Was Einstein Right when he Said Quantum Theory is Wrong?

[tsolkas]

Christos Tsolkas

 

See: http://wbabin.net/tsolkas/tsolkas19.pdf

See: http://wbabin.net/tsolkas/tsolkas20.pdf

See: http://wbabin.net/tsolkas/tsolkas21.pdf

 

The most important experiments in the history of Physics!

 

How a physicist, using only a pencil, five blank sheets of paper and the power of his intellect (without performing a single physics experiment) can prove that Einstein was wrong!!!

 

 

QUESTION: Tsolkas or Einstein is right?

 

please, your answer....

 

 

tsolkas

[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

 

Since the stars create about 95+% of the energy in the universe and I consider that the forces are the only creators of these star energies,

then I came to the conclusion that energy can be determined by simply

taking the length os a photon and muliplying it by the elapsed time of its motion would give us the photons energy level.

 

The forces do not need to be included in this formula.

 

wavelenth of photon x elapsed time = energy in J/S.

Energy of red photon = 6.56^-7 meters divided into c = 4.57^14 (f) and divided into one = 2.19^-15 (elapsed time in seconds) =

6.56^-7 x 2.19^-15 = 1.43^-21 J/s.

 

There is no matter involved in this problem.

 

THe current masses assigned to the electron, proton, deuteron and the helium nucleus is 'inertial' mass.

I do not think these masses are the precise masses because the magnetic field patterns of these particles are all different as to their spins and patterns.

 

Mike C

[HIENVN]

Christos Tsolkas

 

See: http://wbabin.net/tsolkas/tsolkas19.pdf

See: http://wbabin.net/tsolkas/tsolkas20.pdf

See: http://wbabin.net/tsolkas/tsolkas21.pdf

 

The most important experiments in the history of Physics!

 

How a physicist, using only a pencil, five blank sheets of paper and the power of his intellect (without performing a single physics experiment) can prove that Einstein was wrong!!!

 

 

QUESTION: Tsolkas or Einstein is right?

 

please, your answer....

 

 

tsolkas

 

Thanks, Tsolkas.

I will answer your question in your topic "Tsolkas or Einstein?" that I read it some days ago, and then I mind I will answer you later.

However, you should answer my question in this topic "Was Einstein Right when he Said Quantum Theory is Wrong?"

Following your website, I agree with you on your sentence:

“COMMENT

PHYSICS TODAY

To begin with, I am truly saddened, because a large number of physicists (university professors, researchers, etc) are so blind, that they fail to see and understand the following:

…”

Those people (university professors, researchers, etc) are so blind because they have been educated by the revolution of 20th’s century (by Quantum theory and Relativity theory,etc), which would be replaced by scientists of 21st century.

HIENVN

[Jay-qu]

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.

 

I dont know what you mean by 'is that your idea of a photon' the quoted text was referring to electrons bound to nuclei.

 

If you stop the clock it is not in any one spot, it is a de localised standing wave. Its position is not know unless you make an observation. The cloud is a 'smearing' of the electron, its probability density, its not symmetric.

 

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

 

Two very ignorant things to say in my opinion. Why would you say the hydrogen atom is the only atom to consider? Also there is a lot of math that is created abstractly and not considered to be of any real significance straight away.

 

Now a theory created abstractly without any observations is wrong just like this:

 

wavelenth of photon x elapsed time = energy in J/S.

 

 

LHS units of m.s

RHS units of J/S or kg.m^2.s^3

 

This is not dimensionally correct and is thus wrong.

[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

 

Thank you

 

About Einsteins m/e formula, my opinion is that mass does not create energy. It is the intrinsic forces in/around matter that create the energies.

The electric force is omni-directional and fixed. The magnetic force is directional and variable relative to the electrons velocity.

 

The MF is the principle force in creating the photons that we see and the principle source of energy for the plants.

Bohr's planetary model of the hydrogen atom explains these photons.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

I dont know what you mean by 'is that your idea of a photon' the quoted text was referring to electrons bound to nuclei.

 

What I really had in mind is how these orbitals create photons?

Can you explain that?

 

If you stop the clock it is not in any one spot, it is a de localised standing wave.

Its position is not know unless you make an observation. The cloud is a 'smearing' of the electron, its probability density, its not symmetric.

 

So your answer here is that the electron in not a particle but only a wave?

I still accept the Bohr model of a planetary HA.

