How to Understand that the Special Theory of Relativity is Unphysical

Two space traveling Lorentz invariant twins both one year older than the other: Deep but unphysical. 

Einstein's special theory of relativity is loaded with paradoxes, such as the twin paradox, ladder paradox, cooling paradox and Ehrenfest's paradox, expressing effects of time dilation and space contraction. In classical physics one paradox would be enough to kill a physics theory, but not so in modern physics with the special theory of relativity as corner stone, where the presence of paradoxes instead is taken as evidence that the theory is deep.

The paradoxes of special relativity express physical paradoxes such as traveling twins both ageing more slowly than the other. So even if special relativity is deep it cannot be a theory about true physics if it contains paradoxes, because true physics cannot be paradoxical that is contradictory.
Two twins cannot both physically age more slowly than the other.

The quickest way to understand that special relativity is unphysical, and as such can carry seemingly physical (but unphysical) paradoxes, is to recall Einstein's starting point as a description of so-called events recorded by space-time coordinates $(x,t)$ with $x$ a space coordinate and $t$ time coordinate. Einstein thus consider events to have no extension in space so that one single space coordinate $x$ is enough to describe its location in space.

Einstein's special theory concerns the description of events in two different (Euclidean) coordinate systems assumed to move with respect to each other with a certain constant velocity, so-called inertial systems.

In classical physics the connection between such systems is given by a Galilean coordinate transformation where space coordinates are transformed to match the difference in motion between the two coordinate systems while time coordinates remain the same.

In special relativity the connection is instead given by the Lorentz transformation where also time coordinates are transformed by mixing space into time. Special relativity thus boils down to the Lorentz transformation and all the paradoxes from physical point of view such as time dilation and space contraction, are consequences of the Lorentz transformation mixing space into time.

Einstein's catch is that Maxwell's equations for electromagnetics, like any wave equation, has the same analytical expression in all inertial systems under the Lorentz transformation (but not under the Galilean transformation).

Einstein then postulates that physical laws are laws which take the same form in all inertial systems connected by the Lorentz transformation, and thus declares that Maxwell's equations express a physical law.   In circular reasoning Einstein then argues that because a physical law expresses physics the Lorentz transformation expresses physics and therefore special relativity is a physical theory as a mathematical theory about physics.

Einstein's great contribution to modern physics is viewed to be his postulate that physical laws (must) have the same analytical expression in all inertial systems connected by Lorentz transformation, in other words must be Lorentz invariant.

Einstein's basic idea is thus that (true) physical laws (must) be Lorentz invariant. What we now first must understand is that this whole idea is absurd: Of course physical laws in their physical meaning must be independent of choice of coordinate system, but it is absurd to ask that they would literally have the same analytical expression. It is like claiming that a statement translated to different languages would not only have the same meaning but also the same notational expression letter by letter. This would mean that there was only one language, which is absurd. What is not absurd but rational is to expect that the same physical law will have different analytical expressions in different coordinate systems.

Next, we return to Einstein's starting point as a study of events without spatial extension, which we will see is the very reason Einstein can make the absurd claim that Maxwell's equations are Lorentz invariant. Now, solutions to Maxwell's equations represent physical waves and waves have extension in space. And now comes the catch: Maxwell's equations come along with initial conditions, which describe the initial configuration of a wave with extension in space at a certain initial time. And initial conditions are not Lorentz invariant because they mix space into time. Only Einsteinian events without extension in space can be claimed to be Lorentz invariant. A detailed account of the mathematics by  physics is given in Chapter 5 and 11 of Many-Minds Relativity.

Einstein's insistence on Lorentz invariance thus builds on the misconception that initial conditions with extension in space as physics, can be reduced to events without extension in space as unphysics. This is absurd and is the root to all the paradoxes of special relativity resulting from mixing space into time by Lorentz transformations without physics.

Einstein insisted on Lorentz invariance forgetting that wave equations have initial conditions with extension in space.  The result is a lot of modern physics formed to be Lorentz invariant which cannot be physics.

