Was Einstein Right when he Said Quantum Theory is Wrong?

[HIENVN]

According to Webster’s New World, Dictionary of Science, page 542, “Quantum theory: testing Quantum theory”, by Peter Lafferty: “Quantum Theory must be wrong, “Einstein said. Einstein was never comfortable with Quantum Theory; Einstein felt that behind the uncertainty of Quantum Theory there must be an exact reality.”

Scientists around the world of the twentieth century confirmed Einstein was wrong when he said Quantum Theory is wrong, because all experiments in that century proved Quantum Theory is right. And,

Do you - the person of the twentieth first century- think Einstein was right when he said Quantum Theory is wrong?

[Simon]

As I observed in the "God does not play dice" thread:

Einstein was challenging Bohr and the prevailing Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory.

 

To a great extent, Einstein did champion quantum theory and accepted the prinicple of indeterminacy. What he disputed was the idea that reality itself does not exist. The Copenhagen view had reduced the universe to a collection of probabilties relative to observers. It was not simply that we could not be certain of an unobserved outcome. It was claimed that any unobserved outcome had no definite existence. Einstein maintained to Bohr that the unverse really is out there and God does not play dice when we're not looking.

 

It is interesting to speculate whether Einstein - if he had lived - might have endorsed the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum theory to win his argument with Bohr.

 

In so far as Einstein said that quantum theory must be wrong, it would have been fairer to say that it was incomplete - which is probably what he meant. Had he lived longer it seems likely that he would have endorsed, perhaps even formulated, a multiverse view of quantum theory. For him this would have reconciled the Uncertainty Principle (which he could not dismiss) with the existence of a real space-time in which events actually occur.

[HIENVN]

As I observed in the "God does not play dice" thread:

 

In so far as Einstein said that quantum theory must be wrong, it would have been fairer to say that it was incomplete - which is probably what he meant. Had he lived longer it seems likely that he would have endorsed, perhaps even formulated, a multiverse view of quantum theory. For him this would have reconciled the Uncertainty Principle (which he could not dismiss) with the existence of a real space-time in which events actually occur.

 

I very like Einstein’s quote, “God does not play dice.” I think almost people dislike this quote because they did not understand Einstein’s good idea. This quote just is a comparison between religion and science, in which Einstein want to tell with everybody in science that all phenomena must be governed by a single law of the universe. Quantum theory can develop so far in the future with a condition that it has to accept this single law. Our world exists in the universe because all matter in the universe has accepted this single law.

Although quantum theory can right as everybody recognize it, but this quantum theory (including relativity theory) is not enough to explain what happening in the universe, unless scientists of quantum theory (including relativity theory) know a single secret of the universe that is just find out by a next Newton.

[arkain101]

I suppose quantum theory could be complete, aswell as Relativiy, and classical newtonian theory.

 

But they are all right relative to something in their own way. A unified theory will not de-bunk previous theory that works it should only unite them under one simple law.

 

As you said, it was einsteins life time search for that secret.

 

There is only one place that has a percepted universe and that is in our mind.

 

I beleive that what I have found in my study is that ONE law is:

 

Observation of change is observing an observer observe change from a zero point location/position.

 

Thus anything matter does is a function of relativistic effects it experiences in its frame.

[HIENVN]

I suppose quantum theory could be complete, aswell as Relativiy, and classical newtonian theory.

 

But they are all right relative to something in their own way. A unified theory will not de-bunk previous theory that works it should only unite them under one simple law.

 

As you said, it was einsteins life time search for that secret.

 

There is only one place that has a percepted universe and that is in our mind.

 

I beleive that what I have found in my study is that ONE law is:

 

Observation of change is observing an observer observe change from a zero point location/position.

 

Thus anything matter does is a function of relativistic effects it experiences in its frame.

 

I agree that quantum theory could be complete, but relativity theory should be not exact theory and classical Newtonian theory is lack of energy.

