Was Einstein Right when he Said Quantum Theory is Wrong?

[Jay-qu]

In cosmology (space science) the space gases of hydrogen are most always in a ground state (unenergized) state.

That means that the HS is radiating a continuous wave of about one angstrom. This is because the the electron is in its most inner orbital position.

Let me first clarify, do you mean an electromagnetic wave? Do you know what it means to be continuously radiating? that implies a continuous loss of energy, which is unsustainable, as far as we have ever experienced energy is conserved and nothing can be done continously, the system (if it is sufficiently defined) will always run out of energy - and in this case a hydrogen atom is a very small system. That aside has anyone ever verified the existence of this ~1Angstrom wave? I am going to wager no and since you keep saying you should base your maths on experimental results, I think you have skipped the key ingredient of your own process.

 

Einstein refuted Quantum Physics. So I personally ignore his math.

Energy is 'motion' and 'forces' create motion. So mass is not involved in this scenario although they contain the forces. But masses cannot be substituted for forces.

Einstein was wrong about quantum so you reject all his prior work on relativity? Motion implies Kinetic energy but this is not the only form of energy, you have to be careful throwing around the word energy, it is very versatile but has a specific meaning.

 

I am only quoting my own version of 'new science' based on basic physics.

 

What is a 'drum roll'?

Plancks science dealt strictly with 'black body' radiations.

 

Mike C

 

A drum roll is generally a prelude to apex of something, or the 'punchline' if you will.

 

You have completely avoided the one thing I was saying, your equation does not make sense and is wrong. Planck did a lot more than just black body radiation, so forget about that for a second and accept that your equation was wrong.

[Jay-qu]

Your sentence “The mass energy relationship has been experimentally verified” should be reconsidered, because I found out some mistakes of all experiments that “prove the right of Einstein’s equation.”

Einstein’s equation (M/E formula) must be wrong, or it is just right to a kind of matter (dead matter) that is not exist in our universe; therefore, our universe is not exist if Einstein’s equation is right. Meanwhile, Einstein cannot establish his equation if his equation was right!

A lot of academies are striving to prove the right of Einstein’s equation, which means they are suicidal!!!

HIENVN

 

Would you care to back up some of these claims HIENVN?

That is one big 'therefore' I am pretty sure the universe exists, and Im sure this equation works..

 

some sources:

Special Relativity - Experimental Verification

Experimental verification of the general theory of relativity

 

Also you need to be careful

Einstein derived E=mc^2 but that equation is not known as "Einsteins equation"

 

Einsteins Equation is in fact:

[math]G_\mu\nu = 8\pi T_\mu\nu[/math]

(in geometrised units)

[Mike C]

Would you care to back up some of these claims HIENVN?

That is one big 'therefore' I am pretty sure the universe exists, and Im sure this equation works..

 

some sources:

Special Relativity - Experimental Verification

Experimental verification of the general theory of relativity

 

Also you need to be careful

Einstein derived E=mc^2 but that equation is not known as "Einsteins equation"

 

Einsteins Equation is in fact:

[math]G_munu = 8pi T_munu[/math]

(in geometrised units)

 

Can you define the individual components of this formula?

 

What does the G stand for? If the G stands for the sub components that represent magnetism and light frequency, it does not make sense.

Energy solutions are supposed to be in 'Joules' aren't they?

 

Also name the original creator of that formula?

 

Thank you.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

Let me first clarify, do you mean an electromagnetic wave? Do you know what it means to be continuously radiating? that implies a continuous loss of energy, which is unsustainable, as far as we have ever experienced energy is conserved and nothing can be done continously, the system (if it is sufficiently defined) will always run out of energy - and in this case a hydrogen atom is a very small system. That aside has anyone ever verified the existence of this ~1Angstrom wave? I am going to wager no and since you keep saying you should base your maths on experimental results, I think you have skipped the key ingredient of your own process.

 

I explained why the HA does not collapse by a simple experiment that anyone can perform.

My opinion is based on Bohr''s planetary model of the HA.

The orbiting electron causes the proton to spin synchronously with the electrons motion.

So the proton creates a magnetic field that repels the electrons MF.

This can be easily proven.

Just form your hands into two fists and bring them close to your stomach with the thumbs pointing outward.

