Today Quantum mechanics is "non-mechanical" theory.

[socratus]

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.
==..

[Cerveny]

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".
...
==..

We can not look for infinity small shape. From a certain size the term "shape" loses its own meaning. There is not anything that can "define" (measure) the "shape". In our youth we have "communist law:", "transition from quantity to quality". For example, similarly, there is not anything that can define the "shape" of the electron. Photons are too long and other particles are too heavy. In the microcosm, we must look for other properties: stability, tends of the states ... Just the finding of the eigenvalues of the solution of quantum operators is an expression of finding of the stable states...

[Blaggard]

It's not possible to imply the exact form of a circle in classical terms, it becomes much more difficult at scales that are very small to determine a form, although I am not sure what Socratus is talking about precisely tbh. Seems to be about complimentarity: how, we cannot make a classical example that shows what happens in quantum mechanics. But it's a little vague. Not in the way you might think: calling on realism for quantum mechanics is obviously a dead end, calling on something like pragmatic experimentalism, probably closer to the point. Being a realist and a practical and experimental realist just does not conform to experiment, one has to then adopt the view that we are either missing something, the theory is incomplete, or that we just cannot see what is going on at small scales, we are not evovled to, or perhaps we just intrinsicaly can not...

This lack of knowing has lead some towards an ontologicaly more heavier idea, it is what has created interpretations such as many worlds, and Bohm/De Broigle's interpretations. All mete for the grist and all indistinguishable from any oother interpretation, if you cannot know what it is you are experimenting on, the process of ontology and epistemology becomes arguable and difficult.

Temperature = 0 Kelvin is impossible, you cannot remove all energy from something in an energetic universe, so his last sentence is ironically parodoxical. This is a law which seems to be as inviolable as exceeding c with mass, or the laws of thermodynamics that disalow energy being created from nothing, or perpetual motion. Likewise there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum there is nowhere in the universe where energy/mass or whatever you want to call it does not exist. What he's essemtially saying is if we could make the impossible possible we would know x. I would disagree with that making any difference anyway even if it were possible, but then I can clearly say that without fear of contradiction, because who is going to prove me wrong.

[socratus]

" 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".
==..

[Blaggard]

Shit thank God for that when I finally get around to studying the mathematics of quantum mechanics in depth it will be easy.

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".
==..

I agree with that to a point in that there may be as yet some deterministic underlying quantum description, but I don't know what you mean by Dirac's sea of vacuum.

I would disagree that there is as yet any determinism in quantum mechanics though, it simply doesn't lend it self to the science to have a determinism inherent in it as it now stands. Will it always be that way? Well: what dreams may come... for now the only theory that can and will meet the experiment is probabilistic, any other experiment simply will not. We hence have to work with what we can know atm. Young we may be, but if it doesn't work in experiment it's as useful as a chocolate spanner.

[socratus]

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.
===…

[Cerveny]

Look at so "simple" medium such as water. Can we say exactly how molecule of water looks like? How its "shape" differs in free or in condensed or in fixed state? This is similar to the electron. It probably "looks" totally different in the atom or in metal or in free space. The shape is ephemeral and ill-gripped feature. I am to repeat my known opinion: "elementary particle is a disturbance of the regular structure of physical space." See the link: http://cerveny.in/pic/dislocation.jpg Can you talk about the "shape" of this disorder?

[socratus]

Can you talk about the "shape" of this disorder?

The "shape" of this disorder obeys the law :
“ The law of conservation and transformation energy/mass”
=.

[Cerveny]

Can you talk about the "shape" of this disorder?

The "shape" of this disorder obeys the law :
“ The law of conservation and transformation energy/mass”
=.

In this case, we should rather speak about a "configuration" than about a "shape". Such final configuration corresponds to the state with the minimum energy, ie, after all, the most probable arrangement (of swirling "stem" elementary particles)...

[HexHammer]

@socratus

Dear socratus please go watch paint dry or remove doggy poo from the streets, least that would serve a direct purpose, everything you say here is complete nonsense and babble, jumping to conclusions and parroting simple thing you can't understand.

Nothing is straightforward, else there wouldn't have been several stringtheories for many years, nor would some even defy the existance of super strings.

You have absolutely no clue, not the slightest.

Is it because you have bumped your head alot or just born with massive neurological damage?

[Blaggard]

String theory is dying the death because of its lack of ability to prove its ideas, at least in terms of a ToE.

[Cerveny]

@socratus
Dear socratus please ...

Socratus not deserve condemnation so sharp. He is in captivity of scholastic theorems, which he does not able, unfortunately, to filter by logic and experience. It would be a shame do not to turn his passion into the right direction...

[HexHammer]

It would be a shame do not to turn his passion into the right direction...

That would suggest there's a tiny bit of potential, when there's obviously ..none..

[socratus]

Can you talk about the "shape" of this disorder?

The "shape" of this disorder obeys the law :
“ The law of conservation and transformation energy/mass”
=.

In this case, we should rather speak about a "configuration" than about a "shape".
Such final configuration corresponds to the state with the minimum energy,
ie, after all, the most probable arrangement
(of swirling "stem" elementary particles)...

Not bad . . . I like . . . . .
. . . . quantum particle has a "configuration". . . . . .
. . . . but in "the state with the minimum energy, ie, after all,
the most probable arrangement " of quantum particle . . . .
. . . . can be only flat "configuration".
=.

[Cerveny]

The "shape" of this disorder obeys the law :
“ The law of conservation and transformation energy/mass”
=.

In this case, we should rather speak about a "configuration" than about a "shape".
Such final configuration corresponds to the state with the minimum energy,
ie, after all, the most probable arrangement
(of swirling "stem" elementary particles)...

Not bad . . . I like . . . . .
. . . . quantum particle has a "configuration". . . . . .
. . . . but in "the state with the minimum energy, ie, after all,
the most probable arrangement " of quantum particle . . . .
. . . . can be only flat "configuration".
=.

Sorry, not "has a configuration..." but "is a configuration (of physical space)..."