-Although scientists have proved Einstein’s equation is right to 99, 94%, but I know these scientists can not prove this equation right to 100%. Although Einstein’s equation would necessary for the future science, but this famous equation need to correct something before it can play a role in the next revolution in science.

-Classical Newtonian theory is lack of energy; this is a reason that quantum mechanics and relativity theory won classical mechanics in the 20th century. An energy improvement of classical mechanics will lead to a single secret of the universe and will speed up the study of quantum and relativity theory.

The location/position of an object just reflects an energy manner of this object in the universe. Position or movement is a consequence while energy is a cause; and then a single secret of the universe would relate to energy, which is a force that governs all movement of matter in the universe.

The next revolution in science will study for gravitational waves, instead for light in the 20th century. Gravitational waves would disclose an order that all matter must obey these waves.

I think you can study for gravitational waves that are hunting by 50,000 scientists around the world, because these waves may hide a “giant power” that the light did not have. The light is belonging to the past and gravitational waves is belong the future.

Special relativity theory was based on the light that Einstein said “speed of light is fastest,” and then later in general relativity theory, he also said “speed of gravitational waves equals to speed of light.”

[Doctordick]

Although scientists have proved Einstein’s equation is right to 99, 94%, but I know these scientists can not prove this equation right to 100%.

You miss a very important fact! Einstein's equations could be 100% correct and, at exactly the same time, the model he uses to deduce those equations could be flawed. I think that is the case; I firmly hold that his model is incorrect and the evidence of his error is the conflict with quantum theory. The problem arise because his picture does not properly represent time (see my latest post to, “Is ‘time’ a measurable variable?”)

 

What Einstein's model is, is an excellent mathematical construct useful for transforming KNOWN experimental results from one frame of his design (created by one observer) to another such representation (created by a second observer). That fact does not make it the "one and only possible representation of the universe". The current scientific community seems to hold that his representation of the universe is indeed the only possiblity. That is exactly why they all consider me to be a quack! :(

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Erasmus00]

I firmly hold that his model is incorrect and the evidence of his error is the conflict with quantum theory.

 

Einstein's special relativitiy is NOT in conflict with quantum theory at all! I've pointed this out to you in the past.

 

Now, in none of your previous posts have I seen a modification of general relativity that doesn't have the same problem that Einstein's does.

 

The current scientific community seems to hold that his representation of the universe is indeed the only possiblity. That is exactly why they all consider me to be a quack! :hihi:

 

That isn't really true. Many theorists/experimentalists are hoping to find Lorentz violations on small scales, which would mean that Einstein's universe is at best approximate.

-Will

[rocket art]

The "exact reality" that Einstein was looking for may most likely be Conscious Energy itself. Even an inanimate rock manifest its own a state of being 'conscious' by behaving just as it is, as a hard, heavy object. A photon is 'conscious' to behave both like a wave and a particle.

 

If Einstein said "God does not play dice," lemme say that 'God uses dice only when he plays, and life is a game' -rocket.

[HIENVN]

You miss a very important fact! Einstein's equations could be 100% correct and, at exactly the same time, the model he uses to deduce those equations could be flawed. I think that is the case; I firmly hold that his model is incorrect and the evidence of his error is the conflict with quantum theory. The problem arise because his picture does not properly represent time (see my latest post to, “Is ‘time’ a measurable variable?”)

 

What Einstein's model is, is an excellent mathematical construct useful for transforming KNOWN experimental results from one frame of his design (created by one observer) to another such representation (created by a second observer). That fact does not make it the "one and only possible representation of the universe". The current scientific community seems to hold that his representation of the universe is indeed the only possiblity. That is exactly why they all consider me to be a quack! :confused:

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

The experimentalists cannot prove Einstein’s equation is right to 100% because this equation was wrong! Although many theorists may prove a wrong equation is right by the magic of mathematics, but scientists of experimentalist cannot prove a wrong equation is right (to 100%) by their equipments.

The Einstein’s equation is wrong in the new version of Newton’s law and in the language of Einstein’s unified field theory. Suppose Einstein’s equation was right, the universe did not exist and then you do not exist to talk about the right of this equation.

