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?

Einstein never said that Quantum Theory was wrong. He objected to the probabilistic view, expecting that deterministic laws would be discovered. In this he seems to have been mistaken.

See anther thread here for more information about Einstein and Quantum Theory. Albert was the first to recognize that energy was quantized, and is far more responsible than Planck for initiating the development of Quantum Theory.

My thoughts are Quantum Theory is wrong! but it does have its merits even though it treats theoretical electrons and neutrons as real..

And to prove the electron and neutrons are theoretical we can either take a gander in an electron microscope and take a few photos or we grid out any given area to E=MC^2 and that includes an area claimed as pertaining to a subatomic Particles definition, and then we exert an electromagnet wave to it and its environment!

Quantum theory doesn't realistically allow this unless charge is done in certain quantum jumps, but as in real life and or in nature, if we resort to E=MC^2 we have no need for theoretical quantum jumps via theoretical electrons and or neutrons, in fact uncertainty doesn't even come into it at all!

Noting.. if an area of C^2 is compressed and or negatively exerted upon, its potential and or stored energy is increased over its neighboring areas so the exertion is passed on to those other areas with less potential and or outward exertion to it, and this goes on in an increasing spherical manner and at the speed of light in a given medium such as as in a solid, gas and or near vacuum..

Note how the relationship of the areas facilitates the various speeds with respects to solids and or near vacuum..That is If a compressed area of C^2 is allowed to expend all of its energy and or potential back to near vacuum and or near unity removing nearly all the compression..

So therefore its area of occupation within our universe will be greater, but its potential and or "E" would be closer to zero.. Never zero! As that would infer No-thing, but always somewhere near zero, anyway as the area is exerted upon it simply exerts this to other areas with less potential and because of the larger span "c" is perceived a damn sight faster to when "c" is propagated as electron flow in a solid.

So does this mean everywhere is made up of a quanta of charge?

Damn straight! And when we play around with E=MC^2 we have the means to see why uncertainty gives so much hell to Quantum theory, what with all these exertions of forces increasing and decreasing at any given area at any given moment from various points of origin..

E=MC^2 can be used for the bases of everything, Including our perceived gravity!

My thoughts are Quantum Theory is wrong! but it does have its merits even though it treats theoretical electrons and neutrons as real..

And to prove the electron and neutrons are theoretical we can either take a gander in an electron microscope and take a few photos or we grid out any given area to E=MC^2 and that includes an area claimed as pertaining to a subatomic Particles definition, and then we exert an electromagnet wave to it and its environment!

Quantum theory doesn't realistically allow this unless charge is done in certain quantum jumps, but as in real life and or in nature, if we resort to E=MC^2 we have no need for theoretical quantum jumps via theoretical electrons and or neutrons, in fact uncertainty doesn't even come into it at all!

Noting.. if an area of C^2 is compressed and or negatively exerted upon, its potential and or stored energy is increased over its neighboring areas so the exertion is passed on to those other areas with less potential and or outward exertion to it, and this goes on in an increasing spherical manner and at the speed of light in a given medium such as as in a solid, gas and or near vacuum..

Note how the relationship of the areas facilitates the various speeds with respects to solids and or near vacuum..That is If a compressed area of C^2 is allowed to expend all of its energy and or potential back to near vacuum and or near unity removing nearly all the compression..

So therefore its area of occupation within our universe will be greater, but its potential and or "E" would be closer to zero.. Never zero! As that would infer No-thing, but always somewhere near zero, anyway as the area is exerted upon it simply exerts this to other areas with less potential and because of the larger span "c" is perceived a damn sight faster to when "c" is propagated as electron flow in a solid.

So does this mean everywhere is made up of a quanta of charge?

Damn straight! And when we play around with E=MC^2 we have the means to see why uncertainty gives so much hell to Quantum theory, what with all these exertions of forces increasing and decreasing at any given area at any given moment from various points of origin..

E=MC^2 can be used for the bases of everything, Including our perceived gravity!

