Was Einstein Right when he Said Quantum Theory is Wrong?

[Qfwfq]

Quantum theory must be wrong, Einstein said

Were those Einstein's actual words (or the German equivalent, whichever), or is it just how Peter Lafferty summarizes? Einstein wasn't a medieval peripatetic. He might have said "wrong" in a rather loose sense.

 

Einstein was never comfortable with Quantum theory…Einstein felt that behind the uncertainty of Quantum theory there must be an exact reality.

This is true and is what I said. It doesn't translate into "QM is wrong". The idea of hidden variables is just that QM is incomplete, not wrong.

[HIENVN]

Were those Einstein's actual words (or the German equivalent, whichever), or is it just how Peter Lafferty summarizes? Einstein wasn't a medieval peripatetic. He might have said "wrong" in a rather loose sense.

 

 

Peter Laffterty summarized quantum theory is right despite the rejection of Einstein.

For a consultancy, you can read some quotes that I copy from some documents:

- Einstein tried unsuccessfully during the last 30 years of his life to develop a theory that would represent forces and material particles by fields only, in which particles would be regions of very high field intensity. The development of quantum theory, which Einstein rejected, and the discovery of many new particles, however, precluded Einstein's success in formulating a unifying theory based on relativity and classical physics alone.

Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[HIENVN]

This is true and is what I said. It doesn't translate into "QM is wrong". The idea of hidden variables is just that QM is incomplete, not wrong.

Almost theories should be incomplete because the future scientists will find out something to adjust for their generation. Quantum theory is need in the context of matter, but it is not enough to explain entire universe.

[Jay-qu]

Almost theories should be incomplete because the future scientists will find out something to adjust for their generation. Quantum theory is need in the context of matter, but it is not enough to explain entire universe.

That fact is widely known - for one it doesnt include gravity.

 

A quantum theory for gravity is one of the hotly pursured theories at the moment.

 

Something's not wrong if its incomplete.

[LaurieAG]

Something's not wrong if its incomplete.

 

Hello Jay-qu,

 

But something doesn't have to be true if it's incomplete either, it could just be incorrect and incomplete.

[Jay-qu]

It could be .. but its not, it produces results of great accuracy.

[tierradelfuego]

Yes.

[Blake McFfarland]

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?

 

I do believe you slightly adjusted Dr. Einsteins words. He stated "If quantum mechanics is right, then the world must be crazy." This was not by any means used to assert that quantum mechanics is wrong, for he also crossed the lines of science by directly asserting, that for it to be right the world would have to be crazy. This however, is not far from accurate. See, one of the basis of quantum mechanics is that uncertainty will exist even in the most stable of conditions. Therefore, by definition of crazy, also synonymous with disorganized, we can clearly infer from this that he was not completely at odds with quantum mechanics, he just believed that its boundaries where not yet defined.

 

Which leads me to the greater importance here. What are the boundaries, if there are any at all?

[Kriminal99]

Einstein's claims can not be shown to be wrong. All Quantum Mechanics has shown is that it is impossible with current methods to see any clear system that governs behavior of subatomic particles.

 

Many people mistakenly believe that determinism has requirements other than cause and effect. Any other requirements attributed to determinism by people who don't understand it revolve around treating time from the human perspective which is not a necessary attribute of determinism, or the ability to actually predict the future which is also not a necessary attribute of determinism.

 

For anyone that actually understands Einstein's point of view, his claim was simply that A will always = A and that things that occur are always effects of other things that occurred. You can say previously, but know that this perviousness is only relative to the effect. If either one of these requirements fails, then so does the world.

[Mike C]

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?

 

Absolutely not!

 

I wrote an article on his theory of everything and tried to post it in cosmology but am not allowed to post on some sites because of my criticisms.

 

So here is my article showing Einsteins failure and Quantums credibility.

See below:

 

A Theory of Everything

 

Albert Einstein was working on a 'theory of everything' and after 30 years of his effort, he failed to develope one.

 

So, through a serendipitous discovery, I got involved in this idea when I bought a second hand book at a library entitled 'Introduction to Atomoc and Nuclear Physics' by Henry Semat, 4th Ed.