 

{quote]

Two very ignorant things to say in my opinion. Why would you say the hydrogen atom is the only atom to consider? Also there is a lot of math that is created abstractly and not considered to be of any real significance straight away.

 

As applied to the universe, it is. It is the basic element in the universe and fuses to all the other elements.

 

Now a theory created abstractly without any observations is wrong just like this:

 

LHS units of m.s

RHS units of J/S or kg.m^2.s^3

 

This is not dimensionally correct and is thus wrong.

 

I am using SI units to determine energies. Energy is 'motion'.

Example: A car moving at 60 miles/hour is delivering twice the energy of a car moving at 30/m/h. This, of course, is not in joules since the joules here is not compatible.

 

So, as applied to a photon, this is also energy in motion. So here I use wavelength (photons) as a unit of distance that replaces the mile in above example. The second replaces the time of the hour.

 

The wavelength is in 'meters' (SI unit) and seconds (SI unit). So the result has to be in joules,

IMO.

 

Incidentally, what do the letters LHS and RHS represent?

 

Mike C

[Jay-qu]

What I really had in mind is how these orbitals create photons?

Can you explain that?

Actually no, I dont know.

 

 

So your answer here is that the electron in not a particle but only a wave?

I still accept the Bohr model of a planetary HA.

When quantum mechanics was formulated we threw away the concrete ideas of particle and wave. Depending on the situation an electron can act as a classical wave, and a photon can act as a classical particle.

 

 

As applied to the universe, it is. It is the basic element in the universe and fuses to all the other elements.

 

That doesnt mean you ignore all others.. Bohrs model only works for the HA because it is an approximation QM modifies this approximation and extends it to explain all atomic systems.

 

 

I am using SI units to determine energies. Energy is 'motion'.

Example: A car moving at 60 miles/hour is delivering twice the energy of a car moving at 30/m/h. This, of course, is not in joules since the joules here is not compatible.

 

No you are not, the SI unit for energy is the Joule.

 

1 Joule = 1 Newton * meter = 1 kilogram * meter / second^2 * meter

1 Joule = 1 kg.(m^2)/(s^2)

 

Also a car travelling at 60miles/hour does not have twice the energy of a car at 30miles/hour

 

Kinetic energy is non-linear: E=1/2 * mass * velocity^2

 

the squared term stops your 'double' idea from working.

 

The wavelength is in 'meters' (SI unit) and seconds (SI unit). So the result has to be in joules,

IMO.

Incidentally, what do the letters LHS and RHS represent?

Incorrect, see above.

 

(R/L)HS = Right/Left hand side

 

That was in reference to your equation.

 

Equations must have the same units on both sides of the equals sign, otherwise they are wrong. see: Dimensional analysis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[HIENVN]

Thank you

 

About Einsteins m/e formula, my opinion is that mass does not create energy. It is the intrinsic forces in/around matter that create the energies.

 

Mike C

 

I agree,

Mass just contains a kind of energy that modern scientists named as “Atomic Energy,” which is a total energy of all junctions between nucleuses of matter.

HIENVN

[HIENVN]

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

 

 

Mike C

 

Gravitational waves are not the very weak waves. The “very weak waves” should be named by the modern scientists who want to explain for their defeat in the discovery of gravitational waves on the earth.

Gravitational waves were discovered on the earth since 1930 while scientists of LISA, NASA… still are looking for them!!!

HIENVN

[Mike C]

Actually no, I dont know.

 

When quantum mechanics was formulated we threw away the concrete ideas of particle and wave. Depending on the situation an electron can act as a classical wave, and a photon can act as a classical particle.

 

That doesnt mean you ignore all others.. Bohrs model only works for the HA because it is an approximation QM modifies this approximation and extends it to explain all atomic systems.

 

Well, I am only concerned with the Cosmology sector and Astronomy.

I do not believe that electrons should be promoted as waves but know that electrons do create waves as in the 'ground state continuous waves' (standind waves).

Also, the photons are created by the electrons transitions and are single wave pulses, IMO.

 

No you are not, the SI unit for energy is the Joule.

 

1 Joule = 1 Newton * meter = 1 kilogram * meter / second^2 * meter

1 Joule = 1 kg.(m^2)/(s^2)

 

Also a car travelling at 60miles/hour does not have twice the energy of a car at 30miles/hour

 

Kinetic energy is non-linear: E=1/2 * mass * velocity^2

 

the squared term stops your 'double' idea from working.

