Einstein is a man of imagination. He always wants to imagine the universe as he thinks. His universe is completely different and he was not able to accept other's ideas which will not coincide his own. I would like to discuss more about Einstein's thoughts without using mathematics. I have a doubt with the concept of general theory of Relativity. How time can change with 3 dimensions. The classical example(rubber sheet)is insufficient to know the change of time with 3 dimensions.
As Einstein gave the example of a thin rubber sheet with a massive ball that curves the path of the other less massive balls in order to explain gravity. But how is this possible that the "thin rubber sheet" behaves like space, which virtually means nothingness, a complete vacuum, having no matter, volume or mass.
How is this possible that a star, say, Sun put any of its weight on the space for gravity?
Einstein also proposed the bending of light due to gravity, but how does the light reach a massive star which has its own source of illumination, and light from the other neighboring stars is many light years away?
Why was the idea that 'gravitational forces act through electromagnetic waves' discarded? Does it not explain all the phenomena we observe? And it very beautifully explains the weakening of this force with distance. If one thinks about it, this can also explain the bending of light when it approaches some mass.
Finally, it becomes similar to the 'ether' controversy and 'how light travels in vacuum' battle again. Is the existence of gravitons proved beyond doubt? What about photons? Is their existence proved? Is it not likely that photons and gravitons are very similar (I believe it to even more likely that none of them exist)? How can there be mass less particles - I should think the most fundamental property of a particle is that it has mass.
Also, is the wave-particle duality not a farce just to cover our ignorance? What are the experiments which suggest that photons exist (viz. the particle theory of light)? - Other than the photoelectric effect?
Quantum physics may give accurate predictions, but what pricks is this - is it predicting less than what we can actually know, hiding behind the uncertainty principle?
If a theory does not predict exact values, but only probabilities for individual behavior, then it would be correct most of the times. For example, if I have to guess a number randomly picked between 1 and 100 and there are 2 options:
1) I have to pick a single number as my guess (say 33)
2) I have to pick a range (say, it lies between 30 to 40)
You would expect the 2nd option to be correct more often than the this is exactly what quantum mechanics does and the argument is somewhat similar to saying that you can only predict the range (uncertainty principle). I am inclined to agree with Einstein here - 'God does not play dice'.
Quantum mechanics would give accurate results not because it is a great theory, but because it gives itself room for error in the form of the uncertainty principle. It does predict group behavior accurately, but I would still call it an incomplete theory..
Gravity has gravities same charge between + and + or - and -
not different charge.
You know F= G [M1 M2 / R^2]
M1 and M2 same charge but different mass
But coulomb force: attractive different charge repulsive same charge
F=k[q1 q2 / r^2]
Like it on Facebook, +1 on Google, Tweet it or share this article on other bookmarking websites.