Jaafar

If you talk about Quantum Physics, there is intrinsic uncertainty built in,

not deterministic and you stop there.

However I suspect many will not be satisfied with this and continue to question.

In present physics there is the tendency to think quantum theory is necessarily probabilistic. It is a consequence of the Indeterminacy Principle and of the probabilistic interpretation of the wave function. It is known that a non-probabilistic interpretation of the quantum theory is possible in the order of the use of a different mathematical model. In fact in physics it is important the experimental observation but it is similarly important the mathematical model used for understanding and for theorizing observations. In this context a deterministic view of quantum processes is possible.

yes i think we should stop here, now in this time we are having more knowledge of quantum physics than 19th and 20th century, by using these knowledge and observations, start to think from the begning of the quantum physics then we will definitely find the way which will be neat and clean means not depend on the probabilities...

similar way i have some what about found the way which can explain each and every process of the universe but that is in under progress...

Dear Pr. Zbigniew Motyka,

Thank you for your response.

Without taken into account the religious background and faith , all people have a passion for discovering and understanding things and subsequently they can work together to decode such mysterious things. Do you agree with me that day after day we discover that the universe obeys certain precise laws , the golden ratio can be a good example for proving that universe is well designed. What I tried to say when I cited the Einstein quote is artlessly if are there any physicists who work on a theory that claims non-probabilistic interpretation of the quantum theory.

Dear Juan Weisz, Thank you for your response, I agree with you. We know that scientists only understand 4% of universe, we can continue to ask questions about possibility of existence of new particles, inner structure of elementary particles or fields others than electric, magnetic and gravitational which may adopt new physical rules which may refute uncertainly principle.

Dear Daniele Sasso and RAM NARESH YADAV, I agree with your points of view. Thank you for sharing it.

@Sydney Ernest Grimm

Regarding string theory some physicists think that this theory seems to be speculative because it doesn't show any empirical evidence despite its hardness from its mathematics side. Personally, I think that a challenge for physicists is to develop such Planck-scopy (Metaphorically, mesuring an object at Planck scale ) which uses graviton as optical microscope do with visible light. I guess that physicists may detect other particles or sub-particles for example by irradiating hydrogen plasma with high energy particle beam or in LHC experiment or in any others.

@Zbigniew Motyka

thank you for clarifying your idea, also for sharing your work, I'm reading it now.

Dear Profs. Motyka and Bakkali and all other readers,

We just want to draw your attention to a point we have researched on in E-Econophysics systems like e-stock exchange systems which are internetworked by Artificial Genetic Gravitational Neural Networks (Mallick, Hamburger, Mallick (2016, 2017)) also our discussions on www.econometricsociety.org/[email protected], that Cybernetic Systems with their Learning Functor categories play an integrated systems role in every such cybernetic system today and hence the knowledge generating abilities of probability systems even aside from the fundamental field theory may be very important both as theory as well as for experiments.

Soumitra K Mallick

for Soumitra K Mallick, Nick Hamburger, Sandipan Mallick

The insistence of Bohr and other Copenhagen proponents that quantum theory is complete is, of course, nothing but a completely unjustified metaphysical hypothesis. It may be comfortable for own megalomania to think one is develeping the most fundamental theory of everything, the Final Truth or so, but nothing more. There is no theory even imaginable which could give us certainty that it is the final theory.

The situation in quantum theory is even more clear. The Copenhagen picture is, with its subdivision into a classical and a quantum part, in some sense obviously incomplete. And the attempts to find an interpretation based only on the quantum part, which is essentially many worlds, can be characterized as a reduction of this idea to absurdity, which somehow failed because modern physicists appeared ready to accept any absurdity.

Then, there are the misleadingly so-called "hydrodynamic variables" \(\psi(q) = \sqrt{\rho(q)}\exp(i/\hbar S(q))\). The Schroedinger equation in these variables splits into two equations, one of them being of the form of a continuity equation for \(\rho(q)\). So, it makes good sense to interpret this equation as giving us information about the probability flow. Thus, information about the average velocity \(\dot{q}(t)\). But this velocity becomes infinite near the zeros of the wave function. Such infinities are very strong evidence that the theory is only an approximation.

