(Focus, No. 52, December 27th, 1999, pp. 103 - 108)
Place one for Einstein (1879-1955), Relativity Theory
and Light Quantum Theory, and place two for Max Planck (1858-1947),
originator of Quantum Mechanics, are earned.
I refer to these two heads in my work to the unification of
the two theories.
4. Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976) was the second physicist
who took the quantum physics to the logging-path. The equation
to the uncertainty principle was correct, however, but its
interpretations and model imaginations were not correct. No
plausible explanation has been found for the uncertainty
principle to this day. I ask me, why well?
Unfortunately, the first physicist Victor de Broglie
(1892-1987) was forgotten who started the greatest mistake in
the history of quantum physics before Heisenberg. De Broglie
apparently didn't know the theories of Einstein yet. Therefore,
to this day one cannot unit Einstein's theory with quantum
physics. In the meantime, the models have such a divergent
state that simple measures are no longer possible to unify
these theories to one. The quantum theory develops models full
of irrealism and full of distortions, because they can be no
longer clear because of the faults of de Broglie and of
Heisenberg.
Here the list of development line of the quantum mechanics
to the problem zone is following.
The physicists
are in this, which have always more differed from the clear
reality with the Heisenberg model without being valid. The
mathematics is always correct! It also had been correct anyway
when there still was the Ptolemaic conception of the world. At
that time, the sun was turning around the Earth in accordance
with the exact mathematical models (Remark: The church had
supported this model philosophically and with its power.
However, it wasn't the model of the church but the model of
the mathematicians. There wasn't any actual reason to doubt
about this - even like today there's no reason to doubt about
brilliant mathematics of the quantum theorists). One just
builds equations as long as they are describing the models.
One of the languages of mankind are mathematics, and also it
is the music. One can describe everything with that, also
illusions.
12. Erwin Schrödinger (1887-1961) built up his orbital
model on Heisenberg's and de Broglie's ideas. The mathematical
results were correct in limits. The models are wrongly and
therefore they are comprehensible for the human understanding.
19. Edwin P. HUBBLE has moved the whole world to the head
by the fact that his conclusion from the red shift of the
galaxy spectrum led to the opinion: Galaxies would have a
general escape movement. This isn't correct since the red
shift has a cosmogonical cause. The light goes along in the
oscillating universe from the center of high matter density in
the same sequence of operations while the density of the
matter decreases continuously. This is a gravitationally
caused red shift! According to the General Relativity Theory, the world's radius increases and with it,
the density
decreases and while this time period the red-shift of photons is
formed. For this process, galaxies don't need to escape. Where
do they come from then, if they don't escape? I have explained
this: Protocosms fly there and install there the celestial
objects! Here isn't a further space for this to type my book in,
once again.
28. Paul A. M. Dirac (1902-1984) gave a wrong idea of the
vacuum of the particles because of Heisenberg's dual model of
particle and waves. The calculation methods are correct.
However, they don't calculate the particles but the wavequanta and at this mix particle properties with wave
properties to a mash.
37. Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988) described the
interactions of quanta. Because of the opinion of dual nature
of waves and particles the results are interpreted confusedly.
39. Murray Gell-Mann (1929) searches at the interactions of
the wavequanta, however, but one says particles to this. The
quarks of his hypotheses in this respect cannot be the real
sub-particles of the known particles. Rather they are only
interaction quanta of the waves, which are replaced between
subparticle types. If there are three quarks for example in
the baryons, then these aren't the constituents (for such a
sheet-wording Heisenberg is responsible), but they are the
interaction types. One can infer from this that in a baryon
there are three kinds of particles, which are coming out
strongly from the formation of all the subparticles, that they
do not interact. One doesn't know their number, only their
type. Who only knows a type of particles cannot claim that at
the highest energy the "Big Bang" came out from wavequanta
foam. Where does someone want to know, where this kind of
particles has to be found, if he only investigates
interactions of wave momenta?
45. Stephen Hawking (1942) built his theories of vaporizing
and later exploding "Black Holes" as well as about "quantum
foam" at the "beginning" of the universe just
on dual nature of waves and particles, this way he moved wavequanta in the foreground and he did it without knowledge about
the real particles. So he came to wrong conclusions.
New experiments of CERN aren't interpreted correctly, too.
Lead atoms collided at extremely high energies, which should be
in the proximity of the hypothetical Big Bang. There "gluons" and
"quarks"
should be free. My theory denies this interpretation. In this
one coherences are explained differently, because particles
(corpuscles) and waves (their quanta) aren't one thing.
So I developed a different particle theory without "quarks"
on base of Lepton Shifts.
https://www.arcusuniverse.com/
https://www.no-quarks.com