Thanks you for your idea in this topic.
Although I have great admiration and respect for Quantum Theory and all its experiments, but I have to agree that Einstein was right when he said Quantum Theory is wrong! And,
I think Classical Mechanics will come back - but not in the original form. The Classical Mechanics should be improved before its can be integrated with Quantum Theory and Relativity Theory in a Unified Field Theory that Einstein proposed since 1920.
My vote may put a vexed question to scientists, who think Quantum Theory is right. Einstein may be excessive when he said Quantum Theory is wrong, but this is a right word for scientists who want to discovery his last idea. An explanation for my choice is not easy, and then I still finding for a simple explanation to this topic that I wish will be pleasure everybody.
All scientific theories are right if scientists know how to use advantages of these theories to serve for the benefits of human life.
I am waiting your idea in this topic that will help me perfect my explanation, which will come soon in our science forums.

LaidBack: Where do you get the idea that C² represents as area? this is an erroneous concept. Distance² is an area.

C in MC² is a velocity, not a distance.

C^2 could describe an "area" with "volume" in the time dimension, heh.. but that's kinda weird.


edit: nevermind, c^2 would be an area in space divided by an "area in time".. which is even more weird.. but it may make some kind of weird sense if you look at it as a ratio... or something..

Einstein is wrong.
See
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?papernum=0604084

Einstein is wrong.

Explain.

Stop spamming, cosmodel. You've posted a thread about your paper, and that's sufficient. Littering threads with your link is impolite.

>> Stop spamming

I do not understand your concern, maybe you are familiar with this treatise, but I am not, and I expect others may not be as well.

>> You've posted a thread about your paper

Funny thing about forums, some people are here ad infinitum, others only casually.
Those residents decry the same questions/answers given over and over, others only catch a glimpse as the precession passes by.

Tolerance for each other's needs would prevent a lot of unnecessary animosity.

Often unresolved subjects (oh you may know the truth, but is it correct?) need to be addressed with a different casual audience.

If you wish ONE subject to be addressed only ONCE, then you are at the wrong type of science forum. This I expect is a constantly changing discussion forum, and if you wish to suppress discussion, then you are going the right way about it.

Personally I think censure-ship of a poster, or censorship of a topic is in very very bad taste, even though it is practiced on this and other forums a lot.

Science is controversial, and it is not dictatorial, nor is it democratic.

Often there is no final conclusion to opinions. Live with it if you cherish science.

Hi John, perhaps you should revisit the definition of spam, and why it is a bad thing.

Please provide

As I see now how I have fallen foul of the logic,... which I totally disagree with, and verminently hate in so called scientists. You the pope?

I run a "forum", really a data base. There one topic is open ended forever.
This forum is like a now forum, constantly changing. Pete, we have crossed ideas in the past, I still know you were incorrect, and intolerant, however this was as much my fault as yours... I was not willing to show my whole logic.
Nevertheless, I would have if the environment was more open and scientific.

What make you think any poster is correct.... absolutely,
Is it ego ? I am dealing with across the net. Whatever it is it is stiffling science.

... Albert was the first ...

Hehe. You're on a first name basis with Einstein? Lol.

JK, of course :)

...Classical Mechanics should be improved before its can be integrated with Quantum Theory ....That is how Quantum theory was made. I.e. the Hamiltonian formulation of classical mechanics was the foundation of Quantum Theory analysis. Thus it is not surprising that classical physics is a limiting case within Quantum Theory. I.e. - CT & QT have been "integrated" for nearly 100years.

Answer Mr James` question:
We are familiar with Newtonian gravity which predicts eclipses accurately. Old astronomers found the other law - Titius-Bode Law - planetary distances to sun. see
http://milan.milanovic.org/math/english/titius/titius.html

Should gravity explain the law???
My answer is yes. The law is about probability of matter distribution. Therefore the law is some Schordinger wave function.

You know the history of QW:
Newton gravity --> Lagrangian --> Hamiltonian --> Operator Substitution
--> Schordinger equation --> probability distribution of matter.
All of these are based on flat spacetime.

