Announcement

Collapse

2020 Energy Science & Technology Conference - Pre-Register Free now

Pre-Register for FREE for the 2020 Energy Science & Technology Conference.

Registration Form: http://energyscienceconference.com/r...ation/2020.php
Schedule: http://energyscienceconference.com/2...ence-schedule/
Presenter Bio/Talk Descriptions: http://energyscienceconference.com/2020-speakers/
See more
See less

* Why the Quantum* Theory* cannot be explained in the common sense ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • * Why the Quantum* Theory* cannot be explained in the common sense ?

    * Why the Quantum* Theory* cannot be explained in the common sense ?
    ====.
    One of the reason -* we don't know the geometrical form of quantum particle.
    q/particle as a point cannot be real particle.
    q/particle as a string is subjective opinion.
    Physicists chose string (with Planck's length but without thickness ) only because
    it can vibrate and therefore make waves.
    they don't show the physical conditions which can allow the string exist.
    =========================
    i think that q/particle must have geometrical form of membrane.**
    Why?
    a) point under strong microscope will be looked as a membrane/circle.
    b) string to be string* is heeded force in two different direction -
    without forces string would change its form into circle (without thickness)
    c) and most important:
    there is physical law that says that q/particle must be circle/membrane.
    To understand this confirmation we need to see q/particle in its reference frame,
    because conditions of surrounding space has strong influence on its creatures.
    For example:
    conditions of ocean allow to create different kinds of fish,
    conditions of savanna allow to create giraffes (for example)
    and specific conditions of Antarctica (not conditions of North Pole)* created penguins.
    ======
    So, to understand q/particle we need to know its reference frame.
    In 1928 Dirac showed that quantum particles can be in two stats;
    negative -E=Mc^2 and positive +E=Mc^2.
    Negative particles* -E=Mc^2* are antiparticles / virtual particles
    and positive particles +E=Mc^2 are electrons (for example)
    Virtual particles exist in 'Dirac sea' - vacuum -* and somehow they can appear as
    real particles:** Casimir effect, Lamb shift.
    Question:
    Which geometrical form can have q/particle in vacuum: T=0K ?
    J. Charles law ( 1787)* says : when the temperature falls 1 degree,
    the volume decreases 1/273. And when the temperature reaches -273 degree
    the volume disappears and particles become " flat figures ".
    Charle's law" was confirmed by other physicists: Gay-Lussac, Planck, Nernst, Einstein .
    These " flat figures " have the geometrical form of a circle, as from all flat figures
    the circle has the most optimal form.
    So, i think that the q/particle in the zero vacuum has geometrical form of membrane/
    circle : C/D=pi= 3,14.
    ========================
    It was needed about 70* years to understand that real q/particle cannot be 'point'
    but it needs geometrical form - string.
    Maybe it needs another 70 years to adopt* q/particle with geometrical form
    membrane / circle* : C/D=pi= 3,14.
    =================
    Best wishes.
    israel sadovnik socratus
    =============================

  • #2
    Why '‘ the brightest and best- educated scientists’'* cannot explain
    what a quantum of light is and what an electron is ?
    Why in many books are written '' quantum physics is strange'' ?

    ** Einstein said:
    “One thing I have learned in a long life:
    that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -
    - and yet it is the most precious thing we have.”

    Why did Einstein write:
    ''all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike '' ?

    Because the foundation of Physics is wrong.
    Universe doesn't begin from ''big bang''.
    The Universe began from the Infinite Zero Vacuum:* T=0K.

    Why physicists cannot accept the* Infinite Zero Vacuum:* T=0K ?
    There are two reasons:
    a) They say: '' if in theory appears ''infinity'' - the theory is wrong.''
    b) One young physicist ( +/- 30 years old) proudly and unfriendly said me:
    '' My grandfather was physicist, my father is physicist and I'm physicist too
    and* the* Infinite Zero Vacuum is a dead place''

    I* was very surprised.
    =====================

    Comment


    • #3
      August 26, 2019
      Why quantum physics needs Asian philosophy
      By Jan Krikke
      https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/08/op...-philosophy-2/
      ===
      Attached Files

