What Quantum Mechanics Really Describes: Random Discontinuous Motion It is well understood that classical mechanics describes continuous motion of particles. A natural question appears when we turn to quantum mechanics, i.e., what does quantum mechanics describe? This is by no means an easy question. In fact, people have been arguing with each other about it since the founding of quantum mechanics. For example, Copenhagen interpretation asserts that quantum mechanics does not describe the motion of microscopic particles, and the wave function only represents our knowledge of it, while hidden variables interpretation assumes that the microscopic particles still undergo continuous motion, and the wave function is one kind of real physical field. Through a deep analysis of space-time and motion, we find the real motion may be random discontinuous motion of particles in discrete space and time. We call such motion quantum motion. Furthermore, we show that the wave function in quantum mchanics is just a mathematical complex which describes quantum motion, and the evolution of quantum motion naturally includes both the Schroedinger evolution of the wave function and the dynamical collapse of the wave function. This provides an ontological basis for quantum theory. See the book Quantum Motion for a clear and detailed exposition. An open-minded reader may understand the new ideas here more easily. Since the quantum puzzle may be the most bewildering problem in the history of science, the reador must be prepared to get rid of some cherished prejudices such as the prejudice of the uniqueness of continuous motion. Once these implicit prejudices are all rejected, everyone can understand quantum. Although quantum motion may be remote from or even contradict our everyday experience of motion, it is more natural in logic and closer to reality. It is intelligible for everyone. I hope indeed that the website (http://www.quantummotion.org/) will appeal to all those who have been looking for a real understanding of Nature.
I followed the links and read the all the material I could find there. I found it interesting but didn't find any compelling reason why I should substute that notion for any of the notions in the standard QM model. Many of us have come to suspect that Quantum Mechanics can never provide a complete understanding of how the universe is built because it lacks a basic in-gut connection to the phenomena of relativity. This philosophical flaw was recognized by the founders of Quantum Theory, many of whom turned against the standard interpretation. Today their followers tend to accept it without second thought. I think that nature really works kinda like this.
The fact that quantum mechanics does not require or imply relativity definitely means that the standard non-relativistic formulation has to be expanded. This has already been accomplished, at least in part, with relativistic quantum field theory. Yet your prediction is found to be wanting; indeed, relativistic quantum field theory is still as much a quantum theory as, say, quantum mechanics. So in fact the inclusion of relativity required no real modification of the basic quantum ideas, by which I mean we still have states and operators and unitary evolution and all the usual jazz. Furthermore, if quantum theory cannot provide a complete (this word is a bit loaded) description of the universe then we have much more than a philosophical problem on our hands. But again, far from appearing incomplete, quantum theory has so far been an essentially flawless guide to understanding the universe. As for your remarks about interpretations, I think you should present some evidence for your claims that all modern physicists "accept it without second thought," it being the "standard interpretation." What exactly is the "standard interpretation" in your view, and what are we interpreting exactly? I'm a working physicist, and I don't know what you're talking about here. Finally, our current description (which works very very well) of Nature contains a lot more than just electromagnetism. Now I don't wish to be insulting or cruel, but I'll state things plainly: the couple of paragraphs on your website about "photon theory" are basically devoid of any physical content, and they certainly don't prove or suggest that Nature is purely electromagnetic.
I spent 3 or 4 minutes looking at your idea. You state that all photons attract each other (something about “shifting the max force point“). You also in a very circular logic say that they curve or are bent because the force on the outside where there is more area is greater. (a chicken or egg problem - are they curving to the right and then the area on the left is greater or are they curving to the left and then the area on right is greater? Circular thinking as the direction of curve is what makes the direction of curve!) You also are thinking only 2D - why not a spiral? I.e. if spiraling up they do so as there is more area in region below and if they spiral down it is because there is more area above - This is equally logical. (Or should I say equally "illogical and circular"?) Comments? Also, in addition to being circular and illogical, as PM asked, what new does your model predict or explain? Until you can give something I will stick with the standard one, even though gravity is not explained, as at least it is not illogical and circular.
