An Oxford physicist confirms it: bad luck may not be as random as we think

Have you ever had one of those days when everything seems to go wrong? You spill your coffee, get a flat tire, and it feels like bad luck is following you everywhere. According to physicist Timothy Palmer of the University of Oxford, it may not be mere coincidence. Palmer argues that the randomness we perceive in everyday life could be an illusion. In his view, the universe operates according to hidden rules that we have not yet learned to recognize.

The problem lies in the math, not reality

Since the early twentieth century, science has generally assumed that the microscopic world is governed by chance and probability. However, in a new study, Palmer argues that the issue does not lie in the behavior of the universe itself, but in the mathematical tools used to understand it.

The physicist criticizes the reliance on continuous and infinite mathematical concepts, such as pi with its endless decimal expansion, to explain physical reality. He contends that nature does not require infinitely precise numbers to function. By incorporating these highly abstract calculations into modern theories, scientists may be creating hypothetical scenarios that do not actually exist in the real world.

According to Palmer, removing infinite numbers from mathematical equations helps resolve some of the most puzzling aspects of quantum physics. In his model, concepts such as Schrödinger’s famous cat paradox lose much of their mystery.

Traditional quantum theory presents a scenario in which a cat trapped inside a box with a lethal mechanism is both alive and dead at the same time, only taking on one definite state when someone opens the box and looks inside. Palmer rejects this interpretation. He argues that the cat is either alive or dead from the outset, and that the act of observation has no special power to alter reality.

Support from the scientific community

Palmer’s ideas have attracted support from several prominent physicists. Nobel Prize-winning physicist Gerard ’t Hooft has long argued that the laws of the universe cannot fundamentally depend on chance. Other researchers, including Carlo Rovelli, have also suggested that reality is not an infinite continuum but something far more precise and structured.

Palmer emphasizes that his goal is not to engage in philosophical debates but to develop a theory that can be tested experimentally in a laboratory. If he is correct, a streak of bad luck would not simply be the result of chance. Instead, it would be the direct consequence of universal rules that science is still working to understand.