Forums Physics and Philosophy Why the Quantum theory cannot be explained in the common sense ?

This topic contains 1 reply, has 2 voices, and was last updated by Ashish November 19, 2018 at 3:06 pm.

• Author
Posts
• #6689
Participant

Why the Quantum theory cannot be explained in the common sense ?
( two problems and their solution)
====
The first problem is a reference frame.
A.Einstein and L.Infeld wrote:
“ We have the laws, but we are not aware what the body
of reference system they belong to, and all our physical
construction appears erected on sand ”.
/ Book “Evolution of Physics” /
The second problem is:
We don’t know the geometrical form of quantum particle.
Quantum particle as a point cannot be real particle.
Quantum particle as a string is subjective opinion.
Physicists chose string (with Planck’s length but without thickness )
only because it can vibrate and therefore create waves.
They don’t show the physical conditions which can allow the string exist.
=====================
Solution for the first problem.
a) The critical density in the whole Universe is so small
( 9.9 x 10^-30 g/cm^3) that its masses cannot ”close”
the Universe into sphere and therefore the Universe
as whole is ”open”- flat.
And because the Universe (as whole) is homogeneous and isotropic
therefore its density ( 9.9 x 10^-30 g/cm^3 ) must always remain
constant. It means that the Universe (as whole) is infinite flat and cold.
(after every cosmic flat homogeneous horizon there is
other one and so, and so, and so. . . )
b) This cold zero vacuum is not an empty continuum.
In 1928 Dirac showed that virtual particles exist in this
”vacuum sea” – and later were shown that they can appear
as real particles: Casimir effect, Lamb shift.
=====
Solution for the second problem.
Which geometrical form can have q/particle in vacuum: T=0K ?
The J. Charles law – the law of volumes (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 “.
Charles 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 quantum particle in zero vacuum has geometrical form of membrane/
circle : C/D= pi = 3,1415 . . .
========================
It was needed about 70 years to understand that real particle
cannot be ‘point’ . Maybe it needs another 70 years to adopt
q/particle with geometrical form membrane / circle : C/D=pi= 3,14
========
P.S.
All modern technology and discoveries (from CERN to
Artificial Intelligence ) need conditions of Zero Vacuum.
Without T=0K there isn’t progress and we cannot understand
the essence of Quantum physics, but
today we don’t know the structure of T=0K and
we refuse to take T=0K as the basis of Physics.
=======
Book: The Fermi Solution, page 37-38.
”: something seems wrong with our idea of the vacuum.
It is we who abhor a vacuum, who recoil from the stillness
of the void as from an open grave.”
/ by Hans Christian von Baeyer /
============
What does god want you to know about Physics ?
1) The zero vacuum (T=0K) is a material / physical continuum.
( all the rest is secondary )
It is time to take Vacuum (T=0K) seriously.
============
SCIENCE HAS LIMITS IN NATURE.
TWO FUNDAMENTAL LIMITS IN NATURE ARE:
a) The very small limit is Planck’s quantum particle of action.
b) The very big limit is Chandrasekhar mass of star.
The Cosmic Game is going between these two parameters.
============
Best wishes.
====================

•
•
•
• #6690
Ashish
Participant

We have the laws, but we are not aware what the body of reference system they belong to, and all our physical construction appears erected on sand.

This is a partial statement. The full statement is:

Our interview reveals a grave difficulty in classical physics. We have the laws, but we are not aware what the body of reference system they belong to, and all our physical construction appears erected on sand.

So, they are not talking about quantum theory at all. They are talking about the problem in classical physics, and if you read the preceding statements they are talking about the problem of inertial frame and how to define it, and they concede that there is no way to define it. Then they make the above statement, implying that whole of classical physics is based on the inertial frame and we don’t know how to define it. So, this entire construction is erected on sand.

I would suggest a little more honesty in the conversation; putting words into some mouth way out of context isn’t going to get us anywhere. The problem of quantum theory is probability, plain and simple. Quantum phenomena are observationally complete which means everything that can be known observationally is already known. The order of quanta is empirical but the theory doesn’t predict this order. That is the central problem of quantum theory.

We don’t know the geometrical form of quantum particle.

This is another unjustified (and false) claim. The orbitals are spherical, the orbitals are dumbells, the orbitals are double dumbells, etc. You can Google “quantum orbital shapes” and you will find dozens of articles that describe the geometrical form of the quantum particle. The difference between quantum and classical particles is that each particle has a different shape based on its “state”, so there is no difference between “state” and “particle”.

I did not delve any further because what is based on false premises will have a false conclusion.

•
•
•

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.