Let’s break down what this could imply for each system:

1. Time

If quantum phenomena are viewed as artifacts of “blocking” time, this could imply that the indeterminacy and probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics are due to a constraint on how we perceive or experience time. For instance:

• Quantum superposition could result from an inability to observe the evolution of a system continuously, leading to the appearance that particles exist in multiple states simultaneously.

• The collapse of the wave function during measurement could be interpreted as the unblocking of time, where we gain access to a singular reality from the multiple possibilities.

2. Space

If space is blocked or constrained, quantum phenomena such as entanglement might be artifacts of not fully perceiving the spatial dimensions in which particles interact. In this interpretation:

• Entangled particles could appear correlated in ways that defy classical locality because we are unaware of additional spatial dimensions or configurations where these particles interact more directly.

• This could align with some theories in higher-dimensional physics or string theory, where additional spatial dimensions are compactified or hidden from our everyday perception.

Blocking space might also relate to ideas in quantum field theory, where particles are excitations of underlying fields that permeate space. If the full nature of these fields or the space they occupy is blocked or limited, quantum behavior could emerge as an artifact of this incomplete picture.

3. Matter

The “blocking” of matter could refer to the way particles and their interactions are constrained in quantum mechanics. For instance:

• The wave-particle duality, where particles exhibit both wave-like and particle-like properties, might be viewed as an artifact of not fully perceiving matter in its complete form. In a classical sense, matter is localized and deterministic, but quantum mechanics presents a probabilistic and wave-based description.

• In this interpretation, the uncertainty principle, which limits the precision with which we can know a particle’s position and momentum, could be a direct consequence of the blocked or incomplete understanding of matter.

This view resonates with interpretations of quantum mechanics that emphasize the role of information and observation, such as the Copenhagen interpretation. Here, the properties of matter (like position and momentum) do not exist in a classical sense until measured, which could be seen as a consequence of some aspect of matter being blocked or hidden.

Implications and Dissonance Between Classical and Quantum Physics

The central claim that quantum phenomena result from blocking or limiting one of these three systems (time, space, or matter) attempts to explain why classical physics, which treats these systems as continuous and well-defined, fails to describe quantum phenomena, where uncertainties, non-locality, and probabilistic outcomes dominate.

Classical physics operates under the assumption that time, space, and matter are always fully accessible and measurable. In contrast, quantum mechanics suggests that these systems behave in ways that are fundamentally probabilistic and, in some cases, inaccessible until a measurement is performed. This theory proposes that the dissonance between the two could be an illusion arising from constraints in how we observe or interact with the world, rather than a true dichotomy in the underlying physical reality.

I just want to be straight up from the get go. I am not a scientist of any type. Just a very curious individual with enough intelligence to bore my friends and look like a fool in scientific circles lol. But I had this crazy idea about quantum phenomena and thought I'd ask the questions to those who would have the right knowledge to tell me if I'm just being imaginative or if there may be any bearing to these ideas. I understand a significant amount in relation to what I proposed in my post but I have no mathematical framework and have been booted off some forums because of that one thing. Do you think there may be merit in my supposition? Even if I'm off the mark is any of it worth investigating?

Dear Harri shore all your statements are not science.