The New General System theory was developed to be a theory of everything for complex systems within the world we can observe.This theory was constructed by supplementing a new mind-ether ontology into Bertalanffy's general system theory framework.This theory is basically a generalization of classical mechanics rather than a revolution to it taken both by Einstein and Bohr in developing their relativity theory and quantum mechanics.The purpose of this paper is to reveal the reasons why Einstein and many others fail to unify relativity theory with quantum mechanics through comparing the main differences in philosophical opinions among NGST, Einstein, and Bohr.It is the hope of the authors that this clarification could speed up the unification process.
The New General System theory was developed to be a theory of everything for complex systems within the world we can observe.This theory was constructed by supplementing a new mind-ether ontology into Bertalanffy's general system theory framework.This theory is basically a generalization of classical mechanics rather than a revolution to it taken both by Einstein and Bohr in developing their relativity theory and quantum mechanics.The purpose of this paper is to reveal the reasons why Einstein and many others fail to unify relativity theory with quantum mechanics through comparing the main differences in philosophical opinions among NGST, Einstein, and Bohr.It is the hope of the authors that this clarification could speed up the unification process.
Now that my account of Bohr's philosophy of physics has been completed, it remains for me to give a general assessment of it. What value should we assign to Bohr's main ideas – the notions of correspondence and complementarity? How does his interpretation of quantum physics fare in comparison with some of its rivals? What should our assessment of the Bohr–Einstein debate be? I shall take up these questions in the reverse order. Einstein or Bohr? The final verdict The Bohr–Einstein debate is primarily a dispute about the philosophical foundations in terms of which the interpretation of quantum mechanics should be based: specifically it is a dispute about the intrinsic-properties theory, i.e. about the scope of a realist interpretation of quantum mechanics. Einstein wished to maintain the two realist theses, the intrinsic-properties theory and the objective-values theory, whereas Bohr wished to hold only the latter. My own philosophical leanings are in the direction of realism. To my mind the notion of a physical reality the existence and constitution of which are independent of human thought and perception is coherent and plausible: what physical objects there are, and what properties they have, is not determined by human thought or perception, or by human practical interests. I have sympathy, therefore, with Einstein's position concerning the indefinability thesis and the question of the completeness of quantum mechanics.
This paper takes a look at the two cornerstones of modern physics--Quantum Mechanics and The Theory of Relativity (Both Special and General). The differences and similarities for the two subjects are presented. More of their differences and similarities will emerge with new developments in physics. One can't rule out the possibility of the two being unified into one one fine day. That will herald another triumphant moment in physics. Introduction In 1905, Albert Einstein at the age of twenty-six formulated single-handedly, among others, the Theory of Special Relativity together with his other seminal papers on photoelectricity, Brownian motions of atoms and molecular dimensions. The year has been universally declared the Miraculous Year [1]. Ten years later, he came up with the theory of General Relativity--a new and revolutionary framework on gravity. Meanwhile in Europe a group of young physicists played pivotal role in the birth of Quantum Mechanics. Many of them went on to win Nobel prizes for their monumental contributions. Einstein also won the coveted prize not for Relativity but ironically for Photoelectric Effect. Irony has been part of physics in its history. Relativity with its weird 'Twin Paradox', constancy of the speed of light and the interchangebility between mass and energy (E=[mc.sup.2]) enthralls the public and scientists alike. It provides a way to measure particle masses [2]. The Quantum Theory has its fair share of weirdness and bewilderment. Both Quantum Mechanics and the Theory of Relativity bring forth new ideas in human thoughts. They are among Joanne Baker's 50 physics ideas [3]. Quantum Mechanics and the Theory of Relativity The quantum world where counterintuition reigns supreme is couched in uncertainty as epitomised by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Things do not behave in a deterministic way as enshrined and expected in classical Newtonian physics. The microscopic world of the electrons was dictated by randomness and indeterminacy. Albert Einstein was appalled by such dictates that he famously declared: 'God does not play dice with the universe.' The famous Danish physicist Neils Bohr sprang to his feet by saying: 'Stop telling God what to do with his dice.' The sparring between the two stalwarts in physics is legendary. According to Trefil [4], there are a couple of things that need to be said about the uncertainty principle: it does not imply that we cannot know either the position or the velocity of a particle, and it does not require the presence of a conscious mind. Marcus Chown [5] wraps up by saying 'The bitter irony, not lost on Einstein, was that he was the one who, by postulating the existence of the photon, had inadvertently set loose the genie of randomness of physics. The two theories of relativity by Einstein are not couched in randomness however. According to Smoot [6], both implied a radically new cosmology. Many people are of the opinion that with Einstein's theory of relativity, old classical physics is no more in vogue. According to Angier [7], Albert Einstein did not prove that Isaac Newton was wrong. Instead, he showed that Newton's theories of motion and gravity were incomplete, and that new equations were needed to explain the behavior of objects under extreme circumstances, such as when tiny particles travel at or near the speed of light. …