@Jaafar El Bakkali

Conventional (Newtonian) physics starts with metrical concepts like distances, time intervals, reference frames, coordinates. However, underlying topology of space and time is more general, regarding time as a set of moments (past-now-future) and space as a set of open sub-sets to provide just continuity (Aristotle's "Physics"). In his book "Space, time, matter", H.Weyl reasonably takes metrical concepts for independent axioms. Upon considering motion under external influences (forces), one has to introduce a measurement procedure in order to use the theoretical scheme in practics. In the implied theoretical notions measurement is a force as well. Now, if you tend to zero the external force that determines the motion it will become comparable to measurement interaction. If you are able somehow to define this interaction, it should merely be added to the driving force, and you just return to the measurement of the measurement in the same terms. So, this becomes just a logical vicious circle, as Dirac formulated in his book. Hence in terms of mechanics, some lower limit of measurement interaction must exist, and it cannot be controlled by the same procedure as the prediction of the trajectory in a problem under some independently defined external force. Hence, one necessarily comes somewhere to undefined by the accepted scheme deterministic approach, thus being left with only probabilities. Another and more important question is the universality of this limit. In these notions, minimum interaction for any measurement whatsoever is being reached with zero mass signal - "photons", which move with a top velocity and therefore cannot be accelerated. All this could be explained without metrical concepts that imply measurements with rulers and clocks, as shown in my book "Irony of the Method": http://www.ptep-online.com/complete/PiP-2016-02.pdf. In real life, predictions provided by physics are very meager, but their universal repeatability makes them that important for our technologies. When we say that science based on the repeatability of past experience (in quite unrepeatable life!) must explain everything, we just 'reduce our horizon to a point'. The problem of the technical progress is not in this that machines might think like humans, but rather in that humans will think like mashines, so driving our civilization to its end as it was predicted 200 years ago by Baratynskii ("The last death").

On the scientific level, the battle is over.

On the mediatic and territorial levels, surely not!

The Göttingen-Københavnists did not put the randomness at the right place.

Several papers are "as is" in their early states on RG.

The achieved handbook of Transactional Quantum Microphysics is released at http://www.lulu.com/shop/jacques-lavau/microphysique-quantique-transactionnelle-principes-et-applications/paperback/product-23362834.html

Microphysique quantique transactionnelle, Principes et applications.

Its translation into english is on the way, now at page 37. It will require six more months of work.

At page 57, on the 12 November.

http://jacques.lavau.deonto-ethique.eu/Physique/transactional_1_2.pdf

Maybe I will release an electronic version, but in pdf, not in e-book format.

Dear @Felix Tselnik

Thank you for sharing your book.

@Jaafar El Bakkali,

You may find a certain answer to your question in my Foundations of quantum mechanics, an empiricist approach, a pre-publication version of which can be downloaded as Publication 52 from the Main publications page of my website http://www.phys.tue.nl/ktn/Wim/muynck.htm.

Dear @Willem Marinus de Muynck,

Thank you for sharing your book. What's I'm looking for is what's you described in section "Determinism versus indeterminism' in quantum mechanics" . I will learn it carefully, then I will send my feedback.

quantum mechanics should be a low energy version of certain theory from the renormalization group's perspective, so it is an effective theory.

impediments can be avoided by using the theory of distributions, while generalised functions are valide for infinite values too and an asymmetrical time interval of events (such as mass genesis) is permitted. by using distribution theory all physical laws, if relativity or quantum laws, can be handled as one single theory (unification of relativity and quantum!). even if the laws fail in singularities , it is appropriate to use the adequate distribution theory, which works on discrete spaces and on singularities too. test functions have very good properties: infinite derivable, defined on compact spaces; transport of derivative from one factor to an other is allowed. (s. my work here on RG: ...unification of relativity & quantum without using strings)

Dear Jaafar!

It seems actual that physics remains in a frozen stage of pure theoretically declarations of the reality. Not experiments and observations determine the progress of knowledge. The theories determine the evaluation of experiments and observations even if the reality demonstrate deviations or even the opposite.

Quantum physics in particular can be foundet on an independent approach without any invented particle like "quarks", "gluons" etc. The observed and real particles are necessary and sufficient to declare the 'particle zoo' and the atomic nuclei.

The 'great theoreticians' were unable to analyse the particle reactions and recognise its structures. They invent instead of this additional particles in theoretical need.

I claim that quntum physics is false from the outset.

