Einstein

Welcome Forums Gravitation Einstein

This topic contains 60 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by  Gyula Szász 1 year, 4 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 61 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #538

    Gyula Szász
    Moderator

    I don’t know if Einstein did his quote in German or English. My translation of the German text would be:

    “You image that I look back with quiet satisfaction on my life’s work. But, it is quite different considering from nearness. There is no single concept from which I would be confident that it will be stand and I feel unsure if I was ever on the right path.”

    My comment:

    Not only Einstein was ever on the right path, but, I am sure that the whole modern physics was never on the right way since Max Planck’s introduction of the action quantum, 1900.

    The Planck constant h is not an action quantum, but h is a Lagrange multiplier which appears at the variation because of the subsidiary conditions of conserved particle numbers.

    #539

    Gyula Szász
    Moderator

    A comment of me to Anton Zeilinger’s book „Einsteins Schleier; Die neue Welt der Quantenphysik“.

    Lieber Herr Zeilinger,

    Sie schreiben in Ihrem Buch „Einsteins Schleier; Die neue Welt der Quantenphysik“ im Abschnitt „Abschied vom Gewohnten“:
    „Wir haben ja bereits gelernt, dass Max Planck selbst nach einer anderen Erklärung suchte, die ohne die Quantenhypothese aus kommt – natürlich vergeblich.“
    Nicht „natürlich“!
    Nur Max Planck, und auch die anderen Physiker, Sie auch nicht, haben daran gedacht, dass man bei der Variation des Wirkungsintegrals über einem endlichen Gebiet des Minkowski-Raums Randbedingungen und Nebenbedingungen für die Felder und für die Teilchen berücksichtigen muss. Die Berücksichtigung von Nebenbedingungen der Teilchensysteme ergeben Lagrange Multiplikatoren, und die Planck Konstante h ist so ein Lagrange Multiplikator. Also, h ist nicht ein „Wirkungsquantum“; es quantelt weder die Energie von Teilchen, noch quantelt h das elektromagnetisches Feld.

    Die moderne Physik kam auf den Holzweg seit Max Planck das Wirkungsquantum im Jahre 1900 eingeführt hat.
    Die eigentliche Quantenphysik baut auf gequantelten (erhaltenen) Ladungen der Elementarteilchen, in dem nur die Quellen der Wechselwirkungen gequantelt sind, die Wechselwirkungen jedoch bleiben ungequantelt.

    Einsteins Schleier verschleiert sich immer noch die Augen der Physiker, auch Ihre Augen: sie merken es immer noch nicht, dass die richtige Quantenphysik auf die stabilen Elementarteilchen e, p, P und E basiert.

    Mit kollegialen Grüßen,
    Gyula I. Szász

    #540

    Gyula Szász
    Moderator

    Another comment to Anton Zeilinger:

    Der amerikanisch Physiker Richard Feyman hat bezüglich der akzeptierten Quantenphysik dies einmal folgendermaßen formuliert: „Ich glaube, mit Sicherheit behaupten können, dass heutzutage niemand die Quantenmechanik versteht.“

    Natürlich nicht! Es sind nur Konventionen was die moderne Physik befolgt, ohne einen physikalischen Hintergrund.
    Mit kollegialen Grüßen,
    Gyula I. Szász

    #541

    Bill Eshleman
    Participant

    Dear Gyula,

    If I was starting a new thread I would call it:

    “RealQuantities, PseudoQuantities, and the Singularity”

    In your theory, the real-quantities are (e,P,p,E) which
    quantize the electric and gravitational charges and fields.
    Everything else is continuous in nature. I’m not sure how
    you have came to the conclusion that “everything else” is
    NOT quantized, but I’ve come to the same conclusion from
    my in-depth study of 1/(1-x); I probably know more bizaar
    properties of this relation than anyone else in this world.

    I literally know of an infinity of identities for this
    seemingly simple relationship; the so-called Lorentz factor
    is but one of its family members. I know its infinite sums
    and its infinite products. I view the products as generalizations of the sums; generalizations that yield
    many surprizing features. But I digress.

    When multiplying vectors we have two choices; the scalar
    product(dot product) and the pseudovector product(cross
    product). Therefore I take care never to multiply
    polynomial vector spaces to avoid those pseudovectors.

    It is my contension that standard QM does need crossproducts
    and that is where false quantizations rear their ugly heads.
    Magnetism, angular momentum and lots of other things are
    pseudovectors and therefore pseudoquantities as such.

    My speculation that pseudovectors are the source of
    pseudoquantizations is certainly a quite weak conjecture, but
    it lead me to investigate the relation between how close
    “x” is to unity and how many of the infinite set of factors
    that are needed. As I suspected, this seemingly trivial
    relation showed factors “popping” into existance as I
    successively halved the distance to the singularity at x=1.

    So I have come to the conclusion that the quantizations of
    the properties that you reject are somewhat convincingly rejected for mathematical reasons as well.