The basic trouble with modern physic preventing progress is generally viewed to be that quantum mechanics is incompatible with relativity theory in that Schrödinger's equations are not Lorentz invariant. The above analysis indicates that this is a ghost problem which should not be allowed to prevent progress. Asking for Lorentz invariance is unphysical. There is no incompatibility. There can be no incompatibility between physical theories because physics cannot be incompatible with itself. Twins cannot be incompatible.

Einstein confessed at several occasions that his knowledge of mathematics was superficial:

• I neglected mathematics...because my intuition was not strong enough to differentiate the fundamentally important from the dispensable erudition.

It is therefore not so strange that Einstein could be misled to give the Lorentz transformation a meaning which lacked physical reason. What is strange is that his delusion has come to represent the highest level of understanding of a modern physicist even that of Ed Witten as the smartest living physicist, by many viewed to be smarter than Einstein with an extraordinary deep understanding of mathematics...

PS The reason Einstein's unphysical events without extension in space and the associated Lorentz transformation have come to serve as a corners stone of modern physics, is that it fits with the modern physics core concept of elementary particle as an object without extension in space. But this concept is loaded with poison in the form of infinities and divergent integrals and more, and so modern physicists have been driven into a despair of string theory, in 11 space dimensions on a spatial scale 15 orders of magnitude smaller than estimated scale of a proton, all way beyond any scientific reason.

A better way out is to accept that there are no particles without extension in space, only waves with extension in 3d space, all according to Schrödinger, the inventor of quantum mechanics. Without particles the special theory of relativity has no physical meaning and scientific relevance. What has  Ed Witten to say about this revelation?

Was Einstein a Swindler?

What is the most compelling argument showing that Einstein's special theory of relativity as based on the Lorentz transformation connecting observations by different observers in different coordinate systems (inertial systems) moving with constant velocity with respect to each other, is unphysical and thus void of scientific content?

You find this argument in a previous post showing that although Maxwell's equations, as a form of wave equation, describing the propagation of electromagnetic waves including light, which is the central object of study in the special theory of relativity, takes the same mathematical form in different inertial systems, and thus appears to be invariant as requested by the special theory of relativity, initial conditions are not invariant and thus the whole point of relativity theory evaporates. We recall that an initial condition represents a configuration of an object extended in space, like a wave form, at a special instant of time.

The fact that this is not seen in presentations of relativity is a result of Einstein's restriction to consider events in space-time as isolated flashes at specific coordinates in space $x$ at specific instances of time $t$ described by space-time coordinates $(x,t)$. The unphysical aspect of such isolated flash-like events, is that they have no spatial extension and thus do not appear in the form of initial conditions for a wave equation. By restricting events to concern objects of no spatial extension, the non-invariance of initial conditions for a wave equations with a collapse of the basic idea of special relativity, can be hidden and success can be declared. This is what Einstein did, and the world was stunned!

But real objects/waves have extension in space, even flashes, and so their physics cannot be described by the special theory of relativity. The special theory of relativity is thus unphysical and as such is loaded with physical paradoxes, including the Ladder Paradox arising because a ladder has spatial extension.

Are you convinced by this argument? That the special theory is unphysical because it concerns physics without extension in space. If you are convinced, what is then your conclusion about the status of modern physics with the special theory of relativity declared as a corner stone? If the corner stone is unphysical, what about the building erected on the corner stone? So was Einstein correct when he described himself as a swindler? For more evidence see Many-Minds Relativity, in particular section 5.9 and Dr Faustus of Modern Physics. Or maybe you say that we must leave physics to physicists even if they are misled by a swindler?

PS1 The above argument shows that the idea of Lorentz invariance of Maxwell's equations is misconceived. The logical conclusion made in Many-Minds Relativity following an idea of Ebenezer Cunningham, is that formulation of Maxwell's equations requires specification of a Euclidean spatial coordinate system with the observer in normal case tied to its origin. Such a coordinate system acts like an aether for propagation of electromagnetic waves, and there are thus as many aethers as Euclidean coordinate systems. Einstein said that there is no aether, and then there can be no Maxwell equations and no electromagnetic waves and no light...

