I have always viewed quantum physics in a unique way. I am deeply convinced someting is very right about the view, and by virtue of my inexperience in math, something very likely wrong with any of the specifics of it. I am at a point in my life where I realize I can never attain the level of math required to explore this view fully, and was hoping some kind person with said math expertise might just be able to shoot a hole in the whole thing and I can live my life knowing the view was all for naught anyway. I find the traditional view of a particle in a quantum state being "observed" and then collapsing into a normal state to be hard to swallow. Particularly since the particle used to do the observing is in a quantum state until the point of observation and the immediately after. I can't help but think of the particles as constantly existing as a set of probability distributions for each of its properties. They exist in a perpetual quantum state, and the universe never "knows" that they're anywhere in particular, i.e. they cannot "collapse" out of their quantum state of their own accord. When you introduce another particle into the system, though, you have a combination of two probability distributions which can add up to a certainty that a particle must be in a particular location at a particular time. This "collapsed" particle is only observed at a point in space when the math going on in the background calculates a 100% certainty that there is a particle there. Basically if you observe particle A where it's 25% likely to be, it's because the observer particle you sent toward it generated a 75% likelyhood of the universe seeing it there too. Basically this observed universe is only compsed of the certainties of the combination of all the probability distrobutions of all the particles inside it. On gravity, I have always thought it simply must be a macroscopic net effect of collections of massive particles. One such effect I belive holds at least the principle of gravity is that if you have two collections of matter spaced a distance apart, the net probability of observing particles in the system is going to be higher in the space in between the particles. Basically if you take two probability curves and place them a distance apart on the number line and then graph the total probability of observing two particles in that syatem, you find that it's more likely to observe the two particles closer to each other than they were originally, and it becomes at more and more likely they will "move" (more correctly be found) closer together as time goes on. It stands to reason that if you take a heap of particles at one side, this effect will become stronger. Thank you for reading, and I am very interested in the physical or mathematical reasons why this is not completely correct. I look forward to any lively discussion this post might spurr.