Today Quantum mechanics is "non-mechanical" theory.


socratus
#1
Today Quantum mechanics is "non-mechanical" theory.
Why?
Because Classic Mechanics deals with objects that have real
physical parameters : size, volume, geometrical forms and
QM doesn't have real particles. In QM we are missed geometrical
form of quantum particle.
Real quantum particle cannot be a "point".
Real quantum particle cannot be a "firm golf-ball" ( forbidden by SRT)
Using models like "point-particle" or "firm golf-ball", we cannot describe
QM in mechanical terms.
One can adopt QM "visually" only understanding the mechanical model
of quantum particle (!) . . . .. . and then giving forces to it . . .
. . . . . see how this model works mechanically . . .
. . . . and what is result of its mechanical behavior.
Once again.
QM is very practical theory and therefore it cannot be paradoxical.
Its interpretation must be realistic. The best realistic way is
to observe quantum particle as a simple mechanical object which
somehow can produce quantum electrical (EM) effects.
==…
Einstein wrote:
"Some physicists, among whom I am myself can not believe
that we should once and for all abandon the idea of direct
images of physical reality in space and time, or that we should
agree with the opinion that a phenomenon in nature like a game case."
/Einstein/
How is it possible to see / to image geometrical form of quantum particle "direct"?
In my opinion there is only one way to see / to image geometrical form
of quantum particle "direct": we need to observe quantum particle in
its own-native reference frame – zero vacuum T=0K.
==..
 
Twila
#2
If Quantum Mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet - Neils Bohr
 
socratus
+1
#3  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Twila View Post

If Quantum Mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet - Neils Bohr


Book ‘Dreams of a final theory’. By Steven Weinberg. Page 66.
=.
‘ Most scientists use quantum mechanics every day in they
working lives without needing to worry about the fundamental
problem of its interpretation.
. . .they do not worry about it. A year or so ago . . . . .
our conversation turned to a young theorist who had been quite
promising as a graduate student and who had then dropped
out of sight. I asked Phil what had interfered with the
ex-student’s research. Phil shook his head sadly and said:
‘ He tried to understand quantum mechanics.’ (!)
===.
Conclusion.
Don’t try to understand quantum theory if you want to reach success.
=.
 
Twila
#4
Socratus, are you a theoretical physicist by chance?
 
socratus
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Twila View Post

Socratus, are you a theoretical physicist by chance?


For theoretical physicists my ideas are crazy.
By chance or not by chance, I am an amateur.
=======..
"Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may,
as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone."
/ Albert Einstein
Co-authored with Leopold Infeld (1898-196, Polish physicist. /


In my opinion it means that the fundamental ideas of QM can be
simple explained by using mechanical model of quantum particle.


Today QM is only mathematical construct that needs clear
interpretation in common terms in order "visual"
to understand why the theory works as well as it does.
==..
 
darkbeaver
#6
I can't understand it. It IS,IT ISN'T, IT MIGHT BE ,IT CERTAINLY IS, THERE CAN'T BE A PERFECT VACUMM UNLESS THERE'S A SINGULARITY, i'M GUESSING
 
Kreskin
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

I can't understand it. It IS,IT ISN'T, IT MIGHT BE ,IT CERTAINLY IS, THERE CAN'T BE A PERFECT VACUMM UNLESS THERE'S A SINGULARITY, i'M GUESSING

It's called the Dyson Effect.
 
darkbeaver
#8
Unquantum.net

Published in Progress In Physics, a peer reviewed journal:
New Experiments Call for a Continuous Absorption Alternative to Quantum Mechanics—
The Unquantum Effect

Essay in Foundational Questions Institute FQXI:

A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory

History of the Loading Theory and its Misinterpretation
Lenard(9) recognized a pre-loaded state in the photoelectric (PE) effect with his trigger hypothesis,
but most physicists ignored this idea in favor of Einstein's light quanta(35) because the PE equation
worked. Planck(10, 11) explored a loading theory in a derivation of his black body law that recognized
continuous absorption and explosive emission. Sommerfeld and Debye(12) explored an electron speeding
up in a circle around a nucleus during resonant light absorption. Millikan(14) described the loading theory
complete with its pre-loaded state in 1947, but assumed that its workings were "terribly difficult to
conceive." In author's extensive search, physics literature thereafter only treats a crippled version of the
loading theory with no consideration of a pre-loaded state.
Most physics textbooks(36*) and literature(37†)
routinely use photoelectric response time as evidence
that the loading theory is not workable. Effectively, students are taught to think there is no such thing as a
pre-loaded state. Using a known light intensity, they calculate the time an atom-sized absorber needs to
soak up enough energy to emit an electron. One finds a surprisingly long accumulation time (the longest
response time). They claim no such long response time is observed, and often quote ~1 ns (the shortest
response time) from the 1928 work of Lawrence and Beams(3(L&B). The arguments unfairly compare a
shortest response time with a longest response time. An absorber pre-loaded to near threshold explains
the shortest response times. The longest response time from L&B was ~ 60 ns. L&B did not report their
light intensity, so it is not fair to compare their results to an arbitrary calculation. Energy conservation
must be upheld, so an appropriate calculation is to measure the longest response time and light intensity,
assume the loading theory starting from an unloaded state, and calculate the effective size of the loading
complex.
The loading theory was the first and obvious model considered for our earliest experiments in
modern physics. There is no excuse for the misrepresentation outlined in the previous paragraph, and this
is only one example of many.(39)

A Workable Loading Theory
The theory is elaborated for the case of the charge matter-wave, for brevity. If we develop three
principles, we found they explain "quantum" and unquantum experiments1

1. de Broglie's wavelength equation is modified to the wavelength of a beat or standing-wave
envelope function of Y.
2. Planck's constant h, electron charge e, and mass constants like the electron mass me
are
maximum thresholds such that emission is quantized but absorption is continuous and
thresholded.
3. Ratios h/e, e/m, h/m, are conserved as the matter-wave expands and thins-out.
In de
 
Kreskin
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

Unquantum.net

Published in Progress In Physics, a peer reviewed journal:
New Experiments Call for a Continuous Absorption Alternative to Quantum Mechanics—
The Unquantum Effect

Essay in Foundational Questions Institute FQXI:

A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory

History of the Loading Theory and its Misinterpretation
Lenard(9) recognized a pre-loaded state in the photoelectric (PE) effect with his trigger hypothesis,
but most physicists ignored this idea in favor of Einstein's light quanta(35) because the PE equation
worked. Planck(10, 11) explored a loading theory in a derivation of his black body law that recognized
continuous absorption and explosive emission. Sommerfeld and Debye(12) explored an electron speeding
up in a circle around a nucleus during resonant light absorption. Millikan(14) described the loading theory
complete with its pre-loaded state in 1947, but assumed that its workings were "terribly difficult to
conceive." In author's extensive search, physics literature thereafter only treats a crippled version of the
loading theory with no consideration of a pre-loaded state.
Most physics textbooks(36*) and literature(37†)
routinely use photoelectric response time as evidence
that the loading theory is not workable. Effectively, students are taught to think there is no such thing as a
pre-loaded state. Using a known light intensity, they calculate the time an atom-sized absorber needs to
soak up enough energy to emit an electron. One finds a surprisingly long accumulation time (the longest
response time). They claim no such long response time is observed, and often quote ~1 ns (the shortest
response time) from the 1928 work of Lawrence and Beams(3(L&B). The arguments unfairly compare a
shortest response time with a longest response time. An absorber pre-loaded to near threshold explains
the shortest response times. The longest response time from L&B was ~ 60 ns. L&B did not report their
light intensity, so it is not fair to compare their results to an arbitrary calculation. Energy conservation
must be upheld, so an appropriate calculation is to measure the longest response time and light intensity,
assume the loading theory starting from an unloaded state, and calculate the effective size of the loading
complex.
The loading theory was the first and obvious model considered for our earliest experiments in
modern physics. There is no excuse for the misrepresentation outlined in the previous paragraph, and this
is only one example of many.(39)

A Workable Loading Theory
The theory is elaborated for the case of the charge matter-wave, for brevity. If we develop three
principles, we found they explain "quantum" and unquantum experiments1

1. de Broglie's wavelength equation is modified to the wavelength of a beat or standing-wave
envelope function of Y.
2. Planck's constant h, electron charge e, and mass constants like the electron mass me
are
maximum thresholds such that emission is quantized but absorption is continuous and
thresholded.
3. Ratios h/e, e/m, h/m, are conserved as the matter-wave expands and thins-out.
In de

Obviously!
 
darkbeaver
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

Obviously!

Obvious as lumps on a toad Kreskin. Quantum mechanics might not be the winner many think it might not be or is aproximatly.