PS2 The logical conclusion from the Michelsen-Morley null result is that there are many aethers, as many as there are Euclidean coordinate systems and that physical laws in general take different forms in different coordinate systems, while expressing the same physical reality. Einstein's idea that true physical laws take the same formal mathematical form in all (inertial) coordinate systems represents a fundamental misconception of the meaning of a physical law. It is like claiming that a statement about a physical fact necessarily must have the same form in all languages, while it is clear to everyone with a rational mind that different languages express the same thing in different ways and not with the same words. Yes, Einstein was a swindler and led modern physics into a quagmire, but this is something modern physicists are unable to fathom. If you think this analysis does not capture reality ask your favourite physicist about the physics of special relativity and notice that you get no meaningful response.

$E=mc^2$: Definition or Physical Fact?

All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta (photons)?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

We continue exploring the meaning of the most famous equation of physics $E=mc^2$, which Einstein suggested in 1905 to be a consequence of his special theory of relativity and struggled through all his life to justify theoretically, however without success.

The equation $E=mc^2$ carries the same ambiguity as the basic postulate of Einstein's special theory of relativity, the constancy of the speed $c$ of light, for which it is never clear if it is only a definition true by logic, or a law of physics which may be true or false.

Is then $E=mc^2$ a definition or a physical law as a statement about a physical fact, which may be false?

We start with the following natural question: From where does the factor $c^2$ come, which attributes the energy $mc^2$ to mass of size $m$?

This question can be given an answer for a photon of frequency $\nu$, which can be observed e.g. through the photoelectric effect, to have the energy

• $E=h\nu$,      

with a properly specified Planck's constant $h$. We can now, if we want, attribute the mass $m=\frac{h\nu}{c^2}$ to a photon, to get 

• $E=h\nu =mc^2$

simply by definition.  We can do this because the physics of a photon is unclear.  We can supplement by naturally attributing the momentum $p=mc$ to a photon of mass $m$ and speed $c$ and so obtain $E=pc$ as an equivalent form of $E=mc^2$ (also discussed in the previous post).  

In short, we can argue that for the fictitious concept of a photon (compare with the Einstein quote above), energy and mass indeed can be viewed to be, in the words of Einstein,  different manifestations of the same thing (namely energy). 

By claiming that a radiating body loses the mass attributed to emitted photons (although the loss is too small to be measured), we can then give the relation $E=mc^2$ a general meaning beyond photons, still however essentially by definition with eventual physical meaning remaining to be explained.

That mass indeed can be converted to energy in nuclear fission and fusion processes, was a surprise to Einstein and cannot be seen as a consequence of his special theory of relativity, because it has no connection to nuclear physics. The  first quantum field theory Standard Model proof (with quarks and gluons) of $E=mc^2$ was presented only in 2008.

The general idea of a connection between mass and energy is as old as physics, with in particular the kinetic energy of a body of mass $m$ moving with speed $v$ being equal to $\frac{1}{2}mv^2$. Moreover, the factor $c^2$ was suggested prior to Einstein by Poincare and Hasenörhl preceded by Heaviside and Wien, among others. But it was Einstein who got the Prize.

Recall that in Maxwell's equations for electromagnetic waves in vacuum, with the electric field $\hat E$ (in Gaussian units) satisfying an equation of the form

• $\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\hat E}{\partial t^2}-\nabla^2\hat E=0$,

with the factor $\frac{1}{c^2}$ serving the same role as mass $m$ in a mechanical wave equation with connection to energy, thus supporting a relation of the form $m=\frac{E}{c^2}$, which was the original form suggested by Einstein, among others, as an expression for (fictitious) mass rather than (real) energy.     

Recall that with the new meter standard as a certain fraction of a light second, the speed of light is by definition equal to exactly 1 (light second per second). For perspective see Many-Minds Relativity. So today, the constancy of the speed of light is a matter of definition. To Einstein in 1905 it was both a definition and a physical fact with truth secured by pure logic as the unique nature of Einstein's physics, which so impressed the world, although there has been many critical views from start which however have been muted since they did not fit the success story of modern physics.