Notice that the fingers of both hands point upward and outward from each other.

Since the elecron and the proton have opposite charges while both the inner part of the proton moves in the same direction as the electron, their fields oppse each other and push apart.

The hands represent the right hand rule of the electrons MF direction and the left hand represents the protons MF direction.

 

This MF interaction supplements the electrons orbital momentum to resist collapse.

So in this ground state, the HA is in a balanced state and can exist forever.

 

The angtrom wavelength is derived from this formula:

 

Ground state orbit radius = h^2 divided by 4 pi^2msubeksubee^2 =

.53x10^-10 meters = approximately 1/2 angstrom (nm)

 

h = 6.63^-34 J/s m sub e = 9.109x10^-31 kgs k sub e = 8.98 x10^9

N-m^2/c^2 e = 1.6x10^-19 C

 

Einstein was wrong about quantum so you reject all his prior work on relativity? Motion implies Kinetic energy but this is not the only form of energy, you have to be careful throwing around the word energy, it is very versatile but has a specific meaning.

 

The other form is the potential energy that is inactive until released.

 

A drum roll is generally a prelude to apex of something, or the 'punchline' if you will.

 

You have completely avoided the one thing I was saying, your equation does not make sense and is wrong. Planck did a lot more than just black body radiation, so forget about that for a second and accept that your equation was wrong.

 

My equation is based on the motion of a photon through space (EF).

 

What kind of motion are you promoting?

 

Mike C

[Jay-qu]

Can you define the individual components of this formula?

 

What does the G stand for? If the G stands for the sub components that represent magnetism and light frequency, it does not make sense.

Energy solutions are supposed to be in 'Joules' aren't they?

 

Also name the original creator of that formula?

 

Thank you.

 

Mike C

Sorry did I not make it clear enough when I said it was Einstein's equation. It is literally his equation. It is from general relativity and is not another form of E=mc^2 , I was mearly pointing out that E=mc^2 is not Einstein's equation, as people keep referring to it as such.

 

The G in the equation is the Einstein Tensor and the T is the Energy-momentum tensor. The subscripts are the tensor's indicies. The Einstein summation convention is implied, meaning you sum over these indices, it allows the equations to be written in a more compact form. But we are getting off topic.

 

I explained why the HA does not collapse by a simple experiment that anyone can perform.

My opinion is based on Bohr''s planetary model of the HA.

The orbiting electron causes the proton to spin synchronously with the electrons motion.

 

The spin of the electron and proton are well know quantities and yes this produces a magnetic moment for both of them.

Before you claim that this makes the atom stable, why dont you do a quick calculation and see if what you are proposing actually turns out to be in agreement with observation. I can help you if you like. Note that this would be a semi-classical calculation sort of like the Bohr model.

 

So the proton creates a magnetic field that repels the electrons MF.

This can be easily proven.

Just form your hands into two fists and bring them close to your stomach with the thumbs pointing outward.

Notice that the fingers of both hands point upward and outward from each other.

Since the elecron and the proton have opposite charges while both the inner part of the proton moves in the same direction as the electron, their fields oppse each other and push apart.

The hands represent the right hand rule of the electrons MF direction and the left hand represents the protons MF direction.

 

The direction means nothing if its to weak, which I think there is a good chance it is.

 

The angtrom wavelength is derived from this formula:

 

Ground state orbit radius = h^2 divided by 4 pi^2msubeksubee^2 =

.53x10^-10 meters = approximately 1/2 angstrom (nm)

 

h = 6.63^-34 J/s m sub e = 9.109x10^-31 kgs k sub e = 8.98 x10^9

N-m^2/c^2 e = 1.6x10^-19 C

 

Again you have made an error, h, plancks constant, that you keep using is Joules times seconds, not Joules divided by seconds. Your equation dont make sense dimensionally and you are avoiding explaining yourself.

[Mike C]

Sorry did I not make it clear

enough when I said it was Einstein's

equation. It is literally his equation. It is from

general relativity and is not another form of

E=mc^2 , I was mearly pointing out that E=mc^2

is not Einstein's equation, as people keep

referring to it as such.

 

The G in the equation is the Einstein Tensor and

the T is the Energy-momentum tensor. The

subscripts are the tensor's indicies. The

Einstein summation convention is implied, meaning

you sum over these indices, it allows the

equations to be written in a more compact form.

