Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics will be proved wrong in the future...

The Copenhagen ("CI" for short) Interpretation (vs Bohm-Hiley or "many worlds" interpretations) is THE most important topic in QM, and disproving it will be the biggest thing to happen in Physics since Einstein wrote his last papers.

Here's some interesting talking points you might find worthwhile in your research and studies. Maybe it simply outlines a better METHOD for our Math and Physics communities? Or maybe it's simply a recommendation to put ones feet on two better platforms before attempting to do higher theoretical Physics? As you'll see below, Complex Algebra (as pushed by William Rowan Hamilton in the late 1800s) and a new interpretation for QM are central to what i think will be the next 100 years in Physics...

I think Einstein (once again) will be correct in his 'God doesn't play dice' assessment, and in fact we're already seeing experiments proving such...

Even now, modern hot Physicist with their finger on the pulse of modern Physics theory are increasing the value on Einstein's 1930s-era ER and EPR papers... (i post this video for it's title only, but it's a good video if you have the time)

..so is it EVER a shock that Einstein simply made no errors? (we've already seen his Cosmological Constant "error" become a non-error after all... https://www.space.com/9593-einstein-biggest-blunder-turns.html )

Physics in its long history has had bouts with barking up the wrong tree for many many years (and sometimes "errors" end up not being errors, see Einstein cosmo-constant ref above, or Physicists of old beleiving in the "aether"), and it is probably true the Copenhagen Interpretation has led Physicists astray for many decades (about 100 years actually) on a wild goose chase down a dark dead-end alley. If you really think about what CI says, you get to a point (like Bohr did) where you must believe in metaphysics and the pre-determination of life (you must believe outcomes are fatalistic, and man has no choices during his life). Spend enough time getting deep and dirty on CI, and you'll find this to be true (again, as Bohr did). Bohr was led astray by the magnificence of Heisenberg's math and for this he could not be faulted for Heisenberg's math was truly awesome. Heisenberg didn't get it wrong either, his Uncertainty Principle is spot on, and always will be. But it's implications aren't as broad as Bohr and Heisenberg (two guys desperate like ANY Physicists for "resolution" as fast as possible-- during their lifetimes of course) wanted them to be. They ended up "cheerleading" the community into a bad path, and perhaps if we're lucky, in our lifetimes, we'll all learn just how wrong they were.

If you talk to Bohm's still-living co-writer, Basil Hiley, he can probably shed much light on exactly what Bohm-Hiley were saying, as it's frequently mis-interpreted-- especially by the CI majority. Personally, i think Hiley himself isn't staunch enough deterministically-speaking. While Heisenberg may have indeed proved that some things simply cannot be known by humans (experimenters), Einstein I think stated it all correctly when he used "God"-- which I'll say means "nature"-- while describing that NATURE KNOWS what's occuring even if humans do not. This should not be surprising really, as one cannot hope to know what things as small as a bit (quantized paricles aren't dissimilar from "1"s or "0"s of computer science) perform, when it takes more than a bit to measure just to find out. A metaphor might be: an engineer doesn't have to understand particle physics to construct a long-lasting building (see the Pyramids) with solid principles using the information available at the time. There's a better example out there, but I can't think of it right now, sorry.

If you think that time and spin (a property of sub-atomic particles in physics) should be considered as basic "dimensions", we don't disagree with you. However, we think time and other quantities (spin, color, etc...) have been given "boogeyman" like credit, when in fact all they really are is another spatial set of dimensions which don't manifest to humans like X,Y,& Z do. I'm alluding to, of course, an algebraic solution to Quantum Mechanics which can most likely be compared to what William Rowan Hamilton did with Quaternion algebra. Quaternion Algebra is a 4-dimensional algebra reliant on orthogonal dimensions associated with the complex number "i" or sqrt(-1). Think of sqrt(-1) as a transform, it moves a bit 90 degrees directionally. By "bit" we mean a physical property equal to "1" or a line spanning from one quantum point to another, the base value of everything. Think of a Physics bit as not unlike what a bit means in computing-- in fact right now the high-end Physics community and high-end Computer Science communities are merging....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit

So not only did the world go down the wrong fork with CI of QM, but they also chose the wrong math path 100 years ago by favoring vector analysis instead of complex algebra. I think the Physics community (given Witten, Yau, et al) are a lot closer to understanding the importance of algebraic dimensions than they are to understanding the CI succubus. Suffice it to say the vast majority of the overall community is still stuck in vector MATH bc it's easier for humans to visualize. Vector math is a nice divergence for teaching or helping understand some advanced concepts like differentials, but we don't NEED it to do our computing and it can complicate the precision in which we understand physical properties. Humans may find algebra tedious and messy when using higher dimensions, but computers can make short work of it. We live in the computer age, what better time to program a computer to do the tedious complex algebra FOR you!!? I digress...

Perhaps not dissimilar to "Moore's Law" for chip speed/size/density/capability improvements ending more than a decade ago, I think we're quickly reaching an era where physical experiments will have less and less effect on good Physics, and fiddling with numbers has never been more important to the advancement of Physics in the future. Again, the String Theorists may not be doing anything productive, but they ARE barking up the right tree by working heavily with orthogonal algebras and geometries. Important Physics exeriments are getting large geographically (such as the LHC proving existence of theorized Higgs Boson, or the recent discover of gravitational waves using a "measuring device" which spans continents), and Mathematics since the Pythagoreans have already paved the path for "proving" things without actually DOING them. "proofs" in mathematics will soon become normal in Physics.

Speaking of guys heavy in math...
I think we will eventually go back and realize how great and forward-thinking both Hamilton (Quaternions) and Einstein (AGAIN) and Bohm were. The more we learn, the more Einstein's EPR and ER documents will become as special to the human experience as his famous E=mc^2 has been. I think Bell was probably the most objective Physicist/mathematician of the last 50 years of the 20th century, and it's important he never really dispelled Bohmian Quantum Mechanics. In my opinion, the beauty of Bohm-Hiley mechanics has more do to it being the proper PATH, than it has to do with being the bonafide ANSWER, to QM. They practically told you as much, by stating often it relied on "hidden" variables. What is Physics if not the pursuit of that which is hidden? So their work really just sets the platform on which to build, not the completed structure (answer). Einstein in his letter to Dirac(or was it Pauli? or Planck?) really didn't dispel Bohm's theory, he simply said (paraphrasing) what many did-- "can someone else read this and tell me if there's any merit to it, bc I want to dismiss it but I logically cannot." If Einstein didn't say your were wrong, you might've had something!

Consider what Bell said, effectively: all local things must satisfy his Bell's theorem or else Einsteinian relativity is lost. Bell's Theorem is really a clever way of testing for locality, which almost all Physicists believe is a natural law which cannot be broken thanks to the elegance of Einstein's RELATIVITY. But is Bell's test ACTUALLY infallible? It's my theory that a particle (call it "P" for convention's sake) moving from point A to point B (this is going to be a slightly different interpretation of Heisenburg's UP, so bare with me) is niether represented by what existed at A or what exists at B, but that ALL outside world particles view "P" as the net RESULT of both of those instances in time.
Think about it, if nothing can move faster than the speed of light, and the speed of light gets you from one quantized point to another, than to all OTHER particles, "P" has been in both spots simoultaneously for all practical purposes. So why wouldn't other particles "see" particle "P" as a ghost made up of two points? What might that ghost equal? The Wave Function of course!