On page 588, there was a list of atomic mass numbers (AMN) that included all the isotopes of all the elements up to bismuth that is the heaviest of the elements that is stable. This is a complete list of all the isotopes from one to beyond the last stable element that is bismuth at 209.

 

Then I noticed a glaring omission of 2 AMN's. They where 5 and 8. These were the only 2 missing numbers that did not seem to make sense since the 'strong force' (SF) was strictly an attractive force that could not explain why these 2 numbers were missing.

There was another peculiarity about this SF that was its 'extremely' short range of 10^-15 meters. This is the diameter of a nucleon. The 'weak force' had a still shorter range of 10^-18 meters.

 

So I decided to evaluate why the SF did not explain this discrepency.

Since the SF is supposed to be created in the star fusion process, I thought about why it did not functions as it should.

So evalating the central region (CR) of the stars and their nature of fusion, I came to the conclusion that the real forces involved in the fusion process were the coulomb force and the magnetic component of these EMF's to bind together to create the SF.

 

The CR is packed close together to cause the electrons to bypass the protons at very close open orbital passages to cause the protons to spin at very high spin rates. This causes the protons to have very strong magnetic force fields. These protons will align to attract but an electron is needed in between the two protons to complete the bind. This then creates a 'deuteron' nucleus that acts as a powerful 'bar' magnet with an electron sandwiched in between two protons. So two of these deuteron bar magnets will automatically clamp together to create a helium nucleus.

 

However, these fusion binds do not create any energies.

The high velocity electrons bypassing the protons generate strong magnetic pulses because the high velocity variations of the electrons create the photons in these CRs that work their way up to the surface of the stars to radiate the light that we see.

The fusion I described above that involved the fusion of the helium nucleus explains why a 5th particle is not involved. A 5th particle here would not fit along this combination as it has no where to be attached to.

Also, 2 helium nuclei will not bind together because their is no electrons attached to the sides of these HN to bind together to form an AMN 8. So 2 HN cannot attach to each other.

So this fusion process is simply a Quantum effect that involves the EMF's only.

 

So a new Grand Unified Theory is the result because of serendipity.

This solution cannot be solved mathematically because visualization or imaging is required to come to this conclusion.

 

A New Gut Theory

The current data on a grand unified theory (GUT) is that gravity is the only force that can not be unified. However, I would like to propose a theory that unifies gravity and electro-magnetic force fields while eliminating the strong and weak forces. This then would result in only one force which would be the electromagnetic (EMF) with its dual nature and which we know exists and thoroughly understand.

 

The reason for this is simple. Gravity and EMF have two pronounced similarities. They both extend to infinity and are inversely proportional to the square of the distances from their sources. A recent similarity was announced that they both have the same velocities. Therefore, there are now three similarities.

On the other hand, the other two forces which are the strong and weak, have no similarities with any other forces.

Now if the attraction component of the EMF is slightly greater than then the repulsion component, by about 10^-36, this would create a gravitational effect equal to the force of gravity (1). And the strong and weak nuclear forces? It just does not seem probable that a force that is 137 times stronger that the EMF should have such a short range as 10^-15 meters. This is the diameter of one nucleon (proton). Another fact to discredit the strong force is the lack of atomic mass numbers (protons plus neutrons) 5 and 8 (2). Also, atomic mass number 6 and 5, if it existed, would have stronger binding forces within their nuclei than atomic mass number 4 (the helium nucleus) that has the strongest binding force within the low mass range.

 

Then there is the atomic mass patterns that reflect stability in the nuclei referred to as the 'magic numbers' that are quantum

effects. There is also the spectral characteristics of these nuclei that exhibit quantum effects that a gravitational type of force (which is the nature of the strong force) would not possess (3). If the SF does not exist, then what is the binding force within these nuclei?