But we are getting off topic.

 

That equation above has nothing to do with light

energy.

You haven't answered who wrote the E=mc^2 equation?

 

The spin of the electron and proton are well know

quantities and yes this produces a magnetic moment

for both of them.

 

There is no clear explanation for the electron

spin.

IMO, it has no intrinsic spin like the major

satellites in our solar system.

Its MF is derived from its motion only.

 

Before you claim that this makes the atom stable,

why dont you do a quick calculation and see if

what you are proposing actually turns out to be

in agreement with observation. I can help you if

you like. Note that this would be a semi-classical

calculation sort of like the Bohr model.

 

Observation? It requires an imagination to

visualize the working nature of the HA.

The proton only spins and I conclude that even

though its synchronous spin is considered slow,

its extreme density gives it a very high

permeability for a strong MF.

So how are you gong to determine the Protons MF

strength?

Likewise for the electrons MF strength. Its

calculated orbital velocity in the GS is 2^6

meters per second.

What MF strength does this give it?

 

The direction means nothing if its to weak, which

I think there is a good chance it is.

 

I explained that above.

 

Again you have made an error, h, plancks constant,

that you keep using is Joules times seconds, not

Joules divided by seconds. Your equation dont make

sense dimensionally and you are avoiding explaining

yourself.

 

That is a typo. I did not think that way. I

considered is as 'per' second.

 

Mike C

[Jay-qu]

That equation above has nothing to do with light

energy.

You haven't answered who wrote the E=mc^2 equation?

I know, and if you read my post carefully you would understand that I am not disputing that E=mc^2 was derived by Einstein, only that the name of the equation is not called 'the Einstein equation' as people keep referring to it. The Einstein equation is from general relativity and describes gravitation, you can forget I said it.

 

There is no clear explanation for the electron

spin.

IMO, it has no intrinsic spin like the major

satellites in our solar system.

Its MF is derived from its motion only.

You have to be careful what you are calling intrinsic spin. I think what you mean about the 'satellites in our solar system' is their angular momentum.

 

Observation? It requires an imagination to

visualize the working nature of the HA.

 

Funny that now you dont care about observation and dont mind abstract imagination. You need observation to validate your theory.

 

So how are you gong to determine the Protons MF

strength?

Likewise for the electrons MF strength. Its

calculated orbital velocity in the GS is 2^6

meters per second.

What MF strength does this give it?

I will have to use maxwell's equations. I will have to get back to you - if anyone knows please feel free to jump in now :)

 

That is a typo. I did not think that way. I

considered is as 'per' second.

 

Mike C

 

Do you mean to say that you have changed the units of the constant?

[Mike C]

I know, and if you read my post carefully you would understand that I am not disputing that E=mc^2 was derived by Einstein, only that the name of the equation is not called 'the Einstein equation' as people keep referring to it. The Einstein equation is from general relativity and describes gravitation, you can forget I said it.

 

 

You have to be careful what you are calling intrinsic spin. I think what you mean about the 'satellites in our solar system' is their angular momentum.

 

 

 

Funny that now you dont care about observation and dont mind abstract imagination. You need observation to validate your theory.

 

 

I will have to use maxwell's equations. I will have to get back to you - if anyone knows please feel free to jump in now :)

 

 

 

Do you mean to say that you have changed the units of the constant?

 

To your last question, no.

 

My calculation for the D-B formula for red light is 3^-19 J-s

This involvres a time of one second.

 

There is a difference in the quantities used such as the Planck Constant and the frequency of the red light.

 

My formula has reduced the frequency to a single 'elapsed' time for the frequency to 2.19^-15 seconds for a single photon.

Also for a single wavelength.

 

My calculation for this red photon is 1.4^-21 J-s

 

I have been trying to resolve the difference but have not been successful so far.

 

Mike C

 

Moderation note: Several replies concerning MikeC’s use of scientific notation have been moved to the thread 15144, because they are about notational conventions, not Einstein or quantum physics

[HIENVN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HIENVN

I agree with you, the SR and GR should be refuted!

Einstein recognized some defeats of his Relativity theory in 1923, when he came to Sweden to receive the 1921’s Nobel Prizes for physics that did not be awarded for Relativity theory.