The wrong of Einstein’s equation will lead to the failure of relativity theory, and then all theories that are depending on relativity theory will be corrupted such as Theory of Everything and The Final Theory. The String theory is still alive because the scientists of this theory have rejected relativity theory in their string theory. And string theory will be developed because its scientists are rethinking on classical mechanics that everybody thought this mechanics is false to the quantum theory in the 20th century.

HIENVN

[HIENVN]

Einstein's special relativitiy is NOT in conflict with quantum theory at all! I've pointed this out to you in the past.

 

Now, in none of your previous posts have I seen a modification of general relativity that doesn't have the same problem that Einstein's does.

 

 

 

That isn't really true. Many theorists/experimentalists are hoping to find Lorentz violations on small scales, which would mean that Einstein's universe is at best approximate.

-Will

 

Einstein’s idea has conflicted with quantum theory since 1921, which is the year that he proposed his unified field theory.

Einstein's special relativity theory is NOT in conflict with quantum theory at all! The current scientific community is struggling to support for 1916’s Einstein’s prediction of gravitational waves in his general relativity theory. Above 50,000 scientists around the world are hunting the existence of gravitational waves in many programs that they named LIGO, LISA, etc...

HIENVN

[Doctordick]

Will, I wish you would take the time to think about what I have said.

Einstein's special relativity is NOT in conflict with quantum theory at all! I've pointed this out to you in the past.

I never said his "special theory" was; however, the "special theory" is not a full blown "theory of relativity" as it only concerns itself with how physics laws vary between reference systems which are not accelerating with respect to one another. Without GR, the theory is incomplete. And GR is quite definitely in conflict with quantum theory on a number of points.

Now, in none of your previous posts have I seen a modification of general relativity that doesn't have the same problem that Einstein's does.

I find that sad and it is totally consistent with my expectations as it is quite the standard reaction of professional physicists. You are apparently one of the few people on this forum with a decent knowledge of physics and where you could use that physics and mathematics to better understand what I am doing you are instead so immersed in Einstein's picture that you can not even begin to comprehend my perspective. If you took the time to think about what I am saying, you would see that, in my perspective, general relativistic effects are as straight forward as are the special relativistic effects.

That isn't really true. Many theorists/experimentalists are hoping to find Lorentz violations on small scales, which would mean that Einstein's universe is at best approximate.

Well, I think I can pretty well guarantee they won't find any violations of SR no matter how close they look (based on reasoning considerably deeper than common relativistic theory).

 

Einstein's view is foolish from a number of perspectives. His theory is that the universe "IS" a space-time continuum. In many respects this is as ridiculous as the old contention that the universe was Euclidean in nature. Geometry is an abstract construct used to represent parameters important to phenomena being examined. To say that only one geometry is capable of representing the parameters important to a given phenomena is stepping off into intellectually very dangerous tunnel vision.

 

A second very dangerous axiom of his theory is that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. That requires a definition of "a vacuum" which his GR fundamentally denies him through the necessity of what is commonly called vacuum polarization (curvature of space introduces forces). In essence the concept of "an ideal clock" is not even conceivable in his representation; that makes his approach an approximation before we even begin.

 

A third thing which goes totally unrecognized by the physics community is that Einstein's theory is essentially an ether theory (it's just not a three dimensional Euclidean ether, instead it is a four dimensional Riemiann ether). No one recognizes the ether nature of his theory but they all think in terms of it. His ether is called the "space-time continuum"; people are looking for vibration waves in the fabric of space! If that isn't an ether perspective, I don't know what is. The only difference between his ether and the old ether is the dimensionality and the signature.

 

Now I have never said that his picture is worthless. It provides a very valuable basis for establishing mathematical relationships essential to assuring that the laws of physics be frame independent (the very essence of relativity). His view allows one to write the laws of physics in a form which guarantees the laws will be frame independent (so long as you construct the reference frame according to his rules). This is a valuable thing to have but it certainly cannot be taken as "factual structure of the universe" (that's going back to an ether theory right there).

