In science history the conflict between Einstein and the Copenhagen school (quantum mechanics) is well known. On the one hand, Einstein's strict determinism, on the other, Heisenberg's uncertainty relations, the collapse of the wave function and the chance at the micro level, regardless of the macroscopic explanations of the postulate cmax=const, regardless of the initial mass. At the time when our Galaxy was the whole world and the mutual velocities in it were negligible according to the speed of light, Einstein held that the mass of the world was one and unique. In 1985, in a lecture on quantum electrodynamics– QED: THE STRANGE THEORY OF LIGHT AND MATTER–Feynman says that he only describes how nature behaves without being able to explain why it behaves like that because no one understands this; and Laughlin in 2005 says, already with the title of his book–A DIFFERENT UNIVERSE: Reinventing Physics From The Bottom Down–that an effort on understanding this fact to humanity is yet to come. This article shows that one should start from the very postulate cmax=const, rethinking this experimental fact–because Einstein's explanation from 1916 is insufficient and in fact wrong: he tacitly takes the coordinate system of the railway embankment as absolute, and to the train speed adds to or subtracts the light speed. And rethinking will lead us to the necessary Heisenberg relations of uncertainty, c2 inertia and new insights into the property of relativity and symmetry of the vacuum itself, to the explanation of the EPR paradox and the so-called the twin paradox. And all together to one Universe, really different from how we imagine it today with a Big Bang.
In science history the conflict between Einstein and the Copenhagen school (quantum mechanics) is well known. On the one hand, Einstein's strict determinism, on the other, Heisenberg's uncertainty relations, the collapse of the wave function and the chance at the micro level, regardless of the macroscopic explanations of the postulate cmax=const, regardless of the initial mass. At the time when our Galaxy was the whole world and the mutual velocities in it were negligible according to the speed of light, Einstein held that the mass of the world was one and unique. In 1985, in a lecture on quantum electrodynamics– QED: THE STRANGE THEORY OF LIGHT AND MATTER–Feynman says that he only describes how nature behaves without being able to explain why it behaves like that because no one understands this; and Laughlin in 2005 says, already with the title of his book–A DIFFERENT UNIVERSE: Reinventing Physics From The Bottom Down–that an effort on understanding this fact to humanity is yet to come. This article shows that one should start from the very postulate cmax=const, rethinking this experimental fact–because Einstein's explanation from 1916 is insufficient and in fact wrong: he tacitly takes the coordinate system of the railway embankment as absolute, and to the train speed adds to or subtracts the light speed. And rethinking will lead us to the necessary Heisenberg relations of uncertainty, c2 inertia and new insights into the property of relativity and symmetry of the vacuum itself, to the explanation of the EPR paradox and the so-called the twin paradox. And all together to one Universe, really different from how we imagine it today with a Big Bang.
In science history the conflict between Einstein and the Copenhagen school (quantum mechanics) is well known. On the one hand, Einstein's strict determinism, on the other, Heisenberg's uncertainty relations, the collapse of the wave function and the chance at the micro level, regardless of the macroscopic explanations of the postulate cmax=const, regardless of the initial mass. At the time when our Galaxy was the whole world and the mutual velocities in it were negligible according to the speed of light, Einstein held that the mass of the world was one and unique. In 1985, in a lecture on quantum electrodynamics QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter: Feynman says that he only describes how nature behaves without being able to explain why it behaves like that because no one understands this; and Laughlin in 2005 says, already with the title of his book. A DIFFERENT UNIVERSE: Reinventing Physics From The Bottom Down: That an effort on understanding this fact to humanity is yet to come. This article shows that one should start from the very postulate cmax=const, rethinking this experimental fact—because Einstein's explanation from 1916 is insufficient and in fact wrong: he tacitly takes the coordinate system of the railway embankment as absolute, and to the train speed adds to or subtracts the light speed. And rethinking will lead us to the necessary Heisenberg relations of uncertainty, c2 - inertia and new insights into the property of relativity and symmetry of the vacuum itself, to the explanation of the EPR paradox and the so-called the twin paradox. And all together to one Universe, really different from how we imagine it today with a Big Bang.
It is understandable that in 1916 Einstein was unable to explain his postulate c=const, that in the case of the lightning and the train that moves on the railway embankment he still tacitly implied that the inertial coordinate system which is at rest has advantage over the one in motion. In serious scientific journals, there are no tries of explanations of this postulate, but it is strange that even today, at popular lectures, Einstein's explanation is taken as valid. It isn't difficult to show that his explanation is not valid; it is difficult to find the right explanation without trying to form an alternative theory. The article is dedicated to this goal. The found explanation will also serve to explain, for example, the EPR-paradox without any “spooky action at a distance” or “hidden variables” (Einstein’s expressions). And this is not the only example where it can serve.
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. …
Unlike special relativity, quantum mechanics was not the inspired product of one mind. It developed, in fits and starts, over a period of 25 years (1900–1925), and many cooks stirred the broth. Even now, a century later, quantum mechanics raises profound conceptual questions. Every competent physicist can “do” quantum mechanics, and the predictions it makes are in spectacularly good agreement with experimental results; there can be little doubt that quantum mechanics is “right.” On the other hand, as Richard Feynman once remarked, “nobody understands quantum mechanics.” I'll tell the story in two parts. First the history (how the essential pieces of the puzzle were assembled), and then the implications (what the finished picture has to say about our world). Photons Like relativity, quantum mechanics began with the study of light. In both cases, this historical association is misleading. Relativity, really, has nothing to do with light – to be sure, it involves that magic speed limit, c , and of course the most familiar thing that travels at speed c is light. So light is a convenient vehicle for introducing the subject. But it is perfectly possible to imagine a universe in which there is no such thing as light, and yet relativity might still be valid. Quantum mechanics, too, starts with light – in this case the “quantum” of light (the photon). But, as it turns out, this is just one rather specialized example of much more general principles – in fact, a rather bad example, because photons are by their nature relativistic (they travel at the speed of light), and it would be more natural to begin with the quantum mechanics of slow-moving objects, in analogy with Newtonian mechanics.
The Heisenberg equation may not be as well-known as Einstein’s e=mc^2. But the Heisenberg equation’s implications that there is an irreducible uncertainty with regard to the position of an object are no less intriguing than the implications of Einstein’s relativity equation that time slows to a stop when the relative velocity of an object approaches the speed of light. Using elementary mathematics and science, this paper begins by examining the physics of motion of an everyday object such as a tennis ball. The paper shows that the same physics that applies to everyday objects in fact also applies when it comes to subatomic particles, such as an electron in motion. And by taking gradual incremental steps in developing the mathematics of the underlying physics, the paper leads to the conclusion that the universe is inherently uncertain, that it is impossible to know the exact position of any object.
The Heisenberg equation may not be as well-known as Einstein’s e=mc^2. But the Heisenberg equation’s implications that there is an irreducible uncertainty with regard to the position of an object are no less intriguing than the implications of Einstein’s relativity equation that time slows to a stop when the relative velocity of an object approaches the speed of light. Using elementary mathematics and science, this paper begins by examining the physics of motion of an everyday object such as a tennis ball. The paper shows that the same physics that applies to everyday objects in fact also applies when it comes to subatomic particles, such as an electron in motion. And by taking gradual incremental steps in developing the mathematics of the underlying physics, the paper leads to the conclusion that the universe is inherently uncertain, that it is impossible to know the exact position of any object.