Was Einstein Right when he Said Quantum Theory is Wrong?

[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

 

Below is why I do not consider Einstein as fully credible:

 

 

YES. I refute SR and GR.

The 1st clue to this is that Einsteins mass/energy

formula is obviously 'wrong'.

Anyone that knows his basic physics should realize

that FORCES create all the energies. And in spite

of this, just about everyone accepts this formula.

 

He said himself that his static universe would

collapse and as a result, he introduced the

cosmological constant (Lambda) to rectify this.

In this respect, he was right because his

'curvature of space' would also ERODE the momentum

of the orbitting bodies to cause a collapse.

 

But with a FLAT space concept, there is no

curvature, so than a flat space concept will not

collapse. Proof?

Zwickys Gravity (dark matter) is 10x stronger

than Newtons gravity and these galactic clusters

do not collapse. Why?

Because they conply to Newtons 3rd Law of motion

that can be summarized as inertial resistance to

change of the 1st Law of Motion.

In other words, all bodies create an equal and

opposite reaction to any forces acting on them.

So in this ZG, the outer bodies all accelerated

to resist a collapse.

 

He never really accepted Quantum Physics that has

been proven beyond a doubt. I mean the Bohr model of

the hydrogen atom and its photon radiation that

Planck transformed the nature of light to a photon

from a 'continuous' wave concept.

 

He worked on his 'theory of everything' for 30

years and failed to create one.

 

Through a 'serindipity discovery', I solved the

problem in weeks by using Quantum Physics that

reduced all forces to just the EM forces.

The key here was that this SD gave me the solution.

This discovery was that only two 'atomic mass

numbers'(AMN) were missing in all the elements and

their isotopes. These two were AMN's 5 and 8.

Only Quantum Physics can explain these ommissions.

 

As far as I am concerned, his 'tiny' corrections'

are overruled by these facts above. Besides, I

believe that 'spiritual' influences were involved

in his corrections just as power science is

promoting the BBT.

 

I learned from experiences that 'spiritual forces' CAN influence the physical to some extent.

 

Mike C

[UncleAl]

1) General Relativity has c=c, G=G, h=0 and testable predictions

2) Quantum field theory has c=c, G=0, h=h and testable predictions

3) Complete theory has c=c, G=G, h=h and testable predictions

 

Don't be shy about creating (3).

 

1) Euclid, 300 BC, contains no errors.

1a) Euclid cannot large scale navigate or survey land.

1b) Euclid's Fifth postulate is weak.

2) Bolyai/Lobechevsky and Reimann, 1800s, contain no errors

2a) Elliptic and hyperbolic geometries apparently cover everything.

3) Thurston, 1979 - there are eight primary geometries of 3-space.

4) Prigogine, 1977 - energetic systems with postive feedback cannot be predicted.

5) Pookie pookie.

 

Don't get all hot about General Relativity as such. GR postulates the Equivalence Principle - all local bodies vacuum free fall identically without regard to composition or configuration; without exception. Empty spacetime is isotropic to massless photons locally (arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031) and astronomically - vacuum refractive index = 1; no dispersion, no dichroism, no gyrotropy. However, parity violating massed sectors are contained in metric-affine, Einstein-Cartan, teleparallel, and Riemannian geometry gravitations. Ashtekar has a parity violating term with the Immirzi coefficient. All of them wholly contain GR as the restricted case of EP = true.

 

Do local left and right shoes vacuum free fall identically? Do chemically identical, opposite geometric parity mass distributions violate the EP?

 

Parity Eötvös experiment: Chemically identical, opposite geometric parity mass distributions (e.g., atoms in enantiomorphic crystallographic space groups P3(1)21 and P3(2)21 alpha-quartz) are contrasted. An EP parity violation arises from their differential interaction with a massed sector chiral vacuum background (opposite shoes fitted onto a left foot). Net signal cannot originate in Newtonian gravitation (e.g., Green's function), metric gravitation (Equivalence Principle), or string theory (BRST invariance). Is there a net signal to be observed? Somebody should look.

 

If there is a net signal, all of physics must be subtly rewritten. How much fun is that?

[Mike C]

UncleAl

 

After all youve said, you did not answer the question?

 

Was Einstein right about QT?

