Rethinking…Classic Mechanics will be Return

[HIENVN]

Hienvn, I would suggest reading others posts before posting numerous times. You posted 4 times over the course of hours before reading and responding to my post. My post was pivotal in your understanding that the comments you are making in English do not make sense.

 

1) Quantum theory has never tried to explain anything other than the microscopic (atomic and subatomic) universe and its interaction. Thus it is not wrong, because it hasn't tried to describe classical physics, only modern quantum physics.

2) Classical theory has never been able to explain anything other than the macroscopic universe and its interaction. When you lump Relativity theory into classical theory, it is able to describe the macroscopic universe over a very wide scale, but not on the atomic/subatomic scale of interactions.

 

Thus there is discord between the theories. They each describe what they describe (and according to most scientists do so quite well, with some questions such as Twin Paradox and I'm sure something similar in Quantum), but neither can as of yet describe the other's scale of the universe.

 

Thus the purpose of a Grand Unified Theory. A Grand Unified Theory is bent on finding equations which can be used regardless of scale or range. Plug in any value from 10 trillion kilograms to 1 picogram and you will get valid results. Thus as Q suggested, I will suggest to you that you update your reading on theory of everything, grand unified theory and super string theory.

Hi, cwes99_03

I am sorry about my late response to your quote dated Oct. 25, 2006.

But you should understand me, because my English skill is no good and that quote is not easy to answer, and then I have to answer some quotes that I think is easy before looking some ideas to answer yours quote.

Thanks you for your quote (dated Oct. 26, 2006) that I will answer later after I looking some documents relate to this quote.

I know I may have a lot of disadvantage that the members of our science forums may help me fix them.

 

HIENVN

[Jay-qu]

How goes the search for the missing Einstein quote going?

[HIENVN]

How goes the search for the missing Einstein quote going?

Hi, Jay-qu

I will have some quotes to you that I am writing for them. I wish these new quotes would be sent to you on today.

Thanks for your waiting,

 

HIENVN

[cwes99_03]

No problem Hienvn. We understand and accept the difficulty you have with our language, and thank you for the effort, because I and many users on the forum speak english and english only.

 

My point was that sometimes you may find an answer in an earlier post. When you respond over and over without reading that post, we get frustrated because we have to answer you multiple times thinking you misunderstood us the first time.

[HIENVN]

No problem Hienvn. We understand and accept the difficulty you have with our language, and thank you for the effort, because I and many users on the forum speak english and english only.

 

My point was that sometimes you may find an answer in an earlier post. When you respond over and over without reading that post, we get frustrated because we have to answer you multiple times thinking you misunderstood us the first time.

Hi, cwes99_03, thanks to everybody in our science forums.

These are some my ideas on your quote Dated Oct. 27, 2006 at 8:04 AM):

-I agree that Quantum Theory can describe (not explain as in your quote) the microscopic universe and its interaction, and Classical Theory can describe phenomena of the universe. Thus we have to accept two principles (discontinuousness and continuousness) in science, do you think this is right?

-You said Quantum Theory is incomplete, what’s incomplete in Quantum Theory? I think Quantum Theory just concentrated on the electron with its effects (the electron orbits of Bohr, the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg, the Schrodinger equation). The nucleus of atom seems to be forgot in studies of atomic scientists, but this nucleus is very important to the Classical Mechanics. An scientist of Classical Mechanics can know the gravity of any object with its mass that be decided by nuclei of this object; while he/she don’t need to know the motion of electrons of this object!

-I don’t lump Relativity Theory into Classical Mechanics as you confirmed on your quote. My subject (quote dated Oct. 25, 2006) is lumping Classical Mechanics into Quantum Mechanics (Theory) and Relativity Theory with all their advantages; therefore, these theories may not discard together as you think. The theories may work together with their advantages that I am trying to find out some their disadvantages to reject them. Do you think some disadvantages of Classical Mechanics and Relativity Theory?

-The theory of everything, grand unified theory and super string theory is useful to us because we can use them to describe everything, and then these theories are the theories of description. We also need to develop a Unified Field Theory, the theory of explanation, which may be necessary for future scientists.

 

HIENVN

[Erasmus00]

A few points: Jay-qu, Einstein did believe that quantum theory was fundamentally flawed. There is a very famous series of letters between Einstein and Bohr on this subject. Also, the EPR "paradox" was issued as a sort of formal challenge.

 

Now, a few people have claimed that quantum theory fails to describe a few larger effects. This isn't quite true, the only thing quantum theory fails to describe is any quantum nature of gravity. This one thing is its only "failure."

 

Also, it has been implies that quantum theory pertains to a very narrow range (atoms and molecules). This is simply not true, quantum mechanics (and statistical mechanics) have been applied to an incredibly broad range of problems, from the make up and structure of solids, to theories of superfluidity/superconductivity, etc.

 

Finally, while Einstein didn't believe quantum theory, he certainly didn't have access to all the data we have today. Quantum theory has been experimentally verified over and over again.

-Will

[HIENVN]

How goes the search for the missing Einstein quote going?