This leads us to wonder: what is time anyway? Think of time like the spinning of a bit, equaling "1", 90 degrees.
Time doesn't really change particles, it just moves them from one place to another, no? For example: At point A particle "P" is pointed east with normal value of 1, but at point B it's now magically been rotated 90 degrees to north but still with normal value 1. P's "value" didn't change, but it's direction did. It's moved one quantum distance to the right, AND it's changed it's direction/dimension from sideways to up all in the same move. Similar to chess pieces moving across the board right? The chess piece never changes what it can do (until a pawn "collides" with the rear row, that is), but it's movements can contain more than just one adjacent square (the King's movement). The Knight can move two in one direction, and then 1 square in a perpendicular direction to that motion. It's a "two for one", and much in the same way, a "bit" or particle can move in one direction but have it's "point" move 90 degrees to face a different dimension than it did the previous quantized time (in chess, time is measured by moves or turns, right?). In Physics we'd LIKE to say the speed of the particle (from A to B) and talk separately about the spin, but doesn't all of modern algebra contradict that interpretation? To all other particles, what's SEEN (via relativity or Heisenberg's U.P.) is actually the amalgam of A and B. Why? Because Heisenburg's U.P. and Einstein's Relativity govern how fast particle "P"s information can travel to other particles. Think of it this way... by the time P transmits any information to another adjacent particle, P is already in a new position.
In the time it took you to COUNT how many subscribers Netflix has, a new subscriber or ten might've signed up for Netflix and your "count" is already wrong before you had time to publish it. So during your count, what was the subscriber count? Was it 1 or 2? It was both, for an average of 1.5. Can subscribers be cut in half? No. This is the same in math and physics. The particle's position and speed are like Netflix subcribers, you can't cut them in half in REALITY. But to an observer who suffers from Einstein's relativity, a Netflix subscriber count can include halves.
This isn't a paradox, it's how nature works thanks to the law of the speed of light-- RELATIVITY!

Let's think about little sticks of value 1 and do the same thing but on a microscopic quantum plane. To other particles near P, P might actually not be valued as "1" but sqrt(2). If P has not only moved one quantum direction over, but also changed how it points, then other particle might see P as a triangle rather than a particle-at-a-point, right? This is the beauty of Heisenberg, to even subatomic particles Heisenburg's math applies and governs what they can "see". But again, what is "seen" is not reality, just like in our Netflix subscriber counts. 1.5 is not real, it's an average between two points, but it is more accurate to the observer. (in fact, this is what's done to calculate the TRUE average price average for Netflix, the analyst averages the beginning and ending subscriber counts for the quarter, and divides total revenue recieved that quarter by that number. If you pick either the beginning subscriber count in the quarter, or the final count, you end up wrong and your result makes no physical sense. It's the same in the physical world, amongst particles! "Measurement" or "effect" requires at LEAST one unit of "time" to occur, therefore what is "seen" can be a ghost, or average, or NOT-REAL entity. But for all practical purposes, that non-reality quantity IS what's operating on other objects in reality!

Let's just finish our example: P's direction isn't east and north as it was for it's two points in time, but to other particles it READS northeast. Obviously, at a QUANTUM level, P only had two values, one at point A and one at point B. But when calculating P's RELATIVE effect on the rest of the world, the rest of the world see's the OPERATOR function not the particle. So while quantum mechanics is REALITY that only "God" (Nature) can "see", we as humans keep assigning the WAVE FUNCTION as the actual THING. It is not. This is why all the Quantum Field Theory guys have been barking up the wrong tree.

The wave function is the operand, an algo, an algebraic dictator of movement. The wave function can operate as if it's a particle, but in fact it's an amalgam of more than one state. Mathematicians use "imaginary" to describe complex numbers, and this turns out to be a good convention. Why? Because the sqrt(-1) isn't a quantity so much as a RECIPE, or ORDER (as in military), or a MOVEMENT in time. What sqrt(-1) SAYS is "turn 90 degrees on your next turn". The "rule" for a Knight in chess is that it moves 2 straight and 1 orthogonal. That "rule" is much like the imaginary portion of an imaginary number. In this way, time is connected-at-the-hip to the imaginary (orthogonal) operators known as complex numbers.