 

Mike C

[Jay-qu]

UncleAl

 

After all youve said, you did not answer the question?

 

Was Einstein right about QT?

 

Mike C

I think its pretty clear that the basic tenet of quantum theory - the universe is quantised - is not wrong. The theory gives great statistical results, but if you want to be picky im sure a determinist would say that its just an incomplete theory. I wouldnt say this makes it wrong, only incomplete. Take Newtonian mechanics as an example - it works great, untill you start to deal with velocities that are an appreciable amount of the speed of light.

[Mike C]

I think its pretty clear that the basic tenet of quantum theory - the universe is quantised - is not wrong. The theory gives great statistical results, but if you want to be picky im sure a determinist would say that its just an incomplete theory. I wouldnt say this makes it wrong, only incomplete. Take Newtonian mechanics as an example - it works great, untill you start to deal with velocities that are an appreciable amount of the speed of light.

 

Quantum physics deals with light only.

Since light is the most important part of the universe besides the matter,

that is what QP is all about.

 

The main point of Plancks QP is that he transformed light into photons

(pulses).

Bohr's 'planetary' model of the HA spectrum, futher clarified the nature of light.

So when it comes to cosmology, that is all that is important regarding that subject.

 

So this, to me, is basic proven science and when Einstein says it is wrong, then I thing his theories are wrong as I have written above.

 

Mike C

[HIENVN]

UncleAl

 

After all youve said, you did not answer the question?

 

Was Einstein right about QT?

 

Mike C

Thanks, Mike C...

I will prove some wrongs of QT.

I am thinking about Relativity theory that you refute it. We should have some agreements on Relativity theory although we don't have an agreement on QT.

Please wait me some days more, the difficulty of my life and the limitation of my English skill are reasons that my responses are always slow.

 

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

I am trying to look some documents to prove “Einstein worked on Theory of Everything”, but I can not find out them. Do you have some documents to prove about that?

You can read the WordBook to know his work at his last life that I copy from it:

“Unified field theory. Einstein's general theory of relativity did not completely satisfy him because it did not include electromagnetism. Beginning in the late 1920's, he tried to combine electromagnetic and gravitational phenomena in a single theory, called a unified field theory (see ELECTROMAGNETISM; GRAVITATION). Einstein failed to establish a unified field theory, though he spent the last 25 years of his life working on it. Toward the end of his life, he remarked that it would be worthwhile to show that such a theory did not exist. He worried that if he neither produced a theory nor showed that one was impossible, perhaps no one ever would.”

Otherwise, you can read the book “Einstein lives here.”

“Theory Of Everything” is a theory which was began since 1960’s; therefore, this theory could not be studied by Einstein, because he passed away in 1955!

HIENVN

[HIENVN]

I think its pretty clear that the basic tenet of quantum theory - the universe is quantised - is not wrong. The theory gives great statistical results, but if you want to be picky im sure a determinist would say that its just an incomplete theory. I wouldnt say this makes it wrong, only incomplete. Take Newtonian mechanics as an example - it works great, untill you start to deal with velocities that are an appreciable amount of the speed of light.

 

QT won classic mechanics and then Einstein declared he did not need classic mechanics, after he predicted the existence of gravitation waves in 1916.

The classic mechanics would be come back and it would prove some wrongs of both Quantum theory and Relativity theory.

I am not rejecting what Quantum theory and Relativity theory that they made their contribution for the past, but I should reject their value for the future.

 

HIENVN

[HIENVN]

Quantum physics deals with light only.

Since light is the most important part of the universe besides the matter,

that is what QP is all about.

 

The main point of Plancks QP is that he transformed light into photons

(pulses).

Bohr's 'planetary' model of the HA spectrum, futher clarified the nature of light.

So when it comes to cosmology, that is all that is important regarding that subject.

 

So this, to me, is basic proven science and when Einstein says it is wrong, then I thing his theories are wrong as I have written above.

 

Mike C

Quantum physics deals with heat (that emits from a heat object), and Relativity theory deals with light (that relates to moving).

Einstein rejected Quantum theory because the term of “quanta.” Einstein (since 1920) believes the interaction of our universe is “continuous” rather than “quanta” that Planck proposed it.