My Regards! Hans

Thesis The Reason of a realistic View to Particles and Atomic Nuclei

Dear Hildebrandt,

Thank you for sharing your thesis. It's seems that you are from Einstein proponents not from Copenhagen ones. Also I think virtual particle concept seems to be non-obvious. Well, in my assumption, I imagine that electron and positron are not elementary particles, they are also made of inner structure, especially photons ( as particles), interaction of photon with high intensity fields ( magnetic, electric, gravitational) can give different kind of particles which were primarily created at the beginning of creation. In vacuum, I imagine that there are gravitational waves which propagate with a velocity 50 time higher than C, because photon has a mass of 10-54 Kg, photon seems to be a heavier particle for a gravitational field so it propagates only at C. In the case of electron, I imagine that electron is made up of a point of high gravitation around which the photon is turning in positive direction ( negative one for positron) , this into a sphere having a Planck radius.

Jaafar,

The idea that qm is complete and therefore irreformable is of course at odds with a responsible scientific attitude, therefore Im inclined to

disregard these statements.

Baring this I regard it as a successfull scientific development.

relativity shows in a lesser degree that quantum is wrong than quantum proves that relativity is false.

Dear Prof. Motyka,

Thank you for your positive comment and the references you have brought to my attention. I will read them , but that will take time because they are difficult papers. However, I would like to make one comment which is just a general comment and is related to the comment you have made , which is that the property of upper semicontinuity which is essential for reducing the matrix game form into a linear form and in the limit theory, say for e.g. as in Alan Kirman's book, or in Laffont's book on Public Economics for applications in public taxation, which is essential for developing economic controls in non cooperative strategic equilibrium solutions, requires the verification of that property. In what I have found by reading the last paper is that the complex generality of the game formulations forgo the weak condition of upper semicontinuity to replace it by the stronger requirement of continuity but that creates a requirement of information by the product spaces which are stronger than is necessary. I just made a comment. I guess our Theorem 1 on www.econometricsociety.org/profile/[email protected] can take care of this somewhat.

Soumitra K. Mallick

for Soumitra K. Mallick, Nick Hamburger, Sandipan Mallick

@Jaafar: We shuold better assume that the photon resp. electromagnetic radiation split into the parts electron and positron. Those two dual particles are the only elementary particles and at this stage are starting the material properties of matter. Electron and positron are composing by accumulation of energy step by step to more complex particles. Only the stable particles survive and form the world in its very different appearances we can observe.

The invention of additional particles by mere theoretical need shows how little the understanding of the nature of particles actual is.

@Hans-G. Hildebrandt,

Thank you for your answer.

Dear Jaafar,

“…quantum physics theory, If we can consider it as no completed theory because it attempt to describe physical phenomenon into an atomic level in term of probabilities…”

If something is objectively uncertain, then there cannot be of an adequate to the reality theory of this something, which doesn’t take into account this objective fact. Including that is, of course, true when physicists develop theories of processes in Matter.

Thus if a theory describes the random processes that proceed in Matter objectively, that by any means doesn’t connote that this theory is “incomplete”, some its indeed incompleteness in this case can appear only if the theory takes into account incomplete set of parameters that characterize the randomnicity.

The QM uncertainty is fundamentally obligatory, that is the consequence of the fundamental fact that the absolutely fundamental notion/phenomenon “Change”, and the complementary to Change the absolutely fundamental notion/phenomenon “Time”, are logically self-inconsistent:

logically any change of anything is impossible since at a change of a state of something this something exists simultaneously in 3 states: previous, recent, and future states; when all these states are different by definition [and a changing object exists simultaneously in past, recent, and future times].

To overcome this fundamental prohibition of changes it becomes be fundamentally necessary to pay at least two things: (i) – to change something is necessary to spend some quantity of the absolutely fundamental Quantity “Energy”, and (ii) – in any real case, nonetheless, the state of changing object becomes be uncertain on some change’s level; though the more energy the lesser uncertainty.

That above was proven by Zeno 2500 years ago; thus Zeno, in fact, predicted the QM: if both, the speeds and the positions of both, Achilles and the turtle are known exactly, Achilles never appears ahead of the turtle; just in accordance with the most often mentioned mΔVΔx> ћ. Or ΔpVΔt> ћ → ΔEΔt> ћ.

Thus this

“…physicists may develop such more accurately theories allowing them for example to measure exactly both particle position and momentum and so breaking down the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and confirm what Einstein said “God does not play dice.”…”

is fundamentally incorrect, any God cannot overcome the fundamental self-inconsistence of Change and is forced to play dice if wants to change something.