The Bohr-Einstein debate on the interpretation of quantum mechanics may be viewed as a discussion on the epistemological status of knowledge gained by physics. It is shown that in fact the advent of quantum theory has led, in a new context, to an old philosophical controversy between epistemological realism (held by Einstein) and phenomenalism (held by Bohr). An inquiry into this controversy, taking into account the contemporary understanding of quantum mechanics based on the axiomatic study of its foundations, leads to the conclusion that contrary to widespread opinion, it is perfectly possible to formulate quantum mechanics in an entirely realistic manner according to the postulate of Einstein. We demonstrate that Bohr's episteme-logy, in which the role of experimental arrangements in the physical description is taken as a starting point, does not necessarily imply phenomenlism, but may be justifiably considered as a complementary standpoint to the realistic epistemology of Einstein, which is based on the notion of a mental construction which pictures reality.
th century ‐ the theory of relativity and the quantum theory. Based on these developments, it is interesting for the future of physics that when examined in terms of their conceptual and mathematical bases, these theories are incompatible. On the other hand, each of these theories requires an incorporation of the other to proceed toward its completion. This is the dilemma we face in these early decades of the 21 st century: Which of the two theories should be abandoned and which should be maintained?[1] Albert Einstein was the leading proponent of the theory of relativity and its philosophy, Niels Bohr was the leading proponent of the quantum theory and its philosophy ‐ as fundamental theories of matter.[2] Because of the incompatibility of the mathematical and conceptual bases of these theories, in fundamental terms, as will be discussed in detail later on, they cannot peacefully coexist. But because aspects of each of these theories are necessary to complete the other, the form of the accepted theory must be generalized in such a way that it yields, as a mathematical approximation, the form of the theory whose concepts are abandoned. This is an appeal to the wellknown principle of correspondence. Bohr appealed to this principle in showing how the formal expression of quantum mechanics goes smoothly into the structure of classical mechanics as the fundamental unit of action ‐ Planck’s constant h ‐ approaches zero, compared with the values of classical action. Similarly, the principle of correspondence reveals how Einstein’s relativistic mechanics goes smoothly
The proper goal of science is a unified theory of all of nature, including our thoughts. An adequate theory of this kind will resolve the quantum measurement problem, which is to reconcile the nonclassical character of the quantum world with the classical character of our perceptions of it. A framework for such a theory is described. It weds the opposing views of Bohr and Einstein. Bohr held that quantum theory provides rules that relate aspects of our knowledge, while Einstein claimed that basic theory should describe what could be reality itself, not merely our knowledge of it.
Twentieth-century physics was shaped by two profound revolutions. The first, Einstein's relativity, banished absolute space and time from the foundations of physics. Motion, Einstein showed, possesses no absolute meaning—only relative motion between observers merits physical description. The second, quantum mechanics, dismantled the classical notion of determinacy. A physical quantity, before measurement, is not merely unknown but genuinely indefinite, suspended in a superposition of possibilities. These two revolutions, for all their splendor, have never spoken a common language. General relativity describes a world of continuous, deterministic geometry; quantum mechanics, a world of discrete, probabilistic events. Their unification—a theory of quantum gravity—remains the central unsolved problem of theoretical physics. We diagnose this impasse not as a technical failure, but as a conceptual incompleteness. The two revolutions, in their original domains, stopped short of questioning a premise both inherited from classical thought: that physical reality, determinacy, and facts themselves are absolute—that they exist independently of the framework through which they are described. Einstein relativized motion but left the existence of spacetime geometry absolute. Quantum mechanics relativized the values of observables but left the fact of an outcome unexplained, consigning it to the mysterious "measurement process." Neither theory asked: in what sense is a fact—that a quantity has a definite value, that an event has occurred, that a physical reality is thus and not otherwise—itself relative to a descriptive framework? This is the question the present work undertakes to answer. In doing so, it completes the program of relativity—not by appending new terms to old equations, but by extending the principle of relativity to its ultimate domain: being itself.