An incoming theory of Einstein, Unified Field theory, will deal with gravitational waves. That theory will deal with some wrongs of both Quantum theory and Relativity theory.

HIENVN

[HIENVN]

I refute Einsteins SR and GR.

 

Mike C

I agree with you, the SR and GR should be refuted!

Einstein recognized some defeats of his Relativity theory in 1923, when he came to Sweden to receive the 1921’s Nobel Prizes for physics that did not be awarded for Relativity theory.

HIENVN

[HydrogenBond]

I can see the quantum approach in the sense that energy displays distinct packets as demonstrated by Planck. We also get distinct quantum jumps between energy states in electrons that are not continuous. As we extrapolate from there more complex experiments start to have the quanta appearing where cause and affect break down. It becomes easier to model this with statistical models.

 

The alternative is to treat energy like a wave, since it also shows these affects in experiments. One can simulate similar affects. The wave approach a little easier to conceptually blend with GR, since a wave does not require a particle quanta, with this quanta hard to find for gravity. But in the other hand, quantum theory has the most data of all the theories and therefore has the preponderance of the evidence. That carries a lot weight.

 

Here is the third possibility. Instead of particle or wave, why not particle and wave. Instead of tastes good, no less filling, it is two coupled things, one part particle and one part wave. If this was true, theoretically, we should be able to separate the particle from the wave so there two entities which are normally so coupled, so we aren't sure if it a chicken or an egg. Maybe Einstein sensed either approach was leaving something out, because both were true at the same time. We started to play dice with the universe.

 

Let me give a hypothetical explanation of one possible decoupling of the particle from the wave. Say we have a coupled pair of particles, moving like a pairs figure skating team, in perfect coordination in time, separated by distance. It looks like a quantum separation in distance but coordinated by time. Another way to look at this is, the wave that is normally coupled to each particle, are now overlapping to form a single composite wave. The result is two particles and only one shared composite wave.

 

What a composite wave can do, that a single particle wave can't, is alter the product of wavelength times frequency. The particles don't violate C but the composite wave seems to violate the laws of energy as we know it. The waves can add differently because it is coming from two sources. In terms of quantum theory, normal cause and affect of a single particle does not apply. One can get some affects that appear more random because a wave is being shared. The wave approach may say this is the result of a wave but it won't give enough due respect to actual particles.

 

The net result can be two or more particles that can couple their waves and sort of detach from the primary affect of their own wave and start to share the composite wave and act as though this is their wave. The affect is the product of wavelength and frequency does not have to equal C or have the profile of an normal particle wave. Time and distance no longer have to act in the same proportions normally attributed to energy. It is not the wave creating the particle but the composite making the particle act in such a way that it satisfies the requirements of the composite wave.

[Mike C]

I am trying to look some documents to prove “Einstein worked on Theory of Everything”, but I can not find out them. Do you have some documents to prove about that?

You can read the WordBook to know his work at his last life that I copy from it:

“Unified field theory. Einstein's general theory of relativity did not completely satisfy him because it did not include electromagnetism. Beginning in the late 1920's, he tried to combine electromagnetic and gravitational phenomena in a single theory, called a unified field theory (see ELECTROMAGNETISM; GRAVITATION). Einstein failed to establish a unified field theory, though he spent the last 25 years of his life working on it. Toward the end of his life, he remarked that it would be worthwhile to show that such a theory did not exist. He worried that if he neither produced a theory nor showed that one was impossible, perhaps no one ever would.”

Otherwise, you can read the book “Einstein lives here.”

 

 

“Theory Of Everything” is a theory which was began since 1960’s; therefore, this theory could not be studied by Einstein, because he passed away in 1955!

HIENVN

 

The Theory of Everything can be called the Unified Field Theory or the Grand Unified Theory.

These are all similar because the attempts were made to unify gravity with the other forces that were already unified, IMO.

What I learn about science is derived from what I learn from other critics.

The UFT you quoter above is an example.

Although I was familiar with the term, I did not link that with Einstein.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

Quantum physics deals with heat (that emits from a heat object), and Relativity theory deals with light (that relates to moving).

Einstein rejected Quantum theory because the term of “quanta.” Einstein (since 1920) believes the interaction of our universe is “continuous” rather than “quanta” that Planck proposed it.

An incoming theory of Einstein, Unified Field theory, will deal with gravitational waves. That theory will deal with some wrongs of both Quantum theory and Relativity theory.

HIENVN

 

I posted somewhere else that Einsteins nature of light was with the 'standing waves' that were studied at the earlier times.

These waves were presumed to be travelling through an 'ether'.

These waves are generated by the hydrogen atoms ground state when they are not energized. These waves radiate in a flat circular pie type radiation in line with the electrons orbittal motions. In other words, the 'fields' are vibrating with these electron motions.

These waves have a wavelength of about one Angstrom.

However, they do not transmit any intelligence. We do not see them.

 

On the other hand. we do see the photons (pauleses) as explained by Bohr.

 

Gravitational waves? These very weak waves would have very weak influences on other objects even though they are generated by the massive neutron stars..

These are my opinions based on real phtsics.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

I agree with you, the SR and GR should be refuted!

Einstein recognized some defeats of his Relativity theory in 1923, when he came to Sweden to receive the 1921’s Nobel Prizes for physics that did not be awarded for Relativity theory.

HIENVN

 

Thank you.

 

Mike C

[Jay-qu]

Quantum physics deals with light only.

Sorry but this is just wrong.

 

Which quantum are you talking about, quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics, quantum field theory? AFAIK these all deal with more than just light.

 

Since light is the most important part of the universe besides the matter,

that is what QP is all about.

 

The main point of Plancks QP is that he transformed light into photons

(pulses).

This was actually Einsteins interpretation Photoelectric effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Bohr's 'planetary' model of the HA spectrum, futher clarified the nature of light.

Im not sure what you mean by this but Bohr's model is only an approximation, which only worked well for the hydrogen atom. The electrons are now considered to be in 'clouds', not orbiting in shells.

 

 

I am not rejecting what Quantum theory and Relativity theory that they made their contribution for the past, but I should reject their value for the future.

 

HIENVN

 

Dont take this as discouragement to finding a TOE but I think you should reconsider this. Would you use general relativity to calculate the trajectory of a pen as you hurled it across the room? I think not, it would be a complicated waste compared to just using simple Newtonian mechanics.

 

The theories of the past have a developed via observation, they are then applied to make predictions, if they produce a wrong result they are then wrong - or the theory has its domain of validity reduced. But that does not make it a useless artifact that we should discard. It is likely to be a more simple starting point for most situations.

[Mike C]

Sorry but this is just wrong.

 

Which quantum are you talking about, quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics, quantum field theory? AFAIK these all deal with more than just light.

 

Plancks work with the 'black body radiation chamber', enabled him to come to the conclusion that light has discrete energy levels called "quanta'. He posted his work in 1901.

 

Einsteins work followed in 1905 and used Plancks formula to show that light

energy is proportional to frequency rather than with intensity to effect electron ejections from metal surfaces. So he could have been the one to have it called a photon.

 

But the idea of quanta, suggests energy levels regarding light.

 

This was actually Einsteins interpretation Photoelectric effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I read that article and Einsteins work followed Planks by at least 4 years.

Quanta suggests the idea of photon or pulse.

 

Im not sure what you mean by this but Bohr's model is only an approximation, which only worked well for the hydrogen atom. The electrons are now considered to be in 'clouds', not orbiting in shells.

 

Is that your idea of a photon?

The Schroedinger orbitals do not substitute for the electron. These orbitals are applicable to molecular comounds since these reveal that electrons are not fixed in their orbits because of their interactions that destabalize their orbital planes. IOMO.

If you stop the clock, these electrons will reveal themselves as particles in one position within those orbitals.

 

The hydrogen atom is the only atom to consider when applied to the universe.

I do not bother with the offshoots of the original Planckian Quantum physics.

 

Math does not precede observations. All math that I consider credible is based on observations.

 

Mike C

[HIENVN]

Math does not precede observations. All math that I consider credible is based on observations.

 

Mike C

You are right.

Einstein used math to predict energy of matter (Einstein’s Equation); therefore, the energy of matter should be not exactly as his equation.

The Einstein’s Equation is rejected because it resists “the law of conservation and transformation of energy” in my study for Unified Field theory.

HIENVN