 

In the centers of the stars, where the particles are compressed to extremely close proximaties where the electrons have very high velocities and bypass the protons in 'open' orbital passages to cause the protons to spin at very high rates, my theory then is that the protons within these central regions spin at extremely high velocities where the outer portions approach closely to the velocity of light and coupled with their high permeability to magnetic fields because of their high mass density, would create the strong binding force needed to hold 2 protons together with an electron in between for added binding to create the SF that binds the 'deuterons' together. These deuterons, acting as 'bi-polar' bar magnets will automatically orient themsrlves to clamp together to form a hellium nucleus, The orientation of the magnetic fields and the direction of spin of these particles and portions of nuclei, could account for the missing mass numbers 5 and 8 as well as all the other characteristics.

 

(1) Although I arrived at my theory independently, H. A. Lorentz, the famous physicist, had the same idea at the beginning of this century. Refer to "Progress in physics" by A. Shuster, pages 156-157.

(2) Refer to "Introduction to Atomic and Nuclear Physics" by H. Semat" 4th edition, p. 588.

(3) Refer to "Basic Concepts of Nuclear Physics" by Stearns, p 36 and 60.

 

Mike C

[HIENVN]

Absolutely not!

 

I wrote an article on his theory of everything and tried to post it in cosmology but am not allowed to post on some sites because of my criticisms.

 

So here is my article showing Einsteins failure and Quantums credibility.

See below:

 

A Theory of Everything

 

Albert Einstein was working on a 'theory of everything' and after 30 years of his effort, he failed to develope one.

 

So, through a serendipitous discovery, I got involved in this idea when I bought a second hand book at a library entitled 'Introduction to Atomoc and Nuclear Physics' by Henry Semat, 4th Ed.

On page 588, there was a list of atomic mass numbers (AMN) that included all the isotopes of all the elements up to bismuth that is the heaviest of the elements that is stable. This is a complete list of all the isotopes from one to beyond the last stable element that is bismuth at 209.

 

Then I noticed a glaring omission of 2 AMN's. They where 5 and 8. These were the only 2 missing numbers that did not seem to make sense since the 'strong force' (SF) was strictly an attractive force that could not explain why these 2 numbers were missing.

There was another peculiarity about this SF that was its 'extremely' short range of 10^-15 meters. This is the diameter of a nucleon. The 'weak force' had a still shorter range of 10^-18 meters.

 

So I decided to evaluate why the SF did not explain this discrepency.

Since the SF is supposed to be created in the star fusion process, I thought about why it did not functions as it should.

So evalating the central region (CR) of the stars and their nature of fusion, I came to the conclusion that the real forces involved in the fusion process were the coulomb force and the magnetic component of these EMF's to bind together to create the SF.

 

The CR is packed close together to cause the electrons to bypass the protons at very close open orbital passages to cause the protons to spin at very high spin rates. This causes the protons to have very strong magnetic force fields. These protons will align to attract but an electron is needed in between the two protons to complete the bind. This then creates a 'deuteron' nucleus that acts as a powerful 'bar' magnet with an electron sandwiched in between two protons. So two of these deuteron bar magnets will automatically clamp together to create a helium nucleus.

 

However, these fusion binds do not create any energies.

The high velocity electrons bypassing the protons generate strong magnetic pulses because the high velocity variations of the electrons create the photons in these CRs that work their way up to the surface of the stars to radiate the light that we see.

The fusion I described above that involved the fusion of the helium nucleus explains why a 5th particle is not involved. A 5th particle here would not fit along this combination as it has no where to be attached to.

Also, 2 helium nuclei will not bind together because their is no electrons attached to the sides of these HN to bind together to form an AMN 8. So 2 HN cannot attach to each other.

So this fusion process is simply a Quantum effect that involves the EMF's only.

 

So a new Grand Unified Theory is the result because of serendipity.

This solution cannot be solved mathematically because visualization or imaging is required to come to this conclusion.

 

A New Gut Theory

The current data on a grand unified theory (GUT) is that gravity is the only force that can not be unified. However, I would like to propose a theory that unifies gravity and electro-magnetic force fields while eliminating the strong and weak forces. This then would result in only one force which would be the electromagnetic (EMF) with its dual nature and which we know exists and thoroughly understand.

 

The reason for this is simple. Gravity and EMF have two pronounced similarities. They both extend to infinity and are inversely proportional to the square of the distances from their sources. A recent similarity was announced that they both have the same velocities. Therefore, there are now three similarities.

