Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
It's hard not to recognize or criticize what works and is experimentally confirmed.
In any field, there may be some disputes about the interpretation of certain concepts. But no more than that.
In order to criticize the approach of quantum mechanics, you need to find some obvious flaw or an example of how to get experimentally verified results using some other approach.
At some scales, quantum mechanics and relativity stop working, and those who can develop this theory and expand the scope of its applicability come into play. This was the case with all the recognized theories that existed before
Here is the position of the rector of Moscow State University, A. A. Logunov: “Einstein in General relativity identified gravity with the metric tensor of Riemannian space, but this path led to the rejection of the gravitational field as a physical field, as well as to the loss of fundamental conservation laws. That is why we need to completely abandon this position of Einstein. ” – Lectures on Relativity and Gravity: A Modern Analysis of the problem (1987), p.240 (taken from here).�
Regarding this position, a world-renowned scientist, Ya.B. Zeldovich repeatedly spoke and published in the UFN evidence of the incorrectness of criticism of GR by A. A. Logunov. All to no avail. Academician, Vice-President of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Member of the Central Committee of the CPSU, Rector of Moscow State University until 1992, A. A. Logunov, until the end of his life did not recognize either general relativity or experimental evidence in favor of general relativity. It would seem well, to hell with it. But because of Logunov's position in the USSR, and perhaps even until now, general relativity was not a major subject in physics departments. Basically, it was an elective course only for those who wish. No good general relativity textbooks were published. Interestingly, Logunov was never able to publish his “Relativistic Theory of Gravity”in any foreign peer-reviewed journal. But this theory was fertilized in the Central Committee of the CPSU with grants and incentives, and was published in numerous MSU publications.�
As long as science and education are managed by Kremlin appointees, the Lysenkys, Logunovs, Kashpirovskys, Petriks and the results of their work — gravitsap-will not be avoided in Russia.
I don't know if there are any recognized scientists who criticize quantum mechanics, and O. T. O. Recognizes only those scientists who support the current view in science. Only geeks do not accept authoritative opinions and make incredible discoveries.
A very subtle question is who should be considered a recognized scientist.
There are a lot of doctors of physical, mathematical and technical sciences who are convinced of the fallacy of the theory of relativity and the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. I personally know at least a dozen people. At the same time, of course, their works on this topic are not published in first-rate journals. Now there is a scientific consensus that says that both are correct. Therefore, any works that claim otherwise should be subject to very serious verification.
Quantum mechanics is completely consistent with the experiment, and the theory of relativity can not boast of this. In particular, radar observations of Venus show that the relativistic principle of adding velocities does not work in astronomical systems. This means that the special theory of relativity is not correct.
Special Relativity (SRT) is based on the Lorentz Ether Theory. Einstein added mathematics to it, removed a single reference system for all bodies, which would have been very useful to him in General Relativity. The Lorentz Ether theory has been repeatedly confirmed. After the Fizeau Experiment, the airplane clock experiment, this theory is silly to argue with.
By the way, no one canceled the broadcast, just the name was changed. Right here(https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/atoms-of-space-and-time-2006-02/) our space-time is quantized, but here(https://habr.com/ru/post/370513/) a physicist from CERN speaks of particles as perturbations of fields. It would be nice to combine space-time with fields. Obviously, this is a single system. Under the influence of gravity, both time changes and massless electromagnetic waves are attracted.
Yes, where can they come from if the administrative resource of the Academy of Sciences is working at full capacity? I would like to hear from the ardent defenders of general relativity at least some experimental confirmation of the postulates that are set out in General relativity. But not those that cannot be verified and repeated, such as the recently advertised interactions of gravitational waves, but something more mundane, clearly testifying to the correctness of general relativity. And then it turns out that even the fundamental principle of general relativity used by Albert Einstein in the derivation of general relativity, the principle of equivalence of the forces of gravity and inertia, turns out to be not true. What's next to talk about?
