Is Heisenberg's uncertainty then still valid ? or are then the particles in a System fix?
1st we must find out that QM exist.
2nd, no atom exist below 0 d kl
3rd The space of the universe is intelligent
Article Quantum Intelligent Space
If no existing atoms, then at least there are particles, stillstanding 36 quarks would be the best for the Higgs field SYSTEM!
Standard modeling of atom is QM which up to date is a theory, and nothing of internal atom have been observed up to this date.
The proton/neutron, electron/positron, quarks, Higgs boson, gluon....never been seen or observed.
The world is made of chemical (PT) & non-chemical (particles)
Science does not have any explanation for particle. Unfortunately everyone use this word, while they do not know anything about it.
Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted
But at least the best acceptable probability would be stillstanding of all particles in the best position which could be used for a non measurable SYSTEM, what Gell-Man did, getting the three quarks by crossing the used meson lines. With these all others particles can be got with small fractions
(spin, strangeness, charge), resulting then the full Higgs field.
“…What about the Quantum mechanics at 0°K?Could then be a fix Standard Model System?… Is Heisenberg's uncertainty then still valid ? or are then the particles in a System fix?..”
- really mainstream Quantum mechanics and Heisenberg's uncertainty fundamentally aren’t applicable “at 0°K?” - i.e. if a particle is at rest in the 3D space. That is another thing that it is applicable in the mainstream, and textbooks tell us that if a particle is at the rest, then – as that follows from Schrödinger equation and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle - because of that particle has zero speed and so zero momentum, its wave function length is infinite, and so the particle can be practically with equal probability in any point in infinite Matter’s space,
- despite rather evident for any normal human absurdity of this claim.
Really all/every particles constantly always move with 4D velocities that have identical absolute values being equal to the standard speed of light in the 4D space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z) in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct),
- and so if the particle is at rest in 3D XYZ space, it simply moves with the speed of light along cτ-axis, being localized in the 3D space in region that has size ~ the particle’s Compton length. More see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics , at least section 3. “What is the “Feynman–Stueckelberg interpretation” in QED [35], [36], where it is postulated that antiparticles move backward in time”, though to understand that what is written in this section is really correct it is necessary to read whole paper, at least above this section.
Cheers
Is it absolut necessary taking the time with waves. In a wanted SYSTEM (as periodic Mendeliev), there is no TIme and no waves. Why is that not possible by the smaller elementary particles? I don't want having all trillions together at an exact time point but only all possible particles of one Higgs field represented as 3D-SYSTEM with the 7 charge planes.