 

And a final point I might make is that the invalidity of the concept of absolute frame independent relativity is evident in our observations already. The background black body radiation of the universe sets out a very definite frame of reference as unique: the frame who's origin is at rest relative to that background radiation.

 

Newton proposed that the laws of physics were simplified when expressed in "an inertial frame of reference" (one which is not accelerating; and, of course, acceleration was defined in terms of those laws). His frame of reference was three dimensional Euclidean frame with time as a parameter of motion through that frame because, well that's all there was. What other conceivable reference frame might one use? (A question still worth asking once in a while!) All kinds of surprising effect arose out of his perspective. I won't go into them as I am sure you are familiar with most. What is important is that many of these phenomena arose directly from transformations to non-inertial frames. The transformations were quite straight forward as the reference frame was quite well defined (that abstract construct used to represent parameters of important phenomena being examined).

 

This is where Einstein's theory falls short. His proposed frame (that abstract construct used to represent parameters important to phenomena being examined) has properties which depend upon the phenomena being examined. That is exactly the reason GR calculations are so hairy (one must find a solution consistent with the frame in which the solutions exists).

 

I am proposing an alternate frame of reference, totally and completely compatible with classical quantum mechanics (a Euclidean frame with time as a parameter of motion through the frame). The only difference between my frame and Newton's frame is that his was three dimensional and mine is four dimensional. The only difference between my physics and Newton's physics is that Newton has a fundamental variable called mass which my presentation entirely lacks. This is no issue so long as one knows how to set up and solve classical quantum mechanical interactions in a mass free environment. Relativistic transformations are as straight forward as they were with Newton's frame of reference (transformations to moving and/or accelerating frames).

 

The final two statements are quite simple. First, the laws of physics simplify when one works in a frame of reference where the total momentum of the entities of interest vanishes (quite analogous to Newton's statement that the laws of physics simplify in an inertial frame). And second, rest mass is simply no more than a component of the momentum (the fact that all experiments are done with equipment constructed from entities which are in rest mass quantized states yields a profound and far reaching consequence: in particular it causes one dimension to appear to vanish).

 

The result is an easily understood construct with well defined components. The calculations are straight forward to set up and the relativistic transformations are relatively trivial. What is important is that the representation is one hundred percent consistent with quantum mechanics from the word go. And finally, if one goes to calculate the experimental consequences, this simple system is one hundred percent consistent with relativity.

 

You of all people should be able to comprehend why this representation has no problems with general relativity.

 

I wish you would take the time to think about it carefully -- Dick

[HIENVN]

The "exact reality" that Einstein was looking for may most likely be Conscious Energy itself. Even an inanimate rock manifest its own a state of being 'conscious' by behaving just as it is, as a hard, heavy object. A photon is 'conscious' to behave both like a wave and a particle.

 

If Einstein said "God does not play dice," lemme say that 'God uses dice only when he plays, and life is a game' -rocket.

 

- Something is a game if it has at least a rule for its players. Life (science) is a game because the science has some laws that scientists must obey these laws. Matter is solved by scientists because the matter has a law that have confirmed by quantum mechanics.

However, a game can not be play good if its players do not understand its rules. Einstein can not play a game of universe because he did not know the rule of this game that he named “a single secret of the universe.”

-You are beginning to understand the single law of universe with exclusive term “Conscious energy.”

All actions of matter merely reach to the last purpose that is confirmed by the single law of universe. This single law is cooperation between the laws of conservation of energy and an improvement of Newton’s first law.

[imaplanck.]

"Was Einstein Right when he Said Quantum Theory is Wrong?"

 

:hihi: When exactly did Einstein say this?

 

I think you will find that (although never quite convinced of his own findings) he never said anything of the sort, and to the contrary he brought in many innovations in quantum physics. His misgivings certainly weren't as strong as those of his universe constant.