When QM is, of course, incomplete theory with rather large probability, since physics knows too small part about what proceeds in Matter, for example – what are “entanglement” and why interference fringes appear [both effects are non-understandable identically], but just this incompleteness is principally decreasable with further development of experiment and the theory.

Mnore see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute

and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics

Cheers

Dear Dr. Jaafar EL Bakkali,

You are asking “if there is any physicists who work on a theory that claims non-probabilistic interpretation of the quantum theory?”

Yeas, there is, and I am the one trying to get the truth and the common sense!

Its well known that Einstein introduced quanta in 1905 to knock electron from atom in his photoelectric effect, it was opposed by most scientists, till he was rescued by Compton in 1923, who claimed electromagnetic radiation contain quantum (photon), with momentum p=hv/c, but I discovered this formula was derived from Einstein mass energy equivalent with Planck's radiation formula, and we proved his claim is untrue, and the momentum used by Compton can't remove electron from atom, this in:

"Compton was Greatly Mistaken Using the Quantum"

Researchgate:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322835620_Compton_was_Greatly_Mistaken_Using_the_Quantum

Since this is the backbone of quantum mechanics, then the question is how did we reached to such state?

When Orstead discovered that magnetism is related to electricity, Ampere presented his formula based on electric components, it was correct, but a better solution exist, we presented this in “The Magnetic Interaction” http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/links/Papers/MY.pdf

To understand the micro-world, you need to better understand the electromagnetic radiation through the Flip-Flop mechanism, its energy, relation with Planck constant, condition to start radiation and more, are given in two papers, they are: “The Electromagnetic Radiation Mechanism”

http://fundamentaljournals.org/ijfps/downloads/68_IJFPS_Sept_2014_72_79.pdf

“Electromagnetic Radiation Energy and Planck’ Constant”

http://www.ijirae.com/volumes/vol1/issue10/67.NVEE10087.pdf

Then the photoelectric effect, as Planck’s formula gives us the radiation energy, we driver the Radiation Magnetic Force (FmR) by Eq. (24), as a force embedded in electromagnetic radiation which removed electron from atom, in: “The Photoelectric Effects: Radiation Based With Atomic Model”

http://fundamentaljournals.org/ijfps/downloads/82_IJFPS_March_2015_18_31.pdf

The Compton effect is an interested mechanism, and the famous Indian scientist Raman suggested a century ago, it’s a reproduction of secondary electromagnetic radiation, as given in: “The Compton Effect Re-Visited”

http://crescopublications.org/pdf/JAAP/JAAP-1-004.pdf

We solved the Double Slit Experiment which Richard Feynman said it’s impossible to be solved classically, this is in: “The Double Slit Experiment Re-Explained”

http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol8-issue4/Version-3/M0804038698.pdf

The last experiment for wave particle duality is the electron Diffraction, we solve this in: “Electron Diffraction Re-Explained (The Intense Magnetic Field Interaction with Crystals)”

http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol8-issue5/Version-2/P08050299116.pdf

Several other papers you can get on my page. The world is greatly organized, unfortunately we human wants to give ourselves great freedom, power and authorities, but in the above The Magnetic Interaction, I gave example of hydrogen atom, it gives all parameters of an electron in a precise manner, velocity, distance from nucleus and more including the spectral line, while in the above : “The Photoelectric Effects: Radiation Based With Atomic Model” a higher example of potassium is given including all parameters, I hope you can get time and go through all these papers to know what does common sense means.

Dr. Jaafar

Sorry, I discovered some links are not response, the following are the proper links:

“The Magnetic Interaction” http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/links/Papers/MY.pdf

“The Electromagnetic Radiation Mechanism”

http://www.exmfpropulsions.com/New_Physics/Radiation_Mechanism.pdf

“Electromagnetic Radiation Energy and Planck’ Constant”

http://www.ijirae.com/volumes/vol1/issue10/67.NVEE10087.pdf

“The Photoelectric Effects: Radiation Based With Atomic Model”

http://www.exmfpropulsions.com/New_Physics/Photoelectric_Effects.pdf

“The Compton Effect Re-Visited”

http://crescopublications.org/pdf/JAAP/JAAP-1-004.pdf

“The Double Slit Experiment Re-Explained”

http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol8-issue4/Version-3/M0804038698.pdf

“Electron Diffraction Re-Explained (The Intense Magnetic Field Interaction with Crystals)”

http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol8-issue5/Version-2/P08050299116.pdf

Dear Dr Mahmoud E. Yousif, thank you for sharing your point of view. Yes of course I would like to know if anyone works on non-probabilistic interpretation of QM. It can be good if you can describe in more detail your theory in one page, thanks.