      Comment


      • #4
        I have always seen quantum interactions the result of a stable vortex.
        stable vortexes only show up in specific values, and that is why they are called quantum.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by spacecase0 View Post
          I have always seen quantum interactions the result of a stable vortex.
          stable vortexes only show up in specific values, and that is why they are called quantum.
          stable vortexes , torsional whirlpools are some kind of waves
          can you call wave ''quantum'' . . . ?
          waves , stable vortexes , torsional whirlpools are consist of quantum-particles
          . . .
          . . . ? . . . but quantum interaction is wave interaction . . . .
          Last edited by socratus; 08-30-2019, 04:22 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by socratus View Post
            stable vortexes , torsional whirlpools are some kind of waves
            can you call wave ''quantum'' . . . ?
            waves , stable vortexes , torsional whirlpools are consist of quantum-particles
            . . .
            . . . ? . . . but quantum interaction is wave interaction . . . .
            if you bother with the math, they work out the same.
            just like the idea of E=mc2, it assumes some sort of angular momentum in mater
            and other math verifies this...
            if you look at the work of Carl Frederick Krafft, it is pretty clear (at least to me), how the quantum nature of mater is fundamentally caused by the matter being made of stable vortexes

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by spacecase0 View Post
              if you bother with the math, they work out the same.
              just like the idea of E=mc2, it assumes some sort of angular momentum in mater
              and other math verifies this...
              if you look at the work of Carl Frederick Krafft, it is pretty clear (at least to me),
              how the quantum nature of mater is fundamentally caused by the matter being made of stable vortexes
              THE-ETHER-AND-ITS-VORTICES
              / BY Carl Frederick Krafft. pdf /

              http://www.unariunwisdom.com/wp-cont...ick-Krafft.pdf
              ===
              There are many - many different kinds of vortices . . .
              . . . in ''THE-ETHER'' and outside of '' THE-ETHER''
              ===
              Attached Files

              Comment


              • #8
                what ether is made of is still in question, but I think it is made out of other smaller matter.
                it is looking to me like if you have a vortex made of regular matter, then you can create a macroscopic quantum particle.
                so it is looking like it is all layers inside each other.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by spacecase0 View Post
                  what ether is made of is still in question,
                  but I think it is made out of other smaller matter.
                  it is looking to me like if you have a vortex made of regular matter,
                  then you can create a macroscopic quantum particle.
                  so it is looking like it is all layers inside each other.
                  THE-ETHER-AND-ITS-VORTICES
                  / BY Carl Frederick Krafft. pdf /
                  #
                  ''what ether is made of is still in question'' . . .
                  but If it is made out of ''vortices'' then
                  ''vortices'' are still in question too
                  #
                  If ''vortices'' look like all layers inside each other
                  then they are "Turtles all the way down"
                  ===
                  Attached Files
                  Last edited by socratus; 08-30-2019, 08:21 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by socratus View Post
                    THE-ETHER-AND-ITS-VORTICES
                    / BY Carl Frederick Krafft. pdf /
                    #
                    ''what ether is made of is still in question'' . . .
                    but If it is made out of ''vortices'' then
                    ''vortices'' are still in question too
                    #
                    If ''vortices'' look like all layers inside each other
                    then they are "Turtles all the way down"
                    ===
                    that will keep me thinking for a while

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      @Gambeir
                      Silver Member
                      ===
                      Your pompous post (from 3rd dimension) looks like a very scientific subject . . .
                      . . . but '' the loss of inertia '' obeys two (2) simple laws - Newton's and Einstein's
                      ===
                      a) Newton's inertia:
                      Every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in
                      a straight line unless compelled to change its state by
                      the action of an EXTERNAL force.

                      b) Einstein's inertia
                      ''Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon its Energy Content?”
                      Yes, the inertial movement of quantum particle does indeed
                      depends upon ITS energy content: E=Mc^2.
                      =====

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by socratus View Post
                        @Gambeir
                        Silver Member
                        ===
                        Your pompous post (from 3rd dimension) looks like a very scientific subject . . .
                        . . . but '' the loss of inertia '' obeys two (2) simple laws - Newton's and Einstein's
                        ===
                        a) Newton's inertia:
                        Every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in
                        a straight line unless compelled to change its state by
                        the action of an EXTERNAL force.

