Possible Explanation for Quantum Mechanics?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion explores the relationship between quantum mechanics and string theory, specifically the hypothesis that unseen dimensions may influence quantum randomness. The idea posits that sub-microscopic dimensions could affect the behavior of sub-atomic particles, leading to the uncertainty observed in quantum mechanics. However, it is concluded that string theory, while providing a unification framework for fundamental interactions, relies on the validity of quantum mechanics and special relativity, rather than explaining quantum randomness itself. The speculative nature of attempts to reduce quantum mechanics to a deterministic framework is also highlighted.

PREREQUISITES
  • Basic understanding of quantum mechanics principles
  • Familiarity with string theory concepts
  • Knowledge of sub-atomic particle behavior
  • Awareness of deterministic versus probabilistic frameworks in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research Brian Greene's book "The Fabric of the Cosmos" for insights on string theory
  • Explore 't Hooft's speculative attempts to reduce quantum mechanics to a deterministic level (arXiv:0707.4568)
  • Study the implications of extra dimensions in string theory
  • Investigate the relationship between quantum mechanics and special relativity
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of theoretical physics, and anyone interested in the foundational questions of quantum mechanics and string theory.

Fizzicist
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
First and foremost, I would just like to say that I have limited familiarity with quantum mechanics and virtually no familiarity with string theory, so this is quite a shot in the dark, but I'm hoping someone here who is more knowledgeable will tell me what they think of the idea I'm about to propose. When I was recently pondering string theory I thought about the idea that there might be several dimensions that we cannot see, curled up in ultra-microscopic spaces. Then I started thinking about the sub-microscopic world and quantum mechanics. Is it possible that these sub-microscopic dimensions that we cannot perceive are responsible for the quantum randomness that we observe at the sub-microscopic level? Isn't is possible that these dimensions could appreciably affect the path of a sub-atomic particle? They wouldn't affect the path of a large object (which is why we perceive the macroscopic world as being deterministic...quantum mechanics doesn't play a significant role), but they could have an effect on a particle. Since we can't detect these dimensions, we cannot determine the effect they would have on a particle, hence we get the uncertainty characteristic of quantum mechanics.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Fizzicist, I suggest you to read the popular-science book
Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos

Anyway, the extra dimensions of string theory certainly cannot explain quantum randomness. This is because these extra dimensions themselves are obtained from the assumption that quantum mechanics is valid in all dimensions.
 
Presently, there is no way to reduce quantum mechanics and special relativity to something more fundamental. Rather, string theory takes these laws for granted and builts on them. Extended dimensionality is accepted at a price to get the extra dimensions collapsed. This has also unwanted effects as producing a lot of unseen particles that one should dispose of.

So, string theory, although gives a unification framework for all known interactions, assumes as fundamental quantum mechanics and special relativity.

Anyhow, some tentatives to reduce quantum mechanics to a lower (deterministic) level have been done e.g. by 't Hooft (see arXiv:0707.4568 and refs therein). These ideas are interesting but at this stage should be considered as speculative ones.

Jon
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 232 ·
8
Replies
232
Views
22K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K