On the other hand, the other two forces which are the strong and weak, have no similarities with any other forces.

Now if the attraction component of the EMF is slightly greater than then the repulsion component, by about 10^-36, this would create a gravitational effect equal to the force of gravity (1). And the strong and weak nuclear forces? It just does not seem probable that a force that is 137 times stronger that the EMF should have such a short range as 10^-15 meters. This is the diameter of one nucleon (proton). Another fact to discredit the strong force is the lack of atomic mass numbers (protons plus neutrons) 5 and 8 (2). Also, atomic mass number 6 and 5, if it existed, would have stronger binding forces within their nuclei than atomic mass number 4 (the helium nucleus) that has the strongest binding force within the low mass range.

 

Then there is the atomic mass patterns that reflect stability in the nuclei referred to as the 'magic numbers' that are quantum

effects. There is also the spectral characteristics of these nuclei that exhibit quantum effects that a gravitational type of force (which is the nature of the strong force) would not possess (3). If the SF does not exist, then what is the binding force within these nuclei?

 

In the centers of the stars, where the particles are compressed to extremely close proximaties where the electrons have very high velocities and bypass the protons in 'open' orbital passages to cause the protons to spin at very high rates, my theory then is that the protons within these central regions spin at extremely high velocities where the outer portions approach closely to the velocity of light and coupled with their high permeability to magnetic fields because of their high mass density, would create the strong binding force needed to hold 2 protons together with an electron in between for added binding to create the SF that binds the 'deuterons' together. These deuterons, acting as 'bi-polar' bar magnets will automatically orient themsrlves to clamp together to form a hellium nucleus, The orientation of the magnetic fields and the direction of spin of these particles and portions of nuclei, could account for the missing mass numbers 5 and 8 as well as all the other characteristics.

 

(1) Although I arrived at my theory independently, H. A. Lorentz, the famous physicist, had the same idea at the beginning of this century. Refer to "Progress in physics" by A. Shuster, pages 156-157.

(2) Refer to "Introduction to Atomic and Nuclear Physics" by H. Semat" 4th edition, p. 588.

(3) Refer to "Basic Concepts of Nuclear Physics" by Stearns, p 36 and 60.

 

Mike C

I have spent a long while to study for Quantum theory, and I must tell to you that this theory is wrong.

Einstein was right when he said Quantum theory is wrong. Einstein predicted a revolution in science of our century (21st's century) that one of its three preconditions is reject Quantum theory!

 

HIENVN

[HIENVN]

Absolutely not!

 

I wrote an article on his theory of everything and tried to post it in cosmology but am not allowed to post on some sites because of my criticisms.

 

So here is my article showing Einsteins failure and Quantums credibility.

See below:

 

A Theory of Everything

 

Albert Einstein was working on a 'theory of everything' and after 30 years of his effort, he failed to develope one.

 

 

 

Mike C

You should read history of Einstein since 1920, he just study for "Unified Field Theory" since that time.

'Theory of everything' could not be accepted by Einstein because it contains Quantum theory that he rejected it at his last life!

 

HIENVN

[HydrogenBond]

Probability can never equal one, since this would imply 100% certainty. Yet reason depends on facts being definite or the probability at 1, so one can start with sharp pointed premises and move forward to to other sharp points as far as we need to go. If one tried to reason with the premises at 0.99, this is fuzzy dice fact, placing a practical limit on reason. Based on this, after so many steps reason is predicted to fall of the track due to the uncertainty that is compounded in each step. Einstein was looking for a rational relationship. But in an indirect way, statistics was unknowingly implying reason was not possible, since there is always compounding error. Philosophically this was heading science backwards.

 

The implication was the Age of Enlightenment and the Age of Reason peaked out at the Golden Age of Science, and was being replaced by what had come before, which was Middle Ages Empiricism. Even the alchemists could figure out chemical reactions by random empiricism without being fully rational to the reality of actual chemistry. God not playing dice with the universe was a metaphor. Even a drunk at a craps table can roll the dice with predictable reliability. Even though a drunk can play dice, he loses his ability to reason. Einstein turned out to be right because of the 1000's who have used the dice approach it still didn't pan out. The problem is no gambling system can predict the future. Only reason ever had that ability to predict the future, yet it was being sacrificed in the lobby of the science casinos. We still reason today, but areas of science, like the life sciences, reason is not accepted until it is reassured with some middle age alchemy.