Dear Jaafar El Bakkali, the following is a brief non probabilistic interpretation of QM in form of a different theory:

Back in history, when Orestead discovered magnetism is related to electricity in 1820, Ampere derived his formulas, based on the assumption that, electric current is the cause of these mechanisms, and the Lorentz force was derived within that concept.

We suggested that, the force between two conductors carrying electric current is caused by the attraction and repulsion of magnetic lines of force produced by electrons movement in the conductors (the electric current), we derived a formula for this and the Catapult force and force between charged particles and magnetic field, the magnetic field produced by spinning electrons and protons and an atomic model of hydrogen atom including spectral lines, are given in "The Magnetic Interaction” at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215870160_The_Magnetic_Interaction

The spinning magnetic fields for electron, proton and integration of both to form neutrons and the nuclear force is in “THE SPINNING MAGNETIC FORCE” at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215870160_The_Magnetic_Interaction

Based on these, detailed analysis of magnetic field produced by charged particles is given and how both electric and magnetic fields of these particles integrated to produced electromagnetic radiation, given in “The Electromagnetic Radiation Mechanism” at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266143373_The_Electromagnetic_Radiation_Mechanism

The energy of electromagnetic radiation, relationship with Planck’s constant, and conditions for radiation to take place, are given in “Electromagnetic Radiation Energy and Planck’ Constant” at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271703848_Electromagnetic_Radiation_Energy_and_Planck'_Constant

The problem of radiation energy was only resolved when Planck discovered his formula E=hv, the missing formula forced the invoke of quanta (photon), is what we derived in form of magnetic force given by Eq. (24), which resolved the photoelectric effect and atomic model of potassium atom which is presented with different parameters and spectral lines in “The Photoelectric Effects: Radiation Based With Atomic Model” at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274509898_The_Photoelectric_Effects-Radiation_Based_With_Atomic_Model

In the paper presented by Compton to resolve his effect, he claimed the momentum p=hv, the formula is wrong, it’s only eligible for particles with mass and only one frequency is correct in the whole spectrum, this is in “Compton was Greatly Mistaken Using the Quantum” at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322835620_Compton_was_Greatly_Mistaken_Using_the_Quantum

While the Compton effect is resolved as the production of secondary electromagnetic radiation, the speed of light is defined as resulted from the force by which electromagnetic radiation is released, with formula related to Maxwell’s c formula, and since Compton formulas related primary and secondary radiation with wavelengths and angle, which is correct and given, these are in "The Compton Effect Re-Visited” at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299347018_The_Compton_Effect_Re-Visited

Two other experiments which explained through wave particle duality, are explained in terms of the Circular Magnetic Field (CMF) produced by electron entered a slit with electron and without electron in the second slit, also given is the origin of Planck’s constant in “The Double Slit Experiment Re-Explained” at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307122920_The_Double_Slit_Experiment_Re-Explained

Finally electron diffraction is explained as a polarization of x-ray where the resulted magnetic components caused the different phenomena, in “Electron Diffraction Re-Explained (The Intense Magnetic Field Interaction with Crystals)” at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308947884_Electron_Diffraction_Re-Explained_The_Intense_Magnetic_Fields_Interactions_within_Crystals

The missing of these papers led to the creation of QM, while there are other papers which tackled different other phenomena, they are in my profile, you can check them, and thanks.

when using probabilities then 2 kinds of logics have to be involved: the fuzzy/neutrosophic one and the binary one, so one can claim:: is it x% true? Yes or No??

Dear Prof. Jaafar El Bakkali.

