Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Evan
Papageno, I disagree. Starting in 1935 with the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paper he began directly attacking the presumptions of QM and continued to try to prove that QM theory was "incomplete".
|
Based on Gibbs' paradox, we can say that classical mechanics is not consistent.
Does it mean that we have to abandon it?
Or maybe, we understand better its limitations?
The
EPR paradox proved that these three assumptions are incompatible:
1) concept of "realism";
2) concept of "locality";
3) completeness of QM.
Einstein decided that the third one is wrong.
Today, physicists are more in doubt of the second.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Evan
He did not propose any better theory nor did he seem to be working on such. He was obsessed with certain aspects of QM that he simply didn't believe.
|
He was working on a "Unified Field Theory", which was supposed to merge QM and GR, without the "quantum probabilities" he did not like.
Other physicists have been working on "hidden variables", but it did not work out.