# is/can the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics be explained by general relativity? [closed]

It seems that as you drop down to smaller and smaller distances-scales you'd have greater and greater relative discrepancies of occurrences in the universe when you consider everything to be relative.

Can these discrepancies explain, if not produce the weird probabilistic phenomenon at the quantum realm? If not what don't I understand? Why is this intuition wrong?

EDIT: To try to be more clear allow me to introduce an analogy.

If you're familiar with blockchain technology you'll know that each computer can be thought of as a node in the network. They share messages back and forth in a broadcast manner. Sometimes a computer will get a message that others don't, and if it wins the race to determine the consensus of what has happened in the most recent past the other computers will adopt its view of the history of the network. In other words, the longest coherent chain wins.

Applying this analogy to an elementary view of quantum physics we could see a computer as a particle, or point, messages between them as forces between particles and consensus as the coherence of matter and energy on a macro scale.

In the blockchain network, a computer gets messages A, B, C in that order, but another computer gets the messages in the B, C, A order. Eventually, they will agree when they adopt the longer chain, (the larger the spacetime) and all will arrive at a consensus.

Is this what is happening at the quantum scale? from one particle's point of view traveling at a high speed in a certain direction sees the universe, especially his local universe in a very particular order whereas other particle's points of view disagree with his as they travel in a different direction at a high rate of speed? Could those "discrepancies in views of the universe" (the order in which every particle feels forces) create the probabilistic nature of the quantum world?

## closed as unclear what you're asking by WillO, Alfred Centauri, Kyle Kanos, ZeroTheHero, John RennieJun 22 '17 at 5:41

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• "When you consider everything to be relative" is too broad a statement to be useful. Can you state explicitly what you mean by that? – probably_someone Jun 22 '17 at 1:08
• "Why is this intuition wrong?" - What you've written is essentially gibberish. Voting to close. – Alfred Centauri Jun 22 '17 at 1:18
• This is a very interesting way of attempting to link cryptography and QM. Unfortunately, assuming that individual particles see events in a certain order smacks of a hidden-variable theory to me (where the hidden variable is the order of events the particle saw), and hidden-variable theories have been proven wrong by violation of Bell's inequality. – probably_someone Jun 22 '17 at 1:34
• If I may hazard a guess as to where Alfred is coming from, using your apparent Computer-Science background, it looks like "To me as a layman, symmetric cryptography like AES and 3d graphics look really similar. Has anyone ever thought to explain 3d rendering using symmetric cryptography?" It's far enough out in left field that it's hard to really make a start at answering it. The first step would be figuring out why you find them similar when nobody else does, and then addressing that disconnect. Easier done in person than on SE, in my opinion. – Cort Ammon Jun 22 '17 at 1:48
• @WillyBillyWilliams I'm thinking more from the "explaining QM with GR" approach, GR is going to have trouble explaining how non-local variables appear to propagate faster than light. – Cort Ammon Jun 22 '17 at 1:53