Wouldn't a constantly shifting spacetime background be a non-magic explanation for quantum mechanics?

Question

Quantum mechanics explanations always seem to talk about probabilities as if they were real things instead of just observations of what the universe is actually doing. Is there an accepted QM theory that tries to explain things by proposing a sea-like background in the universe?

For instance, if you spill some oil on the surface of the ocean then in some ways it may seem like one thing or many things. Measurements would constantly vary because the ocean is always moving and shifting, yet the spill will more or less stick together (at least for a while).

If space-time is constantly moving (sort of like the ocean) and if particles are sort of like oil spills (both waves and particles) then couldn't that be a basis for an explanation of QM that Einstein wouldn't dislike?

It seems like this is so obvious that it must be wrong. Why isn't it correct?

Answer 1

I agree with ghakh in that I'm fairly confused as to what you're trying to say. It seems to me that attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics with something that our everyday macroscopic sensibilities can better understand are doomed for failure. Quantum mechanics in its present form works marvelously well (quantum electrodynamics has produced predictions which have been experimentally confirmed to ridiculously accurate levels... something like one part in 10^15). Unfortunately, it can be hard to understand unless you are around it daily; and I don't think anyone has the ability to intuitively grasp quantum mechanics like you can with classical mechanics, and even relativity. Me, I just need to know it well enough to pass my generals : )

Also, while Einstein might have appreciated an attempt to remove the randomness of quantum mechanics, he would have been horrified by the introduction of a 'constantly moving' space-time. This basic concept (which was originally known as the 'luminiferous aether', a phrase which is eternally amusing) was originally discredited by the Michelson-Morley experiment, and put to rest for good by Einstein himself. However, the description of an ocean did remind me of something that is a part of quantum mechanics. Dirac's work on electrons eventually predicted what is described as a 'virtual sea', in which 'virtual particles' continually annihilate with 'virtual anti-particles'. Very weird, but it has actually been experimentally confirmed; look up the "Casimir effect" on Wikipedia.

Whew. Sorry, I get excited when I see a question not consisting of "answer my homework problem", or "I have an ideal for perpetual motion".

Answer 2

Einstein was a major contributor to the quantum theory - he won the 1921 Nobel Prize for his work in quantum physics (photo electric effect).
Quantum mechanics, however, is often referred to as the non-relativistic theory. Whereas Einstein's general theories were a smooth continuum of space-time that didn't allow for random events or uncertainty, he became a major opponent later on in life when certain phenomenon at the molecular level were deemed random and left to the Heisenberg's uncertainty principal for explanation.
I believe the "ocean" analogy you propose along with the more or less random movement of the oil spill would certainly scatter any measurements or observations - but it is still adding the one thing that Einstein couldn't accept, and that is the seemingly random outcome of events, even when the cause and effect are known. Chaos theory and uncertainty were not part of Einstein's vocabulary.
In my opinion, there may well be events that cannot be determined - random - or it could well be that we simply don't have sufficient data to determine them - my guess. I suspect that when an all in one theory is finally introduced, it will contain bits and pieces of both relativity and quantum theories.

Answer 3

a super type of the outspoken atheists in technology have a tendency to be biologists. Physicists have a tendency to be much less dogmatic, probable for the very motives you have spoke of. And no much less an atheist (or maybe agnostic) than cosmologist Steven Hawking envisioned that such habit could be spoke of on the macro point--whilst the Quantum Foam produces digital debris close to the form horizon of a black hollow. whilst that happens, the digital particle pairs, which often look purely to on the instant annihilate one yet another, are pulled aside by using the form horizon of the black hollow, so as that they are forced to become actual debris. consequently, black holes ought to look to be incredibly warm, because of the fact they're pouring out massive quantities of skill contained in this style of a million/2 of those digital particle pairs. in actuality, stated Hawking, this ought to reason black holes ultimately to evaporate away. it incredibly is an observable result on the macro point.

Answer 4

i am sorry, i am familiar with quantum maechanics but i am not sure what you are trying to say can you be more expilicit. it seems to me that what you wrote above is not your idea but someone else(perhaps a teacher) and you misunderstood it.