I've written for a year now on quantum computing. It's been an eye-opener in terms of computing but even more of an eye-opener in terms of quantum theory, both the close mathematics of that discipline and in the realm of interpretation of the theory.

I propose (again, but in better form) an interpretive model of quantum mechanics which I call infinite subconstituency. Here is that model, simply stated. I believe this model to be uncontradictory to accepted quantum mechanics while supplementary in that it suggests interesting directions for experimentation.

1. Matter studied close enough is revealed to be energy and vice-versa recursively as one moves in scale.
2. Any system resembles a quantum system if you move far enough away from it in scale.
3. Gravity is the inertia of infinite subconstituency.
4. Quantum entities are phenomena analogous a hurricane, dynamic composite (subcconstituent) phenomena which maintain their identity despite changing subconstituency.
5. DeBroglie-Bohm is correct, except the particle isn't a separate entity coexisting in the wave function, it is the eye of a storm in an ambient subconstituency, a storm of which the wave function is the storm front.

Point 1 is axiomatic. Point 2 requires some geometric visualization and is the core insight. Point 3 follows from 1 & 2. Points 4 & 5 demystify the wave/particle duality.

An experimental implication of the model is that decoherence study is vastly more interesting at this stage than studies of quantum coherence itself, as likely to reveal more about subconstituency.