Is it then true that a radiating body loses mass, even if the emitted energy comes from a source of internal heat energy as a form of kinetic vibrational energy measured by temperature (and not mass) according to a new analysis of blackbody radiation? I will seek to return with an answer.

To start with let us recall that the concept of mass $m$ connects to force $f$ and motion/acceleration $\frac{dv}{dt}$ with $v$ velocity through Newton's 2nd law $\, m\frac{dv}{dt}=f$, which can be used to define mass in terms of force and motion, as well as momentum $mv$ as the integral of force, and kinetic energy $m\frac{v^2}{2}$ as the integral of $fv$ as work. Force can be measured by a spring and motion by a meter stick and time, which defines mass threefold in terms of Newton's law, momentum and kinetic energy. The basic relation is Newton's 2nd law, while the integrals of $f$ and $fv$ are computed/collected in physical form as momentum and kinetic energy. Newton's 2nd law is Galilean invariant, while momentum and kinetic energy as integrals depend on initial velocity. Momentum and kinetic energy thus carries information about mass modulo initial velocity: If you travel at the same velocity as a cannon ball, its mass is hidden and you cannot detect it by being hit.

Defining mass by Newton's 2nd law in terms of force and motion/acceleration makes mass = inertial mass, from which equality of inertial mass and gravitational mass follows by definition, since gravitation appears as force. Einstein's Equivalence Principle as the basic assumption of the general theory of relativity is thus empty of physical content,  as the general nature of Einstein's physics jumping freely between definition and physical fact, as exposed in detail  Many-Minds Relativity. Take a look and get enlightened by understanding the confusion between definition and fact, which has corrupted modern physics into a mess of subjective epistemology instead of a science of objective ontology in the spirit of Enlightenment. This was understood by Einstein but he only gave cryptic evidence to this insight like in the above quote and

• If I would be a young man again and had to decide how to make my living, I would not try to become a scientist or scholar or teacher. I would rather choose to be a plumber or a peddler...

Einstein's 7 Erroneous Proofs of E=mc2

The book Einstein's Mistakes by Hans Ohanian gives a chronology of Einstein's many scientific mistakes including 7 erroneous proofs presented by Einstein of the crown jewel of his theory of relativity in the form of $E=mc^2$ stating proportionality between energy $E$ and mass $m$ with $c$ the speed of light. The need of a 7th proof indicates that proofs 1-6 are all incorrect and so it is not far-fetched to expect that also Einstein's 7th proof is incorrect.

To give perspective, let us recall the proof from Many-Minds Relativity chapter 14-15 of a related connection, this time between mass and momentum $P$ of the form $P=mc$. We recall that this relation can be seen as a consequence of a new Many-Minds form of Newton's 2nd Law stating the following connection between a velocity $v(t)$ and acceleration $\frac{dv}{dt}$ of a body of mass $m$ acted upon by a force $F=F(t)$ depending on time $t$:

• $\frac{m}{1+v}\frac{dv}{dt}=F$,   

This form of Newton's 2nd Law results from measuring velocity of a moving object through Doppler shift $\frac{1}{1+v}$ of received signals from the object with the speed of light normalised to 1. It states that objects in approach/recession with respect to an observer, appear to be subject to an increase/decrease of mass connecting to acceleration. Here $v$ is negative in approach and positive in recession and with $v > -1$ in approach, but unlimited in recession allowing far away galaxies to recede faster than the speed of light as observed in large redshift.

Using that for  $\vert v\vert$ much smaller than 1, $\frac{1}{1+v}\approx 1-v$, Newton's 2nd Law takes the form

• $F\approx m\dot v -mv\dot v\approx (m+P)\dot v$ 

with $P=-mv$ momentum. This relation has the form of a classical Newton's 2nd Law with the mass $m$ augmented by $P$, which trades to a connection between momentum $P$ and mass $m$ of 

the stated form $P=mc$ without normalisation to $c=1$. 

