Why is QT paradoxical?

==============…
The theory which we call Quantum Mechanics is a very
strange theory. Because when we are talking about mechanics
it means that we can imagine and see this process visual.
But the QM came with no visual aids, no model to picture
in one’s mind. Now this theory is a purely mathematical
formalism, difficult to use and impossible to visualize.
It simple gives the right answers to the most complicated
theoretical question. Such situation satisfy maybe 99%
of physicists. But there are few physicists who don’t agree
with this situation. They want to understand QT without paradoxes.
I consider that these paradoxes are connected with only one reason:
" Nobody pays attention on geometrical form of particle".
===============…
Now the physicists follow " pure " mathematicians.
" Since the mathematical physicists have taken over,
theoretical physics has gone to pot.
The bizarre concepts generated out of the over use and
misinterpretation of mathematics would be funny if it were not
for the tragedy of the waste in time,
manpower, money, and the resulting misdirection."-

  • said Richard Feynman.
    There is difference between the " pure" mathematics
    and the mathematics of theoretical physics.
    " Pure" mathematics is infinite and the mathematics
    of theoretical physics is limited by nature laws.
    The " pure " mathematicians have all right to create
    and use abstract models ( point, line …etc)
    Physicists must use mathematical apparatus in connection
    with real object, with real particle.
    And they forgot about this fact.
    For example.

In thermodynamics particles are " mathematical point",
2.
In QT particles are " mathematical point",
3.
In SRT particles are points.
But according SRT the " mathematical point",
cannot be a firm " mathematical point" .
It means it is a " elastic point",
which can change its form. (??!!).
4.
When this " mathematical elastic point " fly with speed c=1
its form become flat circle.
/ not a " mathematical point" fly with speed c=1./
5.
In QED electron is elastic sphere,
which can change its form. (??!!).
6.
The power, impulse, linear and angular momentum
in physics is also a " mathematical point".
7.
Then one a " mathematical point" /particle/ interact
with another a " mathematical point" / power, impulse /
the physicists say: " The micro-world is paradoxical."
8.
If physicist think about particle as a " mathematical point"
the result can be only paradoxical.
And I am sure if somebody takes into consideration the
geometrical form of particle the paradoxes of QT will disappear.
========…
P.S.
Italy. Railway station.
It was more then two hours till the departure of the train.
I went to the café and ordered a cup of coffee. Soon two men
and a very beautiful, slim woman took place opposite me.
They ordered something to drink and one of the man opened a
case of violin and took out a bow. He began to explain something
about a bow , carefully and gently touching it. Then another man
took this bow and also enthusiastically continued this conversation.
For half an hour the bow was passed from one hands to another
following with enthusiastic discussion.
And the beautiful woman looked at both these men without saying a word.
For half an hour I watched this group with admiration and excitement.
What a class! What a cultural level! What a beauty!
=======================…
And now let’s imagine the bow pressed into a “mathematical point”
and the musicians speak seriously about a " mathematical point "
which must produce a sound from a violin. Everybody will say I
describe an idiotic situation. Well, I agree.
But why don’t anybody say it to physicists when they observe the
elementary particle as a " mathematical point " , without paying
attention to its geometrical form.
==========…
P.S.
When Feynman said " I think I can safely say that nobody understands
quantum mechanics. " it was only because nobody took into consideration
the geometrical form of particle.
=============…

String theory sounds like Mathism to me. What good is a theory if it can’t predict anything?

==============================
It began in 1905 when Einstein created SRT,
(theory of photon/electron’s behaviour).
Minkowski, tried to understand SRT using 4D space.
Poor young Einstein, reading Minkowski’s interpretation,
said, that now he couldn’t understand his own theory.
“ Einstein, you are right, it is difficult to understand SRT
using 4D space. But it is possible using my 5D space”

  • said Kaluza in 1921.
    This theory was tested and found insufficient.
    “Well”, said another mathematicians, - “maybe 6D, 7D,
    8D, 9D spaces will explain it”. And they had done it.
    But the doubts still remain.
    “OK”,they say, “we have only one way to solve this problem.
    We must create more complex D spaces”.
    And they do it, they use all their power, all their super intellects
    to solve this problem.
    Glory to these mathematicians !!!
    But……….
    But there is one problem.
    To create new D space, mathematicians must add a new parameter.
    It is impossible to create new D space without a new parameter.
    And the mathematicians take this parameter arbitrarily
    (it fixed according to his opinion, not by objective rules).
    The physicist, R. Lipin explained this situation in such way:
    “Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant.
    With four I can make him wiggle his trunk…”
    To this Lipin’s opinion it is possible to add:
    “with one more parameter the elephant will fly.”
    The mathematicians sell and we buy these theories.
    Where are our brains?
    =============================
    I read what string theory acts in 11- D space.
    But if we don’t know what 1+1 = 2
    how can we know what 5+4 = 9 ?
    And if we don’t know what is 4-D negative space
    ( 4-D positive Mincowski space )
    how can we understand 11-D space ( string theory) ?
    ================= ==========
    If I were a king, I would publish a law:
    every mathematician who takes part in the creation
    of 4D space and higher is to be awarded a medal
    “To the winner over common sense”.
    Why?
    Because they have won us over using the
    absurd ideas of Minkowski and Kaluza.
    ==========================