Hi, Jay-qu

You can look a quote "Quantum theory is wrong" at the quotation “ Einstein said that if quantum mechanics is right, then the world is crazy. Well, Einstein was right. The world is crazy. -Daniel Greenberger” that I saw on every your quote. You also see “Quantum Theory must be wrong, Einstein said…” of Webster’s New World, Dictionary of Science, page 542 in this topic. You will see the sentence “Einstein rejected Quantum Theory “ on some documents…

Albert Einstein (1879-1955), was one of the greatest scientists of all time. He published Special Relativity Theory in1905, introduced General Relativity Theory in 1905, predicted the existence of Gravitational Waves in 1916, and proposed Unified Field Theory in 1920. Einstein recognized his failure of Unified Field Theory in 1945

Scientific historians dislike the Unified Field Theory of Einstein, and then we will be difficult to look some documents about his study since 1920. Historians reproached Einstein with his proposed Unified Field Theory by two reasons:

1/ Einstein rejected Quantum Theory after he proposed Unified Field Theory. All scientists of that time agreed Einstein was wrong when he rejected the value of Quantum Theory.

2/ Einstein wasted his brainpower for a theory that everybody believed never accomplish by anybody. Most of historians agreed Einstein would useful more to the world if he did not spent his 25 years for Unified Field Theory!

“Until the end of his life Einstein sought a unified field theory, whereby the phenomena of gravitation and electromagnetism could be derived from one set of equations. After 1920, however, while retaining relativity as a fundamental concept, theoretical physicists focused more attention on the theory of quantum mechanics that elaborated by Max Planck, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, and others and Einstein's later thoughts went somewhat neglected for decades. This picture has changed in more recent years. Physicists are now striving to combine Einstein's relativity theory with quantum theory in a ‘theory of everything,’ by means of such highly advanced mathematical models as superstring theories (see grand unification theories). Lewis Pyenson” (2002 GROLIER, Multimedia Encyclopedia).

The world had missed a fortune when scientists of 20th century had rejected the last idea of Einstein. Scientists of last 20th century and early of 21st are beginning to understand Einstein’s last idea that still need to improve by everybody.

 

HIENVN

[HIENVN]

No. Classical mechanics that we have today simply cant describe what happens on such a minute scale, hence why another theory had to be created. Quantum Theory cant really be 'wrong' because at the moment it is based around experimentation.

Hi, Jay-qu

My quote is dealt the quotation “Einstein said that if quantum mechanics is right, then the world is crazy. Well, Einstein was right. The world is crazy. -Daniel Greenberger” that I saw on every your quote.

Above quotation of Dr. Daniel Greenberger seems to say Quantum Mechanics is right and may prove Einstein is an extreme person! In my opinion, in even Einstein was wrong, his words “then the world is crazy” just display his angry when the world did not recognize his idea that Quantum Mechanics is wrong.

However, some scientists around the world still not recognize Quantum Mechanics is right. I still remember a sentence of a professor at a USA university (I forgot the name of this person and his/her university) said: “Quantum Mechanics is widespread because all person who resist to it had died!”

I think the world would be better if there were somebody resist to Quantum Mechanics, but should not in an absolute way of Einstein. I relatively resist to the Quantum Theory with my own concept: “Quantum Mechanics is need, but not enough for the process of science.”

 

HIENVN

[Jay-qu]

A few points: Jay-qu, Einstein did believe that quantum theory was fundamentally flawed. There is a very famous series of letters between Einstein and Bohr on this subject. Also, the EPR "paradox" was issued as a sort of formal challenge.

 

I do understand that Einstein didnt like it, and the quote in my sig makes fun of this, but as far as him actually stating that quantum mechanics is wrong.. well I dont think he did. It may be flawed and incomplete, but it still models the world we live in with remarkable accuracy.

[HIENVN]

A few points: Jay-qu, Einstein did believe that quantum theory was fundamentally flawed. There is a very famous series of letters between Einstein and Bohr on this subject. Also, the EPR "paradox" was issued as a sort of formal challenge.

 

Now, a few people have claimed that quantum theory fails to describe a few larger effects. This isn't quite true, the only thing quantum theory fails to describe is any quantum nature of gravity. This one thing is its only "failure."

 

Also, it has been implies that quantum theory pertains to a very narrow range (atoms and molecules). This is simply not true, quantum mechanics (and statistical mechanics) have been applied to an incredibly broad range of problems, from the make up and structure of solids, to theories of superfluidity/superconductivity, etc.

 

Finally, while Einstein didn't believe quantum theory, he certainly didn't have access to all the data we have today. Quantum theory has been experimentally verified over and over again.

-Will

Thank you for your valued ideas, Erasmus00, we need to discuss about them.

I would like to answer your quote in some days more, because the life is so busy to me.

HIENVN

[Qfwfq]

Clarifications further to those posted by Will:

 

Specifically, Einstein strongly disagreed with Bohr and the "Copenhagen School" (Born interpretation) and held that the Quantum formalism was valid but that it should be possible to find so-called hidden variables. The Bohm interpretation is an example of this, worked out for the simple one-particle case. Bell's inequalities are experimentally found to be violated, this shows that these approaches cannot lead to an intuitive and locally realistic interpretation.

 

Quantum formalism is indeed fine for macroscopic cases (aside from the difficulties with gravity) except that it is difficult to have a large aggregate of atoms to be coherent with each other. Schrödinger's cat is BS; the superposition of states on which quantum formalism is based considers these states as being coherent with each other (in the same sense as in optics, when observing effects of wavelength etc.), put a smoked glass over one of the two slits of Young's experiment and see the change in the results. Despite this, however, there are quite remarkable effects such as superfluidity, superconductivity and some properties of crystal structures for example.