Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Incomplete Theories and Other Intellectual Dishonesties

Daniel Joseph Dady, Nikola Tesla, Mahátma Gándhí

Published Jan 1, 2014• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

There has been, for nearly a century, an intellectually dishonest academical argument perpetuating in the annals of universities worldwide that we must accept, as fact, that there are two incomplete and incompat- ible theories that govern the physical laws of nature and that we must accept both theories as indisputable facts. The two theories are Albert Einstein's Theories of Relativity and the collective theories of Quantum Mechanics which relies heavily on statistical deter- mination as its formal basis. Both of these theories provide accurate predictions for their respective do- mains, relativistic theories bode well with very large scales, at the stellar level, while quantum theories are favored for the very small, at the atomic level.

Related papers

Introduction and overview

Stephen L. Adler

Quantum mechanics is our most successful physical theory. It underlies our very detailed understanding of atomic physics, chemistry, and nuclear physics, and the many technologies to which physical systems in these regimes give rise. Additionally, relativistic quantum mechanics is the basis for the standard model of elementary particles, which very successfully gives a partial unification of the forces operating at the atomic, nuclear, and subnuclear levels. However, from its inception the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, and the fact that “quantum measurements” in the orthodox formulation appear to require the intervention of non-quantum mechanical “classical systems,” have led to speculations by many physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science that quantum mechanics may be incomplete. Among the Founding Fathers of quantum theory, Einstein and Schrödinger were both of the opinion that quantum mechanics is in some way unsatisfactory, and this view has been amplified in more recent profound work of John Bell, among others. In an opposing camp, many others in the physics, mathematics, and philosophy communities have attempted to provide an interpretational foundation in which quantum mechanics remains a complete and self-contained system. Among the Founding Fathers, Bohr, Born, and Heisenberg maintained that quantum mechanics is a complete system, and a number of recent proposals have been made to improve upon or to provide alternatives to their “Copenhagen Interpretation.” The debate continues, and has spawned an enormous literature.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Aug 26, 2004•2 citations

Simplifying the equations of relativistic quantum mechanics

Luis Grave de Peralta

I n the early 20th century, the groundbreaking theories of quantum mechanics and special relativity emerged at roughly the same time.At first, both theories appeared to be entirely incompatible with each other.While the quantum equations written out by Erwin Schrödinger and Wolfgang Pauli dealt with the behaviours of electrons, atoms, and molecules moving at speeds encountered in classical physics, the rules of special relativity first imagined by Albert Einstein described the behaviour of matter moving at close to the speed of light.Initially, this apparent clash of theories presented a crisis in physics.However, in the late 1920s, further theoretical work carried out by physicists including Paul Dirac, Oskar Klein, and Walter Gordon culminated in a new set of equations, which proved definitively that quantum mechanics and special relativity are compatible with each other after all. An educational challengeYet with this groundbreaking discovery came an entirely new problem.In adding a new layer of complexity to the equations of non-relativistic quantum mechanics, the more complete theories of relativistic

Research Features•Jan 1, 2023•0 citations

Waves and Particles

David K. Ferry

Science has developed through a variety of investigations more or less over the time scale of human existence. On this scale, quantum mechanics is an extremely young field, existing essentially for only just over a century. Even our understanding of classical mechanics has existed for a comparatively long period—roughly having been formalized with Newton's equations published in his Principia Mathematica , in April 1686 (1687). Up until the very end of the nineteenth century, mechanics in the form of Newton's laws were comfortable, being understood and accepted by all who dealt with the motion of reasonable bodies. With the turn of the new century, however, mechanics would be shaken to its roots. The change began already on December 14, 1900, when Planck (1900) presented his new theory of black-body radiation to the German Physical Society, and this change would affect mechanics in physically small structures (and lead to quantum mechanics). Mechanics of large bodies would similarly be changed in 1905 with the arrival of Albert Einstein's (1905a) relativity theory. In this book, we will deal with only the first of these two great breakthroughs.

CRC Press eBooks•Nov 6, 2020•0 citations

Theory of Relativity or Quantum Mechanics

Valentin Malinov

Why scientists stating that the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics they are not compatible, and one of them probably is wrong?

•Dec 1, 2020•0 citations

Could we now convince Einstein?

Luigi Accardi

The present conference takes place in the same year that celebrates the centenary of Albert Einstein. Hence it is a good occasion to reflect on those problems which have been at the core of Einstein’s intellectual activity. Undoubtedly the foundation of quantum mechanics (QM) is one of these problems. It is known that Einstein was never convinced by the interpretation of quantum mechanics accepted, in his times and still now, by the majority of physicists. The fact that he was sharing this skepticism with people like Schrödinger and, most of all, the fact that no convincing answer, to the doubts of these people, had emerged in a more than half a century old debate, helped in keeping alive the attention of a growing number of people on this problem.The crucial issue is that the standard interpretation of QM has some physical implications which are experimentally verifiable and which, for several years, have been thought to be incompatible with relativity theory (the so‐called “quantum nonlocality”). On the other hand alternative, more intuitive, interpretations (such as the ensemble interpretation) seemed to be ruled out from very well confirmed experimental data.The way out from this impasse has required a deep analysis of the connections between mathematics and physics as well as the emergence of new ideas both in mathematics (non‐Kolmogorovian probabilities) and in physics (the theory of adaptive systems).The Einstein centenary is a good occasion for a short survey of these developments with the goal of answering the intriguing question posed in the title of the present paper.

AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2006•13 citations

Are Quantum Mechanics and Relativity Theory Consistent?

Eugene Paul Wigner

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1997•1 citation
There has been, for nearly a century, an intellectually dishonest academical argument perpetuating in the annals of universities worldwide that we must accept, as fact, that there are two incomplete and incompat- ible theories that govern the physical laws of nature and that we must accept both theories as indisputable facts. The two theories are Albert Einstein's Theories of Relativity and the collective theories of Quantum Mechanics which relies heavily on statistical deter- mination as its formal basis. Both of these theories provide accurate predictions for their respective do- mains, relativistic theories bode well with very large scales, at the stellar level, while quantum theories are favored for the very small, at the atomic level.
Quantum mechanics is our most successful physical theory. It underlies our very detailed understanding of atomic physics, chemistry, and nuclear physics, and the many technologies to which physical systems in these regimes give rise. Additionally, relativistic quantum mechanics is the basis for the standard model of elementary particles, which very successfully gives a partial unification of the forces operating at the atomic, nuclear, and subnuclear levels. However, from its inception the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, and the fact that “quantum measurements” in the orthodox formulation appear to require the intervention of non-quantum mechanical “classical systems,” have led to speculations by many physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science that quantum mechanics may be incomplete. Among the Founding Fathers of quantum theory, Einstein and Schrödinger were both of the opinion that quantum mechanics is in some way unsatisfactory, and this view has been amplified in more recent profound work of John Bell, among others. In an opposing camp, many others in the physics, mathematics, and philosophy communities have attempted to provide an interpretational foundation in which quantum mechanics remains a complete and self-contained system. Among the Founding Fathers, Bohr, Born, and Heisenberg maintained that quantum mechanics is a complete system, and a number of recent proposals have been made to improve upon or to provide alternatives to their “Copenhagen Interpretation.” The debate continues, and has spawned an enormous literature.
I n the early 20th century, the groundbreaking theories of quantum mechanics and special relativity emerged at roughly the same time.At first, both theories appeared to be entirely incompatible with each other.While the quantum equations written out by Erwin Schrödinger and Wolfgang Pauli dealt with the behaviours of electrons, atoms, and molecules moving at speeds encountered in classical physics, the rules of special relativity first imagined by Albert Einstein described the behaviour of matter moving at close to the speed of light.Initially, this apparent clash of theories presented a crisis in physics.However, in the late 1920s, further theoretical work carried out by physicists including Paul Dirac, Oskar Klein, and Walter Gordon culminated in a new set of equations, which proved definitively that quantum mechanics and special relativity are compatible with each other after all. An educational challengeYet with this groundbreaking discovery came an entirely new problem.In adding a new layer of complexity to the equations of non-relativistic quantum mechanics, the more complete theories of relativistic
Science has developed through a variety of investigations more or less over the time scale of human existence. On this scale, quantum mechanics is an extremely young field, existing essentially for only just over a century. Even our understanding of classical mechanics has existed for a comparatively long period—roughly having been formalized with Newton's equations published in his Principia Mathematica , in April 1686 (1687). Up until the very end of the nineteenth century, mechanics in the form of Newton's laws were comfortable, being understood and accepted by all who dealt with the motion of reasonable bodies. With the turn of the new century, however, mechanics would be shaken to its roots. The change began already on December 14, 1900, when Planck (1900) presented his new theory of black-body radiation to the German Physical Society, and this change would affect mechanics in physically small structures (and lead to quantum mechanics). Mechanics of large bodies would similarly be changed in 1905 with the arrival of Albert Einstein's (1905a) relativity theory. In this book, we will deal with only the first of these two great breakthroughs.
The present conference takes place in the same year that celebrates the centenary of Albert Einstein. Hence it is a good occasion to reflect on those problems which have been at the core of Einstein’s intellectual activity. Undoubtedly the foundation of quantum mechanics (QM) is one of these problems. It is known that Einstein was never convinced by the interpretation of quantum mechanics accepted, in his times and still now, by the majority of physicists. The fact that he was sharing this skepticism with people like Schrödinger and, most of all, the fact that no convincing answer, to the doubts of these people, had emerged in a more than half a century old debate, helped in keeping alive the attention of a growing number of people on this problem.The crucial issue is that the standard interpretation of QM has some physical implications which are experimentally verifiable and which, for several years, have been thought to be incompatible with relativity theory (the so‐called “quantum nonlocality”). On the other hand alternative, more intuitive, interpretations (such as the ensemble interpretation) seemed to be ruled out from very well confirmed experimental data.The way out from this impasse has required a deep analysis of the connections between mathematics and physics as well as the emergence of new ideas both in mathematics (non‐Kolmogorovian probabilities) and in physics (the theory of adaptive systems).The Einstein centenary is a good occasion for a short survey of these developments with the goal of answering the intriguing question posed in the title of the present paper.