Time can SEEM like a real thing, but it is not. Think of chess again. If we showed you a chess match, but cut out the video of the players using their hands to move the pieces, we could still accurately show you the full chess match, right? This is the chess match you can see in the newspaper, it simply shows the chessboard after each move. The "moves" are time, and the new chessboard make-up is printed in the paper and shows you REALITY. In Physics, what's used is BOTH the move AND the positions, however. But CI Physicists have misinterpreted the Wave Function as reality, instead of the DETERMINISTIC reality of the positions and velocities and quantities of the particles involved. But it's even worse, bc the Wave Function really just describes PROBABILITIES not actual actions. Let's go back to the chess example to illustrate. The Knight only moves in ONE direction, not ALL the directions. The Knight has many POSSIBLE moves it can make, tho. The Wave Function describes all of those POSSIBLE moves the Knight can take, but REALITY (or determinism) is different from these POSSIBLE moves. Reality is the ACTUAL move taken by the player. However, if you give me the knight's starting point and finishing point, the Wave Function will include that particular MOVE in it's list of possible moves, correct? So Physicists who believe in the CI of QM, think that it's impossible to know the Knight's movement until a snapshot is taken of the game, thus this group of misled Physics professors think the moves of the Knight are randomly chosen by the Wave Function. In life and in chess, this is just not the case. In our chess example, the Knight "saw" an opportunity to win the game by moving into a position that put the opponent's king in checkmate, so that's the ACTUAL move. A CI QM physicist would prefer to believe the knight could've done 7 other moves just as well. But the knight chose the WINNING move out of the 8 possible moves (governed by it's "wave function" or rule-of-motion) because the king affected it's choice much like a nearby black hole and it's resultant effects on the "chessboard" known as the physical SPACE of the universe, might govern how a photon moves, no? In fact, this is how Hiley and Bohm described their interpretation almost precisely. They agreed fully with CI's Wave Function, but when it comes to reality they said the particles are moving based on factors physicists just aren't "seeing"-- much like a person might not see a black hole if there isn't a bunch of matter circling around it. (It ain't called a black hole for nuthin!)

So what's "reality" is the particle's ACTUAL positions in space and it's path in history which is definitive. What's fun is usages of the words "real" and "imaginary" actually works. Is time some truly different measurement than spatial dimensions which are clearly wrought from algebra? NO. Going back to simple Quaternions, 4 dimensions of SPACE (w, x, y, z) can algebraically come to the same results as 3 space + 1 time (x, y, z, t). This is because TIME IS A 4th SPATIAL DIMENSION PERPENDICULAR TO 3 DIMENSIONS of SPACE. Or even more clever, "time" might actually be the amalgam of complex dimensions squeezed into a single "REAL" dimension that humans can see.
Much like 1.5 Netflix subscribers is a measurement of TWO points in time but accurately conveys to the world EXACTLY what's going on with Netflix's (average) actual price per month, "time" as a single dimension in relativistic calculations might be a simplification of several dimensions which add together to make our "time" dimension.
If you're a student of algebra, this isn't rare at all. Any quantity can consist of multiple dimensions, just like a physics particle like a photon isn't just ONE thing, but many rolled into one. A Knight isn't just a piece that moves 2 forward and 1 over, it's also an entity that when "collided" with a bishop must leave the board! The rules governing a Knight are multi-dimensional! So can the rules governing a dimension we use every day! Here, this is just basics for a mathematician...
https://sureshemre.wordpress.com/2013/10/12/cayley-dickson-construction-of-complex-quaternion-and-octonion-numbers/ (read the first 3 lines, but the statement after those 3 lines is especially grand)
...but in Physics we sorta "rebel" against this concept at times, for some reason, even tho there are many many examples of single entities having multi-dimensions all at the same time (like a particle).

So we suspect time can itself be a function of several spatial dimensions? That's neat, because we as humans think of time as pretty simple, a ticker going back and forth like the long arm of a grandfather clock. (but even the arm of a grandfather clock has two dimensions, as it can only move one space per second, but it ALSO reverses direction each moment in time)

Again, we turn back to Hamilton's usage of "i" "j" and "k". These for Hamilton are imaginary dimensions, but they work together in much the same way as x, y, and z do. What if "TIME" is actually just all the imaginary dimensions rolled into one, and altho we cannot "see" it with our experimental equiptment, it exists? Wouldn't that roughly match the percentages we see for Dark Matter and Dark Energy? What if Hamilton's extra IMAGINARY dimenions, are simply the "dark" version of our x, y, and z dimensions? If you wanna get all science-fiction-ee you could say there's a dark universe which parallels our own, and while it's much the same (maybe it uses a "left-hand-rule" instead of RHR) as our REAL (or more correctly, quantized integer) universe, it simply has a sqrt(-1) identity attached to everything?

