This paper presents a comparison of the conceptual bases of the quantum theory and the theory of relativity, each considered as fundamental theories of elementary matter. From a study of the irreducible axiomatic bases of these respective approaches to elementary matter, it is concluded that they cannot peacefully co-exist because of logical incompatibility. Among the reasons discussed for this conclusion, one is the implication of the Hamiltonian form of quantum mechanics yielding an irreducible absolute frame of reference - that of the measuring apparatus - in the basic expression for the laws of elementary particles. This difficulty leads to logical inconsistency as well as a formulation of relativistic quantum field theory that is not demonstrably mathematically consistent. In spite of their logical incompatiability, it is argued that each of these theories logically requires the other, within its own framework. The conclusion is reached that, to make further progress in our understanding of elementary matter, it is necessary to abandon the axiomatic basis of one of these theories for the other, while keeping the formal structure of the abandoned theory as an accurate mathematical approximation (under special physical conditions) for a generalized form of the retained theory. An argument is presentedmore » for the author's retention of the theory of relativity as an authentic basis of elementary matter, and how its generalization is achieved by incorporating a fully (generally) covariant expression of the inertial manifestations of matter with its force manifestations.« less
This paper presents a comparison of the conceptual bases of the quantum theory and the theory of relativity, each considered as fundamental theories of elementary matter. From a study of the irreducible axiomatic bases of these respective approaches to elementary matter, it is concluded that they cannot peacefully co-exist because of logical incompatibility. Among the reasons discussed for this conclusion, one is the implication of the Hamiltonian form of quantum mechanics yielding an irreducible absolute frame of reference - that of the measuring apparatus - in the basic expression for the laws of elementary particles. This difficulty leads to logical inconsistency as well as a formulation of relativistic quantum field theory that is not demonstrably mathematically consistent. In spite of their logical incompatiability, it is argued that each of these theories logically requires the other, within its own framework. The conclusion is reached that, to make further progress in our understanding of elementary matter, it is necessary to abandon the axiomatic basis of one of these theories for the other, while keeping the formal structure of the abandoned theory as an accurate mathematical approximation (under special physical conditions) for a generalized form of the retained theory. An argument is presentedmore » for the author's retention of the theory of relativity as an authentic basis of elementary matter, and how its generalization is achieved by incorporating a fully (generally) covariant expression of the inertial manifestations of matter with its force manifestations.« less
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
Relativistic quantum mechanics is the unification into a consistent theory of Einstein's theory of relativity and the quantum mechanics of physicists such as Bohr, Schrödinger, and Heisenberg. Evidently, to appreciate relativistic quantum theory it is necessary to have a good understanding of these component theories. Apart from this chapter we assume the reader has this understanding. However, here we are going to recall some of the important points of the classical theory of special relativity. There is good reason for doing this. As you will discover all too soon, relativistic quantum mechanics is a very mathematical subject and my experience has been that the complexity of the mathematics often obscures the physics being described. To facilitate the interpretation of the mathematics here, appropriate limits are taken wherever possible, to obtain expressions with which the reader should be familiar. Clearly, when this is done it is useful to have the limiting expressions handy. Presenting them in this chapter means they can be referred to easily. Taking the above argument to its logical conclusion means we should include a chapter on non-relativistic quantum mechanics as well. However, that is too vast a subject to include in a single chapter. Furthermore, there already exists a plethora of good books on the subject.
