Today Quantum mechanics is "non-mechanical" theory.

Thread Starter

socratus

Joined Mar 26, 2012
267
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.
==..
 

Thread Starter

socratus

Joined Mar 26, 2012
267
" 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".
==..
 

Thread Starter

socratus

Joined Mar 26, 2012
267
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. The same method used Fermi.
" His methods were always simple, and he did not like complicated
techniques. When a problem became complicated, he lost interest.
But it must be explained that in Fermi's hands, problems that had been
terrifyingly complicated for others often became very simple"
/ R. Peierls /
If I want to follow Maxwell, Rutherford , Fermi then I need
to take simple mechanical object and using it to explain physical
problems.
The mechanism of QM can be hidden only in its particles.
QM begins with so called "virtual particles" that somehow can change
into real physical particles. In order to understand mechanism of the
"virtual action " I need to give to "virtual particles" some geometrical
form and see / image how the mechanical behavior of "virtual particle"
would produce QM effects.
Every RF has influence on his "habitants".
RF of sea create fish and RF of savanna create 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.
===…
 
Top