A perfect vacuum is nothing, a partial vacuum is next to nothing, wouldn't a perfect vacuum collapse on its theoretical centre producing a Black Vacuum Hole. I can see that the progress in particle physics is soon to be enhanced mightily by the pace of development of the Dark Vacuum patch to enhance the Dark Energy and Dark matter patches.
Since the weather has become conducive to experimental lawn apparatus I have been conducting a series of double blind vacuum experiments emptying beer bottles in the presence of intense unfiltered (excepting the odd cloud) sun light.
The results thus far vary slightly from brand to brand.

Conclusion
The basic physical assumptions shown to fail are:
• light quantization and photons,
• quantized absorption for both matter and light,
• particle-energy conservation for both matter and light,
• the particle/probability-wave construct for both matter and light.
Each of those assumptions can be understood as an illusion, with associated phenomena explained by a
contained matter-wave particle state, quantized emission, continuous absorption, and threshold/ratio
properties of the matter-wave.
Last edited by darkbeaver; Jun 20th, 2014 at 10:39 AM..
 
socratus
#11
" The mathematics of QM is straightforward, but making the
connection between the mathematics and an intuitive picture
of the physical world is very hard"
/ Claude N. Cohen-Tannoudji . Nobel Prize in Physics 1997 /
==..
The probabilistic solution of QM is only a top of an iceberg,
the biggest part of this iceberg – the quantum deterministic
process is hidden under the Dirac's "sea of vacuum".
==..
 
darkbeaver
#12
I'll do some reading, thank you for the direction. The Nobel Prize is a rudder.
 
socratus
#13




What should be the quantum? How would it look like?
=.
Quantum particle is a minimum amount of energy-matter ( h or h*) .
If this quantum is constant / static (without changes) then it is a dead-particle.
Only dynamic quantum particle that can change itself or be changed,
can bring phenomena that we call "existence, evolution".
Only dynamic quantum particle can obey
“ The law of conservation and transformation energy/mass”
But today, no body thinks or speaks about transformation of a single
quantum of energy/mass ( h or h* or . . . . . +/- E=Mc^2 )
==..



 
darkbeaver
#14
http://www.poams.org/wp-content/files/mach_paradigm.pdfa
purely mathematical equation. For it to become a physical equation, the coefficient υlim. has to
be given some empirical value. The only empirical value which fits the equation is that of the
Rydberg constant, cR (= 3.289842× 1015 s-1). So we have, finally,
Formula (11) υ = N
2 cR [(1/n1
2
) – (1/n2
2
)] ,
which is, precisely, the Balmer-Rydberg frequency formula, deduced from first principles, as
contrasted to that of Balmer, which was produced simply by trial and error.
In principle, then, Mach could have predicted, in this way, not only the standard
Einsteinian mass-energy relation e = mc
2
but also the quantisation of that energy in amounts
manifest in the frequencies of the atomic light-spectrum. In the Neo-Machian formalism,
therefore, there is no conflict between Relativity and Quantum theory of the sort that has
plagued Modern Physics with its plethora of contrived theories seeking to explain the
inexplicable. By contrast, in this alternative Neo-Machian paradigm the two theories, of
relativity and the quantum, are inseparable. It might thus be truly said that as well as being a
theory of relativity, the Neo-Machian theory is also, automatically, a quantum theory. In fact
the Neo-Machian theory is a theory of Quantum Relativity.




The Neo-Machian Physics Paradigm of Direct Action
Stage 3. General Relativity

In Mach’s physics, the idea of space as existing in itself, apart from matter, is nonsense. What
dimensions would that space have, what size, what density? Would it be large or small,
moving or stationary? These questions would have been meaningless for Mach, as also
would any talk of events and processes in vacuo – because, of course, wherever there are
events and processes cannot be truly called a vacuum.
Moreover, any events and processes have to be phenomena. That is to say, they have
to be observable, physically manifest in some way. Any notion of things existing and going
on behind and beyond any possibility of physical detection was anathema for Mach. This, of
course, is why Mach could not contemplate the notion of light travelling invisibly in vacuo in
the way his protégé, Einstein did.
 
