![]() |
|
Personal Development Discussions on Law of Attraction and other self-help methods - binaural beats, hypnosis, reiki, meditation, and more. |
* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX
![]() |
|
Thread Tools |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
* 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. =====================
__________________
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
August 26, 2019
Why quantum physics needs Asian philosophy By Jan Krikke https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/08/op...-philosophy-2/ ===
__________________
|
#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.
__________________
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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 at 04:22 AM. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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
__________________
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
/ 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'' ===
__________________
|
#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.
__________________
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
/ 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" ===
__________________
Last edited by socratus; 08-30-2019 at 08:21 PM. |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
|
#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. =====
__________________
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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.
__________________
"The past is now part of my future, the present is well out of hand." Joy Divison "Heart and Soul LP." Last edited by Gambeir; 09-01-2019 at 08:22 PM. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Sorry,
I didn't mean to offend you . . . your post seemed too abstract to me . . . subjects were mixed . . . . I lost the subject that Quote:
the quantum energy-field (E=h*f) imposes itself on ours (EM) field This is the basic idea of Quantum Physics / QED / Quote:
a) Newton's inertia - different EXTERNAL force b) Einstein's inertia - E=Mc^2. =====
__________________
|
#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 ====
__________________
|
#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.
__________________
|
#16
|
||||
|
||||
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/ ===
__________________
|
#17
|
||||
|
||||
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. / ==========
__________________
|
#18
|
||||
|
||||
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 ===
__________________
|
#19
|
||||
|
||||
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? ====
__________________
|
![]() |
Tags |
q/particle, form, geometrical, conditions, string, particles, circle, e=mc^2, flat, vacuum, real, understand, point, law, figures, reference, virtual, membrane, volume, c/d=pi=, 3, 14, years, degree, temperature, negative |
Thread Tools | |
|
|
Please
consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription. For one-time donations, please use the below button. |