If you really want to quantize everything, the grandfather clock example can be a fun example of how things could work. The clockhand's seemingly simple change in direction is 180 degrees-- an "about face" in the militiary. But if you use complex algebra to describe that action, it takes TWO operands to make it happen in a plane. Using complex algebra 101, if the clock hand is moving in the +x direction (right), to get the clockhand to -x direction (left) you'd need to multiple by i^2. Each use of "i" is an action which might take one unit of quantized time. So just changing direction might take 2 quantum "seconds" rather than 1. But the movement from right to left by the clockhand only takes 1 quantized unit of time. So for the clockhand to make one full cycle, it's 2 time units to change direction, 1 time unit to move from one extreme to the other, and 2 more time units to turn around, and another time unit to get back to where it started. 6 quantum time units for a full cycle, but representing 3 seconds, or 3:1 ratio. But if all people care about is each second in real life (because maybe in certain situations nothing important happens faster than 1 second), then for every one of those seconds, we must assign THREE units of quantized time! In this respect, our beloved grandfatherly and seemingly-simple TIME would actually consist of a PAIR of numbers. One half of the pair would be human's interpretation of time, 1 second. The other half of the pair would be ACTUAL time as measured by quantum time units, which is 3. Thus, a simple unit of time can actually have two dimensions, as in this example.
But this example is important, because it shows that a SINGLE DIMENSION can actually be constructed using a PAIR of dimensions or numbers which relate to each other (in this case via a ratio of 3:1). This example outlines that there is almost a relativity to information, right? We measure ONE thing we care about, but another thing which is deeply connected is doing something else entirely which we don't necessarily care about or even SEE. If you think about Bohm-Hiley QM interpretation vs Copenhagen interpretation in this way, it becomes obvious that Bohm is generally correct by mostly saying "we don't know", while Copenhagen is trying to draw conclusions where none are ACTUALLY provided or proven. The Copenhagen interpretation is just wrong, because it makes an unproven conjecture that the Wave Function is reality, when in fact there's another possibility the CI guys and gals haven't proven! Copenhagen isn't an interpretation, it's a false assumption; it's a bad foundation for the next 100 years of Physics and schooling of our youth!

Bell's Theorem is an important fun little test to run especially bc it neither confirms nor denies Bohm-Hiley being on the right track, but simply sheds an important light on locality. If you ask Hiley, he'll tell you he's not rigid on locality, and this makes sense. (In fact Hiley will probably tell you his interpretation is NOT local, but that's where we choose to break off from him) If we viewed "time" as an amalgam of imaginary dimensions all rolled up into something we humans can actually feel/see (like our grandfather clock example or newspaper chess game history), then we could describe time as multi-dimensional object which simplifies what's occuring in REALITY in the complex planes of our universe (where sqrt of -1 is "normal"!). So Einstein's "Spooky action at a distance" may only be referring to a distance traveled via imaginary (complex dimensional) universe which cannot violate Relativity in our own universe. (much like we don't care about the 3 counts of quantum time of the grandfather clock, but we only get value from the 1-count of the "seconds").

Let's view the difference between reality and the operands that "move" reality (so the chessboard after the move, vs the player moving the piece) in a geometrical way at the quantum level:
1 + 1 can be interpreted as sqrt[2] (the hypotenuse of an isoceles triangle with sides = 1) if we view the amalgam (or the operator-- the wave function) rather than the operated-upon (the particle's EXACT whereabouts as if we could violate Heisenburg's UP). In this way, the particle can be confused with violating locality because it moved a distance great than 1 (we assume a movement of 1 is at the speed of light, c, using a quantized single unit of time)
when in fact if you use COMPLEX ALGEBRA Einstein's locality/relativity rules aren't violated whatsoever! Why? Because while we might say in OUR universe that a particle moved sqrt(2) distance which is greater than the speed at which light can travel (1 < sqrt2), what if we simply weren't "counting" imaginary time? So what REALLY happened was the particle moved a second whole unit in a perpendicular direction during its existence in the complex plane (where we couldn't "see" it). This is a massive simplification, and not correct. But we must present this in this way, to simply outline how easily we humans could confuse reality with a wave function that only describes a portion of reality, and even make it seem like it violates Bell's Theorem (Relativity) in the process.

