Vanishment Theory

Vanishment Theory is a speculative quantum idea proposing that quantum states may exist in superposition with non-existence through a null sector outside ordinary physical state space.

Everything in the universe, every electron, photon and quark, is described by quantum mechanics as existing in superposition. Before interaction, a quantum system does not possess one definite state. Instead it exists as a distribution of possible states, each weighted by probability amplitudes. Interaction with other things drives decoherence and state selection.

I would like to propose that the quantum superposition should include not only the possible states of the particle, but also the possibility of the particle not existing at all. That is, every quantum system exists in superposition with its own absence.

Standard quantum mechanics requires U†U = 1, where U† is the conjugate transpose. This enforces conservation – nothing is lost. Vanishment theory relaxes this to 0 ≤ U†U ≤ 1, allowing quantum states to partially or fully transition into and out of non-existence. However, conservation is restored at a deeper level: U*U = 1, where U* is the generalised conjugate extended to include the null states.

Standard quantum mechanics and quantum field theory already contain vacuum states and zero-particle sectors. However, they normally assume that once a particle excitation exists, it evolves according to conservation laws. Particles may transform, decay or annihilate with corresponding products, but they do not simply disappear or appear without accounting for conserved quantities such as energy and momentum.

This hypothesis proposes that at sufficiently small scales a particle can simply cease to exist: not decay into something else, not convert to energy, just vanish. Let us call it vanishment (because I love making up new words). If vanishment exists, then conservation laws may only be a limiting case of a more general theory, rather than absolute laws (which, as a concept, probably don’t exist at all).

The experimental prediction is straightforward. At scales smaller than those currently probed, there should exist tiny apparent violations of conservation laws. A particle would occasionally vanish or appear without detectable decay products or compensating interactions.

Vanishment may not affect all quantum states equally. Certain configurations could possess exceptional resistance to disappearance. These resistant states may form a mathematically stable subset analogous to or even related to the primes within arithmetic.

I am proposing that quantum states exist in superposition not only with other possible states, but also with non-existence, and most states possess some tiny susceptibility to “vanishment” into the vacuum. Stable reality then emerges from those states that resist disappearance most strongly, just as primes resist factorisation.

Under this interpretation, the Riemann zeta function and its zeros would describe a mathematical structure governing which states are stable against collapse into nothingness and which are not. That is, the Riemann zeta function may encode the distribution of stability across state space.

That’s a complex way of saying that we have zero all wrong. There’s actually two zeros; an absence of something in particular (say apples) and an absence of anything at all. These are related but they’re not the same thing. We got it wrong because we developed maths in the universe of somethings.

This hypothesis conflicts with exact conservation laws as presently understood. However physics has encountered similar issues before. Classical physics appeared complete until experiments reached scales where quantum effects became measurable. It is therefore conceivable that conservation laws are similarly just limiting cases of a more general theory.

Current physics explains how things transform but not why anything exists rather than nothing. This hypothesis addresses this directly: every quantum state has a tiny probability of simply ceasing to exist. Stable structures are those that resist this most strongly. Reality is what survives the constant pressure to disappear entirely.

Of course, the transition from a state of nothingness to somethingness must be reversible. That is, quantum particles should be able to appear out of nowhere as well as disappear. So take all that thinking above and allow for the reverse, and you’ve got it (and pi) in a nutshell.

All this does of course is push the mystery deeper into the unknown. Why is anything or nothing at all? That still remains unresolved. Chasing the fate of tiny particles doesn’t really get you anywhere, philosphically speaking. Or to quote the crazies – “no closer to god”.