You know the history of general relativity:
General relativity -->no Lagrangian --> no Hamiltonian --> no Operator Substitution --> no Schordinger equation --> no probability distribution of matter.
Because it is based on curved spacetime.

But people want QW and GR combined. Therefore: super gravity --> super string --> quantum gravity --> gravity knots --> ..............

People know Bohr wave function of Hydregen atom explains Titius-Bode Law. Dr. L. Nottale tried to put Bohr wave function and Titius-Bode Law in some common basis. You know the consequence. Relativists try to turn him down. His paper could only be published on S J Crothers` `crank` journal.

My theory of gravity is based on flat spacetime. Therefore, no difficulty to expalin the Bode law
see
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0604084

>> Should gravity explain the law???
My answer is yes. The law is about probability of matter distribution. Therefore the law is some Schordinger wave function. >>

True
The formula is N / pi^(2n) a wave equation describing the energy distribution of the Solar System.
Bode's law is a tease, it almost works, but the formula above (only based upon pi) is exceptionally accurate and identifies the nodes of the wave as quantum numbers. ie Earth is 11, Neptune 17, Mercury 9 etc
(PS N is the wave number between pi and 2pi, n is the quantum number)


>> gravity is based on flat space..... [time - exclude].

indeed, but gravity is the resultant of curved energy fields in flat space.
Sorry about 'time', that has no place at all.

Cosmodel you have a good understanding of the mechanics of the Universe. Can I pick your brains ? I would like to know how phi fits in.
:)

Cosmodel, I read your paper, I am afraid your squiggles leave me dead, I work in Newtonian mechanical concepts, where all variables are simple and not compounded in other definitions.

However I am sure you have a good understanding of that area of mathematics.

I do not see a clear explanation of exactly what you think gravity is.
You state it is as in GR but in flat space ?????
GR states gravity is due to curved space, causing a "well" that matter falls into... no explanation why of course... but it satisfies as much as "action at a distance"
(all total BS IMO)

Could you please give a layman's explanation of why there is gravity?

>> Bohr wave function of Hydregen atom explains Titius-Bode Law..

Sorry for three posts but you really excite me Cosmodel.

My theory Electrodynamic Spin Gravity, describes gravity very well. It gels well with QM formulae, except I need the math. Do not judge the theory by anything on the web. That is a parody presented for criticism, so I could learn directions for analysis. I have deliberately left important parts out of the public domain.

You got the math, I got the theory.
mmmh

Of course from this antigravity is very easily achieved.

Hello, URI

Very pleased with your compliment for my math.
I got BS in math major. I got 18 credit hours of 6 graduate courses in pure math. I got MS in Elementary Particle Theory. I got two PhDs in physics and Astronomy. One in China and the other in USA.
Math is simple if you can focus on. Physics is very simple too if there is no scientific religion.

Your question:
`why there is gravity? `
This is very good question. I try my best.

You want freedom and there is no freedom. That is gravity.
OK, Mach believed there exists the cosmological unique inertial frame. His explanation: you rotate yourself and your hands rise up. That is, you are not inertial frame while rotating. You are approximate one while static on earth. Earth is not accurate inertial frame. Sun better. TheMilky Way much better. Averagingly, the universe is the unique inertial frame.

At the time when Einstein proposed his general relativity, people believed the Milky Way were the universe!!! Without much data he even proposed the model of the Milky Way universe!
Definitely he rejected Mach` unique inertial frame. You know in that time his special relativity was at flying color and his mind was full of relativity (he believed that the boy and girl sitting together is relativity) . He came from deep poverty and just thrown into fame. You think he could accept the unique inertial frame??? Global inertial frame is flat spacetime.

Except general relativity, all physics is based on global inertial frame!!!
How to identify inertial frame? Observe test particles` motion in a frame. If you find out they always move in straight lines at constant speeds and you `determined` that they suffer zero net force, then the frame is an inertial frame.

