How Einstein lost the battle to explain quantum reality?

This video provides a detailed account of the famous Bohr-Einstein debates, which were a series of intellectual discussions between two of the greatest physicists of the 20th century, Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr. These debates centered around the interpretation of quantum mechanics and the nature of reality itself.

The story begins with the quantum revolution in the early 20th century, sparked by Max Planck's discovery that energy is quantized. Einstein built on this idea, proposing that light itself consists of discrete particles called photons. This concept was initially met with skepticism, including from Bohr, who preferred the classical, deterministic view of physics.

As quantum mechanics developed, the debates intensified. The Copenhagen interpretation, championed by Bohr, suggested that particles exist in all possible states until observed. Einstein, however, was uncomfortable with the probabilistic nature of this interpretation, famously stating, "God does not play dice."

The debates took place over several stages. In the first stage, Einstein proposed thought experiments to challenge the uncertainty principle, a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics. Bohr responded by demonstrating how these experiments actually reinforced quantum principles when analyzed carefully.

The second stage involved Einstein's criticism of the time-energy uncertainty relationship. He proposed a thought experiment involving a box of radiation and a clock, which he believed could violate this principle. Bohr, however, used Einstein's own theories of relativity to refute this argument.

In the third stage, Einstein, along with Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, published the EPR paper, which argued that quantum mechanics was an incomplete theory. They used the concept of entanglement to suggest that particles must have definite properties before measurement, contrary to the Copenhagen interpretation. Bohr responded by critiquing their assumptions about measurement and the nature of physical reality.

The final stage saw Einstein further clarifying his views, emphasizing his belief in local realism. However, subsequent experiments, particularly those conducted by Alain Aspect and later in Geneva, provided strong evidence for quantum entanglement and non-locality, supporting Bohr's interpretation.

Throughout these debates, both Einstein and Bohr maintained a deep respect for each other, and their discussions greatly advanced our understanding of quantum mechanics. The document concludes by noting that while most experts now side with Bohr's interpretation, our understanding of quantum mechanics is still incomplete, and the spirit of inquiry exemplified by these debates continues to drive scientific progress.

[vga-tm]

people need to meditate and deeply. then afterwards open their minds and reflect out of the god of science theologies. we are extremely tired of that tirade. do not let it become a disgust.

[williamwalker]

The speed of light is not a constant as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory,   and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the GalileanTransform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion.

Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton.

Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity.  It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m.  In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx  h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield  Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles.




Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997

If C = a + b
Which generally works for say the case of a=1 b=2 and C=3
And If C' = a^x + b^z

You have a formula for the rest of the numerals which can be created. Lessss Eulerisms and you have the definition for a mean centric meaning full system.

If your definition of a b and c are circular and meaningless you have uncertainty if not you have certainty and need to go back to geometry school and learn what a point is and how points a d planes work as maps of the circular world most people see as flat due to the natural filter of comprehens ion
Filtering the fathomable down to water for the frequent imbiber too busy to observe the certainty as it unfolds being too busy observing the operation of the experiment.
Turbulence is the filter you are looking to factor into the separation between observable observation of familiarly placid hydrogen acting up there as the jagged edge of the straight line which is electricity here as an attracting magnet creating arcs of association as proton ready to take itself on to build any shape from the platonic solids formed by imaginary lines connecting moving ideas to the permanamt map that is the territory and is not the territory at the same time a base 60
System that uses the same arithmetic to form meaningful numerals not to be mixed casually or without adult super vision with base 10 numerals cooked up by some pastry chef masquerading as a master of salt water manipulation. There is a lot to unmislearn...this is a start

[chem]

Einstein vs. Bohr was effectively the real-life equivalent of Sherlock vs. Moriarty.

[stewiesaidthat]

You are overlooking one thing. Infinities don't exist. Motion is absolute. That means there is nothing but absolute motion. Everything you see is an emergent property of acceleration.
There is Absolute Zero. No Acceleration. Darkness.
And Absolute Acceleration. Limited acceleration. Light.
F=ma. An unbounded, infinite universe. Everything and nothing. Absolute Zero.
E=mc. A universe bounded by the speed of light. Acceleration is bounded, but mass is not. That's why there is a universe for as far as the eye (light) can see.
Photons propagate through space. Which means they recreate themselves. Propagation is determined by wavelength. Each propagation requires time. Time is energy. Energy that is lost to space as subatomic particles.
Relativity is based on multiple fallacies and is easily disproven. Hafele-Keating? Where is the energy variance? E=mc. Energy equals Time. No difference in energy equals no difference in time
Light travels in its own frame of reference. Apply Newton's law of motion, F=ma. As the distance (mass) increases, the force (acceleration) decreases.
Space and Time are separate frames of reference. There is no time-dilation as one frame (source) was accelerated but the other (photon) was not.
GR? Mass is not an actionable force as shown by Galileo and dismissed as a thought experiment by his flat earth peers. Gravity is an emergent property of acceleration. Mass is not an actionable force and does not warp space.

The propagation rate of the photon is constant but propagation is an event and events constitute a time time interval. As the wave propagates through space, time is devoted to each propagation point thereby increasing the mass (wavelength) of the photon that continues on.
Force decreases with distance. So how do you measure the speed of light when longer wavelengths have more distance to travel. Blue light is faster than red light because it has less distance to travel.
Relativity just needs to be thrown into the garbage pail and physics needs to start over with fresh minds. Those that haven't been brainwashed by this relativity and mass attraction nonsense.
Motion is absolute. Everything comes from Acceleration. Not mass.
Where does Acceleration come from? Absolute Zero. That's what they should be investigating. What is Absolute Zero. Not this gravity nonsense. Galileo already proved that mass does not attract mass. Newton mathematically showed that acceleration is the actionable force. E=mc shows that acceleration is bounded by the speed of light, how fast it can propagate. Mass is not defined making for an infinite universe bounded by the speed of light.
E=mc also shows that energy arises from acceleration. It does not create acceleration. Any so-called physicists that doesn't use acceleration as the frame of reference is still using flat earth physics. Mass as a force because without it. Everything would float off into space like smoke does.