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 Rennie Jun 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.

  • $\begingroup$ "When you consider everything to be relative" is too broad a statement to be useful. Can you state explicitly what you mean by that? $\endgroup$ – probably_someone Jun 22 '17 at 1:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "Why is this intuition wrong?" - What you've written is essentially gibberish. Voting to close. $\endgroup$ – Alfred Centauri Jun 22 '17 at 1:18
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – probably_someone Jun 22 '17 at 1:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Cort Ammon Jun 22 '17 at 1:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ – Cort Ammon Jun 22 '17 at 1:53

There is no evidence at all to suggest that quantum mechanics supervenes on general relativity. General relativity, on a small scale, predicts none of the effects that we see in quantum mechanics. If it did, we wouldn't need quantum mechanics. There's nothing probabilistic about GR, nor does GR form any of the structures that arise in QM, nor does GR have anything to say about "spooky action at a distance."

It does, however, provide an interesting take on magnetism.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your answer Cort, but does it not predict different "view's" of the universe according to a body's speed? Why is it (not your words) "gibberish" for those alternative points of view to produce a probabilistic universe? This is an honest question, from my layman point of view they look alike. $\endgroup$ – Legit Stack Jun 22 '17 at 1:38
  • $\begingroup$ From a layman's perspective, it's probably best to rely on an appeal to authority. Currently one of the great unsolved questions in physics is how to unify GR and QM. Nobody knows how to do it. If QM supervened on GR, someone would have noticed by now. $\endgroup$ – Cort Ammon Jun 22 '17 at 1:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I do appeal to authority: I'll believe whatever you tell me! But I still don't understand why this is bad intuition. I thought it must be a question pervasive among 1st-year theoretical physicists so I expected a quick and well-rehearsed answer. But I'm not getting that. So now I wonder if its a matter of patience? Given enough time could you go through the basics and explain where my intuition goes wrong? Or is this a new idea to you that is just such a weird question that you don't know how to answer it? or is it literally a question without an answer, like "what color is 7?" $\endgroup$ – Legit Stack Jun 22 '17 at 1:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Well, the first thing I'd do if I was putting forward such a theory that the two disciplines are combined would be to pick a single facet of QM and demonstrate that it can be explained via GR. From there, I could then see whether it looks like that approach is going to work for explaining all of QM. In this case, I'm having trouble picking anything in QM that I think would be easily modeled via GR, so its a tricky one to start on. $\endgroup$ – Cort Ammon Jun 22 '17 at 1:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ One thing which got mentioned in the comments, which may be very helpful for seeing the challenges in your approach is the Bell Inequalities. They're a set of inequalities which seem inviolate using classical approaches (such as GR), but which it is easy to show that QM violates. It doesn't prove that QM doesn't supervene on GR, but it does put a major hurdle in the way. $\endgroup$ – Cort Ammon Jun 22 '17 at 2:17

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.