On 12.11.2023 12:59, ROGER ANDERTON wrote:
>>I think there are aspects of QM that are rather well established,
but much less so with SR.
It seems to me that Quantum Physics is open to many different
interpretations and really isn't dogmatic about which is true.<<
QM I (SChrödigner) is entirely based on a flawed physical assumption -
charge cloud - what physically is impossible.
QM/QED today is based on Hamiltonian density, that also totally fails if
you mix mass and wave solutions.
QM/QED is an engineering method with low 3-4 digits precision. QM orbits
rarely match the measured ones.
Like Quantum physics - SR is open to different interpretations, but
unlike Quantum physics rarely admits to the different interpretations.
SR needs a base system at rest or large differences in speed to suppress
systematic errors. See also::
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment. It's
all about understanding what/how you do measure!
Acceleration can make you younger or older both is possible!
For instance -- Lorentz transformations can be interpreted the
Einsteinian or Lorentzian way.
--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis
+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06