We have thus given a proof of the relation $P=mc$, as an alternative the relation $E=mc^2$, which Einstein could not prove and maybe nobody else can.

PS1 In Einstein's special relativity also the recession speed is limited by the speed of light.  This is not what is observed, since galaxies outside the Hubble sphere at a distance of 4300 megaparsecs are by their redshift observed to recede faster than the speed of light. The apparent contradiction with Einstein's special theory of relativity is handled in the usual way: The special theory is correct but it does not apply to receding galaxies, for which instead the general theory of relativity must be used and the general theory is so complicated that contradictions is beyond human

PS2 The suspicion that $E=mc^2$ is just a matter of definition, which is true by defining mass in terms of force and acceleration through Newton’s 2nd Law (thus in terms of energy), and not a physical fact, which could be true or not, is growing stronger and stronger. Einstein is the master of ambiguity between definition and fact, with the constancy of the speed of light as a key example, which by physicists mislead by Einstein is viewed to be both a definition and a physical fact.

Demystifying the New SI Base Units.

In the previous post we observed that Planck's constant $h$ appears as a conversion factor connecting light of frequency $\nu$ with attributed energy $h\nu$ (in eV or Joule) through the photoelectric effect with the release of an electron from a surface exposed to light (of sufficient high frequency). The inner mechanics of the atoms delivering the electrons upon excitation by exposure to light does not enter into the discussion and so Planck's constant can be given a meaning in macroscopic physics, thus without quantum mechanics, as a trade between light and electron energy and then further to mechanical energy. Its role in quantum mechanics then appears as an after construction.

Let us now turn to Boltzmann's constant $k$ to see its connection to Planck's constant and macroscopic physics. Boltzmann's constant appears in Planck's universal law of blackbody radiation law of the form

• $E(\nu ,T) = W(a)\, kT\nu^2$,
• $W(a) = \frac{a}{\exp(a )-1}$ with $a = \frac{h\nu}{kT}$,

where $E(\nu ,T)$ is the (suitably normalised) intensity of radiation of frequency $\nu$ from a blackbody of temperature $T$ and $W(a)$ is a cut-off factor with $W(a)=1 $ for small $a$ and
$W(a)$ small for medium to large $a$, expressing Wien's displacement law stating cut-off of high frequencies. We see that Planck’s constant only appears in the cut-off factor.

Experimental observation of $E(\nu ,T)$ makes it possible to determine $W(a)$ and thus $kT$ in terms of $h\nu$, from which Boltzmann's constant $k$ can be determined with respect to a chosen scale for temperatur $T$, or the other way around as in the new SI units by specifying by definition 

• $k=1.380650\times 10^{-23}\, J/K$,  

thus setting a new standard for Kelvin $K$ as measure of temperature. The connection between the energy measures $h\nu$ and $kT$ then shows to be

• $h\nu_{max} \approx 2.8214391\times kT$,

where $\nu = \nu_{max}$ gives maximum of the spectrum $E(\nu ,T)$.

Again, this can be done without having to invoke quantum mechanics in its standard form with $h$ as a "smallest quantum of action" as exposed in detail on Computational Blackbody Radiation, which presents a derivation of Planck's law using deterministic continuum physics instead of as usual statistics of discrete quanta. In particular, the new derivation captures the universality of blackbody radiation beyond specific inner atomic mechanics.

The universality of Planck's law is expressed by the fact that an ideal blackbody can take the form of a set of oscillators without very specific inner structure. In particular different blackbodies with different inner structure can share the same temperature scale.

To sum up, both Planck's constant and Boltzmann's constant are specified by definition in the new SI units, from which the new units kilogram and Kelvin can be determined by macroscopic experiments without resort to quantum mechanics in its standard form.



Hopefully this helps to demystify both Planck's and Boltzmann's constant, and the new SI units.
 