    I’m anxious for you to explain how you have come to the
    same conclusion that those quantizations are false. Maybe it will help or give me ideas that are mathematically more
    “concrete” than my currently quite hypothetical(bizaar)
    ramblings.

    Please start a new thread if you choose to respond, but
    realize that I’m currently quite interested in why(how) you
    reject the quantizations that most of your peers take for
    granted.

    Sincerely,
    Bill Eshleman

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by  Bill Eshleman.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by  Bill Eshleman.
    #544

    Gyula Szász
    Moderator

    “In your theory, the real-quantities are (e,P,p,E) which
    quantize the electric and gravitational charges and fields.”

    No!
    I my theory are only the charges are quantized, the fields are not quantized. The fields have continuous nature. Infinity does not occur in the interactions of particles. The charges are invariants and quantized and conserved.

    #545

    Gyula Szász
    Moderator

    The (statically) interactions between particles behave like

    qi∙qj/4π (ri-rj)^2.

    But, the singularity at a small relative distance, ri → rj, or with other words, the singularity of

    1/r^2 for r → 0,

    cannot occur in the interactions.

    #546

    Bill Eshleman
    Participant

    It is not clear to me at the moment as to why the field of
    a quantized charge is NOT quantized itself, but please let
    us discuss that at another time.

    But for now, please explain to me why you reject the
    quantizations of the other things that your peers take for
    granted are quantized.

    I concur, Nature does abhor a singularity because, for lack
    of other analogies, the singularity is merely an unachievable asymptote; and there is not enough energy in
    the universe for matter to achieve a so-called singularity.
    And there is not enough time in the universe for a computer
    to achieve it either; all a computer can do is calculate an
    unending sequence of terms and/or factors analogous to
    attempting to calculate the value of an irrational number.

    Again, why do you hold that things your peers think are
    quantized, are not quantized, but continuous?

    I agree that they should be continuous as well, but am
    fishing for reasons why. Please explain.

    #547

    Gyula Szász
    Moderator

    The elementary electric and gravitational charges are quantized. The electric charge of electron is measured as – e, the electric charge of proton and positron are measured as +e. The elementary gravitational charge of electron is – g me, the elementary gravitational charge of proton is + g mP and of positron is + g me. The charges as sources of the fields are quantized. Why? Only the Nature knows is, why.

    The fields are continuous functions of r and t which have discrete sources (= the elementary charges). The fields obey the Maxwell-equations as equation of motions for continuous functions. There are no physical reasons to assume that these fields are quantized.

    #548

    Bill Eshleman
    Participant

    Dear Gyula,

    “There are no physical reasons to assume that these fields are quantized.”

    Then I anticipate some very good news for you….

    There is no purely mathematical reason for quantization
    of fields nor any of the other false quantizations either.
    Certainly, there are good reasons, like the double-slit
    experiment and the discrete spectrum of atoms, to be
    tricked into believing that the false quantizations are
    real, but tricks are neither physics nor are they
    mathematics; they are illusions; they are caused by the
    real quantizations… the quantization and conservation
    of electric and gravitational charges, as you profess.

    I have suspected this for decades, and you have put it
    into a nutshell. you have united electricity and
    gravitation. What’s left is to unite electricity and
    the so-called strong force, and then your theory will be
    no less than a new and complete standard model.

    And I say this in great sincerity and admiration of your
    efforts.

    Mit kollegialen Grüßen,
    Bill

    #549

    Bill Eshleman
    Participant

    “No one can take from us the joy of first becoming aware of something, the so-called discovery. But if we also demand the honor, it can be utterly spoiled for us, for we are usually not the first.” Goethe

    If one considers that there are most likely a vast number
    of conscious and intelligent lifeforms in just our own galaxy,
    then there is only a very slim chance to be the “first discoverer” of anything.

    #550

    Gyula Szász
    Moderator

    Dear Bill,

    Once more again: we have obviously to do with two different kinds of quantum field theories.

    In the currently accepted quantum theory the energy (or with the ad hoc assumption of Max Planck the action, 1900) AND the interaction (with the ad hoc assumption of the light quantum hypothesis, Einstein 1905) are quantized. A mysterious constant, the Planck constant h, appear in the physical description.
    Max Planck tried for a long time to avoid his ad hoc “quantum condition” and to replace it with some physical founded relation. Einstein did not believe, 1909, on the accident brought in the physics through his ad hoc hypothesis. Feynman, a creator of the quantum electrodynamics (QED), said „Ich glaube, mit Sicherheit behaupten können, dass heutzutage niemand die Quantenmechanik versteht.“ In my translation: „I believe to claim with safety that nowadays nobody understand the quantum mechanics. “ Surely, no quantum physicist understands why the fine structure constant α hat the value 1/137.03. α is appearing in the Planck constant h.