By expanding the research paradigm and reconciling the two binary oppositions of "relative and absolute" and "quantum and classical" in physics, a new theoretical framework that is compatible with relativity and quantum mechanics is proposed. Firstly, excavate and establish three universal axioms: Axiom 1 (consensus guarantees equal rights), Axiom 2 (objective existence independent of measurement), and Axiom 3 (universality of causality and dialectical logic), based on which to criticize the logical contradictions of existing theories. In the field of relativity, this article points out that there is a logical paradox in the explanation of "clock slowing down depends on relative motion" in special relativity (A clock is both faster and slower than B clock), and proposes a relative absolute spacetime view that "absolute motion leads to clock slowing down". By extending the Lorentz transformation, absolute motion and relative motion are unified, solving problems such as the twin paradox. At the same time, based on the prediction of the Dirac equation for negative mass matter, the "negative mass spacetime curvature paradox" is proposed, challenging Einstein's physical explanation of spacetime curvature and arguing that it is only a mathematical tool (the mathematical expression of gravity) rather than a physical reality. In the field of quantum mechanics, this article criticizes the Copenhagen interpretation for violating Axiom 2 (denying the independent eigenstates of microscopic particles). By modifying the Schrödinger equation twice (For the first time, electromagnetic potential energy was replaced with gravitational potential energy, and the Schrödinger-Tu equation was established to describe macroscopic objects such as the Earth's revolution; The second step is to convert potential energy into electromagnetic/gravitational force and derive the wave mechanics equation of classical mechanics laws, such as Newton's second law with force operator), proves that quantum and classical theories are compatible within the same mathematical framework. In the experiment, it was demonstrated through the "anti-interference electron diffraction experiment" that a strong magnetic field only changes the shape of diffraction fringes without causing them to disappear, denying the inevitability of quantum decoherence. The establishment of "generalized wave dynamics" and "relative absolute spacetime view" breaks the binary opposition of traditional theories and provides a new paradigm for the unity of relativity and quantum mechanics. The core value of these jobs lies in: In terms of theoretical innovation, reconstruct the space-time and quantum interpretation system, while retaining the original mathematical form system; In terms of experimental verification, design feasible schemes such as hollow glass disk Jones experiment and geometric optical velocimetry experiment; In terms of philosophical significance, replacing "mathematical symmetry" with "content unity" and returning to the objectivity of physical mechanisms. The research conclusion indicates that by expanding paradigms and axiomatic constraints, the contradiction between relativity and quantum mechanics can be transformed into a complementary relationship, laying the foundation for the great unity of physics theory
We argue that special relativity, instead of quantum theory, should be radically reformulated to resolve inconsistencies between those two theories. A new relativistic transformation recently-proposed renders physical laws form-invariant via transformation of physical quantities, instead of space-time coordinates. This new perspective on relativistic transformation provides an insight into the very meaning of the principle of relativity. The principle of relativity means that the same physical laws hold in all inertial frames, rather than their mathematical formulas are Lorentz-covariant under the Lorentz transformation of space-time coordinates. The space-time concept underlying this new relativistic transformation is Newtonian absolute space and absolute time. With this new perspective, quantum theory becomes compatible with the principle of relativity. A new theory of relativistic quantum mechanics is formulated. The new relativistic quantum mechanics thus obtained maintains the essentials of non-relativistic quantum mechanics, for instance, the statistical single-particle interpretation. Studies on standard problems in quantum mechanics, square step and barrier potential, show that the new relativistic quantum mechanics is free from such anomalies as the negative probability density, Zitterbewegung and the Klein paradox bedeviling the current relativistic quantum mechanics. Furthermore, a remarkable result is found as applying the new relativistic quantum mechanics to study the problems of square potential well --- a particle can not be confined within an infinite square well of width less than half of the Compton wavelength of the particle. As implications of this finding in nuclear physics, there is a lower bound on the size of atomic nucleus. Neither an electron, nor a positron, can be confined inside the nucleus.
Are General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics incompatible? Each in their world, that of the infinitely large and that of the infinitely small, they did not seem to interfere as long as they avoided each other. However, it is their fundamental oppositions that prevent the scientific community from achieving a unification of physics. The proposal of this paper is to provide a mathematical proof of incompatibility, beyond the fact that they have fundamentally different principles, between the foundations of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, namely the deformation of the space-time geometry and the Uncertainty Principle. It will thus be possible to provide an absolute limitation in establishing a unifying theory of physics, if any. Moreover, while respecting the conditions fixed by the Uncertainty Principle, it will be tempted to determine with accuracy and simultaneity, the position and the speed of a non-relativistic particle, by application of relativistic principles and bypassing the problems raised by such an operation. The Uncertainty Principle as stated by Werner Heisenberg will be then, in the light of observations made on the measurement of the time dilatation and in accordance with its own terms, refuted by the present. - Physics Essays, Volume 31, Issue 3 (September 2018), Article 12 - https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1667-12-alexandre-georges-incompatibility-between-einstein-s-general-relativity-and-heisenberg-s-uncertainty-principle.html
The persistent incompatibility between quantum mechanics (QM) and general relativity (GR) is commonly treated in physics as a technical or mathematical problem. Either a deeper dynamics is sought that connects both theories, or a formal meta-theory that unifies their concepts.This paper proposes a different reading. It claims neither a unification nor a correction of the existing theories. Instead, it shows that the contradiction between QM and GR is not a deficit of the theories themselves, but the consequence of an unspoken ontological omission: the lack of a determination of the transition from possibility to facticity.At the center stands the thesis that quantum mechanics and relativity mutually imply one another without being connected by a process, a path, or a shared dynamics. The transition between openness and stability is not a physical event within the world, but a shift in the conditions under which a world can occur at all.Using the terms indimergence and shift of being (Seinsverschiebung), this transition is specified as a boundary structure: indimergence designates the non-dynamical coercion toward objectivity, while shift of being denotes the irreversible change of the conditions of further world-formation. From this perspective, it becomes intelligible why the conflict between QM and GR cannot be “solved” — and why precisely therein lies its ontological significance.