After you have the inertial frame. If some particle you are interested in does not move in straight line at constant speed with respect to the frame, then some force (interaction) must exert on the particle. Now you should identify the property of the force to win Nobel prize. People found electromagnetic force, weak, strong nuclear forces, and won many Nobel prizes.

The force due to mass, gravity, was found many hundred years ago. By now, however, no one won Nobel prize for the theoretical study of gravity. You need to ask Einstein for the reason!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

URI. I am a little busy right now. I will continue later.

>> URI. I am a little busy right now. I will continue later.

Thanks Cosmodel, see your private messages.
:)

Part II: `why there is gravity? `
URI, I continue to answer your question.

In the first Part, we know what is gravity:
After we have the inertial frame. If some particle we are interested in does not move in straight line at constant speed with respect to the frame, then some force (interaction) must exert on the particle. And if we identify no other origin except huge mass which is responsible to the force, then we say the force is gravity. Now the question is HOW TO DESCRIBE GRAVITY.
Lagrange provided the Lagrangian to describe gravity:

L(x^i, dx^i/dt)= 0.5( (dx/dt)^2 + (dy/dt)^2 +(dz/dt)^2 )-GM/r

where r^2=x^2+y^2+z^2, G is gravitational constant, M is the huge mass (e.g., earth). If you insert arbitrary motion, x=x(t), y=y(t), z=z(t), into the Lagrangian, you have a function. Integration of the function between two time points results in a number. The realistic motion results in the MINIMUM number. This Lagrangian principle of optimization is equivalent to Newtonian mechanics of gravity which you familiar with. You have to learn it because all modern physical theories are based on the Lagrangian principle and the inertial frames!

However, Einstein denied the Lagrangian principle and the inertial frames for gravitational theory!!! He had the bold assumption that gravity is curved spacetime, which is called Einstein` general relativity (EGR). All the story of EGR originates from the leaning tower experiment of Galileo Galilei!!!! If the interpretation of the experiment is different from the one of Einstein then the grand palace of modern cosmology (black holes, Big Bang) and super gravity and super string collapse immediately, and the huge figures like Hawking, Hilbert have nowhere to escape!

Therefore, we interpret the leaning tower experiment of Galileo Galilei. OK?

Firstly, Galilei demonstrated that large mass and small mass reached the ground at the same time. Surely the masses have the SAME STARTING VELOCITY (generally zero starting velocity).

Secondly, we turn to Einstein`s interpretation:
Einstein`equivalence principle is that, over any small region of space and time, all test particles move at the same acceleration. Therefore, the observational frame which moves at the very acceleration will see each particle being either static or moving in straight lines at constant speeds, within the small region in question. That is, the local frame sees no gravity at all and we see a cancellation of gravity by choosing local frames, which are generally called the local freely-falling frames.

Einstein`s interpretation is that, whatever different are the starting speeds of test particles their accelerations are the same.
Note that velocity is the first derivative of distance with time while acceleration is the second derivative of distance with time.

Thirdly, Jin He`s challenge: if the starting speeds of test particles are different their accelerations are DIFFERENT.

Fourthly, Testify Jin He`s challenge. Ironically, all modern experiments testified Einstein`equivalence principle by setting the starting speeds of test particles to be the same!!!! What experimental relativists did is to set the masses of test particles to be different.

Fifthly, how hard is to testify Jin He`s challenge?
Jin He showed that if the starting speed of the test particles approaches light speed: v=c/3^0.5 = 0.577c (here c is light speed) then the test particle has zero acceleration (suffer no gravity). Therefore, to testify my challenge, high energy particle experiment is needed!!!

For those people who enjoy theoretical mind challenge, I can show Einstein`s assumption of curved spacetime is wrong directly:

Einstein thought that the local freely-falling frames were the local tangent 4-dimensional planes to curved spacetime. I make two points to prove Einstein`s mistake.

Firstly, a tangent plane is an inertial frame in which particles move in straight lines at constant speeds. Different particles may have different speeds but their acceleration must be zero. Speed is the first derivative of distance with particles` time while acceleration is the second derivative. Tangent plane to curved space is determined only by the first derivatives not the second derivatives. How did Einstein make such simple mistake?