[HIENVN]

"Was Einstein Right when he Said Quantum Theory is Wrong?"

 

:) When exactly did Einstein say this?

 

I think you will find that (although never quite convinced of his own findings) he never said anything of the sort, and to the contrary he brought in many innovations in quantum physics. His misgivings certainly weren't as strong as those of his universe constant.

 

You can go to the forum “Rethinking…Classic Mechanics will be Return”, http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-science/8791-rethinking-classic-mechanics-will-return-3.html, in which Erasmus00 wrote: “Einstein did believe that quantum theory was fundamentally flawed. There is a very famous series of letters between Einstein and Bohr on this subject. Also, the EPR "paradox" was issued as a sort of formal challenge.”

I think almost scientists just remember the successfulness of Einstein, which they think is right, while they forget the failure of him in his last life.

[Qfwfq]

But "flawed" wasn't meant as "wrong". Einstein believed in hidden variables interpretations, the EPR paradox was meant to demonstrate this.

 

The argument was that we can't predict outcomes because we don't know the value of these variables, Bohm's interpretation is a specific example for a single, spinless particle. Today however these ideas are much criticized. Functional methods (Feynman's path-integral) suggest something like Heisenberg's concept of potentia, although some find it suggestive of multiverse interpretations. :xparty:

 

To sum up, Einstein was one of those who disagreed with the Copenhagen interpretation which is the most considered. Whichever interpretation you choose, the quantum formalism is the same and Einstein never disagreed with that.

[HydrogenBond]

I beleive what Einstein meant was that we live in a reality based on cause and affect. The ideas of relative and indeterminancy was shifting thinking toward a noncausual perception of reality (playing dice with the universe). One can see the affect today. If one tries to explain things in a rational way, the tendancy is to dwell on the exception, as though 1 out of 100, is reality, instead of 99 out of 100.

 

A noncausual or statistical approach is much easier since it creates its own fudge factors. A causual approach does not have this liberty and is therefore more difficult. The second separates the men from the boys, while the first allows the boys to pretend to be men.

 

The other problem with the fudge factor approach is that it opens the door to too many competing theories about very fundamental things, since all these theories are able to fall within the range of the built in fudge factors. Even if one theory is correct, all the rest of the scientists pursuing alternative universe, end up losing touch with reality, while still calling what they pursue, science. Until reality is determine, the contest comes down to marketing and politics, being the deciding vote as to which is closest to reality.

 

If one placed a rational constraint on science and physics, it would thin the herd, because there are no built in fudge factors for the disney world affect. There is also no room for marketing and politics, since these irrationally things would be seen for what they are. This would require science stick to its goal of defining reality, instead of setting new science fads for fun and profit.

[HIENVN]

But "flawed" wasn't meant as "wrong". Einstein believed in hidden variables interpretations, the EPR paradox was meant to demonstrate this.

 

The argument was that we can't predict outcomes because we don't know the value of these variables, Bohm's interpretation is a specific example for a single, spinless particle. Today however these ideas are much criticized. Functional methods (Feynman's path-integral) suggest something like Heisenberg's concept of potentia, although some find it suggestive of multiverse interpretations. :(

 

To sum up, Einstein was one of those who disagreed with the Copenhagen interpretation which is the most considered. Whichever interpretation you choose, the quantum formalism is the same and Einstein never disagreed with that.

“Quantum theory must be wrong, Einstein said… Einstein was never comfortable with Quantum theory…Einstein felt that behind the uncertainty of Quantum theory there must be an exact reality.” (Webster’s New World Dictionary of Science, page 542: “Quantum theory: testing Quantum theory,” by Peter Lafferty).

Quantum mechanics should be the law of matter rather than the law of universe. Behind the uncertainly of quantum theory is an exact reality, which Einstein tried to know in his unified field theory that he was false to discover in his last life. There is an exact reality that all phenomena must follow it: “a single law of the universe.” The single law of universe is just recognizing matter as the one element of universe that is simplifed consistence of matter and space.