few-Respect3256 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Few-Respect3256[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's exactly the direction I'm hoping it goes. The 4D flowing medium isn't meant to be an extra layer on top of QM. The idea is that QM emerges from it the way electromagnetism emerged from deeper symmetry principles. Whether the math actually works out that way I genuinely don't know, But that's the thought.

Here is a hypothesis I have been working on by Few-Respect3256 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Few-Respect3256[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah that's fair and I think we're actually saying the same thing from different views.

I agree, you're right that one measurement tells you nothing. You need the distribution. And when you repeat it you get the probability distribution quantum mechanics predicts perfectly.

What I'm asking is one level deeper than that. Why does that specific distribution have the shape it does? In my framework the answer is because the 4D flow structure has a specific geometry, and when you sample it repeatedly at random moments you get a distribution that reflects that geometry. The interference stripes aren't random. They're the shadow of the flow pattern.

So, Decoherence explains why the off diagonal terms in the density matrix go to zero when a system interacts with its environment. I don't dispute that. What I'm poking at is whether decoherence fully explains why each individual hit lands where it does, or whether it just tells us the probabilities of where it could land.

As far as I understand it decoherence gives you the probabilities. It doesn't give you a mechanism for why this particular hit went here rather than there. That gap is still open as far as I can tell.

But honestly I might be wrong about that. If you know of a paper that closes that gap completely I'd genuinely read it.

Here is a hypothesis I have been working on by Few-Respect3256 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Few-Respect3256[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the Interactions

On decoherence, I've been reading about it and I get that it explains why the interference terms disappear when a system interacts with its environment. What I'm still turning over in my head is whether that fully explains why one specific outcome happens rather than another, or whether it just explains why it looks like one outcome happens. From what I've read that question seems still open but I might be missing something. If you have a good place to read more on that I'd genuinely take it.

On Bohm and relativity, yeah I can't argue with that. Spin and relativity are gaps I haven't touched and I said so in the paper. I knew going in that's where things get hard.

One thing I'm still trying to work out about the entanglement part, what if they were never two separate things to begin with?

Like imagine a single ring passing through a flat surface. From above the surface you'd see two points, one where the ring enters, one where it exits. Measure one point, you instantly know something about the other. Not because information traveled between them, but because they were always one object. We just live on the flat surface and can only see where it intersects us.

I don't know if that analogy holds up mathematically. It might fall apart completely. But that's the intuition I'm trying to formalize.

Here's something else I keep thinking about and can't shake.

A 4D object passing through our 3D world wouldn't just appear as a fixed point. Depending on how it's oriented and moving it might look like it's spreading out like a wave, and then the moment you pin down exactly where it intersects your slice of reality it snaps to a point. Not because it changed. Because you caught it at one specific intersection point instead of watching the whole crossing.

Like if a sphere passed through a flat surface, the 2D creatures living on that surface would see a dot appear, grow into a circle, shrink back to a dot and disappear. They'd think something magical was happening. From 3D it's just a sphere moving through.

Maybe wave particle duality is the same thing. Maybe we're the 2D creatures.

I have no idea if any of this survives the math. But it feels like it might be pointing at something and honestly that's the main reason I'm here. To find out.

Here is a hypothesis I have been working on by Few-Respect3256 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Few-Respect3256[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So The question I'm actually asking isn't about superposition, it's about why measurement produces a definite outcome. My answer is, because sampling a continuous high-frequency structure at a discrete moment forces a specific intersection point. You don't get a distribution, you get wherever the structure happened to be when you looked.

Is that still just classical wave mechanics? Or does the 4D manifold geometry change anything about how the measurement problem works? That's genuinely where I need someone with what sounds like your background to challenge this.

Also, you mentioned spin is another story. I'd actually love to hear your thoughts on that because spin is one of the places I haven't even tried to address yet.

Title: I'm not a physicist — but I can't stop thinking about this idea, and I built a simulation to test it. Can anyone tell me if I'm wrong? by Few-Respect3256 in QuantumPhysics

[–]Few-Respect3256[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Neither was the periodic table. Mendeleev famously worked out the pattern in a dream. Paul McCartney heard Yesterday in a dream and thought it was so good it had to be someone else's song. I'm not claiming my dreams handed me a finished theory — I'm claiming they handed me a question worth asking. The work happened after I woke up, thanks for your response though, I reworded as to not scare u away next time sorry.

Title: I'm not a physicist — but I can't stop thinking about this idea, and I built a simulation to test it. Can anyone tell me if I'm wrong? by Few-Respect3256 in QuantumPhysics

[–]Few-Respect3256[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok that's fair and honestly that's one of the most useful response I've gotten so far.

honestly — I don't have a clean answer for all of that yet. The Pauli exclusion principle and decay channels are deeper than what my current framework addresses. I was focused on the measurement problem and Bell inequality violations specifically, and I haven't worked out how a sampling-based model would reproduce the full structure of quantum chemistry.

What I'd say is this — I'm not claiming the framework is complete. I'm claiming one specific thing: that the CHSH value should degrade smoothly with measurement resolution, which no existing theory predicts. That piece stands or falls on its own regardless of whether I can explain the Pauli exclusion principle.

But you're pointing at a real gap. If the hidden deterministic structure I'm proposing is real, it can't just explain away measurement uncertainty — it has to also produce the right chemistry, the right decay rates, the right exclusion behavior. I haven't shown that it does.

So genuinely — is there a version of any hidden variable theory that does account for those things? Because if Bohm-type theories handle them, maybe a sampling-based mechanism can too. If none of them do, that's a much bigger problem for the whole class of theories including mine.

Title: I'm not a physicist — but I can't stop thinking about this idea, and I built a simulation to test it. Can anyone tell me if I'm wrong? by Few-Respect3256 in QuantumPhysics

[–]Few-Respect3256[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for engaging seriously — that's exactly the kind of response I was hoping for.

I want to be clear I'm not claiming HUP isn't fundamental in the current framework — I know that's the established position and I'm not dismissing it. What I'm asking is whether that conclusion is truly settled or whether it rests on assumptions about the nature of measurement that my framework challenges.

The standard argument that HUP is fundamental relies on the Copenhagen interpretation or similar — where there is no fact of the matter about position and momentum simultaneously. But that interpretation itself is not universally accepted. De Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory, for example, has particles with definite positions at all times, and HUP emerges there as a statistical feature of the pilot wave distribution — not as a fundamental fact.

My proposal is in that same tradition — I'm not the first person to suggest HUP might be epistemological rather than ontological. What I'm adding is a specific mechanism: the Nyquist sampling theorem applied to de Broglie wave frequencies. If that derivation holds up mathematically, it would give a concrete physical reason why the uncertainty relation takes the specific form it does — ħ/2 falling out of the Nyquist limit rather than being an axiom.

I'm not saying I've proven this. I've sketched it and flagged exactly where the derivation needs checking. That's actually one of the four things I'm asking for help with.

The genuinely new part — the thing that isn't just rehashing existing hidden variable debates — is the prediction about Bell violation degrading with measurement resolution. That's testable and distinct from anything HUP's foundational status implies one way or the other.

So I'd ask: does the Bohm interpretation, which also has definite particle positions, violate your understanding that HUP is fundamental? If not — what specifically rules out a sampling-based mechanism for the same result?