As we tackled the electromagnetic force in The Magnetic Interaction” at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215870160_The_Magnetic_Interaction

And the strong force in “THE SPINNING MAGNETIC FORCE” at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215870160_The_Magnetic_Interaction

The weak force is tackled in “The Weak Spinning Magnetic Force (Fw) (The Weak Interaction)” at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311401022_The_Weak_Spinning_Magnetic_Force_F_W_The_Weak_Interaction

The Faraday Effect, is an interaction between polarized light and magnetic field, it was discovered by Michael Faraday in 1845, but was not properly explained, we tackled it in “The Faraday Effect Explained”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320004068_The_Faraday_Effect_Explained

The knowledge of elements constituting magnetic field is very important, as given in “ELEMETS OF THE MAGNETIC LINES OF FORCE”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215870552_ELEMETS_OF_THE_MAGNETIC_LINES_OF_FORCE

There are three types of natural energies in the universe, Energization of charged particles, Nuclear energy and the External Magnetic Field (ExMF), these in “THE UNIVERSAL ENERGIES”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235972109_THE_UNIVERSAL_ENERGIES

A propulsion system based on the production of External Magnetic Field (ExMF) is tackled in “EXTERNAL MAGNETIC FIELD PROPULSION SYSTEM (ExMF-PS)”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215870553_EXTERNAL_MAGNETIC_FIELD_PROPULSION_SYSTEM_ExMF-PS

We disputed the decision by Pioneer V scientific team in 1960, who claimed the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) originated from the sun with solar plasma, this is in “The Source of the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) Measured by Pioneer V”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265510247_The_Source_of_the_Interplanetary_Magnetic_Field_IMF_Measured_by_Pioneer_V

Based on that, we presented our first investigation on the magnetic fields in the interplanetary space, in “Solar or Interplanetary External Magnetic Field?”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236853622_Solar_or_Interplanetary_External_Magnetic_Field

Then we studied the sunspots, in "The Sunspots Mechanism”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258508471_The_Sunspots_Mechanism

And the solar flare in “The Solar Flare Mechanism”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215870630_The_Solar_Flare_Mechanism

And more about the sunspots, in “What is Beneath the Sunspots?”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235257197_What_is_Beneath_the_Sunspots

Till early sixties, the American, then Soviet Union, Britain and France, carried several High-altitude Nuclear Detonation, in this paper we analysis the phenomena resulted from these experiments, relating it to the magnetic storms, in “Exploring the High-altitude Nuclear Detonation and Magnetic Storms”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265510073_Exploring_the_High-altitude_Nuclear_Detonation_and_Magnetic_Storms

Dear Prof. Jaafar EL Bakkali

As these papers showed, scientists in nineteen century failed to understand the dynamic magnetism can caused which contains the magnetic force formula F=B1 B2 r^2 c, in “The Magnetic Interaction”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215870160_The_Magnetic_Interaction

And the true production of electromagnetic radiation given in “The Electromagnetic Radiation Mechanism”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266143373_The_Electromagnetic_Radiation_Mechanism

While in twentieth century, scientists failed to get Eq. (24) in “The Photoelectric Effects: Radiation Based With Atomic Model”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274509898_The_Photoelectric_Effects-Radiation_Based_With_Atomic_Model

Which showed radiation is embedded with magnetic force, the same as Planck’s energy embedded in radiation as given by formula E=hv, without which humanity couldn’t understand radiation energy, and without the magnetic force formula F=B1 B2 r^2 c, we can’t understand many phenomena, among which the micro-world.

From both above “The Magnetic Interaction” and “The Photoelectric Effects: Radiation Based With Atomic Model” any parameters of any electron in any atom can be determined precisely, including as you stated “both particle position and momentum.”

These papers confirm what Einstein said “God does not play dice,” only our ignorance blurred truth from our eyes.

If we failed to understand atoms in our body, how can we perceive the start of creation?

Recently I have introduced a new theory to united the photon and electromagnetic field theory. The axiom of this theory is the mutual energy principle and self-energy principle. Maxwell equation can be derived from mutual energy principle, but only one group of Maxwell equations is not enough. Two group of Maxwell equations are required. One group is for the retarded wave another group is for the advanced wave. Only when the two waves are synchronized the electromagnetic radiation energy can be transferred. This energy is referred as the mutual energy flow. All particle actually is the mutual energy flow. The original retarded wave and the advanced wave is only help to build the mutual energy flow. After the mutual energy flow is built, the retarded wave and the advanced wave are time-reversal returned. That means the retarded wave and the advanced wave are completely balance out by the two time-reversal waves corresponding to the retarded wave and the advanced wave. If in the space there is only one retarded wave, this wave will be balanced out or canceled by the time-reversal waves corresponding to the retarded wave. Hence it looks this retarded wave never happened. Hence if only one group of Maxwell equations, it is only partially correct, it is only correct when this retarded wave can find an advanced wave to match. Hence Maxwell equation only correct partially or with some probability. This theory solved the wave and particle duality problem. This theory also tell us the reason of the probability of QM. To know the details, please see: http://www.openscienceonline.com/journal/archive2?journalId=726&paperId=4042

We cannot know what we do not know.

