Could a bouncing particle theory explain quantum behavior?

In summary, the conversation discusses the behavior of electrons as both a wave and a particle, and the idea that this behavior could be generated by a bouncing ball or a gymnast with a ribbon. It is also mentioned that this idea could potentially explain quantum entanglement, but the speaker is advised to learn more about quantum mechanics before speculating further. The conversation ends with the thread being closed.
  • #1
Martin Rousev
1
1
Greetings,

I'm not a physicist but I have a general interest in physics and cosmology. I was
watching the following video where they were talking about how an electron behaves like
a wave and its position is not know until it is measured. Then it was explained how the
probability of the electron being in one single spot spikes in one particular spot.



I had the following idea. If there is a wave there must be something generating it. If
we imagine the electron not as a wave, nor as a stationary particle but rather a ball
that is bouncing in one spot then this bounce must generate the wave that is observed.
It would also explain why the particle is found in one spot. Another way it can be
imagined is a gymnast with a ribbon. If the stick that the ribbon is attached is the
particle when it is waved the ribbon itself is the wave.

Further I believe it could also explain quantum entanglement. If two particles are
bouncing in a way that their waves sync they could somehow get captured in each other's
wave thus becoming entangled.

I could be wildly off the mark but I thought it is an idea worth sharing.
 
  • Like
Likes ISamson
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Martin Rousev said:
I had the following idea.

I see that this is your first post (and welcome to PF!), so I will draw your attention to the PF rules, and specifically the section on speculative and personal theories:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/physics-forums-global-guidelines.414380/

I would strongly advise you to spend a lot more time learning about quantum mechanics (and not from videos, from textbooks or peer-reviewed papers or similar sources) before even trying to speculate on your own. Until you've really put in the time to learn, you won't realize just how much we already know, and how hard it is to actually come up with a new idea that hasn't already been ruled out by one of the many, many, many experiments we have already done. Not to mention how hard it is to formulate a new idea in such a way that it can actually be tested by experiment.

With that said, this thread is closed.
 
  • Like
Likes lekh2003, Iliody and ISamson

Related to Could a bouncing particle theory explain quantum behavior?

1. What evidence or data supports this theory?

This is a crucial question when evaluating the merit of a theory. A strong theory should be supported by empirical evidence, which can include experiments, observations, or statistical analyses. Without supporting evidence, a theory may lack credibility.

2. Has this theory been tested or replicated?

A theory that has been tested and replicated by multiple researchers and studies is more likely to have merit. Replication helps to validate the results and conclusions of a theory and increases confidence in its accuracy.

3. Does this theory account for all the available information?

A good theory should be able to explain and account for all relevant data and observations. If there are inconsistencies or gaps in the theory, it may not have enough merit to be considered a valid explanation.

4. Are there any alternative theories that better explain the phenomenon?

It is important to consider alternative theories when evaluating the merit of a theory. If there are other theories that better explain the same phenomenon, it may be necessary to reassess the validity of the original theory.

5. Who proposed this theory and what are their credentials?

The source and credentials of the person or group proposing a theory can also impact its merit. A theory proposed by a reputable and knowledgeable source is more likely to have merit than one proposed by an unknown or unqualified individual.

Similar threads

I "Wave-particle duality" and double-slit experiment
    • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
I Measurement problem - will this work?
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
289
B Quantum entanglement and simultaneity
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
1K
A Is the quantum mechanics explanation for the propagation of light adequate enough to be understood?
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
6
Views
471
I QED/Quantum Mechanics: Probability or Spatial Function?
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
8
Views
1K
A Measurement in QFT: Mapping Fields to Theory's Math Formalism
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
31
Views
2K
I The theory on the effects of polarizers on particles wavefunctions
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
6
Views
434
B How does the double slit experimental apparatus actually work?
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
7
Views
1K
B Double slit experiment with electrons
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
17
Views
1K
I Exploring Microscopic Particles: Interactions & Measurement
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
871

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top