If you can understand and accept non-commutative logic (i.e., a logic system in which not all statements commute), then you can understand quantum mechanics. Would you find it intuitive? For sure not, as this kind of logic doesn't appear in everyday life. However the fundamental principles of Q.M. are well established, non-contradictory (except for paradoxes that can be "solved" or understood using a consistent formulation of Q.M.) and super precise. I guess finding an "intuitive" understanding is yet beyond our reach, for the reason I mentioned above.

Dear John, I read, not thoroughly your paper.

First of all we are not sure that such a thing like 4d spacetime exists.

Second, see attachment, your series of nonlinear terms for strain are 100% linear, since for every sin(x) to a power we just obtain terms of sin(k*x).

When our ancestors first began the arduous job of understanding the nature, they began by compiling and explaining the phenomenon which were directly observable. They started "classically".  What we perceive as common is actually not so common. Now we know that the classical world is just a small part of the cosmos, therefore a classical understanding will be incomplete. However since our perceptions lies in (what we call as) classical regime, we directly identify these phenomena as "common sense".

Had our perceptions been in the (what we call as) quantum regime, then phenomena occurring there would have become our "common sense" . But since it is not so, QM is conceptually non-understandable.

But I think your question requires a bit of clarification regarding the meaning of "..conceptually understandable". If you mean that we can visualize what's going on, then the answer is no. But if you mean whether we can understand it, regardless of whether it is common sense or not, then the answer is yes. It only requires an open mind to understand what's happening in QM that way. A narrow mind will only get lost.

Hope I helped!!

Quantum logics is a clintonesque argument, it can be expressed with classical logics anyway.  The issue of quantum mechanics is that it can't be formulated with a logically consistent set of axioms, with whatever logics, and that it requires classical mechanics for the measuring apparatuses.  presently, it works as an ad hoc theory because it is impossible to know from first principles what is a measurement and what is not.  So the adopted wisdom is: if there is no solution, there is no problem.

Demetrius:    I would like to clarify two points in my paper which you have questioned. First, 4 dimensional spacetime (3 + 1 dimensions) is the only spacetime that is experimentally observable. It is true that string theory postulates 10, 11 or 26 dimensions but I choose the simplest starting assumption. Second, the term “nonlinear medium” needs some clarification. In the terminology of laser physics, all transparent materials (glass, water, etc.) are “nonlinear mediums” for light propagation. Any transparent material has a maximum intensity of light that it can transmit. As this intensity limit is approached, the optical Kerr effect becomes large. This is a “nonlinear effect” that scales primarily with electric field squared. It is true that the rigorous mathematical equation expressing this effect would be a nonlinear equation, but simply using the intensity squared portion of this equation works well for almost all laser interactions. Similarly, in my paper I postulated that waves in spacetime are responsible for both electric fields and gravity. Furthermore, gravity primarily scales with wave amplitude squared. If this is correct, the magnitude of the electrostatic force and gravitational force should be related as a square. This relationship in fact was found to exist for the forces between fundamental particles. For example, for a fundamental set of conditions equation 13 in this paper is: FE = FG2 where FE and FG are the electrostatic force and gravitational force in dimensionless Planck units.

Returning to the question about whether all of QM can be conceptually understood, I am proposing that we have been using the wrong model of the universe when we think of particles and quantized waves as different entities. Mysteries such as de Broglie waves, psi functions, wave-particle duality, double slit experiments, etc. become conceptually understandable when the observable universe is viewed as quantized waves in 4 dimensional spacetime.

What about the Egyptian symbol for the intertwining of the sound and light spectrums? the interval is the place where the colors change, manifesting as a prism or rainbow, There was a machine at the Fillmore in SF many years ago that was built from me telling someone about this understanding and it generated the light associated with each sound. How does this impact our understandings of realtime? WE cannot "see" into the interval where the note changes to a color, nor can we literally see the sound that generates the colors. There are 12 colors, 12 notes on a scale, so that C becomes red in human eyes, c# is red orange, and etc. All ancients knew this and perceived reality in a different way than our so-called modern science. The Tarot for instance has 22 letters described in terms of both color and sound. The Hindu believed in weapons such as conch shells.

The caduceus, or 2 snakes spiraling around a staff, now used by the US medical corps, is the symbol I am referring to.

To understand QM requires an extension of knowledge about where in nature the physical laws and constants reside, how they are contained, and how they enter into actions.

I suggest the laws reside in vacuum space because laws appear to be nearly the same almost everywhere. Then a certain small volume of space is needed to contain a complete set of laws. Many sets of laws must exist close together over all of space.

Suppose a liter of volume is divided in two parts. The classical laws are detected in both parts. If the subdivision continues eventually a volume fragment is found too small to contain a complete set of laws, only a sub set of the most demanding laws.

If a quantum action occurs in such a volume fragment it doesn't encounter a complete set of laws. The results are unpredictable with probabilities for a single event, but average to a classical result for 30 or more events of the same type.

Experimental results give some idea about how many different varieties of volume fragments may exist and how large they might be. A first estimate is 12 to 16 varieties of volume fragments, each of which contains a collection of ZPE oscillators operating on the Planck scale and containing information stored as amplitude, frequency, and vibration mode. The fragments cluster together into a volume segment somewhat larger than the action space of a quantum action.

The mystery of indeterminacy is removed, but a new branch of science is opened to bring a formalism to these ideas, and test the results with historic data bases of particle interactions.