    I have proposed another kind of quantum field theory: Only the sources of the interaction fields are quantized (with the stable elementary particles, or with other words: with two kinds of conserved charges.) In the action integral, two different kinds of subsidiary condition must be applying for the fields and for the particles. The mathematical consequence for the subsidiary condition for the particles is the appearing of Lagrange multiplier in the equations of particles motion, and only in these equations. Hence, the role of the Planck constant h in the case of bound states is that it is a Lagrange multiplier. With other words: the h does not appear ad hoc, and h does not appear in the equations of fields motions. Neither the action (the energy), nor the interaction is quantized in my quantum field theory.

    Therefore, I contradict the ad hoc assumptions of Max Planck and of Albert Einstein, I reject their quantum theories.

    You write “There is no purely mathematical reason for quantization of fields nor any of the other false quantizations either. Certainly, there are good reasons, like the double-slit experiment and the discrete spectrum of atoms, to be tricked into believing that the false quantizations are real, but tricks are neither physics nor are they mathematics; they are illusions; they are caused by the real quantizations… the quantization and conservation of electric and gravitational charges, as you profess.”

    Neither the double-slit experiment, nor the discrete spectrum of atoms, nor anything else justifies physically the “false quantization” of Planck and Einstein.

    #551

    Gyula Szász
    Moderator

    Dear Bill,

    I think, I have said clearly what I mean. I have the impression, you don’t understand or/and you don’t reflect to my clear arguments. I am considering the end of our discussion is coming. I don’t respond more, until you could give me a significant new argument for discussion, and I decide what is significant. The entropy argument is not significant,

    Sincerely,
    Gyula

    #552

    Gyula Szász
    Moderator

    “What’s left is to unite electricity and the so-called strong force, and then your theory will be no less than a new and complete standard model.”

    Good news, Bill: there is no need for the strong interaction!

    Since several Lagrange multipliers exist, not only one, the processes in the nuclei can be explained and described with “another kind of Planck constant” h0 and the value is h0 = h/387.

    This h0 is also responsible for the decay of the instable neutron N

    N =(P,e,p,e) → P + e + (e,p) = P + e + νe; the νe is an electron-neutrino.

    I notice: the strong- and the weak interaction do not exist in Nature! Only the electromagnetism and the gravitation exist in physics as interactions. The strong interaction must not unite to the electromagnetism and the gravitation.

    My theory is a complete new “Standard Model of Physics”.

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by  Gyula Szász.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by  Gyula Szász.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by  Gyula Szász.
    #556

    Gyula Szász
    Moderator

    Without the rejected false quantum theory of Planck and Einstein, I could calculate the physical properties of the bound two-particle-systems, (P,e), (p,e), (p,E) and (P,E). All these systems correspond to attractive electromagnetic interactions between the particles. The calculations give the bound energies, the sizes, the relative velocities of the particles in the bound states and the inertial and gravitational masses of the two-particle systems. I must not use the variation calculus explicitly, but, I have used the Lagrange multipliers h and h0 for each two-particles-system. For instance at the usage of h0, the smallest approach of the particles in (P,e), (p,E) and (P,E) are 0.382 ∙10 ^-16 cm and for (e,p) there is 0.703 ∙10 ^-13 cm. Therefore, we can conclude, a singularity does not occur in the particles interactions.

    Of course, we can also use the variation calculus to determine the concrete probability distribution of residence of the particles with h0 for all bound particle systems, such as for the stable neutron, for the instable neutron, for deuteron and so forth for all nucleon-systems and for instable particles. For these calculations there is only the electromagnetic interaction needed with h0 and with the elementary masses mP and me and of course, with the number of the elementary particles building the bound states. The result would be the intrinsic structures of atomic nuclei and the intrinsic structures of instable particles.

    The inertial masses of the particle system are experimentally well known, in these appear the also the number of (e,p)-pairs. On the other side, the gravitations masses do not contain the numbers of the (e,p)-pairs. The full structurally information of the particle systems derived from the variation calculus determine also the number of the (e,p)-pairs.

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by  Gyula Szász.
    #558

    Bill Eshleman
    Participant

    Gyula said:

    “I think, I have said clearly what I mean. I have the impression, you don’t understand or/and you don’t reflect to my clear arguments. I am considering the end of our discussion is coming. I don’t respond more, until you could give me a significant new argument for discussion, and I decide what is significant. The entropy argument is not significant,”

    But now you have seen even more of how difficult it is to
    try to teach new things to folks who have been brainwashed
    by the 20th century “physics interpretations”;

    interpretations of both the data and the mathematics.

    I warned you in private email at the beginning of our
    discussions that I would not be a “blank-slate”, but more
    like the worst student you’ve ever had… full of crazy,
    preconceived notions, so it is to your credit as a teacher,
    that you put-up-with-me for so long……..

    One more thing, is the question significant as to whether
    the electromagnetic and gravitomagnetic interactions(forces)
    become one in the very strong field?

    Sincerely,
    Bill

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 61 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.