Energetic Forum

Energetic Forum (http://www.energeticforum.com/)
-   Personal Development (http://www.energeticforum.com/personal-development/)
-   -   * Why the Quantum* Theory* cannot be explained in the common sense ? (http://www.energeticforum.com/personal-development/20816-why-quantum-theory-cannot-explained-common-sense.html)

socratus 08-09-2017 07:59 AM

* 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
=============================

socratus 08-22-2017 07:19 AM

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.
=====================

socratus 08-29-2019 10:13 AM

1 Attachment(s)
August 26, 2019
Why quantum physics needs Asian philosophy
By Jan Krikke
https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/08/op...-philosophy-2/
===

spacecase0 08-29-2019 02:24 PM

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.

socratus 08-30-2019 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spacecase0 (Post 320259)
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 . . . .

spacecase0 08-30-2019 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by socratus (Post 320274)
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

socratus 08-30-2019 05:01 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by spacecase0 (Post 320279)
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''
===

spacecase0 08-30-2019 06:00 PM

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.

socratus 08-30-2019 08:14 PM

2 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by spacecase0 (Post 320297)
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"
===

spacecase0 09-01-2019 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by socratus (Post 320298)
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

socratus 09-01-2019 06:46 PM

@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.
=====

Gambeir 09-01-2019 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by socratus (Post 320322)
@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.

socratus 09-02-2019 05:02 AM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gambeir (Post 320323)
. . . 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 /


Quote:

Originally Posted by Gambeir (Post 320323)
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.
=====

socratus 09-07-2019 05:24 PM

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
====

spacecase0 09-10-2019 03:34 AM

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.

socratus 09-12-2019 08:16 AM

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/
===

socratus 09-13-2019 07:48 AM

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. /
==========

socratus 09-13-2019 11:05 AM

1 Attachment(s)
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
===

socratus 10-23-2019 12:46 AM

1 Attachment(s)
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?
====


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved