Hello,

You raise some interesting points about the differences between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, as well as the difficulties in reconciling the two. Indeed, one of the most significant challenges in modern physics is finding a way to unite these two theories into a single, coherent framework.

It is true that General Relativity is a classical theory that deals with objects with finite Cartesian dimensions, while Quantum Mechanics deals with dimensionless points or particles. This difference in the description of objects has led to a number of theoretical and mathematical inconsistencies when physicists attempt to combine the two.

However, it is not accurate to say that these theories will "never" be united. Many physicists believe that it is possible to develop a theory that combines both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, often referred to as a theory of quantum gravity. Efforts to develop such a theory have been ongoing for decades, with proposals such as string theory, loop quantum gravity, and others.

Regarding the speed of light limitation in General Relativity, it is important to note that this is not an arbitrary constraint imposed by human theorists. Rather, it is a fundamental aspect of the theory that has been supported by a large body of experimental evidence. The speed of light limitation arises from the geometric nature of spacetime in General Relativity, and it has important consequences for the behavior of objects moving at relativistic speeds.

Regards,

Agree. So, go back to observations and start again. The new model must reduce to both Big and small.

A note: GR is a math calculation method, not a physical theory. The Big Bang and \LambdaCDM are models using the math of GR.

Yes, you are correct. General Relativity is a mathematical framework used to describe the behavior of gravity in our universe. It is not a physical theory in itself, but rather a set of equations that physicists use to make predictions about the behavior of massive objects in space. The Big Bang and Lambda-CDM models are based on the principles of General Relativity and other observations, and they attempt to explain the behavior of the universe at both the largest and smallest scales. It is important for any new model to take into account the observations and evidence that support both the Big Bang and small-scale phenomena.

Dear Emmanouil Markoulakis ,

To my understanding, it is unthinkable to take two theories born to describe different interactions and make one without considering changing at least one of the two in a radical way, or make a step back and restart from first principles, considering all the experimental data available, and see where got it wrong...

GR is based on a distortion of the metric of space-time, QM is not even well based on space-time since it needs a 3D lattice...which is a preferred frame that singles out space-time... QFT, which is born relativistic, contains infinities whose solutions require "re-normalization"...a way to say, there is something underneath we do not understand (Dirac), but it is good as far as the model, absurd as it may seem, fits with the data...(shut up and calculate)..

That reminds me of the Epicycles of the Geocentric model to explain the celestial mechanics... they worked to the extent they were supposed to, but were supercomplicated and would not bring anywhere behind the Solar System...

The price to pay for the simplistic assumption (although apparently indisputable and evident) that Sun rotates around Earth to explain the day and night occurrences, was that all the other celestial bodies took really unrealistic trajectories. What was behind that?? The polish Mikołaj Kopernik, Copernicus, removed the untouchable hypothesis thanks to his

intuition and observation (or maybe got the information from some Chinese) and got close to what we observe today, by stating that Earth has a SPIN and the Sun is still (ELIOCENTRIC)....

Special relativity is a simplistic theory based on the equivalence of inertial frames inherited from Galileo's ships.... with the further constraint of the constancy of the speed of light. That gives Lorentz's Invariance the value of an untouchable rule...somebody seems to look for its violation but at very high energies...

Having assumed that as the base, the mathematical models of what came after 1910 exploded immediately... Levi Civita and Max Abraham did not have the same issues with theirs...

the tonsorial EFE are very difficult to solve, several orders of magnitude more complicated than the first order theory (NEWTONIAN) of which they are supposed to be the higher orders.

They do not allow a field energy density so the conservation laws are basically gone... Newtonian gravitation has it but, due to conventional choices at the boundaries, it is characterized by a negative energy density.

Basically the models we have in our hands now, are based on non sufficiently tested assumptions which inevitably brought to space-time "Feynman epicycles" and tensor equations...

Stefano Quattrini

Interesting that you mentioned the epicycle method. The epicycle model was an attempt to use what today is the Fourier series [circles within circles translates to cos() and sin()]. The complexity was solved by changing the origin of the coordinate system. So, today QM uses the Fourier system. Therefore, there is a state vector in QM for the solar system (Zhong-Cheng Liang). Perhaps this points the way to solve many of QM's reality problems - change the coordinate view.

Dear Alessandro Rizzo ,

Yes, c is fundamental for a theory that is recognized that is not complete and deals with matter and light and their interactions but fails to describe the vacuum as a separate possible entity.

A future theory of the vacuum is the missing separate theory (I don't feel the need to include a new vacuum theory in relativity and QM as an extension of these two. Too important IMO to be just an extension) that will unite these older theories of Relativity and QM in one framework since it is my intuition that both matter and light are originating from the vacuum.

So it may be proved eventually that vacuum free space to be more fundamental than matter and light ( I don't agree here with John Hodge. Matter is a subluminal vc.).

Emmanouil Markoulakis

As I mentioned in the last TEGS meeting, I would certainly like to think that there is only 1 basic component in the universe (matter is a vibration or some other mechanism). However, I was left to explain how the photoelectric effect (and other ``particle experiments'') and Young's experiment, Afshar's experiment and Hodge experiment (transparent mask) can happen with such light and matter particles. Therefore, I postulated a hod - fundamental matter - and photons as particles.

John Hodge ,

it is not the view point, or worse the coordinate view, which Copernicus changed, but he added a dynamic previoulsy not considered at all: THE SPIN OF EARTH... that is the "REVOLUTIO" in latin..

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Interesting your mention of ``dimensionless points'' in QM. I view this as a means to incorporate Newton's spherical principle into the math. That is, that effects radiate in an inverse distance potential from the ``center of mass''. But this requires the view that the plenum (vacuum ) support the heat equation. Yet, QM is based on a Fourier (wave equation) analysis. Conflicting views of the medium.

Dear Emmanouil Markoulakis,

You raise an intriguing point about the possibility of a future theory of the vacuum being the key to unifying General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Indeed, understanding the nature of the vacuum and its interactions with matter and light could provide significant insights into the fundamental structure of the universe.

Your idea that both matter and light originate from the vacuum is interesting and could have profound implications for our understanding of the universe. It is true that exploring the vacuum, its properties, and potential energy states may lead to novel ideas and theoretical frameworks that could reconcile the differences between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

The idea of subluminal, luminal, and superluminal energy states is an interesting perspective that could play a role in the development of a future vacuum theory. However, as John Hodge mentioned, there are still experimental observations that need to be explained in any new theoretical framework, such as the photoelectric effect and the behavior of light in various experiments.

It is essential for any new theory to be consistent with experimental data and to provide testable predictions that can be verified or falsified through further observations. The development of a new vacuum theory, as you suggest, could be a promising avenue for research in the pursuit of a unified framework that encompasses both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

Regards, Alessandro Rizzo

Emmanouil Markoulakis ,

I guess you know this from

THE SCIENTIFIC PAPERS OFJAMES CLERK MAXWELL

https://ia800908.us.archive.org/24/items/scientificpapers01maxw/scientificpapers01maxw.pdf

"The intrinsic energy of the field of gravitation must therefore be less where ever there is a resultant gravitating force.

As energy is essentially positive, it is impossible for any part of space to have negative intrinsic energy. Hence those parts of space in which there is no resultant force, such as the points of equilibrium in the space between the different bodies of a system, and within the substance of each body, must have an intrinsic energy per unit of volume greater than

1/8pi *R2

where R is the greatest possible value of the intensity of gravitating force in any part of the universe.

The assumption, therefore, that gravitation arises from the action of the surrounding medium in the way pointed out, leads to the conclusion that every part of this medium possesses, when undisturbed, an enormous intrinsic energy, and that the presence of dense bodies influences the medium so as to diminish this energy wherever there is a resultant attraction.

As I am unable to understand in what way a medium can possess such properties, I cannot go any further in this direction in searching for the cause of gravitation."

As usual, Maxwell pointed at the Moon and Einstein look at his finger...

Dear friends of fundamental physics, quanta, relativity and cosmology,

firstly, the universal quantization is a consequence of general relativity, see Carmesin_2022_DPG or Carmesin_2022_k3.

Secondly, the deterministic dynamics (Schroedinger equation) as well as the stochastic dynamics (explicated by Born) as well as the postulates of quantum physics are consequences of general relativity, see Carmesin_2022_DPG or Carmesin_2022_k3 or Carmesin_2022_k1.

THIS PROVIDES AN INTERESTING DISCOVERY:

Quantum physics is not a deterministic field of nature, as a result of observation.

In contrast, general relativity has been devised as a deterministic theory.

However, a consequence (for details about precise conditions, see Carmesin_2022_DPG or Carmesin_2022_k3 or Carmesin_2022_k1)

of general relativity is quantum physics, a partially stochastic field of theory and of nature.

EVIDENCE:

Note that the theory exhibits a large evidence. For instance, the theory provides the energy density of dark energy (or of cosmological vacuum), and the theory provides a solution of the H_0 tension, see Carmesin_2022k1, Carmesin_2021_k2 or Carmesin_2023. Thereby, precise accordance with observation is achieved, whereby no hypothesis or fit is used.

Literature

Carmesin_2021_k1

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350373240_Quanta_of_Spacetime_Explain_Observations_Dark_Energy_Graviton_and_Nonlocality

Carmesin_2021_k2

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353851329_Cosmological_and_Elementary_Particles_Explained_by_Quantum_Gravity

Carmesin_2022_k1

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358581911_Quantum_Physics_Explained_by_Gravity_and_Relativity

Carmesin_2022_k3

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366544455_Unification_of_Spacetime_Gravity_and_Quanta

Carmesin_2022_DPG

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366275369_Explanation_of_Quantum_Physics_by_Gravity_and_Relativity_-A_Possible_Course

Carmesin_2023

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368750903_A_Unifying_Derivation_of_Dark_Energy

Thank you for your interest.

Kind regards,

Hans-Otto Carmesin

“…To my understanding, it is unthinkable to take two theories born to describe different interactions and make one without considering changing at least one of the two in a radical way, or make a step back and restart from first principles, considering all the experimental data available, and see where got it wrong...…..”

- really that hasn’t relation to the thread question “Why current General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics will never be united?”, and for at least two reasons. First of all the real QM-GR problem isn’t in some taking of two theories “born to describe different interactions”, QM must, in principle, to describe any/every interactions in Matter, since everything in Matter exists and happens on QM scale, though more correctly – on Planck scale, but that isn’t essential,

- though the QM interactions are so unbelievably averaged on macroscale, that on macroscale “classical” theories well work, however most of utmost fundamental parameters of material objects/events/processes – energy, momentums, angular momentums, charges, etc., which are defined just in classic theories, are used, though specifically, also in QM, classic theories, and are at that in some sense the QM base;

- while the GR is just macro theory, and so, if it would be a really adequate to the reality, i.e. the theory of some fundamental Nature force, the “problem of GR quantization” would be without problems solved, as that, say, happened with classical electrodynamics; and

- just because of in the GR Gravity isn’t some fundamental Nature force that is fundamentally impossible – the interactions that the GR describes are indeed different from what is in QM, first of all in that these interactions don’t exist.

Really Gravity is fundamentally nothing else than a fundamental Nature force, which in a few traits similar to the fundamental Nature Electric force, including, first of all, both Forces act by the same fundamental scheme – see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 initial model of Gravity and Electric Forces in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces; moreover this scheme works at Nuclear Force that combine atomic nuclei interactions , see 2023 this Force model in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force

Cheers

I see absolutely no need for combining quantum theory and general relativity AND I am preparing the Mathesis needed for writing a full article on the issue : How performing such a task is , as a matter of fact , a mathematico-logical paradox . It is flat plainly impossible to do .

Furthermore : There is no need for that as our world is one where emanations of reality show up in differing areas of mathematics with differing applications , of course . Some members of Acadaemia are to make “job security” for themselves by emphasizing and re-emphasizing their willingness/readiness/necessity for taking decades to outperform others in accomplishing such Zeno-paradox job ............

Despite claims to the contrary, we still do not have a unified theory of gravity and quantum mechanics. But never say never!

Jose Gaite

That's right, therefore the title of the question includes the word "current" form of theories. IMO both theories need to be extended to include dark energy which I have serious reasons to believe it is superluminous energy, in order these two to be unified.

Emmanouil Markoulakis

I totally agree with you: dark energy is possibly the most crucial problem, together with dark matter. These are accessible problems, if compared to the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics; and they can contribute in this direction. I am looking forward to it :-)

Dear friends of fundamental physics, quanta, relativity, elementary particles, fundamental interactions and cosmology, dear Jose Gaite, dear Emmanouil Markoulakis,

I reply to your contribution form 20230409 ca. 10 pm CET.

I agree that dark energy is a very interesting issue.

If you want to see a derivation of dark energy from first principles of physics, including the derivation of the energy density, in precise accordance with observation, without using a hypothesis, without using any ununified fit (Styrman 2019), then I recommend the following: Carmesin_ 2021_k1, Carmesin_ 2021_k2, Carmesin_ 2023.

Literature

Styrman_2019

A. Styrman, Economical Unification in Philosophy of Science Before and After Ernst Mach,In F. Stadler, ed., Ernst Mach − Life, Work, Influence. Springer Nature, Switzerland (2019).

Carmesin_2021_k1

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350373240_Quanta_of_Spacetime_Explain_Observations_Dark_Energy_Graviton_and_Nonlocality

Carmesin_2021_k2

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353851329_Cosmological_and_Elementary_Particles_Explained_by_Quantum_Gravity

Carmesin_2023

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368750903_A_Unifying_Derivation_of_Dark_Energy

Thank you for your interest.

Kind regards,

Hans-Otto Carmesin

As Gödel proves the fact that NO mathematical system comes to NO paradox at all ,there are enough of evidence to show that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics will never be united ..............

Hans-Otto Carmesin Here is the way I would resolve the conflict between General Relativity and Quantum Theory.

Firstly, I would accept GR as a correct description of the way in which mass curves the medium of space and delivers the gravitational effect via the same medium.

Then I would recognise that quantum theory in its beginning was aimed at predicting experimental results and I would limit the mathematical models of QT to this purpose. Any derived physical conclusions from the mathematical models I would discard. Then I would go back to GR and try to explain how matter curves Spacetime.

https://youtu.be/zEu-_0ACl3I

On the question of dark energy this is resolved by taking a fresh look at the original observations of the recession velocity of distant galaxies. If you take into account the movement of galaxies due to gravitational acceleration, all is resolved.

https://youtu.be/muCa08hlIDc

Richard

We do not have finitely-seriated numbers to stand for "grains" of spacetime even by quaternions or complex numbers ..........

Richard Lewis

Quantum mechanics equations & constants must undergo Doppler shifts. Also, the angle factor in the axial Doppler shift of frequency in light is ignored inmost of relativity and does not go away and is also in gravitational waves which kills the geometry GR.

Look the proofs in the following papers:

The proofs that 4 constants ae changed by relativistic velocities as a PDF file will pop up when the following link is Left clicked: -------------------------------------------------------------------- https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e1ExWG-VyTR8PAPxU5OnfSzd86uj59nh/view?usp=share_link --------------------------------------------------------------------- A link to prerequisite proofs that all Doppler shifts change time and distance (axial, gravitational and transverse not just the transverse). -------------------------------------------------------------------- https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vGRBH1AgUOCP8_zp7fKxBTMPg-YP_-uh/view?usp=share_link -------------------------------------------------------------------- A link to: Proof of a version of the Schrodinger equation for relativistic velocities: ------------------------------------------------------------------ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kh2d4fYFOd8rbS6tgyUbTA5zDZW-aUNH/view?usp=share_link-------------------------------------- Note: for light the the Doppler frequency ratio=f'/f=the energy ratio=E'/E and the mas ratio m'/m=Ka Kt= axil shift x transverse shift ratio. BUT FOR A THING WITH A REST MASS =m'/m=E'/D=1/Kt. Which was the reason h was not a constant at relativistic velocities for things with a rest mass.------------------------------------------------------ I hope you can make use of the above. Samuel Lewis Reich ([email protected])

That

“….Despite claims to the contrary, we still do not have a unified theory of gravity and quantum mechanics. But never say never!.…..”

- looks as a bit strange claim – again, Gravity is fundamentally nothing else than some fundamental Nature force, and, as that happened at all other Forces actions at corresponding interactions of particles on QM scale, all interactions on this scale proceed/ result in particles/effects/events/processes that are described by introducing in corresponding QM equations corresponding Forces’ potential energies, momentums, etc.,

So really there is no any principal problems to do that relating to gravitational objects/systems/events/effects/processes; and again, after correct macro theory of Gravity will be developed, the corresponding QM will be developed as well.

That is another thing, that because of extreme weakness of Gravity Force really material objects practically don’t compose in Matter some quantum systems because of extremely large background of other Forces, and QM Gravity systems can appear only in extremely exotic cases.

However, if in the quote “theory of gravity” means the GR, the really scientific “unified theory of gravity and quantum mechanics” fundamentally never was, is, and will be, possible.

More see the SS post above on page 2. Recent SS posts in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_we_know_why_earth_has_gravity#view=6432d6c88200f06832052fb6/10

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_you_think_that_general_relativity_needs_modifications_or_it_is_a_perfect_theory/138 , and

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_gravity_a_force_by_convention_only_If_so_what_makes_it_so_similar_to_fundamental_forces_how_spacetime_creates_a_force_effect/15

- are also relevant to this thread question.

Cheers

Dear friends of fundamental physics, quanta, relativity, elementary particles, fundamental interactions and cosmology, dear Richard Lewis,

I reply to your contribution form 20230410 ca. 4 pm CEST.

Please let me answer to the most basic point you proposed:

You wrote: 'Any derived physical conclusions from the mathematical models I would discard.'

MY REPLY:

The analysis of conclusions from a mathematical model of a physical system is a main method of scientific investigation in physics, and that method should never be restricted or limited.

Thus, everybody using a mathematical model of a physical system should investigate conclusions and implications of that model. That is my recommendation.

Thank you for your interest.

Kind regards,

Hans-Otto Carmesin

One of the aspects of the conflict between Relativity and Quantum Physics is gravity.

All scientists tried to unify gravity were failed including Einstein himself.

We see that gravity can never be unified with Electromagnetism but gravity can really be confined within electromagnetism.

We found a gap in classical Electromagnetism and through this gap we can redefine gravity.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369913190_Confinement_of_Gravity_within_Electromagnetism_Based_on_Intrinsic_Electric_Dipoles

The statement that "relativity fails to explain singularities (i.e. dimensionless-points) like black holes and the Big Bang" just reflects the fact that any physical theory has limits. By being images of Nature, representations of the real world, all theories have intrinsic and inevitable limitations. People keep on revolving around this point as if it were some kind of mystery, but it is not. It is just an epistemological consequence of the nature of physical theories and how they assess reality.

Theories are human creations, always made by using certain conceptual and mathematical formulations and it is inevitable that once these creations are compared to one another some irreconcilable aspects will emerge due to their intrinsic limitations. The way forward is always the creation of new theories, with different concepts than the ones whose concepts are irreconcilable.

Dear friends of fundamental physics, quanta, relativity, elementary particles, fundamental interactions and cosmology, dear Marcelo Byrro Ribeiro,

I reply to your contribution form 20230411 ca. 8 pm CEST.

You hypothesize that quanta, relativity and gravity might be irreconcilable. How do you want to prove that hypothesis? Did you ever try to prove it in a general manner?

Thank you for your interest.

Kind regards,

Hans-Otto Carmesin

The proofs that 4 constants are changed by relativistic velocities as a PDF file will pop up when the following link is Left clicked: -------------------------------------------------------------------- https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e1ExWG-VyTR8PAPxU5OnfSzd86uj59nh/view?usp=share_link --------------------------------------------------------------------- A link to prerequisite proofs that all Doppler shifts change time and distance (axial, gravitational and transverse not just the transverse). -------------------------------------------------------------------- https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vGRBH1AgUOCP8_zp7fKxBTMPg-YP_-uh/view?usp=share_link -------------------------------------------------------------------- A link to: Proof of a version of the Schrodinger equation for relativistic velocities (in the observer's reference frame that equation does not work for particles moving at relativistic velocities, this changes everything (including constants) in that equation to the moving reference frame. To get an equation for a wave function in the moving reference frame that should work): ------------------------------------------------------------------ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Uh29Pdva6bfJHwVibDgEK_kMhoZ211uL/view?usp=share_link--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: for light the the Doppler frequency ratio=f'/f=the energy ratio=E'/E and the mas ratio m'/m=Ka Kt= axil shift x transverse shift ratio. BUT FOR A THING WITH A REST MASS =m'/m=E'/D=1/Kt. Which was the reason h was not a constant at relativistic velocities for things with a rest mass.------------------------------------------------------ I hope you can make use of the above. Samuel Lewis Reich ([email protected]

Dear friends of fundamental physics, quanta, relativity, elementary particles, fundamental interactions and cosmology, dear Samuel Reich,

I reply to your contribution form 202304120 ca. 8 am CEST.

If you want to see, how quanta, relativity and gravity are unified with the following constant constants,

Newton’s constant G of gravity,

Velocity c of light in natural vacuum

and Planck’s constant h,

then I recommend the literature listed below.

Literature

Carmesin_2021_k1

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350373240_Quanta_of_Spacetime_Explain_Observations_Dark_Energy_Graviton_and_Nonlocality

Carmesin_2022_k1

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358581911_Quantum_Physics_Explained_by_Gravity_and_Relativity

Carmesin_2022_k3

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366544455_Unification_of_Spacetime_Gravity_and_Quanta

Carmesin_2022_DPG

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366275369_Explanation_of_Quantum_Physics_by_Gravity_and_Relativity_-A_Possible_Course

Carmesin_2023

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368750903_A_Unifying_Derivation_of_Dark_Energy

Thank you for your interest.

Kind regards,

Hans-Otto Carmesin

Proofs relativistic velocities change constants and the Schrodinger equation and how to get a Schrodinger equation in the reference frame of a particle moving at relativistic velocities. The proofs are in ideas of special relativity NOT general relativity.

Proof relativistic velocities change constants and the Schrodinger equation

I had written elsewhere there is NO need for unifying them , , ,,

The last two papers below do that by showing how the constants of quantum mechanics change at relativistic velocities and how that would effect the equations of quantum mechanics.

Proof of a fix to special relativity indicating only the transverse Doppler shift changes observed time and that all Doppler shifts (axial, gravitational and transverse) in a vacuum can do it. Link to that proof:------------------------https://drive.google.com/file/d/1agua51JKM3nE7L17tmaWuluPiqQ4Ag55/view?usp=share_link------------------------------------------------------------

The above's first impact is that the closing velocity and angle in the axial Doppler shift formula f'/f=[1-(v/c) cos q] have become dimensions of time and for a constant c dimensions of distance (=ct=c/f). Adding dimensions space-time kills the geometry of general relativity but just expands the impacts of special relativity.------------------------------------------------------------

A Link to proofs that the above makes 4 constants of physics variable at relativistic velocities.-------------------------------------------------------

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e1ExWG-VyTR8PAPxU5OnfSzd86uj59nh/view?usp=share_link------------------------

A link to two ways the above may get the Schrodinger equation to work at relativistic velocities.---------------------------------------------------------

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Uh29Pdva6bfJHwVibDgEK_kMhoZ211uL/view?usp=share_link

John Hodge : " GR is a math calculation method, not a physical theory. "

Einstein's attempted implementation of GR used to be considered to be a falsifiable physical theory based on principles, until we realised that almost nothing in it worked properly, and that the structure routinely violated all or almost all of its own principles. It was self-invalidating.

So as a physical theory, theory, it's completely ruled out. It cannot be the correct description of how reality works. It's not even a proper theory (perhaps the qualification "failed theory" might be better). But we can still use parts of the dead creature's mathematical "skeleton" to do calculations.

Alessandro Rizzo : " However, it is not accurate to say that these theories will "never" be united. "

Well, if "GR" means "Einstein's 1916 theory", or "current textbook GR", then it =is= true to say that this form of GR can never be united with QM. The problem is not down the the classical and quantum natures of the two theories, it's because the more generalised behaviours of the two systems are different.

The general theory, when quantised, does not yield QM statistics, and QM statistics, when dealt with by a stochastic approach, to generate an arbitrarily close approximation of the classical physics that could underly QM stats, before quantisation ... does not give Einstein's theory.

It turns out that there is a form of classical relativity theory that would quantise to give QM, and be dual with QM ... it's a more nonlinear form of metric known (a bit misleadingly) as an acoustic metric.

The study of quantum gravity using acoustic metrics as "toy models" for the behaviour of a future unified theory of QG seem to work. Acoustic metrics, for instance, generate relative observer-dependent horizons rather than the absolute "event horizons" of current GR, and therefore manage to "leak" massenergy and information indirectly along accelerated paths.

Article Analogue Gravity

Hawking has also made a similar suggestion that the black hole information paradox can be solved by making horizons relative rather than absolute.

Article Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes

This, again, points us towards relativistic acoustic metrics.

The reason why we haven't already thrown ourselves gratefully onto acoustic metrics as the solution to all our problems is that the absolute event horizons that set GR against QM turn out to be a consequence of basing general relativity on a foundation that includes the SR shift equations.

Preprint The Doppler equations of Newtonian optics as a unique soluti...

So acoustic metrics succeed where a Minkowski-based system fails, because they not only have different definitions of remote causality, but also fundamentally different shift equations.

We can unite ==a== general theory of relativity with QM, but it can't be ==Einstein's== general theory. In order to modify GR and bring it into line with QM, we have to delete the SR content from GR and rederive the relativistic equations of motion from scratch, in the new context of curved spacetime.

Nobody in the community wants to do that. So we're stuck.

It's not a technical problem, it's a social problem. We know exactly how to fix it, but we aren't prepared to pay the associated price. We'd rather hang around and kick our heels and wait for some unexpected solution to "turn up" and surprise us, that might let us keep the SR-based GR1916 that we grew up with.

So far we've wasted about half a century waiting for something to "turn up".

Geometry says that the form of solution that we want is never, ever going to appear. But human beings are often wierd when it comes to being able to ignore facts that they don't like, and it seems that the GR community isn't an exception.

Alessandro Rizzo

Positivity of a manifoldic model of uniting time and space into spacetime by the dimension of four again leaves out temporality to the conclusion that the topological boundaries thereof , too , are not having anything to do with true physicalism . In the categories of Quantum theorization , homotopic type of atomistic groups do not work objectively in any ways ,means , or manner ,either . They are both doomed . Compactification of a field into a particle is also deemed "causal" in QFT if not in QM. . .. . . . But then we find nothing like local causality ,local realism , or manifoldic particle wavespread , either .

When theoretical physicist Natalie Paquette of the University of Washington in Seattle tried to conjure up an extra dimension, she started with small circles. They were scattered everywhere in space and time and, by means of their curvature, always lead back to the starting point. Paquette is by no means alone in pondering such strange transformations. In numerous disciplines, different theoretical approaches revolve around the assumption that space and even time are not fundamental phenomena. Instead, they might be "emergent," that is, arising from the structure and behavior of even more fundamental components. At this deeper level of reality, questions of where and when might no longer have meaningful answers at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH5KyzyN1F0

Dear Reza Sanaye

you bring up some rather interesting points about the complexities of uniting time and space into spacetime in a manifold model. Let's take a stroll through these fascinating ideas.

You mention the apparent disconnect between the topological boundaries of spacetime and true physicalism. Indeed, this issue has been a long-standing source of discomfort for physicists as they attempt to reconcile mathematical abstractions with observable reality.

Quantum theory has presented its own unique set of challenges, especially when it comes to an understanding homotopic types of atomistic groups. While these groups may not work objectively in any traditional sense, they offer insight into the peculiar behaviors observed at quantum scales.

Compactification in field theories, such as Quantum Field Theory (QFT), is an intriguing concept where a field is condensed into a particle. This process might be considered "causal" in QFT, but as you correctly pointed out, local causality and local realism can be hard to pin down in Quantum Mechanics (QM).

The seemingly incompatible nature of local causality, local realism, and manifold particle wave spread is just one example of the strange territory physicists must navigate when grappling with the fundamental nature of reality. It is worth noting that we are still in the early stages of understanding the interplay between these concepts. Sure future research may provide more clarity on these fascinating enigmas.

Thank you for your insight.

Thank you Eric Baird, Indeed, you've highlighted the significant difference between Einstein's 1916 GR and the broader general behaviors exhibited by both GR and QM. The compatibility issue isn't solely a matter of classical versus quantum mechanics but rather the statistics and underlying classical physics inconsistencies. You've mentioned acoustic metrics as a potential unifying element, offering a more nonlinear form that could bridge the gap between the two theories. These metrics provide relative observer-dependent horizons, allowing mass energy and information to leak indirectly along accelerated paths. This may help to resolve the black hole information paradox. However, the primary challenge you've mentioned in embracing acoustic metrics is the social resistance within the physics community to discard the cherished Special Relativity (SR) content in GR. You argue that to unify GR with QM; we would need to remove SR from GR and rederive the relativistic equations of motion within the context of curved spacetime. The reluctance to accept the potential solution provided by acoustic metrics is rooted in the emotional attachment to SR-based GR rather than technical or theoretical barriers. You emphasize that, despite a clear path to unification, the physics community would rather wait for an alternative solution that preserves SR-based GR. Although your perspective points to an interesting direction in the quest to unite GR and QM, it also reminds us of the deeply human nature of science. Like all of us, scientists are susceptible to emotional attachments and biases. The willingness to confront these obstacles will ultimately determine whether the physics community will embrace or reject unconventional approaches.

Alessandro Rizzo

I hope we two shall go on learning from one another .

You are a man of reason : One eager for lapping up science [ and sharing it with others ] .........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAAj3l5-_k4

yours :

Reza

Dear Reza Sanaye,

I appreciate your message. Science is best learned through discovery rather than just reading textbooks, so exchanging ideas and having discussions can be a valuable way to learn. It's important to remain curious and open-minded in our pursuit of knowledge. Also, I understand that the name of something is not the same as truly understanding its essence. Yours, Alessandro

Alessandro Rizzo

The last two papers are a partial uniting:

The proofs that 4 constants are changed by relativistic velocities as a PDF file will pop up when the following link is Left clicked:

--------------------------------------------------------------------

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e1ExWG-VyTR8PAPxU5OnfSzd86uj59nh/view?usp=share_link

---------------------------------------------------------------------

A link to prerequisite proofs that all Doppler shifts change time and distance (axial, gravitational and transverse not just the transverse).

--------------------------------------------------------------------

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vGRBH1AgUOCP8_zp7fKxBTMPg-YP_-uh/view?usp=share_link

--------------------------------------------------------------------

A link to: Proof of a version of the Schrodinger equation for relativistic velocities (in the observer's reference frame that equation does not work for particles moving at relativistic velocities. Changing everything (including constants) in that equation to the moving reference frame should give a working equation for that reference frame since the Schrodinger equation works for low or no velocity. But maybe just using the value of Planck's constant for closing velocity may give an equation that works in the observer's frame:

------------------------------------------------------------------

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Uh29Pdva6bfJHwVibDgEK_kMhoZ211uL/view?usp=share_link---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: for light the the Doppler frequency ratio=f'/f=the energy ratio=E'/E and the mas ratio m'/m=Ka Kt= axil shift x transverse shift ratio. BUT FOR A THING WITH A REST MASS =m'/m=E'/D=1/Kt. Which was the reason h was not a constant at relativistic velocities for things with a rest mass.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope you can make use of the above.

Samuel Lewis Reich ([email protected])

Dear Samuel Reich I Apologize for delay in answer, thank you for sharing these papers. I will attempt to break down the main findings, focusing on the impact of relativistic velocities on the gravitational constant, electrostatic constant, Planck's constant, and magnetic permittivity.

Gravitational and Electrostatic Constants: Your work demonstrates that both the gravitational constant (G) and the electrostatic constant vary with the velocity (v) and angle (q) at relativistic velocities. This finding is based on the fact that the Doppler shifts of mass, distance, and time are all affected at such velocities.

Planck's Constant (h): For particles with rest mass, your work shows that Planck's constant is a function of the velocity (v) and angle (q). The Doppler shift of h is given by h'/h = 1/Ka, where Ka is the frequency ratio of the axial Doppler shift. This result is obtained when analyzing the uncertainty principle and De Broglie's equation.

Magnetic Permittivity: Your analysis concludes that magnetic permittivity (u) is not constant and varies with velocity. By examining the Doppler shift of current (i), magnetic moment of a solenoid (md), and force between two solenoids (F), you derived the expression for the observed magnetic permittivity as u'/u = (h/c)/K^2 = (h/c)[1+(v/c)]^2.

Overall, your work suggests that these constants are not fixed but rather vary under relativistic conditions. This observation may have important implications for the development of more accurate equations that describe the behavior of particles and systems at high velocities.

As a next step, I would suggest exploring how these findings impact other areas of physics, such as quantum mechanics or general relativity. Furthermore, it would be interesting to investigate potential experimental tests that could verify these predictions.

You suggest that gravitational, electrostatic, magnetic permittivity constants, and Planck's constant change value at relativistic velocities for particles with rest mass. So to experimentally verify these predictions, we can design experiments that carefully examine the effects of relativistic motion on these constants. Here are a few potential experimental tests I suggest:

1. Gravitational and Electrostatic Constants:

An experiment can be designed to measure the gravitational and electrostatic forces between two charged objects or masses that are moving at relativistic velocities relative to each other. Precise force measurements would be needed to verify if the gravitational and electrostatic constants indeed vary with velocity and angle as suggested by the predictions (1/[1+(v/c) cos q]).

2. Planck's Constant:

The variation of Planck's constant (h) with relativistic velocities can be probed using precision spectroscopy experiments involving high-energy particles with rest mass, such as electrons or protons. By comparing the spectral lines of atomic transitions at rest and at relativistic velocities, it would be possible to detect the predicted change in Planck's constant, if present.

3. Magnetic Permittivity:

To test the predicted variation of magnetic permittivity with relativistic velocities, an experiment could be conducted using two solenoids moving at relativistic speeds with respect to each other. By measuring the force between these solenoids and comparing it to the force measured when they are at rest, the change in magnetic permittivity as a function of velocity could be verified.

4. Time Dilation and Length Contraction:

The experiments suggested above could be complemented by precise measurements of time dilation and length contraction at relativistic velocities, which are key aspects of the theoretical framework proposed. Comparing the observed effects with the predicted values from the papers would provide additional support for the proposed changes in constants.

These experimental tests would require highly controlled experimental conditions and advanced technology, including particle accelerators or high-energy cosmic rays, to achieve the relativistic velocities necessary to observe the predicted effects. Furthermore, the experiments would need to be designed carefully to account for confounding factors and noise that could obscure the predicted changes in the constants. Nevertheless, such experiments, if successfully conducted, could provide crucial insights into the behavior of fundamental constants in relativistic contexts and contribute significantly to our understanding of the laws of physics.

I would like also to offer some additional theoretical suggestions and kindly request your feedback on these ideas.

I would be grateful to hear your thoughts and feedback on these ideas.

Regards

Alessandro

Here's Quantum Gravity Made Simple:

Start with a nominal point-mass. Since classical theory does not allow properties to change abruptly, we have to apply some sort of "smearing" or "blurring" operation.

1. INERTIAL FIELDS:

• Continuum theory requires that the effect of the inertial mass be smeared out into the surrounding region, as a mass-field.
• This inertial field, when we examine its properties, turns out to also be the particle's gravitational field. Nearby particles, when immersed in the field, have an increased inertia and a consequently slower rate of timeflow (gravitational time dilation). The associated inertial gradient steers matter and light towards the region of greatest inertia (gravitation). Continuum theory gives us gravity.
• Geometrical physics then lets us map the modified distances given by round-trip lightspeeds, normalised for locally-constant c, as the classic gravity-well shape.
• Quantum mechanics agrees that we cannot precisely locate mass at a point. The inertia effect must be scattered by the uncertainty principle, and if we look at the statistic probability-field for the object's particles' inertia, it corresponds to the gravitational field, with the shape of spacetime again given by a gravity-well shape (Namsrai). Working backwards, this statistical field, and/or the gravitational field, when quantised, gives QM statistics.

Article Space-time structure near particles and its influence on par...

According to QM's correspondence principle, every physical element present in quantum mechanics should have a corresponding element in classical theory. In this case the statistical blurring of a property's measurable value at a location seems to correspond to the smoothing of values demanded by the law of continuity.

So far, so good. So what happens when the massed particle moves?

2. MOMENTUM FIELDS:

• Similarly, continuum theory requires that the effect of the particle's momentum or momenergy must be smeared out into the surrounding region, as a momentum-field.
• This field, when we examine its properties, turns out to also be the particle's gravitomagnetic field. Nearby particles, when immersed in the field, undergo momentum exchange with it, and are deflected in the same direction that the field-source is moving in. Higher-order effects include rotational gravitomagnetism (essential for the relativity of rotation) and accelerational gravitomagnetism (essential for the relativity of acceleration). These two effects, r-gm and a-gm, can't exist without the underlying velocity effect, v-gm. Continuum theory gives us velocity-dependent gravitomagnetism , and a general theory doesn’t function without it (Carlip).
• Geometrical physics lets us express v-gm as a asymmetrical distortion of the usual gravity-well, with the well's throat tilted to point in the particle's direction of motion, aligning with its worldline.
• Quantum mechanics seems to agree. Namsrai's sketch of the shape of classical spacetime around a moving particle according to QM includes the gravitomagnetic "throat tilt".

At this point both QM and "pure GR" seem to be in agreement.

Now the problems start:

3. INCOMPATIBILITY WITH SR-BASED THEORY

Special relativity does not try to be a theory of gravitation, and therefore (quite understandably) does not try to take into account gravitomagnetic effects. The SR relationships were designed to fit flat spacetime, only work in flat spacetime, and, if assumed to be correct, actually impose flat spacetime.

This makes the SR equation-set and the concept of gravitomagnetism mutually exclusive: if SR is right, then we cannot have gravitomagnetism or GR, and if the general principle is right, we cannot have SR. a general theory of relaitvity cannot be based on the SR equations.

The structure of Einstein's 1916 system, which tries to incorporate both SR and GM is pathological, and self-invalidating. It doesn't work as geometry.

Politically, this is awkward. It means that at least one, and possibly both of Einstein's classical theories are wrong. The convention, post-1959, seems to be that in the standard approach to Einstein's GR, whenever part of GR is about to clash with SR, we suspend the GR argument or principle and give SR priority.

And this is why textbook GR can't be made to work with QM. Textbook GR cannot support full gravitomagnetism without disproving its own SR-based foundation, and disappearing in a puff of smoke. So "standard GR" has to deny the possibility of velocity-dependent GM effects, in order to defend the SR narrative.

To support SR, GR1916 has to break the duality between gravitomagnetic fields under classical and quantum theory (section 2), by refusing to apply the law of continuity to momentum.

Einstein's system violates the law of continuity, and THAT's why it refuses to agree with QM. The problem is not that GR is a classical theory, the problem is that it's an insufficiently thorough classical theory.

Since the last few days series of posts has tooo indirect relation to the thread question, it looks as worthwhile, first of all for new readers, to remind here that the thread question is scientifically answered already in SS posts on pages 2 and 3; so more see the posts and links in the posts.

Cheers

Ignored effects of relativistic velocities on constants and equations with including ones in quantum mechanics and general relativity:

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29067.57127

April 19, 2023 by Samuel Lewis Reich, Tribco Inc., Cleveland, Ohio, USA

A link to prerequisite proofs (for the other two papers) that all Doppler shifts change time

and distance (axial, gravitational and transverse not just the transverse).

--------------------------------------------------------------------

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1agua51JKM3nE7L17tmaWuluPiqQ4Ag55/view?usp=sha

re_link

The proofs that 4 constants are changed by relativistic velocities as a PDF file will pop

up when the following link is Left clicked (this needed for the last paper):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e1ExWG-VyTR8PAPxU5OnfSzd86uj59nh/view?usp=share_link

---------------------------------------------------------------------

A link to: Proof of a version of the Schrodinger equation for relativistic velocities (in the

observer's reference frame that equation does not work for particles moving at

relativistic velocities. Changing everything (including constants) in that equation to the

moving reference frame should give a working equation for that reference frame since

the Schrodinger equation works for low or no velocity. But maybe just using the value of

Planck's constant for closing velocity may give an equation that works in the observer's

frame:

------------------------------------------------------------------

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Uh29Pdva6bfJHwVibDgEK_kMhoZ211uL/view?usp=sha

re_link---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: for light the Doppler frequency ratio=f'/f=the energy ratio=E'/E and the mas ratio

m'/m=Ka Kt= axil shift x transverse shift ratio. BUT FOR A THING WITH A REST MASS

=m'/m=E'/D=1/Kt. Which was the reason h was not a constant at relativistic velocities

for things with a rest mass.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope you can make use of the above.

Samuel Lewis Reich ([email protected])

when we wanna move from QED to QCD , the mathematical complexities [ indeed : lack of necessitated Mathesis structuration ] prevents us from doing that ............. What shall we say about a MUCH MUCH greater leap of going from Gravity as a non-discrete force { be in Newtonian or Einsteinian } to quanta/quantization commonly practiced in QM ?? !!

Reza

New Publication "The superluminous vacuum" why the vacuum appears as nothing:

Article The superluminous vacuum

An intrinsic superluminal property of the vacuum could be the missing key for binding Relativity with Quantum Physics.

That they have brought out relativistic versions of Quantum physics is itself a sign that "representation" has taken the place of "presentation" even at the highest imaginable positions in science......... Alas !!

Proofs that all Doppler shifts change observed time and the impacts follow. That is in consistent with the geometry of General relativity but most of the ideas of special relativity works with that. Consider it an extension of special relativity.

ALL Doppler shifts change observed time and distance. That results in many constants of physics becoming variables at relativistic velocities. That changes the Schrodinger equation. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29067.57127 April 19, 2023 by Samuel Lewis Reich, Tribco Inc., Cleveland, Ohio, USA ------------------------------------------------------------------ A link to prerequisite proofs (for the other two papers) that all Doppler shifts change time and distance (axial, gravitational and transverse not just the transverse). -------------------------------------------------------------------- https://drive.google.com/file/d/1agua51JKM3nE7L17tmaWuluPiqQ4Ag55/view?usp=share_link -------------------------------------------------------------------- The proofs that 4 constants are changed by relativistic velocities as a PDF file will pop up when the following link is Left clicked (this needed for the last paper): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e1ExWG-VyTR8PAPxU5OnfSzd86uj59nh/view?usp=share_link --------------------------------------------------------------------- A link to: Proof of a version of the Schrodinger equation for relativistic velocities (in the observer's reference frame that equation does not work for particles moving at relativistic velocities. Changing everything (including constants) in that equation to the moving reference frame should give a working equation for that reference frame since the Schrodinger equation works for low or no velocity. But maybe just using the value of Planck's constant for the closing velocity may give an equation that works in the observer's frame: ------------------------------------------------------------------ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Uh29Pdva6bfJHwVibDgEK_kMhoZ211uL/view?usp=share_link------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: for light the Doppler frequency ratio=f'/f=the energy ratio=E'/E and the mas ratio m'/m=Ka Kt= axil shift x transverse shift ratio. BUT FOR A THING WITH A REST MASS: m'/m=E'/D=1/Kt. Which was the reason h was not a constant at relativistic velocities for things with a rest mass. -------------------------------------------------------------------- I hope you can make use of the above and thank you for your time. Samuel Lewis Reich ([email protected])

Einstein once said this

'I like to believe that the Moon is there also when I am not looking at it.'

This is why General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics cannot be unified for now (using Quantum Mechanics the Moon could not be there).

Quantum mechanics apply locally when the size of the objects are < 10^(-10) m. General Relativity apply at the size of the Universe.

The phenomenology of Einsteinian relativity is totally differing from that of Quantum Mechanic

The phenomenology of Einsteinian relativity is even fully different from that of , say ,Mach relativity ,,,,,,,,

I am already do it:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343721864_A_Scientific_Approach_in_Combining_General_Relativity_and_Quantum_Mechanics_in_One_Theory

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335933492_New_Concept_of_Physics_Energy_Behaviour_and_Its_Application_in_Cosmology_to_Define_Gravity_Value_from_Einstein's_Relativity?_sg%5B0%5D=I0MSge1KqdOztVb21UQdamGHhN0yON1e7fc1S8X1Yl4hXzN5ETkLWj5SmQL7GpTbWI9rVtvFfYVcvsrZ7IJHEjWF25ktfY9QlVub-8Zo.3h3hbeKONnr7GYu8hQIkUqTlv9poApB2E9bw952oBUtBWeI9wbxvTTZdgzA9QYj0Z9M64ltbBzcYZ8lXMDxOxA

A link to proof that many of the constants of equations of quantum mechanics become variables at relativistic velocities. The correction will bring them closer to the results of special relativity.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1u0EgrZc-_8PjkbwNrz1etB8_qU2bbx-J/view?usp=drive_link

A link to proofs that constants applied to particles with rest mass are variable at relativistic velocities:---------------------------------------

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1u0EgrZc-_8PjkbwNrz1etB8_qU2bbx-J/view?usp=drive_link----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hence the present equations of quantum mechanics will fail at high relativistic velocities.

Thank you for your time. Samuel Lewis Reich ([email protected])

I can say that a simple question can prove that the idea that the time of relativity can change is wrong. In 1971, two scientists flew with four cesium clocks, and the eastward clock flew slower than on the ground, and the westward clock flew faster than on the ground. But how did these two scientists know that the atomic clocks on planes were slower or fast than those on the ground? The plane needs to be parked on the ground, and then the two scientists can compare the atomic clocks on the plane to the upper atomic clocks on the ground to know the result.But is the atomic clock removed from the plane still in motion?not have! So, why is the reading different from the atomic clock reading on the ground? Aren't these atomic clocks in the same place? Why is the time so different? This is easy to deny the theory of relativity.

I think the reason is that they have different views of time and space. In my opinion, time invariance and space invariance are physical axioms, and relativity violates this axiom, making it incompatible with quantum mechanics and Newtonian mechanics.The view of time and space is the foundation of physics, the most basic things, if two physical theories have different views of space and time, then they are certainly incompatible, no matter how hard we try, they can not be unified.

The source of relativity was Einstein's desire to solve the various reference frame paradoxes of electromagnetism, which he solved with the "reference frame transformation". But because he changed the physical axioms that "time cannot change, and space cannot change," I don't agree with him, because it is incompatible with Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics, so I changed my mind. I add the medPreprint Qualitative Description on Characteristics of Gravitational Field

The link below is to a proof that all Doppler shifts (axial, transverse and gravitational) change observed time with only the assumptions in Fourier series. Axial and gravitational Doppler shifts have the angle between the observior's velocity and the force wave' s velocity as a independent varible. That angle must be added to the space-time model in General Relativity. The Link:--------------------------------------------------------------------

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YELF87KbyFz8sTbAh_b7-qd4Eaq2RfuP/view?usp=drive_link----------------------------------------------------------------

If you liked the proof a link to other impacts of the above proof including the affects the axial shift on constants; including the ones in quantum mechanical equations:--------------------------------------------------------------------

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jR23mwgUEMqFNNVuWhzy2Zei9ZPnecK5/view?usp=drive_link-----------------------------------------------------------

The two are still works in progess.

Thank you for your time.

Samuel Lewis Reich ([email protected])

A link to a proof h vries with relativistic velocities which makes the equations of quantum mechanics inconsistant with relativity.---------------------------https://drive.google.com/file/d/1u0YHI7GnsbbvmDziIi3pwDPzcQaDlbcQ/view?usp=sharing

Planck constant h - nor any other quantum constant of nature for that matter - does change even a bit underwhatever logical assumption of any model including relativity.

That is why relativity is incompatible to QM!

But it’s not QM at fault here, but the variable time approach of relativity. Time is qusntized in exactly 1/6961 iSpaceSecond in iSpace-IQ unit system as shown by iSpsce theory, able to derive most but all constants of nature from first principles by simple first order multiplicstion of do called „changed distance definition“ based integer geometry.

Here is the simple mathematical truth, unable to be discussed away from entropy point of view - minimal input to give maximal results - in other words Occams razor does win again:

Preprint iSpace - Quantization of Time in iSpace-IQ Unit-System by 1/...

Take the time of about 1h to follow the crisp clear exact Mathematica based equations step by step line by line with no previous knowledge assumed on iSpace theory (or anything else for that matter, but it is helpful if one understands simple multiplication).

Note the file in my post above was changed to https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xkCm84ucV6l0E4putJZ8S-uFbnrxpoS8/view?usp=drive_link

to correct an error.