New Perspective on New Unit of Mass in terms of Planck's Constant

In the 2019 redefinition of the SI base units the kilogram as unit of mass is defined in terms of Planck's constant

• $h$ set by definition to exactly $6.62607015×10^{−34}$ Joule-second ($J\cdot s$), 

where

• $Joule = Newton\times m = M\times\frac{m}{s^2}\times m=M\frac{m^2}{s^2}=Mc^2$

with $m$ meter, $s$ second, $M$ mass in kilogram and $c$ the speed of light.

This defines kilogram in terms of Planck's constant $h$, second $s$ and speed of light $c$ with meter $m$ defined in terms of $c$. The relation $E=Mc^2$, viewed as a profound discovery attributed to Einstein's relativity theory, then appears simply as a definition (of mass).

The connection to quantum mechanics comes by attributing a certain energy $h\nu$ to light of frequency $\nu$ through the law of the photoelectric effect

• $h\nu = eV_0 + \phi = eV_0 + h\nu_0$, 

where $eV_0$ in electronVolts is the energy of a released electron with charge $e$ and $V_0$ a stopping potential in Volt, and $h\nu_0$ is the work to release an electron with $\nu_0$ a threshold frequency. This relation determines $h\approx 4.1357\times 10^{-15}$ in $eV\cdot s$, which fits with the new definition of $h$ in terms of $J\cdot s$ with the conversion $eV= 1.602176634×10^{−19} J$.

The photoelectric effect connects the macroscopic phenomena of light of different frequencies and stopping potential to the microscopic phenomenon of electron charge. In this connection there is nothing that says light of frequency $\nu$ is to be viewed as a stream of discrete photon particles of energy $h\nu$ and that Planck's constant $h$ has the physical meaning of a discrete smallest quantum of action.  Instead Planck's constant has the role of connecting light energy to electron potential energy ultimately to mechanical energy.

For a new continuum physics approach to blackbody radiation and the photoelectric effect with discrete quantum replaced by a threshold condition (as in the photoelectric effect), see Computational BlackBody Radiation.

The new definition of kilogram gives perspective on the very small size of Planck's constant $\sim 6.6\times 10^{-34}\, J\cdot s$ misleading to an idea of an absurdly small Planck length $\sim 1.6\times 10^{-35}\, m$ believed to have a physical meaning, in string theory in particular.  On the other hand, the length scale of atoms (and X-ray light of frequency about $3\times 10^{18}$) is about $10^{-10}\, m$ and that of a proton $10^{-15}\, m$, with the Planck scale 20 orders of magnitude smaller, way beyond any thinkable experimental exploration and thus meaning. Planck time  $\sim 5.3\times 10^{-44}\, s$ is even more absurd. No wonder that modern physics playing with Planck length and time is in a state of deep crisis, with the scientific madness come to full expression in the  Chronology of the Universe starting with the Planck Epoch before $10^{-43}\, s$ after Big Bang.

In Schrödingers equation $h$ multiplies the time derivative of the wave function, which means that
the atomic energy (potential + "kinetic" energy) of an eigenfunction of frequency $\nu$ is equal to $h\nu$, which comes to expression in the photoelectric effect.  Schrödinger's equation is a continuum model without any smallest quantum of action, only discrete eigenvalues representing different energies.

A reformulation of quantum mechanics in the form of a Schrödinger equation as a continuum model in real 3d space plus time without statistics, can be inspected at Real Quantum Mechanics.

To get an idea of the absurdly small Planck length scale $1.6\times 10^{-34}\, m$, one may compare with the estimated size of the observable Universe which is about $10^{27}\, m$ or $10^{33}\, \mu m$ with $\mu m$ mikrometer.



In short, Planck's constant $h$ converts light energy to mechanical energy through electron potential energy, and as such does not ask for a meaning as a "smallest quantum of action" in a mist of "quantisation" into absurdly small "quanta".

The new kilogram standard is specified to high precision using a Kibble balance, where gravitational force is balanced by an electromagnetic force (between two coils), which depends on Planck's constant. Mass is then derived by measuring the local gravitational constant.  

Does Sabine Hossenfelder Exist?