HIENVN

 

 

Thank you.

 

Mike C

Thanks Mike C,

Following is the quote to prove the work of Einstein’s last life (According to the book, Einstein lived here, in the chapter entitled, “How Einstein got the Nobel Prize”, copyright ABRAHAM PAIS 1994, USA):

“In March 1923… Arrhenius [the secretary of Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences] left to Einstein the choice of a topic for a general lecture but said that ‘it is certain that one would be most grateful for a lecture about your relativity theory.’ Einstein replied that he was agreeable to this suggestion, although he would have preferred to speak on unified field theory. On a very hot day in July, Einstein… addressed an audience of about two thousand in the Jubilee Hall in Goteborg on basic ideas and problems of the theory of relativity.”

HIENVN

[HIENVN]

Also you need to be careful

Einstein derived E=mc^2 but that equation is not known as "Einsteins equation"

 

Einsteins Equation is in fact:

[math]G_munu = 8pi T_munu[/math]

(in geometrised units)

 

Thanks Jay-qu,

That formular ([math]G_\mu\nu = 8\pi T_\mu\nu[/math]) is just “Einstein field equation,” while I dealt to Mass-energy equivalence, or Einstein equation.

Some sources:

Einstein field equations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mass–energy equivalence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

E=MC2 (disambiguation) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HIENVN

[HIENVN]

 

 

I do not accept Einsteins M/E formula. Forces create the energies.

Einsteins M/E formula pertains to the pre Planckian time of light as a contiuous wave rather than being reduced to a single pulse.

 

 

 

 

Mike C

The above quote relates to the essential of Unified Field theory, and I wish answer it in some days more.

I would like to say briefly:

“Forces do not create the energies and energies do not create the forces!”

HIENVN

[alexander]

while I dealt to Mass-energy equivalence

 

You dealt with a simplified version of mass-energy equivalence, simplified, because it zeros out some terms to make it a short [math]E=mc^2[/math]

 

The real mass-energy equivalence formula is [math]E=c*\sqrt{p^2+m_0^2c^2}[/math]

 

where m0 is the rest mass of an object

[Jay-qu]

My calculation for the D-B formula for red light is 3^-19 J-s

This involvres a time of one second.

 

May I see how you did this calculation?

 

My formula has reduced the frequency to a single 'elapsed' time for the frequency to 2.19^-15 seconds for a single photon.

Also for a single wavelength.

Can you please elaborate on this, it doesnt really make much sense to me.

 

I have been trying to resolve the difference but have not been successful so far.

 

Mike C

 

This might be because you are using the equations as they were not intended!

[Mike C]

May I see how you did this calculation?

Can you please elaborate on this, it doesnt really make much sense to me.

 

D-B formula is E=hv h=6.26^-34 J-s, v=c divided by wavelwngth (red light)=

4.57^14.

D-B formula = 6.26^-34 x 4.57^14 = 2.86^-19 J-s

 

This might be because you are using the equations as they were not intended!

 

E = h x freq. How would you use this formula?

 

My own formula uses photon wavelength x elapsed time of photons movement.

 

Red wavelength (photon) = 6.56^-7 meters. Frequency = 1 divided by

4.57^14 = 2.19^-15 (elapsed time) = 6.56^-7 x 2.19^-15 = 1.43^-21 J-s

 

There are two orders of magnitude difference here but the components

used are different.

My formula has reduced the wavelength to a single component.

I also do not use the Planck Constant but simply use the 2 known components of 'c' to single units.

 

Mike C

 

 

 

Mike C

[Jay-qu]

Mike, you do know that what you are using is not the De Broglie formula..

 

Please read the below links before you continue:

de Broglie hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Planck's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Mike C]

Mike, you do know that what you are using is not the De Broglie formula..

 

Please read the below links before you continue:

de Broglie hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Planck's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

The D-B formula was one of the original formulas used with wave mechanics.

 

My physics book has it written as .......E = hv

V here stands for frequency. 'f' could have been more descriptive as you have used it

 

I still think I am right in using the components as applied to 'c'.

 

Mike C

[Jay-qu]

Thats interesting, what book is that? I have never heard that one referred to as de Broglie's formula..

 

Did you read the links?