socratus
#15
The simplest way to understand something it is to see / to image
it mechanically. Therefore, for example, Maxwell tried to
understand and explain his EM theory using mechanical model.
And Rutherford would begin thinking about a problem by forming
for himself a simple picture without invoking too much mathematical
detail. He used to say he didn't want to hear any physics that couldn't
be explained to a barmaid.
Today we have so-called "Quantum Mechanics" without any
mechanical picture how it works. We don't have any mechanical
model which can help us to understand the mechanism of QM.
Today in QM we have so called "virtual particles" that somehow
can change into real physical particles.
In my opinion, in order to understand QM we need to give to
"virtual particles" some geometrical form and see / image how this
mechanical behavior of "virtual particle" would produce QM effects.
===…


















 
socratus
#16
Every RF has influence on his "habitants".
RF of sea creates fish and RF of savanna creates elephant.
"Virtual particles" exist in Dirac's reference frame - "sea vacuum".
This RF is negative 2D sea vacuum and therefore this RF can create only
negative 2D virtual particles.
QM uses "point" and "string" particles to explain reality.
Why can't 2D-flat particle be taken for this aim?
QM uses two kinds of theories: Fermi/Dirac and Bose/Einstein.
Why can't 2D-flat particle be taken as fermion in order to explain 3D ?
Why can't N-Avogadro 2D-flat particles be taken as bosons in order
to explain reference frame 3D + Time ?

The evolution / creation is going from simple to complex, from 2D to 3D
. . . 2D --- > 3D- - > 4D (3D+Time) - - > 5D - - > . . .7D . . . .11D . . . 27D . . . .
==..

Attached Images
Einstein = 1.jpg (7.6 KB, 0 views )
 
darkbeaver
#17
The Higgs FakeA Book Review

The Higgs Fake by Alexander Unzicker

In this article I review the book and contrast what I think lead to the particle physics nonsense we see today with what Alexander Unzicker thinks is behind it. While Alexander calls for a simplification of the particle models, I call for a major change in the model of scientific inquiry.

Unzicker's book is a great source for quotes. In his preface he talks about how "stroppy' the particle physicist gets "when you express doubts about the complexity" of particle physics. He continues, they will say “you are not qualified to have an opinion. But you don't have to be an ichthyologist to know when a fish stinks."

Of course, Rational Science has no claim to authority and nature recognizes no Noble Prize Committee. While I agree in part that particle physics is “far too complicated” to understand and that there are “too many particles,” I disagree as to the reason this has come about. One can not understand what is not rational and particles do not explain anything.

Alexander Unzicker has a very good working knowledge of particle physics and accelerators. His book is filled with humor and wit. He says,

"Religion is said to make good people do evil things. To make intelligent people do stupid things, it takes particle physics."

The Author of The Higgs Fake reasonably relates that particle physicists are guilty of piling hypothesis on top of hypothesis, and that there is a real need to simplify the process. I can only partly agree with him when he says, "Simplicity means understanding." Where we really part company is with the use of Popper’s falsifiability and testability. In short the mainstream scientific method.

Alexander Unzicker is great at pointing out many short comings of modern physics. He is right on when he says that “none of the riddles of physics have been solved” since Bhor, Pauli, Schrodinger, Einstein and Dirac who "worried about them to their last days."

The author has some great examples of particle physics irrationality such as this:

Coulomb's Law of electrostatics predicts that an electric field near an electron/proton becomes infinite. This would mean that the field would carry an infinite amount of energy (and therefore infinite mass- E=mc^2). Of course this then would have to radiate out into space.

In other words, there is no theoretical upper limit to radiation loses which means we can not calculate the electromagnetic energy of particles. Neither can we calculate their mass. As he states, “There are no fundamental constants for mass in kilograms taken from nature.”

Where I beg to differ with Unzicker is where he says:

"I don't give a damn about a "mechanism" that explains but does not calculate anything you can test."

I care only about physical mechanisms that explain and could not care less about testing for them. The only test of a theory is if it can be concluded to be rationally possible. This is entirely conceptual.

The physical mechanism is the most important thing in explaining natural phenomena,
 
captain morgan
#18
The whole problem with your argument is that it has been fomented and fed to you like pap from the international banking cartels.... Possibly even the Illuminati

Run away DB and never, ever look back
 
darkbeaver
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

The whole problem with your argument is that it has been fomented and fed to you like pap from the international banking cartels.... Possibly even the Illuminati

Run away DB and never, ever look back

I have an argument though. You should be looking for a lifeboat instead of pausing to listen to the promenade deck orchestra. I don't have to run, can't anyway. I'll keep to my funny ideas thank you. There's very good reason behind the condemnation of usury.

accelerator CERN------scrap dealers wet dream,
 

Similar Threads

27
Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory"
by Scott Free | Apr 3rd, 2008
12
"Solar Effect" theory debunked
by Karlin | Jul 30th, 2007
5
No "theory" - This IS a Conspiracy!
by Ten Packs | Jan 25th, 2005