Discussion:
Why the Quantum Theory cannot be explained in the common sense ?
4***@gmail.com
2017-08-22 07:09:50 UTC
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 ?
'Dirac sea' - vacuum - is a cold space.
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= 3,14159 . . . . .
=======================================
Best wishes.
=============================.
4***@gmail.com
2017-08-22 07:15:29 UTC
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.
=====================
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2018-07-31 02:24:28 UTC
Post by 4***@gmail.com
Why the Quantum Theory cannot be explained in the common sense ?
Not everything that you do not understand is unexplainable "in the common
sense".

In fact, wuantum mechanics *is* explainable "in the common sense"; it is
only thatyou have lowered the standard of "common sense" to that of *your*
"common sense", which is not common sense at all as you are completely
clueless and unwilling to change anything about that situation.
--
PointedEars