In physics, qualitative description of reality should precede quantitative one. Mathematics may be used to quantify and correlate certain nature and mechanics with geometry and
algebra, which can certainly lead to increased understanding, knowledge, and predictability of phenomena. But reality never changes with changing equations. Equations evolve and adapt to reality
with increasing experience, increasing cognitive capacity and increasing power of observation. Just because one has reached, or is approaching, its cognitive or observational limitations, does not mean
that reality is starting to respect stagnating equations. No, reality is still evolving and still doesn't care about elegant mathematical relations or constructs. I even claim that reality is still intuitive and very
much physical. It is the modern physicist who gave up on intuitive interpretations, and all he cares about now is the preservation of existing elegance in equations, making sure they agree with the
outcome of measurements, to the precision of the apparatus. If such person is also a zealot it becomes highly unlikely his description of reality will make sense or be understandable to
anyone.
A modern physicist may claim that most about reality is known, but that's the case only in his own limited reality. He still knows nothing, compared to what there is to know. The same goes
for she, he-she, she-he, it, he-it, she-it, it-he and it-she.
Sadly, that is the state of physics today - it is infested with mathematicians producing a
bunch
of nonsense that's continually being patched to match the outcomes of experiments. This prepotent reductionism is usually not a conscious conspiracy, rather a manifestation of a subconscious desire
for short-term profit on some level. There's nothing scientific about it so it will not lead to progress in science, it is, in fact, hindering such progress, often through the maintenance of
illusion of progress by the establishment or re-establishment of a value of a certain parameter in mathematical perturbation.
While perturbation exists in reality, perturbation operators supposedly describing reality become increasingly shady with increasing number of parameters. If the number of
parameters (or degrees of freedom) used grows proportionally to the number of decimals correctly matched to measurements I wouldn't hail this extraordinary accurate prediction as some
extraordinary achievement. It may be nothing more than an artificially inflated correlation. Quantum mechanics and closely related theories do not primarily describe reality, they are describing
measurements, measurements which inevitably affect reality of the observables. If one needs to observe reality to make sense of it but cannot observe it properly, it obviously makes sense to some
to reduce it to nonsense or even nonexistence, but proper interpretation of that is a limited observer, not limited reality, even though the measurements may be limiting the observable to
predictable outcomes. One may see what one wants to see, but there's always much more that one cannot see.
The primary source of non-intuitive interpretations is the assumed absolute constancy of values, mainly the constant
c, often referred to as the
speed of light, although the
proper term is
speed of abstract information (which in reality does not exist - anything carrying information also carries energy).
As argued in
Complete Relativity (CR), it is illogical to assume that this constant is
invariant to scale, and in a genuine approach to understand reality one would not assume it is. The relativity of constants, currently assumed absolute, resolves many paradoxes
in Quantum Mechanics (QM) and allows for intuitive interpretation of reality at small scales. Absolutism also produces infinities, which are effectively ignored using a technique
called
renormalization which some even describe as
shady
guesswork employed to produce results matching reality. While I don't agree entirely with criticism of such techniques, they generally represent an
ad hoc solution, not invented to
increase understanding but to increase agreement with measurements.
The other factor, contributing to non-intuitive interpretations of reality is abuse of reduction, where elegant algebra is favoured over existence of hidden variables that would provide intuitive
understanding. One excellent example of this are spinors which can, depending on context, limit the description of reality to two-dimensional planes (in a complex vector space). However, CR implies
limits in observation - intrinsic existence of hidden variables. And spinors can be interpreted as a
reduction of intuitive
interpretations to abstract planes. In example, in QM one is supposed to accept the notion of absolute point particles, such as electron - that needs to rotate twice to return to the same
state, as an actual aspect of reality. This is non-intuitive only with the absurdly limited description of the electron.
A fermion (such as an electron) rotated by 360° is described by a wavefunction that is out of phase with the original wavefunction (with no rotation) by 180° (in other words, the outcome is the
inversion, the original wavefunction multiplied by -1). Only after the particle is rotated by additional 360° the wavefunction matches the original one. This was, for example, demonstrated
by Overhauser in 1970's with the splitting
and subsequent recombination of neutron beams. With no external influence, the recombined beams are coherent (in phase), however, if one beam (neutron) is rotated by a magnet by 360° the
coherence is lost. It is fully restored only after 720° rotation. Note that the wavefunction says nothing about what is going on in reality, it simply describes what is measured. To find out what
is most likely happening physically requires imagination, something reductionists usually severely lack. Therefore, they claim there is nothing to imagine - in their minds a particle may not even
exist until measured.
Consider the planet Earth and assume one cannot resolve any details about it apart from [the effect of] its spin momentum and effect of its atmosphere which itself one cannot directly observe. Now
assume that the Earth needs to rotate twice for this atmosphere to rotate once. Another possible interpretation is precession - rotation of the rotation itself. In any case, something more complex
than a simple
one-dimensional rotation. With no ability to observe the rotation itself (only the effect) one could conclude that Earth's rotation is non-intuitive. But why
assume that no details or hidden variables exist simply because one cannot observe them? That's utter nonsense, or a god complex (
let there be no things that a man cannot observe).
Note that the associated space of the electron does not have to be absolutely entangled with its real mass, nor entangled in an elementary way, as some have led one to believe
using
absurdly looking animations with twisting strands of space (where the
particle and its rotation are assumed to be absolutely elementary, rather than composite - as is the case in reality).
Its space (or the magnetic field) is simply rotating twice slower than its acquired mass but this does not imply that both the gravitational mass and charge [mass] are at the same
radius. In fact, the g-factor of 2 can be elegantly explained as a difference in orbital (
spin) radius between charge and neutral (gravitational) mass where orbital radius of charge is
twice larger (or, approximately twice, as the measured electron g-factor suggests).
Note that the two are in orbital resonance (1:2). This resonance exists in other particles too. Generally, for any graviton in CR (not to be confused with the standard graviton in QM) the resonance
may be 2
n:1 where
n is a negative or positive integer. In a standard QM graviton, resonance is 2:1, meaning that space is rotating twice faster than real mass. This can be seen
on large scale too, e.g., in galaxies, where outer space is rotating faster than the central mass.
With non-invariant
c and allowed hidden variables, electron can be imagined as an intuitive phenomenon, having a real radius and real geometry, rather than a non-sense of an
absolute zero-radius (point) particle which cannot rotate but has a measurable and intrinsic spin momentum (which common sense would interpret as a joke really, not as reality). Some might argue
that electron is not always a particle, sometimes it is a wave. So what? This only means it is variable, it evolves in shorter timescales, it can spread its constituent mass (de-localize) and
contract (localize the constituent mass) so its shape will depend on energy one uses to
observe it. Localized state, in which it may be interpreted as a particle, is simply one
eigenstate it collapses to depending on the conditions of the environment (in reality, it is still a wave even in this state, it is only confined so much that in low-resolution environment it
manifests as a particle). The wave-like state does not make it less physical or less intuitive. It is non-intuitive only if one,
a priori, assumes it must be a joke. Sadly, not only is
the
small electron generally described as a joke, its big cousin, the Earth, is not taken seriously either.