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. …
A theory with a simple physical model gives logical and reasonable answers to all the strange phenomena and difficult-to-understand problems in modern physics, from the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics QM, and up to the field of cosmology. It is a theory suitable for explaining phenomena from small particles to large bodies such as stars, galaxies, and the entire universe. In this article, we will define in an innovative manner how space-time is seen and we will give a different graphical representation to the special theory of relativity. We will show how the Lorentz transformation equations and the space-time interval are obtained from it, how light behaves in space-time, and according to it, how to obtain relativistic Doppler formulas. The most important thing in this article is that just as two bodies can be in two different times, according to the theory of relativity, they can also be simultaneously in two different locations. According to it, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and quantum superposition can be explained. We will present for the first time a very common physical phenomenon, but unknown up to this day, which we will call "leap set". According to it, we will logically and deterministically explain the double-slit experiment of electrons and we will show that the result of the experiment is not a wave interference because the electron does not pass through the slits, but it performs a leap set to possible locations on the screen. Also, according to the same model, we will see the conditions and reasons for quantum entanglement and how it is obtained. We will also show the expansion of the universe and Hubble's law according to this theory and model, the Casimir effect as a cosmological phenomenon. We will discuss the possibility of the existence of a mirror world completely identical to our world, located at a distance of 2x13.8Gly in the space-time and we will prove that the material mass energy of the universe is zero.
Albert Einstein found that, for two particles coming from the same source, when the state of one changes, that of the other may change at the same time, no matter how far they are apart from each other.This superluminal phenomenon totally violates the special theory of relativity which says nothing's speed exceeds the limit of light speed, what's more, as of today, nobody has made a satisfying explanation of this strange phenomenon, not even Einstein's own general relativity.We bring forward our novel view of this long pending dilemma based on the observations of the latest physical lab reports and by summarizing various theories of information, computer science, communications, religion and physics itself.We call it Super General Relativity for now.
The letter submitted is an executive summary of our previous paper. To solve the Einstein Podolsky Rosen “paradox” the two boundary quantum mechanics is taken as self consistent interpretation of quantum dynamics. The difficulty with this interpretation is to reconcile it with classical physics. To avoid macroscopic backward causation two “corresponding transition rules” are formulated which specify needed properties of macroscopic observations and manipulations. The apparent classical causal decision tree requires to understand the classically unchosen options. They are taken to occur with an “incomplete knowledge” of the boundary states typically in macroscopic considerations. The precise boundary conditions with given phases then select the actual measured path and this selection is mistaken to happen at the time of measurement. The apparent time direction of the decision tree originates in an assumed relative proximity to the initial state. Only the far away final state allows for classically distinct options to be selected from. Cosmologically the picture could correspond to a big bang initial and a hugely extended final state scenario. It is speculated that it might also hold for a big bang/big crunch world. If this would be the case the Born probability postulate could find a natural explanation if we coexist in the expanding and the correlated CPT conjugate contracting world.