Violating locality, and the seemingly mysterious evidence of dark matter & dark energy might all be examples where Physics has gone off the rails. These 3 things with which the Physics community has so much trouble, could all be explained by something as simple as time having multiple dimensions but in OUR reality it's just one. We humans account for the amalgam (1.5 Netflix users instead of 1 or 2 at separate intervals) of time rather than time's reality (which is a combination of complex dimensions) which is complex. If this is all starting to make sense to you, then if you're a serious Physicist you SHOULD be beginning heavy coursework and computer-work to sharpen your complex algebra skills if you want to make a breakthru in the Einsteinian sense. Because the future of Physics breakthrus is algebra, not experiment or "interpretations" based on things which appear to work a little bit. Let's face the music folks, the Wave Function is awesome, but it only provides a hazy solution in a reality that isn't hazy at all.

Over time, I think the Physics and Math communities will merge, and we'll all come to put much more weight on the studies of Bohm, Hiley, de Broglie, Bell, and yes William Rowan Hamilton who spent half his career toying "inexplicably" with quaternions. How odd Hamilton would be so crazy about quaternions? But he always had a flare for the relevant so this passion was either an outlier or we still just don't accept how physically relevant it truly was! I am not saying Quaternions are the answer either, I'm simply saying COMPLEX ALGEBRA in the format William R Hamilton would have approved (aka not vector analysis popularized in the early 1900s) is going to deliver the breakthrus when it comes to writing Einstein's General Relativity dreams of merging macroscopic gravity with the other microscopic forces on paper. While mathematically the string theorists are working in the right area, I fear it's a stone-age belief in Bohr/Heisenberg's Copenhagen Interpretation of QM which is now holding back the greatest Physics minds in the world-- our students-- as a community.

Here's what the science community needs to do:
Take the computer, and optimize it for complex algebra of all types (dimensions). Use it, and teach Quaternion theory like it was the late 1800s.
Dispel crazy "metaphysical" explanations of QM, and apply full court press to the modern experiments which are now making CI very unsightly. Have you seen the Aephraim Experiment from Toronto? (I typically use Aephraim Steinberg as my reference label for this experiment conducted by a full team-- simply bc its the most memorable name from this experiment)
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/2/e1501466
Folks, its not only getting tougher to except the metaphysical interpretations of over-optimistic physicists from 100 years ago, it's getting EXPENSIVE as measured in all the time we've lost. Let's get it RIGHT and shitcan the politics and egos, and maybe we can get off this rock and spread ourselves around to improve our odds of lasting longer and becoming the Dr Who timelords we've always dreamed of being!

(below lacks rigorous editting, fyi)

Like Hiley, i do not dispute the value or correctness of the wave function. It is REAL in the same sense that the strong or magnetic forces are real even if we view it as a particle-less force. It's as real as sqrt(2) is to 1 + 1 (but orthogonal to each other). What is disputed is simply the interpretation of the Wave Function.
Perhaps the wave function is nothing more then the amalgam of everything that's going on locally and deterministically in the "alternative universe" of complex space (by complex we mean, for instance, "i" "j" and "k" planar dimensions), but written in a format as an OPERATOR on our REAL universe? Again, perhaps if we all imagine "time" as not a wierd dimension that somehow stretches space, we should view time as just an alternate universe with it's own ORTHOGONAL (and therefore algebraically sound) layout. By doing Physics in 4 dimensions (similar to quaternion algebra), we are just SIMPLIFYING everything in the complex universe as a single dimension--> TIME? This would explain why it's so different, YET, YET, it holds hands so tightly (as Einstein pointed out) with our 3 beloved spatial dimensions? (up, forward, right)