“Recognized scientists”. The term itself implies, at a minimum, Nobel Prize winners. It turns out that according to this award, the smartest country, of course, is the United States. However, where is China catching up with it, where are the others? And if, by default, criticism of GR is “politically incorrect” in America, then criticism of GR should be banned? But Logunov is right, the confusion of the concepts of gravitational field and curved space in general relativity is a clumsy attempt to “embrace the immensity”. Hence the impossibility of combining quantum mechanics (to which there are practically no complaints) and the “great” General relativity, may God's power come with it.
The problem is not the presence or absence of opponents or critics of GR and SRT. As they say in Odessa – You want them, I have them! The problem is that critics don't offer anything reasonable and evidence-based in return. Search the Internet for books by G. S. Gurevich. He does not reject quantum processes of interaction in the microcosm (only absolutely illiterate people are capable of this).But mathematical cheating such as Lorentz transformations for general relativity breaks to smithereens. as well as attributing wave properties to microparticles.
V. A. Atsyukovsky Doctor of Technical Sciences, Academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences,Russian Cancer Center.
Development of the Atsyukovsky Theory of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences.V. L. Bychkov, Ph. D., Academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences,
F. S. Zaitsev Doctor of Physics and Mathematics, Academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences.
Mathematical modeling of electromagnetic and gravitational phenomena based on the methodology of continuum mechanics.
The latest aether theories are friendly with quantum mechanics and categorically reject the theory of relativity.
This is a question about “don't reinvent the wheel again”. Although we see that it continues to be invented. Is it possible to improve one theory and create a completely different one? You can, and they will both work!
In science, it is not customary to be just a prtivnik or critic. you need to create your own theory and find experimental evidence for it. Then publish it all and listen to what other smart people have to say. But simply criticizing Einstein without proof makes no sense – they will call you an anti-Semite, then prove that you are not a camel )).
Yes there is. And now you will be very surprised to learn their names. One of them is A. Einstein. This scientist always doubted the adequacy of the nature of quantum mechanics, and at the end of his life he even doubted the absolute emptiness of world space – the cornerstone of his theories of relativity.
I know of at least one physicist who is a staunch opponent of quantum theory. This is the Russian scientist Voroshilov. He wrote a series of books “Fundamentals of a unified physical theory”, which shows that the quantum formalism introduced into science by Max Planck in 1900, in his theory of thermal radiation, is based on his determination of the place of occurrence of thermal radiation, the nature of radiation from an elementary emitter, and statistics of the energies of elementary emitters. To reconcile his erroneous theory with experiment, Planck introduced two postulates into physical science that were not based on experiment and were not proved theoretically: the postulate of zero entropy at zero absolute temperature and the postulate of quantization of energy. Thus, the erroneous Planck theory of thermal radiation was adjusted to the experimental result. These Planck errors are revealed in the first book of V. V. Voroshilov, from the mentioned series, which is called “Modern Classical (non-quantum) theory of Thermal radiation”. The book will be published in early 2021. Currently on the site https://planeta.ru/campaigns/147403 A fundraiser is underway to finance the first edition of the book. There is also a detailed description of it with quotes. The second book in the series is called “The Illusory Nature of Wave-Particle Dualism”. It proves, based on the results of experiments, the absence of dualism in elementary particles of matter (for example, an electron) and an electromagnetic wave (for example, the Compton effect), and also reveals and exposes falsifications of experimental results that allegedly confirm the existence of dualism.
There are many eminent critics of the theory of relativity. But, in my opinion, the most effective critique of Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity, or rather of Albert Einstein and his wife Mileva Einstein-Marich, was published by the Russian physicist Yuri Ivanov in the first part of his book”Rhythmodynamics”. He showed that the SRT based on Lorentz transformations is incorrect, since it does not meet the conditions for preserving the interference pattern of coherent radiation moving in a material medium (physical vacuum) of a source, that is, the direction of the laser beam of a moving source depends on the speed of movement, which is not observed in practice. Yu. Ivanov conducted experimental studies of wave processes and proposed his own transformations that ensure the independence of the interference pattern from the speed of the radiation source. In the same place Yu. Ivanov explained the reason for the negative result of the experiment with the Michelson interferometer and initiated the explanation of the positive effect in the experiment with the Sagnac interferometer.