 

I do not accept Einsteins M/E formula. Forces create the energies.

Einsteins M/E formula pertains to the pre Planckian time of light as a contiuous wave rather than being reduced to a single pulse.

 

Incorrect, see above.

 

(R/L)HS = Right/Left hand side

 

That was in reference to your equation.

 

Equations must have the same units on both sides of the equals sign, otherwise they are wrong. see: Dimensional analysis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

When you are solving a problem, than both sides are equal.

 

Debroglie created a simple formula for the application to light as an energy.

 

It is E=hv Energy = Plancks Constant x frequency

 

My formula is somewhat the same. I use a single wavelength x fractional time.

 

Plancks Constant is given in joules per second. A second involves the velocity of light as c.

My formula involves only a pulse rather than a contiuous wave over one second that moves a distance of 300,000 km/s.

So dividing c by a single pulse (wavelength) gives me the frequency. But this frequency has to be reduced also to a single digit.

 

So a red photon of one wavelength is 6.56^-7 meters as a unit of distance in place of c distance of 300,000 km/s.

Dividing that into 300,000 km/s gives me a frequency of 4.57^14 cycles.

But this has to be reduced to a fraction of one second. so dividing frequency into one gives me the fractional elapsed time of the photons movement.

That equals 2.188^-15 seconds.

 

So wl x t = 1.435^-21 j/s.

 

All dimensions are in SI units. Meters, seconds and joules.

 

Your definitions of joules is aplicable to mechanical usage rather than to light.

How are you going to apply a kilogram to light? This is not compatible.

 

The DeBroglie formula is applied to light and uses Plancks Constant as one of his units. It is expressed in joules/s.

So my formula has to be in joules/s

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

Gravitational waves are not the very weak waves. The “very weak waves” should be named by the modern scientists who want to explain for their defeat in the discovery of gravitational waves on the earth.

Gravitational waves were discovered on the earth since 1930 while scientists of LISA, NASA… still are looking for them!!!

HIENVN

 

Can you explain these GW's on Earth? I am not aware of them?

The strongest GW's would have to be radiated by binary neutron stars.

 

Star systems nearby could have their planetary bodies in their proximity disrupted, I would think?

 

Other than that, I think these GW's are not applicable to the universe as a problem.

 

Mike C

[Jay-qu]

I do not believe that electrons should be promoted as waves but know that electrons do create waves as in the 'ground state continuous waves' (standind waves).

Also, the photons are created by the electrons transitions and are single wave pulses, IMO.

 

The ground state does no create the standing wave, the electron states are standing waves.

 

I do not accept Einsteins M/E formula. Forces create the energies.

Einsteins M/E formula pertains to the pre Planckian time of light as a contiuous wave rather than being reduced to a single pulse.

To do so is academic suicide. The mass energy relationship has been experimentally verified. I dont know why you have a problem with maths being developed before the experiments show it.. if the experiments verify the maths after it is still correct!

 

When you are solving a problem, than both sides are equal.

 

Debroglie created a simple formula for the application to light as an energy.

 

It is E=hv Energy = Plancks Constant x frequency

 

My formula is somewhat the same. I use a single wavelength x fractional time.

 

Plancks Constant is given in joules per second. A second involves the velocity of light as c.

My formula involves only a pulse rather than a contiuous wave over one second that moves a distance of 300,000 km/s.

So dividing c by a single pulse (wavelength) gives me the frequency. But this frequency has to be reduced also to a single digit.

 

So a red photon of one wavelength is 6.56^-7 meters as a unit of distance in place of c distance of 300,000 km/s.

Dividing that into 300,000 km/s gives me a frequency of 4.57^14 cycles.

But this has to be reduced to a fraction of one second. so dividing frequency into one gives me the fractional elapsed time of the photons movement.

That equals 2.188^-15 seconds.

 

So wl x t = 1.435^-21 j/s.

 

All dimensions are in SI units. Meters, seconds and joules.

 

Your definitions of joules is aplicable to mechanical usage rather than to light.

How are you going to apply a kilogram to light? This is not compatible.

 

The DeBroglie formula is applied to light and uses Plancks Constant as one of his units. It is expressed in joules/s.

So my formula has to be in joules/s

 

Mike C

 

I dont know why you are trying to give me a lesson when you are the one that is in error.. if only you would read my posts carefully and check your own working!