The description is complete: the states of a quantum system are all known. That the description involves probabilities doesn't mean that it's incomplete, that there are states, that aren't accounted for.

The photon is the one-particle state of the electromagnetic field and the theory that describes it, along with the interactions with matter, is called quantum electrodynamics, developed in the 1940s by Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga.

Cf. http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

Waves of probability have no physical means to interfere. But physical waves have, and interfere.

The standard theory despises and denies the absorbers. I wonder why they did not also deny the emitters. Why not?

I wonder why they have placated a corpuscularist and probabilistic semantics on a formalism which is strictly undulatory and stricly deterministic - and correct.

I wonder why they stick to the universal and ubiquist Newtonian macro-time, an anti-relativistic fiction.

Etc.

See A Göttingen-Københavnist Creed

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Transactionnal-microphysics-for-the-dumbs/update/5b360cadb53d2f892898110e

In my previous answers, I mentioned some background about what happened in 1821, when Ampere carried many experiments to derived his formula which consolidated the concept of "action at distance."

Our last paper about this is in: "The Unified Force of Nature: 1-The Electric & Magnetic Forces"

At:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328134515_The_Unified_Force_of_Nature_1-The_Electric_Magnetic_Forces

So as a joke we can conclude from a general point of view the lagrangian L = T - V (where T is kinetic and V the potential energies), while the hamiltonian operator gives us the sum between them!

Now seriously.

So, (and that must be understood very good!) conceptual there is no difference between Newtonian, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics.

The lagrangian and Hamilton operators (because they are!) are Legendre transformations of one another and in partial case the difference between them comes out for example that the Lagrangian works better (easy and elegant) in a configurational space (i.e. can predict the Dynamics of a given particle), while the Hamiltonian allows you to work in a phase space.

You can read some simple books in the area of classical mechanics of moving bodies. Check for example "Classical mechanics - systems of particles and hamiltonian dynamics" by Walter Greiner.

Important are part 5 (Lagrange equations) and part 6 (Hamilton theory).

Tracing the emergence of action at distance by Newton’s and Coulomb’s inverse square laws, consolidated by Ampere’s electrodynamics in 1821, intensely opposed by Orsted, Biot, Savart and Faraday who suggested an alternative magnetic based concept but they lacked mechanism and formula; which we derived as field’s interaction, it solved the electrostatic force and different forms of magnetic forces using single formula, given in:

“The Unified Force of Nature: 1-The Electric & Magnetic Forces,” at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328134515_The_Unified_Force_of_Nature_1-The_Electric_Magnetic_Forces

If the content of this paper is credible, then how physics may look without action at distance?

You can check the links for our model of atom, electromagnetic radiation, and radiation magnetic force with formula of a force removing electron from atom, and reinterpretation of the three experiments of wave particle duality, the links of these and more at:

http://www.exmfpropulsions.com/Fields.htm

All papers (23) at my profile at ResearchGate or at: http://www.exmfpropulsions.com/

Dear Jaafar!

Particles resp. quantas have in contrast to mechanical objects very different energies and they can change it immediately (well known already from thermodynamics). This energy not only consist of motion energy (=external energy) but also internal energy up to exited states. I see no theoretical approach to describe the relationship between internal and external energy of particles and the mutual transformations between both energies. The permanent energy exchange between particles is also fact. Therefore the current theories about quantas are only provisionally.

But quantum physics has more significant problems than the named. Par example are "quarks" never observed but this wishful particles form the basis of quantum physics. There is an realistic approach to the world of particles without any additional particles than the actual observed.

My Regards! Hans

Thesis The Reason of a realistic View to Particles and Atomic Nuclei

one has to use 2 logics; the one on theory level (can be fuzzy too) and the other which is ABOUT the theory and must be binary. so, case QT operates with probabilities does not mean it IS probably! a question about the theory is still to answer with Yes or No! kind of: is the probability to occure 60%? yes/no?