As for recognition, I recognize these people as great physicists, unlike some modern academicians and members of the Russian Academy of Sciences, who deny the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of mass.
Of course there is. And the fact that the gravitational influence propagates at a speed greater than the speed of light is evident from the fact of the interaction of a black hole with other bodies.
Unlikely. You should start by defining the terms time, distance, and charges.
And the fact that a kilogram is called a liter of water under certain conditions, everyone forgets.
1=2-if we accept such mathematics(particle-wave dualism) – 1-particle then 2-wave a new geometry is possible-a straight line is a point is a plane, a part is a whole, a straight line is perpendicular to itself – this will give(the speed of light is indefinite-infinite-the uncertainty principle-both coordinate and speed are indefinite) then an instantaneous change in the physical quantity 1=2=3=4=is possible……what does the quantum of curvature of space take-the curvature of space is variable
There is not a single physicist who agrees with GR. Spolsh efiristy. Just now, they can't refute the results of phys. experiments.
The development of views is contraindicated in modern physics. These are their own people.
Modern physics and modernity. mathematics (professionals) also feeds on the belief in eternity, although only a fool does not understand how this philosophy ends practically. Instead of science, an atomic bomb, instead of civilization, culture… And this also comes from a bequeathed insanity to where it comes from, let's just say. Instead of constructs of causal relatedness of events, sequences of objects of sets of a complex fictional formalism. At the same time, the inconsistency is covered by corporate isolation.
However, the exhaustive constructivity of representations and analysis, quantum logic, covers the possibilities of axiomatic systems. Moreover, such systems are cluttered with new and new axioms (according to K. Godel), which leads to the disintegration of science into professional corporations (leads to snobbery and the expansion of insanity). This process is irreversible and contrary to the development of knowledge, the definition of mathematical mechanisms of nature. The actual circumstances of a particular, situational problem are sufficient grounds for their solution. At the same time, the axiomatization of the foundations of analysis may well be abolished, as a disease that limits the adequacy of the mind.
See origination-of-nature.RF
There are many others.
However, scientific works that contradict and / or criticize quantum mechanics or Einstein's theory are prohibited for publication in official scientific publications.
See ” Nobelites in the Circus Arena
The theory of relativity has no physical meaning
July 01, 2019″
https://www.vpk-news.ru/articles/51174
What does prizanannye mean? Recognized by whom?
There are smart people who find blunders in the above theories.
But they are silent because they are smart.
There is an unhealthy atmosphere in the world of science right now. There is no direct promotion of the Author. Anyone who has made a discovery.
Who in their right mind will engage in criticism if they have to pour out golden ideas in the agruments that can be appropriated.
1) I believe that every person, even without titles and statuses, should have the right to come to the meeting of the academic Council and give arguments and proofs on record.
With automatic registration of author's rights.
2) Info noise in scientific journals should be stopped!
HOW? WELL, HOW! they dare to call a respected publication where 1 out of 500 articles is even important. The rest is garbage.
Vladimir Atsyukovsky is the author of “General Etheric Dynamics”. Moreover, his theory of ether dynamics is tolerant of quantum mechanics, and not so much refutes quantum mechanics as gives it a different interpretation. And here is the Special Theory of Relativity-smashed to smithereens! – because of the refusal to broadcast. In modern astrophysics, the equivalent of ether is dark matter. One cubic kilometer of aether=dark matter-weighs 8.85 grams.
I've never heard of them. But there are recognized scientists who are trying to create an alternative to general relativity. For example, Anatoly Logunov, until his death in 2015, developed RTG (Relativistic Theory of Gravity), in which gravity is considered not as the geometry of space-time (GR), but as a physical field.
No, it can't be. You can not criticize what works perfectly and is confirmed by numerous accurate experiments. Believe me, the time when it was fashionable and useful to go against the current in science has passed. About 100 years ago. This is not the first similar question.