Thread: Was Einstein Right when he Said Quantum Theory is Wrong?

According to Webster’s New World, Dictionary of Science, page 542, “Quantum theory: testing Quantum theory”, by Peter Lafferty:
“Quantum Theory must be wrong, “Einstein said. Einstein was never comfortable with Quantum Theory; Einstein felt that behind the uncertainty of Quantum Theory there must be an exact reality.”
Scientists around the world of the twentieth century confirmed Einstein was wrong when he said Quantum Theory is wrong, because all experiments in that century proved Quantum Theory is right. And,
Do you - the person of the twentieth first century- think Einstein is right when he said Quantum Theory is wrong?

no

No #2

"All Einstein did was break into a sealed vault, he just didn't know how to interpret the contents" - who said that?

Einstein didn't like the idea that the universe worked on probabilities, he wanted everything in the universe to have order and reason, this was the foundation for his belief in God, paraphrasing.. "I believe in a God who reveals himself in the harmonious order found in all nature."
Obviously quantum theory screws that right up.
It isn't that quantum theory is right or wrong, it's just the best description of the universe on a sub atomic level that we have at the moment.
On some level all our theories are wrong, since they are all based on the way humans perceive and process their environment in the brain, and that is flawed.

Einstein was a great scientist, but his objections to quantum theory were emotional rather than scientific. He wanted it to be wrong simply because he found it unappealing, not for any scientific reason.

Quantum physics is merely the nature of the branes were they meet. If time exist, and we move in the speed of light through it (since momentum and mass is preserved), and the reason why the mass seems to stand still and photones can move from one point to another in it without leaving the universe is that the masses vibrates a very short distance over the time dimension, then there might be many universes along the time dimension that must meet in one point, origo. Since every point is an origo, they can meet in alot of points, and hence particles from different branes can collide and I would call that heisenberg relations, and the momentum of particles would be explained. If a particle collides in time vektor with another particles timevektor, then they would both sipp out to other branes. That's what I think, so the discovery of the time coordinate really explains heisenbergs relations. Einstein might have been wrong, and yet right since he accepted time as a dimension. I think.

NS Comment

All Planck did with his Quantum theory is to transform light from a continuous wave to a quantum (photon) of energy.

All subsequent work like Schroedingers math creating all those weird orbitals are not necassarily Plancks work.

Bohrs work using quantum physics describing the Hydrogen Atom and the photon radiations has complete credibility regarding the HA only. SF's only confirmed Bohrs energy levels. I consider the HA as a binary.

I wonder how these orbitals explain the generation of a photon?
I got no answers.

Einstein was possitively wrong in criticizing Quantum physics as Planck had proposed besides all the other wrongs he promoted like his mass/energy formula, his General Relativity and his theory of everything, where he failed to complete.

NS

Edited for in red for improved comprehension. Ophiolite.

Mike,
it would be really helpfull if you would stop using abbreviations that are unusual and obscure. I have taken the liberty of amending your post above, but still have no idea what you mean by SF. I may not be a nuclear physicist, but I have done plenty of broad reading, over almost half a century, on quantum mechanics, so if I cannot easily guess at it, how many others will?
Thank you
O.

He may mean Solar Fusion

Or since it's the 'possesive' ie apostrophe 's' he could mean Sci-For's
Then there was a 'San Fransisco' I have read somewhere in connection with Bohr...

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Mike,
it would be really helpfull if you would stop using abbreviations that are unusual and obscure. I have taken the liberty of amending your post above, but still have no idea what you mean by SF. I may not be a nuclear physicist, but I have done plenty of broad reading, over almost half a century, on quantum mechanics, so if I cannot easily guess at it, how many others will?
Thank you
O.

Yes, I should have used SM right after I wrote Schroedinger math to establish the acronym.

Instead I used SF for Schroedinger formulas.

Sorry about the confusion.

NS

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

Einstein was a great scientist, but his objections to quantum theory were emotional rather than scientific. He wanted it to be wrong simply because he found it unappealing, not for any scientific reason.

Thanks you everybody for your idea in this topic.
Although I have great admiration and respect for Quantum Theory and all its experiments, but I have to agree that Einstein was right when he said Quantum Theory is wrong! And,
I think Classical Mechanics will come back - but not in the original form. The Classical Mechanics should be improved before its can be integrated with Quantum Theory and Relativity Theory in a Unified Field Theory that Einstein proposed since 1920.
My vote may put a vexed question to scientists, who think Quantum Theory is right. Einstein may be excessive when he said Quantum Theory is wrong, but this is a right word for scientists who want to discovery his last idea. An explanation for my choice is not easy, and then I still finding for a simple explanation to this topic that I wish will be pleasure everybody.
All scientific theories are right if scientists know how to use advantages of these theories to serve for the benefits of human life.
I am waiting your idea in this topic that will help me perfect my explanation, which will come soon in our science forums.

HiLe

Originally Posted by Zelos

no

No? Any thought?

Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly

Quantum physics is merely the nature of the branes were they meet. If time exist, and we move in the speed of light through it (since momentum and mass is preserved), and the reason why the mass seems to stand still and photones can move from one point to another in it without leaving the universe is that the masses vibrates a very short distance over the time dimension, then there might be many universes along the time dimension that must meet in one point, origo. Since every point is an origo, they can meet in alot of points, and hence particles from different branes can collide and I would call that heisenberg relations, and the momentum of particles would be explained. If a particle collides in time vektor with another particles timevektor, then they would both sipp out to other branes. That's what I think, so the discovery of the time coordinate really explains heisenbergs relations. Einstein might have been wrong, and yet right since he accepted time as a dimension. I think.

Einstein might have been wrong or right just is a relative manner that we need to know. You said Einstein is wrong because you look Quantum Theory in the scope of atomic science. I say Einstein is right because I look Quantum Theory in the scope of Universe.
You seem to use Einstein's equation. Do you know what wrong in this equation?
If you know how to prove the wrong of Einstein 's equation, you can go to a Unified Field Theory that is a co-operation between Classical Mechanics, Quantum Theory and Relativity Theory.

HiLe

Originally Posted by hile

Einstein might have been wrong or right just is a relative manner that we need to know. You said Einstein is wrong because you look Quantum Theory in the scope of atomic science. I say Einstein is right because I look Quantum Theory in the scope of Universe.
You seem to use Einstein's equation. Do you know what wrong in this equation?
If you know how to prove the wrong of Einstein 's equation, you can go to a Unified Field Theory that is a co-operation between Classical Mechanics, Quantum Theory and Relativity Theory.

HiLe

Einstein was wrong in several respects. His opposition to Quantum Physics is one, his introduction of the Lambda assist to prevent his 'static' universe from collapsing is another. He was wrong that a static universe would collapse but right that his idea of curvature of space would cause his static universe to collapse. His M/E formula is wrong because forces create energy and the wavelength of light has to be present because these wavelengths have different energy levels and the velocity of light (c) is a single linear dimension that need not be squared.

So I consider his General Relativity to be wrong also because it is based on Newtonian gravity (NG) but it has no explanation for the Zwicky gravity (dark matter) that is 10 to 20 times greater than NG that would cause a much greater 'warp' of space than the NG.

NS