Lastly, what Hiley and Bohm MAY have missed, was that the "unseen" or "surreal" or "non-local" effects which they keep, might actually be both local AND deterministic. In other words, the complex planes have their OWN physics going on, and that physics interacts with the real planes via "time" and/or the "wave function" operator. So the "spooky actions" or "surreal" effects ARE occurring locally to the real particles, they are just occurring in an "invisible" set of geometry known as the complex world which sits a short orthogonal jump from all our known spatial dimensions. We all know about algebraic mapping correct? So it's not strange to think that something mapped in one geographic location might be mapped quite a distant OUT in another geographic location?
This is how functions work at their most basic level. What may seem very distant in our own real universe, might be a distance of "h" away in the complex plane, and therefore not violate Einstein's relativity. This ties directly in, with quantum entanglement. but it's not "entanglement", it's the SAME PARTICLE just having different algebraically CORRECT coordinates in a perfectly mapped (using a complex wave function I've not developed but would be the proof for you guys to figure out) Wave Function.

In short, modern Physicists are not just ignoring a valid re-interpretation of QM and math, but more simply ignoring the complex planes which clearly, in algebra anyway, show they are neither spooky nor difficult. I don't even think it will take much time to adjust, someone simply needs to start inserting more complex dimensions which make algebraic sense (so 4 dimensions works, but 5 doesn't work for anything, and 8 dimensions works better than 7)

In fluids, the "pilot wave" comes from the medium (the ocean or water) itself, correct? Is this not going to be the same in the double slit experiment? the particles aren't interacting, they are interacting with a defined MEDIUM. That medium is the real space PLUS the complex dimensions which have their own lattice. Determinism can be rooted in the real dimensions, and locality is rooted in how reals and complex map to each other (much like quantum entanglement works).

notes:

CI = Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics; basically, particles don't exist until we observe them. Everything in the universe is a "field" not a collection of particles; but worse, everything in the universe is a PROBABILITY FIELD of potential outcomes for where that electron or gamma ray COULD be. It's actually hard to believe Physicists for 100 years have accepted this as their reality, willingly, but they have. I think they just like to pretend what they do is too complicated for the average joe; it makes them feel smarter to believe in something so difficult it actually doesn't make logical sense. In fact, CI just doesn't make logical sense bc it isn't logical.

U.P. or UP = Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle: you can know the location but not the speed, within a certain band of error, thanks to relativity. The big debate is whether UP says something about the actual nature of particles, or whether it says something about the limitations of human experimentation and observation. The latter is true no matter what you believe, but the former is believed only by Bohr, Heisenburg, and 99.9% of Physicists ever since those two met in Copenhagen and formed an ACTUAL school of thought (literally AND figuratively)

QM = Quantum Mechanics. The dual particle-wave nature of light and fast sub-atomic particles as evidenced by the basic double-slit experiment, but more.... It also entails the concepts that distance and other measurable quantities are actually based on very small integers and not infinite real numbers. You can think of it as "distance has a shortest distance, it's not infinitely dividable into smaller distances". Another way to look at it, is that infinity doesn't exist, the world has a finite number of things in it. Quantization, when viewed logically, is actually comforting. Remember fractions and decimals in math class? Fuck fractions and decimals, 1 + 1 is everything. The trouble is, 1 + 1 sometimes equals sqrt(2), so don't go getting too simpleton. Another way to visualize "quantum" as a concept is to think about the paths of electrons around an atomic nucleus. Those paths are like integrals, because electrons cannot move from one electron orbital to another by traversing the middle, because there IS no middle. Electrons can only "jump" by moving to a finite perfectly-energized orbital, given the nucleonic content in the middle, and any excess energy must be emitted by a photon. Again, no fractions allowed. Minecraft is interesting because it's a game in which any object in the game occupies one quantum "block". If you have a ladder in a block, you cannot have anything else in that block. There are different objects in Minecraft, but the world is "pixelated" or quantized by the blocks.

de-Broglie-Bohm Pilot Wave Theory: in QM particle physics, it says the equivalent that balls on a pool table aren't just affected by other billiard balls, but also by the vibrations the cue ball gives the table which the table then gives back to the cue ball which then affects the cue-ball's path. Easy right? Yeah, but the last 100 years of Physicist find much fault with this. The great irony of modern physics is, the more money they spend on experiments the closer to perfect the "Standard Model" becomes.

