Quantum Mechanics and the uncertainty principle


According to our aether theory, a detectable quantum mechanical (QM) event consists of  two simultaneously occurring, statistically independent sub-events, which relate to different cohorts of Ks. Each sub-event varies independently, yet they must simultaneously fulfil the requirements before a detectable QM event can happen. 


The tunneling effect 

To understand how the Forces by Proxy-theory can explain the fundamental workings of quantum mechanics, let us first take a look at a mass particle trapped in a potential well. Most importantly – such a particle-in-a-well system consists of 2 independent sub-systems that vary randomly with aether fluctuations.  

1.    The trapped particle will experience a random fluctuation in impulse transfers from the aether units (Ks), and will thus be thrown randomly away from its equilibrium position in the potential well. When such impulse transfers appears with a large enough cluster in a certain direction, the particle experiences a force large enough to jump over the potential wall. In our example  it will take 6 standard deviations in the impulse transfer to the particle before it can make the tunneling on its own against the average barrier. 

2.    The potential well itself must always come from surrounding particles that emit a skewed flux of aether units (Ks). Such confining K emission thus keeps the particle in the well. But the K emission, and thus the well itself, is subject to the same kind of fluctuations as the trapped particle, thus the well’s potential strength will vary. For shorter periods of time, the potential strength of the well may be totally gone, and the trapped particle can just roll out at no effort whatsoever. In our example, that is a random fluctuation of 6 standard deviation less strength in the barrier.  


This is a general picture for the reality of all QM events, they consist of 2 independent sub-events.  


P(QM event) = P(sub-event at 1)·P(sub-event at 2) = P1·P2



 8 2017- qm barriere

Double potential well with potential barrier between the wells and a particle trapped on one side. The QM event takes place when the particle tunnels through the potential barrier, requiring the combined input of two statistically independent subevents. Subevent 1 is driven by the standard deviations for the general aether fluctuations on the bonded particle, shown by the right column of numbers. Subevent 2 is driven by the standard deviation of the fluctuations in the barrier itself, shown by the left column of numbers. For the detectable QM event to take place, the sum of the std dev of the two subevents is always 6 or larger in this example. Positive numbers in the standard deviation is in favor of the QM event, minus goes the opposite way. 


Note that subevent 1 may provide 7 std dev while the barrier is raised to 8, and then nothing happens. Therefore, looking at single subevents as the sole explanation for detectable QM events is nonsensical; we must always apply the double sub-event statistics. This argument rules out the single sub-event as a lone standing contributor having explanatory value for a detectable QM event. A particle that is bonded is in an interactive relationship with its neighboring particles. This is a sort of fundamental superposition where the particle can be in any allowed state. 


Each sub-event has a probability for taking place within a very short time interval we call the event time. Only when both of the probabilities occur within the same event-time will the detectable event happen. Let us call an event time interval for the i-th interval, and take the sum over such time intervals. Then we get a probability per time unit, or a frequency of occurrence: 


P(QM event) = ΣPi(sub-event at 1)·Pi(sub-event at 2) = ΣPi1·Pi2 


If there are 1015 such event time intervals per second, we sum over that number, and get the expected number of detectable QM events per second. The sum ΣPi1·ΣPi2 is closely related to squared probability amplitudes A2 in QM when all such probabilities for a possible event are normalized to 1.





Entanglement was referred to as “spooky action at a distance” by Einstein, because a detectable QM event follows the “strange” statistics of squared amplitudes A2 in QM. We hope that our description of the underlying reality of the aether can settle the issue. There is nothing spooky about the fact that a detectable QM event is based on two independent sub-events, both with a normal distribution of directional aether impulse transfer, and the according probability function for two independent sub-events. Bell’s inequality only tells us that detectable QM events work by the statistics of double sub-events, not that there is any kind of bonding of the type that is hinted to by the term “entanglement”. 


Superposition and Schrödinger’s cat 


Take the example of Schrödinger’s cat. It is locked in a box where we cannot observe it together with poison that can trigger randomly. With a certain probability the cat will be poisoned and die. As long as we cannot take a look, Schrödinger’s cat is in a probabilistic, superpositioned state of being both dead and alive. We know the probabilities as a function of time if the trigger mechanism has a known, probability per time unit. Only when we open the box and observe the cat, will the probabilistic setup of 2 different states collapse to a 1 state certainty. But, if the cat is dead, we know that for some time the cat must have been truly dead, and before that it was truly alive. Hence, the 2 different states never co-existed other than as an information problem. All the time, the cat was either dead or alive. This sounds like a reasonable argument against true superposition, but Schrödinger’s cat is truly irrelevant in QM. All particles are in some sort of superposition all the time, even a photon travelling in pure vacuum will engage in a dance of superposition between its two main constituents, the electron-like part and the positron-like part. Only when we enter the dance floor, must a particle relate to our devices as the second subevent of the detectable QM event. Superposition can be seen as the continuous exchange between our two subevents. Actually there are particles that are truly superpositioned in multiple states. Thus a particle, as opposed to the cat, is both dead and alive at the same time. The only true analogy between Schrödinger’s cat and a particle comes when you open the box - then both situations describe a single event situation as the probabilistic superposition collapses to a single state of certainty.  