Sabine Hossenfelder on BackReaction claims herself to be a modern physicist expressing truths about the state of modern physics:

• I do not know what it means for something to be “real” or “true.” You will have to consult a philosopher on that.
• If you want to claim that the Higgs-boson does not exist, you have to demonstrate that the theory which contains the mathematical structure called “Higgs-boson” does not fit the data. Whether or not Higgs-bosons ever arrive in a detector is totally irrelevant.
• Here is a homework assignment: Do you think that I exist? And what do you even mean by that?
• From November on, I will be unemployed, at least that is what it presently looks like: If you don't exist, can you be employed?

If this is the truth, no wonder that modern physics is in a state of crisis.

But Sabine's criticism of modern physics appears well founded and thus admirable. At the price of making employment difficult, which is even more admirable.  But she is not alone saying that modern  physics in a state of stalemate crisis without progress, as evidenced in the new book
The Universe Speaks in Numbers by Graham Farmelo summing up:

• ...the slow rate of progress of the string framework may presage a more sedate pace in fundamental physics that may persist for centuries to come.

Of course the pessimism of deep crisis can be turned around into its opposite, as expressed by the leading star of modern physics Arkani-Hamed: 

• There has never been a better, more exciting time to be a theoretical physicist.

Concerning the crisis of modern physics it is commonly accepted that one reason is that the two basic building blocks, relativity theory and quantum mechanics, are contradictory/incompatile . If you dig a little deeper you will find that the underlying reason is that both theories are unphysical as exposed in detail as Many-Minds Relativity and Real Quantum Mechanics and also here.

Two theories which are physical cannot be contradictory, because physics which exists cannot be contradictory. But unphysical theories may well be contradictory, as ghosts can have contradictory qualities.

The Special Theory of Relativity of Einstein is unphysical because the Lorentz transformation is not a transformation between physical coordinates, as strongly underlined by its inventor Lorentz, but misunderstood by the patent clerk Einstein believing that the transformed time is real and thus that time is relative. Quantum Mechanics is unphysical because its interpretation is statistical which makes it non-physical, because physics is not an insurance company. Here Einstein was right understanding that God does not play dice.

Concerning the crisis of modern physics, listen to

• Alexander Unzicker 
• Bill Gaede (with Quora comments)
• Hartwig Thim on Einstein's relativity

It is comforting to see that I am not alone in my criticism of relativity theory and quantum mechanics.

It is impossible to discuss these things with main stream physicists, since their common wisdom is that neither relativity theory nor quantum mechanics can be understood as rational science.

An example of the confusion is the hype about quantum computing with the sound criticism by Dyakonov in The Case Against Quantum Computing of course being dismissed by main stream physicist Lubos.

The confusion is exposed in an exhibition combining arts and science about quantum mechanics at Center for Contemporary Culture in Barcelona commented on at BackReaction. Here is an artistic expression of the quantum leap of an electron which infuriated Schrödinger:

In this context you are invited to a previous post on the true meaning of Planck's constant $h$ shows The text book view is that $h$ is a fundamental quantum of action connecting the energy
$E=h\nu$ to a particle/photon of light of frequency $\nu$ according the Planck-Einstein relation with light viewed as a stream of discrete particles/photons.

But it is not at all necessary to view light this way to understand the true meaning of Planck's constant, which is revealed through the way it is measured, that is through the photoelectric effect which simply connects light frequency to the energy unit of electronVolt.

Einstein gave a heuristic explanation of the photoelectric effect from an idea of light as a stream of particles. By the common Aristotle logical fallacy of confirming the assumption by observing the consequence, this has convinced modern physicists that light indeed consists of a stream of particles, which however is against all scientific rationale and a basic reason for the crisis of modern (particle) physics. Schrödinger understood that there are no particles. See posts on the photoelectric effect showing that it does not require Einstein's particle heuristics to be understood; wave mechanics serves much better!     

Why Does a Modern Physicist Buy the CO2 Global Warming Hysteria?