 

Let me put this into perspective with an example. Say we did not know the Newtonian rational relationships of gravity, but science was just starting from scratch using an empirical approach. We can't assume anything, since there is chaos and uncertainty lurking around every corner. The top of the hill may have to be treated differently than in the valley. The moon, well we can never know that unless we go there. Then there is small and big, smooth and fuzzy, days of the week, summer and winter. To generate this data we need an army. Because of all the data and the predicted uncertainty, we need to open the door to all theory allowing 4-6 at a time. Once the machine is up and running it is so complicated that chaos is now in charge of gravity just like it was predicted. Einstein was trying to avoid the chaos of confusion, because it should come out very simple like E=MC2. The chaos of confusion is science on drugs having to throw dice. Chaos is a state of mind and may now be needed because of the confusion.

 

One of other problems Einstein didn't see coming was abstract math art, which was made possible with the chaos of confusion. An artist plots their math on canvas. I can draw a circle and someone can give that an equation. The artist Escher was able to plot special affects on a canvas that can not exist in the real world, such as the stairway to nowhere. This is more complicated than the circle, but if one could derive the equations for his stairway to nowhere, we would have a set of equation that creates an illusion that can not exist in the real world. If these equations came first, without any art to copy from, and if the math is valid would that make this special effect real in physics? Abstract math art was not valid before the change opened the door. It is not easy to tell abstraction from reality since the focus is often is on the complexity of the math itself.

[Mike C]

You should read history of Einstein since 1920, he just study for "Unified Field Theory" since that time.

'Theory of everything' could not be accepted by Einstein because it contains Quantum theory that he rejected it at his last life!

 

HIENVN

 

I refute Einsteins SR and GR.

I will give the reasons tomorrow.

It will take some time for me to locate the article.

 

Mike C

[HIENVN]

I refute Einsteins SR and GR.

I will give the reasons tomorrow.

It will take some time for me to locate the article.

 

Mike C

I am waiting for your reasons.

The study of Einstein since 1920 was almost bypassed by scientific historians, but that study would create a revolution in science of 21st's century.

Einstein was just right when he proposed the Unified Field theory. His support to Quantum theory and his creation of Relativity theory was his mistakes that he found out since 1920.

Both of Quantum theory and Relativity theory will be changed by Unified Field theory, which is the theory of Universe.

HIENVN

[Jay-qu]

Well thats a bit of a silly thing to say.

 

A Unified Field Theory aka GUT or TOE, if there is one to be found, will not have to change relativity and quantum theory or even Newtonian mechanics - all these theories are just that, theories. Each has their own domain of validity and each works to a sufficient precision where required. Sure you could try and do a Feynmann diagram calculation of a macroscopic process, but it would probably take you the better part of the century to write it down.. So of course you wouldnt bother and would just use a more simpler calculation from Newtonian mechanics.

 

So really a Unified theory will just be a grand generalisation of all of our theories rolled into one. And in theory it should be able to predict what will happen in any situation we arrive at in our universe.

[HIENVN]

That fact is widely known - for one it doesnt include gravity.

 

A quantum theory for gravity is one of the hotly pursured theories at the moment.

 

Something's not wrong if its incomplete.

 

Quantum theory is incomplete and will be never complete, because it was based on the lack experiments of Max Planck (In 1900, the German physicist Max Planck published his quantum theory of energy transfer to explain the spectrum of light emitted by certain heated objects. He stated that energy is not given off continuously, but in the form of individual units called quanta [according to World Book]). The vision of Planck in his experiments was within narrow bounds, and then the term “quanta” can not expand to the universe; meanwhile, scientists of Quantum theory can not include gravity in their Quantum theory.

Einstein was right when he rejected the value of Quantum theory, because the term “Quanta” can not show the property of interaction in our universe.