The Standard Model of sub-atomic physics: Everything is either a particle with specific properties, or a wave. However, the waves are also sometimes particles. While there was once 5 forces in classical physics, three have been sorta combined as "Electro-Weak" which encompasses magnetic, electro and weak forces, but the FIELDS of these forces are said to contain particles too-- such as photons (light particles coming from Elecro-Magnetic force) gluons (like photons but for Strong nuclear force), and some bosons (Weak force) have all been found experimentally. The last great conquest of man is to find gravitons and in a way the Higgs Boson (recently found experiementally by the Large Hadron Collider in Europe) has a lot to do with gravity so is the universe just a bunch of particles like we simpletons always thought? Pretty much. String theorists and CI QM-ers aren't very happy with the Higgs finding, it makes life too simple I guess, and therefore them less smart and justified?

Locality = all things interact with each other at speeds equal or less than the speed of light. anything else is "spooky action at a distance" as Einstein called it. If something happens at faster than the speed of light, then you must be dreaming bc it ain't really happening. "Entanglement" starts to complicate this locality concept, even if you believe it's dogma. We believe it's dogma just like quantized nature is dogma. Others think locality can be violated and they have their reasons.

Deterministic = a particle has a DEFINITE location and speed, even if we humans can't measure both of those quantities accurately. CI says that's wrong, it interprets UP as saying every particle is actually a cloud of probability, which won't show it's true qualities until we measure/observe it. Einstein leaned deterministic, whereas the rest of his peers were not.

Wave Equation = basically we mean Schrodinger's Equation, which defines the probabilities of where particles can be and what speeds they might've had, but cannot predict precisely a particle's exact path. It's a differential equation and the basis for almost all modern physical theory.

Pilot Wave = a wave which is created by an object like an oil drop or electron, which is created in a medium like water or space, which then ACTS on the particle itself. So a ball dropped in water will make waves, and those waves will contribute to the ball's eventual path.

Many Worlds Interpretation = Theory that particles do EVERYTHING allowed by the probablistic Wave Function, and therefore every moment in the universe seperates into infinite different worlds where each POSSIBLE thing that can happen in EVERY situation creates a brand new universe. Yeah, i know, it's fucking absurd and you should dismiss it immediately bc even the universe itself is too big even if only ONE history path is taken by everything in it, much less infinite different universes formed each quantized "second" of the day. But it can't REALLY be proven wrong, altho I can prove it wrong by saying that if you believe this theory then your life doesn't matter. If your life doesn't matter, then niether do the lives of the people who conjured "many worlds" theory, and at least the latter is true!

Complex Number = Any real number times the sqrt(-1). Hamilton further assigned THREE dimensions to complex analysis which are called "i" "j" and "k" such that ijk = -1 = i^2 = j^2 = k^2. i, j, k, and the real number line (think of it as "x" if you like) form a space with 4 dimensions. 4 dimensional Quaternion Algebra turns out to be EXTREMELY useful when working with relativity (time, the 4th dimension, warps space-- the 3 orthogonal spatial dimensions).
The sqrt(-1) SUPPOSEDLY has no obvious "solution", but in fact is really just a form of phase shift by 90 degrees.

Orthogonal: synonomous but not the same as perpendicular. Orthogonal is the math word which more generally means any plane which forms a new dimension with another plane. Perpendicular mostly implies our 3 common spatial planes: up/down, left/right/, forward/backward, or "x" "y" & "z". But Orthogonal includes extra dimensions beyond our common 3 planes. So Hamilton's "i" "j" and "k" are ALSO orthogonal to each other, but also orthogonal to the non-complex planes (x, y, & z). Imagining a complex pair where each pair is formed by quaternion sub-space, is how you get to octonions, and octonions might perfectly describe our world. Our universe might prove to be two halves, a complex world and a non-complex world which have a "portal" to each other via the sqrt(-1) operator. The two worlds may not "see" each other except in rare instances, but gravity seems to traverse BOTH worlds which is how we get dark matter and dark energy affecting the expansion of the universe.