A physicist is questioning the core idea of quantum mechanics that events are truly random. He argues that a hidden framework of rules may influence outcomes and proposes removing the concept of a continuum from the theory to explain reality. This limitation could be a fundamental limit for the evolution of quantum computers, which could prove his theory.
Quantum mechanics, which governs the strange behavior of particles at the smallest scales, has taken on an almost mythical status in physics. However, some scientists theorize that it’s incomplete and missing the underlying truth that events aren’t totally random. The idea has seeped beyond physics itself, shaping a broader intuition: that a deep-seated fundamental structure determines the outcome of even seemingly random events.
Timothy Palmer, PhD, a Royal Society research professor in climate physics at the University of Oxford, points to what he thinks is the fundamental problem – not reality itself, but the mathematics used to describe it. He says something simple but radical: that not every mathematically possible state allowed by quantum theory actually exists in the real world.
Palmer proposes removing the continuum from the theory and restricting what counts as physically real. He claims that nature abhors a continuum and that infinitely precise numbers only add possibilities that don’t exist in nature. This intuition isn’t unique to Palmer; other physicists have long wondered whether the continuous mathematics used in mainstream quantum mechanics reflects the nature of things itself or just the limits of how we describe it.
Nobel Prize-winning physicist Gerard ‘t Hooft has argued that quantum behavior might emerge from deeper, deterministic rules, even if it appears lawless on the surface. Meanwhile, Carlo Rovelli has explored the idea that the structure of existence could break into finite units at the bottom layer.
What sets Palmer apart is how far he pushes that idea. He doesn’t just question the continuum but says that some hypothetical “what if” scenarios simply do not exist in the first place. Remove them, and much of the apparent weirdness begins to dissolve.
The same logic extends to randomness. In the standard quantum model, a particle doesn’t come with a fixed trajectory; instead, it assigns probabilities. Run the experiment many times, and those numbers line up. But for any single event – this electron, that moment – the theory offers no deeper explanation.
Palmer thinks there’s a way to test whether or not quantum mechanics is a complete framework using quantum computers. These machines could provide proof if they stop behaving as the theory predicts at a certain scale.
Other scientists have investigated the idea of a hidden structure further. Sabine Hossenfelder, PhD, considers the possibility that quantum mechanics may not provide the ultimate answers in physics. She thinks it might be a statistical theory rather than an individual instance one.
The idea of a hidden order beneath the noise may seem paradoxical, but physics has seen this kind of illusion before. In chaos theory, systems evolve according to precise laws and yet behave in ways that feel capricious.
If Palmer’s proposed test reveals cracks in quantum mechanics’ success, the consequences would be profound. The notion of chance could become something else entirely – a placeholder for a structure we have yet to uncover.
Note: I’ve condensed the article into a shorter version while maintaining the main points and ideas presented by the original text.
Source: https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a70952160/quantum-luck-hidden-rules