Secondly, Einstein made further mistake and assumed that all local particles shared the same acceleration independent of their individual properties, that is, independent of their energy per unit mass and their angular momentum per unit mass. Energy and angular momentum have totally four degrees of freedom and Einstein required that locally particles have zero degree of freedom: sharing the same acceleration.

Therefore, there is no such stuff as freely-falling frames which cancel local gravity, and Einstein`s equivalence principle is completely false and serves as one specious claim to EGR. However, a great many arguments of dogmatic gravitational theory and its applications and the theory of big bang are based on the non-existent freely-falling frames which cancel local gravity.

© Oct 8, 2006, copyright by Jin He

>> Tangent plane to curved space is determined only by the first derivatives not the second derivatives.

A straight line is imaginary and has no place in cosmology. I define an inertial FoR as a circular orbit, yes this has a constant tangential velocity and a constant angular acceleration. Such a FoR has no link with time.

Hi, URI

I did not find your message.
Would you write at
mathnob@yahoo.com

Yours
Jin

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?
Einstein was referring to the Einsten, Podowlski, Rosen paper, EPR discussing the effect of measurement of angular momentum of twin photons emitted simultaneously in oppoosite directions. Assuming the total angular momentunm of the twin photon system is zero, or when one photon angular meomentun is +1, the other photon angular momentuim is -1.

Now suppose that the angular momentum of one photon is measured as -1.(here each photon's angular momentum is wildly gyrating in some unknown manner). Even though the photons may be separated by huge distances the conservation of angular momentum requires that the unmeasured angular momentum will measure +1 even though measured hours after the first measurement. This then effectively permits the prediction of the angular momentum of the second photon contrary to the laws of quantum mechanics.

The consequences of EPR were studied in depth by JS Bell the author of the famous 'Bell inequalaity' and is explaijmed in his book "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics". The curious result as discovered by Bell is that the second photon must be affected the instant the first photon was measured. This does not violate relativity theory as the effect of the first measurement is instantly felt by the second photon. Albert would not have appreciated this anser but he was unaware of Bell's effort during his lifetime.

Geistkiesel

Relativity, as is its predecessor, Newtonian physics, a classical theory. In a classical theory we are theoretically able to determine the exact position and momentum of any and every particle that we choose to examine in our observation.

In Quantum Physics, with its Heisenberg uncertainty, we are theoretically completely DISABLED from knowing the exact position and momentum of even one particle that we choose to examine in our observation.

That is how Quantum theory was made. I.e. the Hamiltonian formulation of classical mechanics was the foundation of Quantum Theory analysis. Thus it is not surprising that classical physics is a limiting case within Quantum Theory. I.e. - CT & QT have been "integrated" for nearly 100years.

Heisenberg published uncertainty principle in 1928. Hamiltonian author was prognosticating clairvoyant of good ability to integrate with science publication over 20 years in future.

Perhaps humble self BT is willing to explain IN DETAIL doubtful proposition that classical theory, supposing knowledgeability of both position and momentum of EVERY particle in universe, can be unified with quantum theory supposing impossibility of knowledgeability of position and momentum of EVEN ONE particle in entire universe.

I remember hearing somewhere that the transistor was a product of quantum theory. Just out of curiosity, can someone explain how it's related to qt?

Einstein never said that Quantum Theory was wrong. He objected to the probabilistic view, expecting that deterministic laws would be discovered. In this he seems to have been mistaken.

See anther thread here for more information about Einstein and Quantum Theory. Albert was the first to recognize that energy was quantized, and is far more responsible than Planck for initiating the development of Quantum Theory.
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.

HiLe

So long as Special Relativity and General Relativity have no Quantum foundation, Quantum Mechanics is flawed, or at the very least, is not a Theory of Everything.

I think quantum theories biggest flaw is - the particle. All quantum scientists do agree they are not really particles, but the whole theory rests and builds on point particles. Non-determinism is a consequence of this fact IMO.