It’s not that the electron might be here or there, it’s that both locations make sense simultaneously, until the nature of the observation thereof chooses one over the other, making the other nonsensical and thus nonexistent.
Kinda like $1.00 in change could be 4 quarters or 10 dimes - both answers are correct, until something dictates the reality includes one dime or one quarter, which in turn dictates the reality of the rest of the coins accordingly.
QM tells us we’re asking the wrong questions.
His theory explains why the “probability” component of QM isn’t.
Sorta like how part of Algebra didn’t make any sense until someone came to grips with “square root of -1” - the answers are real numbers, but to reach them you have to go thru “imaginary numbers”. Likewise, to solve real-world physics you have to go thru the “imaginary space” of quantum mechanics.
He rejects superposition then says QM is incomplete. But offers no way to find out how to complete it, or if it can be supplanted.
We already knew that QM is talking about an infinite space/infinite dimensional model that has far more possibilities than the solutions that (might appear to) match the observables.
Some people call them eigenvalues. He calls them “invariant sets”.
You say potato...
Besides, this seems to be a rehash of the “hidden variable” theory.
I’d love to see this guy in the ring with J. S. Bell!!
Thank you! That was the analogy which came to mind. Glad to see someone else validating the line of thought.
It's not necessarily that "imaginary space" is particularly useful in and of itself, except perhaps to give room for calculations and theories needed for the rest to work out.