                        b) Einstein's inertia
                        ''Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon its Energy Content?”
                        Yes, the inertial movement of quantum particle does indeed
                        depends upon ITS energy content: E=Mc^2.
                        =====
                        Why you think the material I posted was offensive might be how you're perceiving the information. I really cannot understand the complaint. It wasn't intended to be offending and I said I'd remove it if you asked. I'm always willing to re-evaluate my thinking if I can see the error and I certainly don't want to stay stupid if that's what the issue is and I'm just not seeing it.

                        I realize you're trying to explain why this topic cannot be explained logically, and what I see is another energy field, call it quantum if you like, and that field of energy imposes itself on ours like a shadow does upon pavement. Now is that or is it not the basic idea behind Quantum Physics?

                        You're saying that the material I posted is somehow outside of the behavior of inertia because why? You have not made a point with these arguments about the behavior of inertia. I understand what the behavior is supposed to be but why you see that the material is acting outside of those definitions is what I cannot understand. I therefore think the issue is one of how you're perceiving the information supplied.
                        Last edited by Gambeir; 09-01-2019, 08:22 PM.
                        "The past is now part of my future, the present is well out of hand." Joy Divison "Heart and Soul LP."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Sorry,
                          I didn't mean to offend you . . .
                          your post seemed too abstract to me . . .
                          subjects were mixed . . . .
                          I lost the subject that

                          Originally posted by Gambeir View Post
                          . . . what I see is another energy field, call it quantum if you like,
                          and that field of energy imposes itself on ours
                          like a shadow does upon pavement.
                          Now is that or is it not the basic idea behind Quantum Physics?
                          more concrete . . .
                          the quantum energy-field (E=h*f) imposes itself on ours (EM) field
                          This is the basic idea of Quantum Physics / QED /


                          Originally posted by Gambeir View Post
                          You have not made a point with these arguments
                          about the behavior of inertia.
                          the reason of inertia
                          a) Newton's inertia - different EXTERNAL force
                          b) Einstein's inertia - E=Mc^2.
                          =====

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Even Physicists Don’t Understand Quantum Mechanics
                            Worse, they don’t seem to want to understand it.
                            By Sean Carroll
                            Dr. Carroll is a physicist.
                            Sept. 7, 2019
                            ====
                            Physicists don't understand their own theory
                            any better than a typical smartphone user
                            understands what’s going on inside the device.
                            #
                            There are two problems.
                            One is the “measurement problem” of quantum theory.
                            The other problem is ''wave functions''
                            #
                            If nobody understands quantum mechanics,
                            nobody understands the universe.
                            . . . . .
                            Few modern physics departments have researchers
                            working to understand the foundations of quantum theory.
                            . . .
                            Physicists brought up in the modern system will
                            look into your eyes and explain with all sincerity that
                            they’re not really interested in understanding how
                            nature really works; they just want to successfully
                            predict the outcomes of experiments
                            . . .
                            In the 1950s the physicist David Bohm, egged on
                            by Einstein, proposed an ingenious way of augmenting
                            traditional quantum theory in order to solve the
                            measurement problem.
                            Werner Heisenberg, one of the pioneers of quantum
                            mechanics, responded by labeling the theory
                            “a superfluous ideological superstructure,” and
                            Bohm’s former mentor Robert Oppenheimer huffed,
                            “If we cannot disprove Bohm, then we must agree to ignore him.”
                            . . . .
                            A more recent solution to the measurement problem, proposed
                            by the physicists Giancarlo Ghirardi, Alberto Rimini and
                            Tulio Weber, is unknown to most physicists.
                            . . . .
                            But they have been neglected by most scientists.
                            For years, the leading journal in physics had an explicit
                            policy that papers on the foundations of quantum mechanics
                            were to be rejected out of hand.
                            . . . .
                            The situation might be changing, albeit gradually.
                            . . .
                            It’s hard to make progress when the data just keep
                            confirming the theories we have, rather than pointing
                            toward new ones.
                            . . . .
                            https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/o...m-physics.html
                            ====

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I had no idea that figuring out why things are quantum was viewed the way it is by most physicists.
                              but with things like the navy patent that makes a macro quantum thing to create superconducting (US20190058105A1), guess there is lots to learn in this area, so no wonder they ignore it.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X