Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • socratus
    replied
    Tuesday, October 22, 2019
    What is the quantum measurement problem?
    ---
    Quantum mechanics tells us that matter is not made of particles.
    It is made of elementary constituents that are often called particles,
    but are really described by wave-functions.
    A wave-function a mathematical object which is neither a particle nor a wave,
    but it can have properties of both.

    The curious thing about the wave-function is that it does not itself correspond
    to something which we can observe. Instead, it is only a tool by help of which
    we calculate what we do observe.
    To make such a calculation, quantum theory uses the following postulates.
    - - -
    Posted by Sabine Hossenfelder at 8:46 AM
    Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: What is the quantum measurement problem?
    ====
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • socratus
    replied
    Sep 11, 2019, 10:00am
    What I Was Wrong About In Physics
    Chad Orzel
    #
    To be frank I don’t count myself as a public intellectual…
    but since some people have much looser criteria than I do,
    I thought I should review things I’ve changed my mind
    on since 2002 when I started writing on the internet.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorz.../#4de499646d1b
    ===
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • socratus
    replied
    Why General Relativity stubbornly refuses to be "quantized" ?
    ===
    3D + time (interval contact) is known subject on our gravity-planet
    SRT's spacetime (non-gravity system) has another ''time'' . . .
    therefore events between these two (2) systems seem appeared as separation
    (quantum problem of measurement)
    Mainstream physics absolutely ignores this (non-gravity system) issue but . . .
    but . . . ''quantize gravity'' can be solved from this ''non-gravity system''
    =======
    P.S.
    The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
    is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
    describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
    of something more complex?
    / Paul Dirac /
    #
    Book : ‘Dreams of a final theory’ by Steven Weinberg. Page 138.
    ‘ It is true . . . there is such a thing as absolute zero; we cannot
    reach temperatures below absolute zero not because we are not
    sufficiently clever but because temperatures below absolute zero
    simple have no meaning.’
    / Steven Weinberg. The Nobel Prize in Physics 1979 /
    #
    “‎In modern physics, there is no such thing as “nothing.”
    Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly
    being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles
    is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed,
    the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist
    leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to
    a high degree of accuracy.”
    ― Richard Morris
    ============
    " All kinds of electromagnetic waves ( including light"s)
    spread in vacuum . . . . thanks to the vacuum, to the specific
    ability of empty space these electromagnetic waves can exist."
    / Book : To what physics was came, page 32. by R. K. Utiyama. /
    ===========
    Although we are used to thinking of empty space as containing
    nothing at all, and therefore having zero energy, the quantum
    rules say that there is some uncertainty about this. Perhaps each
    tiny bit of the vacuum actually contains rather a lot of energy.
    If the vacuum contained enough energy, it could convert this
    into particles, in line with E-Mc^2.
    / Book: Stephen Hawking. Pages 147-148.
    By Michael White and John Gribbin. /
    ==========

    Leave a comment:


  • socratus
    replied
    Bye bye space-time: is it time to free physics from Einstein’s legacy?
    Einstein’s framework for the universe, space-time,
    is at odds with quantum theory. Overcoming this clash
    and others is vital to unravelling the true nature of the cosmos
    11 September 2019

    https://www.newscientist.com/article...steins-legacy/
    ===

    Leave a comment:


  • spacecase0
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • socratus
    replied
    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
    ====

    Leave a comment:


  • socratus
    replied
    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.
    =====

    Leave a comment:


  • Gambeir
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • socratus
    replied
    @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.
    =====

    Leave a comment:


  • spacecase0
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • socratus
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • spacecase0
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • socratus
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • spacecase0
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • socratus
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X