Sabine Hossenfelder on BackReaction claims herself to be a physicist, yet it seems as if she without
thinking buys the CO2 Global Warming Hysteria:

• Climate Change: There are no simple solutions.
• The Earth is warming. Human carbon-dioxide emissions are one of the major culprits. We have known this for a long time. But in the past two decades, evidence for global warming has become more noticeable on local levels, as with seasonal shifts, extreme weather events, declines in biodiversity and, depending on where you live, droughts. And it will get worse.

She does not acknowledge that there are many knowledgeable physicists who do not buy this story, because it has no support in known laws of physics, including Dyson, Happer, Singer and many more. 

So how can it be that she jumps on the climate alarmist wagon? I have asked her, but she does want not to communicate with me, so I have to guess: Is it because of a monumental confusion concerning quantum mechanics, which makes it impossible for a modern physicist to grasp even basic physics of the climate system of the Earth, and what does that then say about modern physics?

PS To get perspective listen to Hearing of the House Committee on Natural Resources May 22.

Yes, Quantum Mechanics Is Wrong

Sabine Hossenfelder on BackReaction has become a truth-teller about the state of modern physics, and now she tells the truth about quantum mechanics: It is wrong:

• Yes, I am sorry. But I have a message for you from the depth of abstract math: We know that quantum mechanics is wrong. 

The same idea has been expressed by almost every notable physicist, including Roger Penrose:

• Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics.

This is a funny situation, unprecedented in the history of science, and it has been like that for now

more than 100 years. 

A restart is obviously needed and my contribution is Real Quantum Mechanics. Take a look! And think! See also recent posts.

But Sabine Hossenfelder is a physicist and thus must seek to rescue the hopeless situation in one way or the other:

• And whatever your misgivings are about quantum mechanics, there is no denying that it is useful.

So quantum mechanics is wrong, but it is nevertheless useful? That does not make sense. A theory which is wrong cannot be truly useful, because from something which is wrong cannot come something which is right. Only if the theory is right in some sense, can it be useful. But no physicist has any clue to what is right about quantum mechanics, only what is wrong!

Sabine Hossenfelder resorts to the common trick of referring to yet a more incomprehensible theory in the form of Quantum Field Theory, when basic Quantum Theory is questioned. This was used by
Einstein when he increased the bet to general relativity when his special theory of relativity was questioned on most rational grounds. This 

Quantum Mechanics Still a Complete Mystery 2

Tim Maudlin introduces his new book Philosophy of Physics: Quantum Theory with the following credo:

• A physical theory should clearly and forthrightly address two fundamental questions: what there is, and what it does. 
• The answer to the first question is provided by the ontology of the theory, and the answer to the second by its dynamics. 
• The ontology should have a sharp mathematical description, and the dynamics should be implemented by precise equations describing how the ontology will, or might, evolve.
• The Copenhagen Interpretation, in contrast, does not. There is little agreement about just what this approach to quantum theory postulates to actually exist or how the dynamics can be unam- biguously formulated. Nowadays, the term is often used as short-hand for a general instrumentalism that treats the mathematical apparatus of the theory as merely a predictive device, uncommitted to any ontology or dynamics at all.
•  Sometimes, accepting the Copenhagen Interpretation is understood as the decision simply to use the quantum recipe without further question: Shut up and calculate. Such an attitude rejects the aspiration to provide a physical theory, as defined above, at all. 
• Hence it is not even in the running for a description of the physical world and what it does. More specific criticisms could be raised against this legacy of Bohr, but our time is better spent presenting what is clear than decrying what is obscure.

The Copenhagen Interpretation is the text book interpretation of quantum mechanics, which Maudlin thus refutes as meaningless. I agree totally. 

What does then Maudlin offer in the book instead of the Copenhagen Interpretation? Very little: pilot wave theory and many worlds theory, both failed attempts to give meaning to Schrödinger's wave function. The book thus gives yet another account of the mystery of quantum mechanics 100 years after its creation. 

The whole problem comes from the multi-dimensionality of Schrödinger's equation asking for a statistical unphysical interpretation. How many new books will be written on the theme that physicists do not understand the quantum mechanics they preach?

But there is light in the tunnel: Real Quantum Mechanics.