Richard Feynman  had the following comment on QM: 

It is often stated that of all the theories proposed in this century, the silliest is quantum theory. Some say the only thing that quantum theory has going for it, in fact, is that it is unquestionably correct. 


Einstein  was appalled by the fogginess of quantum mechanics, and once said: “God does not play dice”. By saying that he did not reject the statistical nature of quantum mechanics, but he meant that deep down in the fabric of space there was a deterministic, mechanical explanation for it all. If in a thought experiment you assume that you at one instant know all settings (states) of the universe, then the next settings (states)  comes as a consequence of the laws of nature as they play out at the sub-atomic level. In Forces by Proxy we would say that such laws exist at the sub-subatomic level of the aether. Instead of looking at the whole Universe, we can better limit this example to a lone standing atom, and say that if you know everything about the atom itself and the aether surrounding the atom, you know what will happen to it over the next 10-20 seconds. As we know, such info can never be available, and if available, the body of information would be so vast that we could hardly handle it for a second for a one atom model. But still, Einstein was right, deep down there is a deterministic, mechanical reality governing quantum mechanics and the Universe. Superposition with probabilistic states with particles in multiple places at the same time is true, but still there are plain, mechanistic rules that governs it. In our detectable world, the double subevents of QM allows for true superposition. It is only when you can break it down to following all individual Ks in a system over time, that you can talk about determinism. Since such tracking is very far beyond what can ever become our reality, we have better consider QM superposition as our only reality. The fact that superposition collapses when we insist on controlling one part of the two subevents when we measure, represents no contradiction at all. The methods of QM is the only possible way for us to handle our elusive Nature.  Therefore, to underline the omnipotence of quantum mechanics in physics, we would rephrase Einstein’s words, saying: “Not only does God play dice - that is about all he does.” But this is not said in contradiction to Einstein’s meaning with his words, rather as a statement of what the reality of Nature offers us to work with, when we use God as a metaphor for Nature, as did Einstein.  


Nature is  deterministic only in the sense that particle – K interaction is determined by laws regarding the exchange of each K, but QM events are still only observable as statistical phenomena. It is far beyond any possible detection to work at the level of the underlying, deterministic laws governing the K aether.



The Uncertainty Principle


Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle has by many been interpreted to represent some unknown, almost mystical, inherent uncertainty of nature. By now it should be evident that according to Forces by Proxy, the uncertainty principle is caused by statistical fluctuations with random clusters of directional K interaction with particles. 


Heisenberg presented in 1927 the following equation for the position and momentum of a particle, expressed by Planck’s constant, h: 


           Δ  Δ  p  ≥ h         


The year after, Kennard came with the precise expression using ћ = h/2π.  The standard deviation of a particle’s position (x) multiplied with the standard deviation of its momentum (p) is one pair of conjugated variables which is ruled by the uncertainty principle:  σx·σp ≥ ћ/2 


Tunnelling, radioactive decay, etc are a typical consequence of the same aether fluctuations as is the basis for the uncertainty principle. The main difference lies with the number of standard deviations necessary to provide for a certain QM event.  

The mechanism behind detectable QM events depends on statistically independent double sub-events. Measured in the reference frame of the particle (in proper time), such events occur with a constant average frequency that is characteristic for that particular event. This observation has implications for relativity.    






The Strong Force 



General Relativity 



Forces by Proxy


Michelson & Morley’s aether experiment


Properties of the aether






The Electromagnetic Force


The Strong Force


Quantum Mechanics and the Uncertainty Principle


General Relativity


Special Relativity


Scientific Method


Some support for the aether 






Jørgen Karlsen 

Einar Nyberg Karlsen




Jorgen Karlsen 

Høvik, Norway 




Tormod Førre 



Trond Erik Hillestad 

Dr. Ian Ashmore 

Prof. Kaare Olaussen 




The content in this publication
is under copyright protection of PrinciplePhysics.com and the authors, and cannot be copied without the permission of the editor.


Mission statement

PrinciplePhysics.com has as its main goal to present new theories and models which can help solve some of the principle problems in physics. The topics will range from elementary particles, nuclear physics and quantum mechanics to  gravity and general relativity. A second edition of Forces by Proxy was published as an attachment to the Norwegian journal “Astronomi”, 2017 – 3. Here we present a short version, which was first released on May 17th 2017