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

[socratus]

* 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]

[socratus]

August 26, 2019
Why quantum physics needs Asian philosophy
By Jan Krikke

https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/08/opinion/why-quantum-physics-needs-asian-philosophy-2/

===

[spacecase0]

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]

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]

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]

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-content/uploads/2019/06/1-THE-ETHER-AND-ITS-VORTICES-BY-Carl-Frederick-Krafft.pdf

===
There are many - many different kinds of vortices . . .
. . . in ''THE-ETHER'' and outside of '' THE-ETHER''
===

[spacecase0]

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]

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]

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]

[Gambeir]

@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]

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

. . . 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 /

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]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/opinion/sunday/quantum-physics.html

====

[spacecase0]

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.