 

h, plancks constant is measured in drum roll Joules x seconds this makes all of your equations dimensionally incorrect and hence, completely incorrect.

[Mike C]

The ground state does no create the standing wave, the electron states are standing waves.

 

In cosmology (space science) the space gases of hydrogen are most always in a ground state (unenergized) state.

That means that the HS is radiating a continuous wave of about one angstrom. This is because the the electron is in its most inner orbital position.

 

To do so is academic suicide. The mass energy relationship has been experimentally verified. I dont know why you have a problem with maths being developed before the experiments show it.. if the experiments verify the maths after it is still correct!

 

Einstein refuted Quantum Physics. So I personally ignore his math.

Energy is 'motion' and 'forces' create motion. So mass is not involved in this scenario although they contain the forces. But masses cannot be substituted for forces.

 

I dont know why you are trying to give me a lesson when you are the one that is in error.. if only you would read my posts carefully and check your own working!

 

I am only quoting my own version of 'new science' based on basic physics.

 

h, plancks constant is measured in drum roll Joules x seconds this makes all of your equations dimensionally incorrect and hence, completely incorrect.

 

What is a 'drum roll'?

Plancks science dealt strictly with 'black body' radiations.

 

Mike C

[HIENVN]

Can you explain these GW's on Earth? I am not aware of them?

The strongest GW's would have to be radiated by binary neutron stars.

 

Star systems nearby could have their planetary bodies in their proximity disrupted, I would think?

 

Other than that, I think these GW's are not applicable to the universe as a problem.

 

Mike C

 

Thanks Mike C,

Gravitational waves are existed everywhere in the universe, including on our earth. However, our scientists could not discover them because they are following the prediction of Einstein in 1916…

My explanation of GR is not simple because it is based on some corrections of Quantum and Relativity theory; therefore, I need time to answer your question that I wish you can understand my answer.

“Gravitational waves on Earth” is the subject of many modern laboratories; the discovery of GR would create a revolution in science and technology of our century!

HIENVN

[HIENVN]

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.

I mind you used the term “Unified theory” to GUT, TOE and so far are String theory and The Final theory…And you don’t include Einstein’s Unified Field theory because Einstein rejected Quantum theory that you are respecting it.

All our theories should be rolled into one theory as GUT, TOE, etc… but that one theory would be never perfected if its elements (Quantum, Relativity and Newtonian mechanics) still have some defeats. The rejection of Einstein to Quantum theory is just a first step of his Unified Field theory; the second step will be corrected it and the last step will be a combination of Quantum theory, Relativity theory and Newton mechanics.

Einstein’s Unified Field theory would be the best “Unified theory” that others “Unified theory” (such as GUT, TOE, String theory, The Final theory) cannot compare with it. Because Unified Field theory know how to correct its elements before roll them into one!

HIENVN

[HIENVN]

Quote (Mike C):

I do not accept Einsteins M/E formula. Forces create the energies.

Einsteins M/E formula pertains to the pre Planckian time of light as a contiuous wave rather than being reduced to a single pulse.

 

 

 

To do so is academic suicide. The mass energy relationship has been experimentally verified. I dont know why you have a problem with maths being developed before the experiments show it.. if the experiments verify the maths after it is still correct!

 

 

 

.

 

Although I am not agree with Mike C when he wrote “Forces create the energies,” but I agree with him when he wrote “I do not accept Einsteins M/E formula.”

Your sentence “The mass energy relationship has been experimentally verified” should be reconsidered, because I found out some mistakes of all experiments that “prove the right of Einstein’s equation.”

Einstein’s equation (M/E formula) must be wrong, or it is just right to a kind of matter (dead matter) that is not exist in our universe; therefore, our universe is not exist if Einstein’s equation is right. Meanwhile, Einstein cannot establish his equation if his equation was right!

A lot of academies are striving to prove the right of Einstein’s equation, which means they are suicidal!!!

HIENVN

[HIENVN]

 

 

 

Einstein refuted Quantum Physics. So I personally ignore his math.

Energy is 'motion' and 'forces' create motion. So mass is not involved in this scenario although they contain the forces. But masses cannot be substituted for forces.

 

 

 

 

 

Mike C

 

Welcome Mike C,

You will understand gravitational waves when you ignore Einstein’s math in his famous equation. The gravitational waves cannot exist if Einstein's equation is right.

HIENVN