From Focus list of the top 50 of the researchers of the century passing now
(Focus, No. 52, December 27th, 1999, Page 103 - 108)
The places one for Einstein (1879-1955), relativity theory and light quantum
theory, and two for Max Planck (1858-1947), originator of quantum mechanics, are
I refer to these two heads in my work to the unification of the two theories.
4. Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976) was the second physicist who took the
quantum physics to the logging-path. The equation to the uncertainty relations
was correct, however, but its interpretations and model imaginations were not
correct. No plausible explanation has been found for the uncertainty relations
to this day. Why well?
Unfortunately, the first physicist Victor de Broglie (1892-1987) was
forgotten who started the greatest mistake in the history of quantum physics
before Heisenberg. De Broglie apparently didn't know the theories of Einstein
yet. Therefore to this day one cannot unit Einstein's theory with quantum
physics. In the meantime the models have such a divergent state that simple
measures are no longer possible to unify these theories to one. The quantum
theory develops models full of irrealism and full of distortions because they
can be no longer clear because of the faults of de Broglie and of Heisenberg.
Here the list of development line of the quantum mechanics to the problem
zone is following. The physicists are in this, which have always more
differed from the clear reality with the Heisenberg model without being guilty.
The mathematics is always correct! It also had been correct anyway when there
still was the Ptolemaic conception of the world. At that time the sun was
turning around the earth in accordance with the exact mathematical models (Remark:
The church had supported this model philosophically and with their power.
However, it wasn't the model of the church but the model of the mathematicians.
There wasn't any actual reason to doubt about this - even like today there's no
reason to doubt about brilliant mathematics of the quantum theorists). One
just builds equations as long as they are describing the models. One of the
languages of mankind are mathematics, and also it is the music. One can describe
everything with that, also illusions.
12. Erwin Schrödinger (1887-1961) built up his orbital model on Heisenberg's
and de Broglie's ideas. The mathematical results were correct in limits. The
models are wrongly and therefore they are comprehensible for the human
19. Edwin P. HUBBLE has moved the whole world to the head by the fact that
his conclusion from the red shift of the galaxy spectrum led to the opinion:
Galaxies would export a general escape movement. This isn't correct since the
red shift has a cosmogonical cause. The light goes along in the oscillating
universe from the center of high matter density in the same sequence of
operations while the density of the matter decreases continuously. After the
general relativity theory the world-radius increases here, and with it density
decreases and in this time-period the red-shift of photons is formed. For this
process galaxies don't need to escape. Where do they come from then, if they
don't escape? I have explained this. Here isn't a further space for this to type
my book in, once again.
28. Paul A. M. Dirac (1902-1984) gave a wrong idea of the vacuum of the
particles because of Heisenberg's dual model of particle and waves. The
calculation methods are correct. However, they don't calculate the particles but
the wave quanta and at this mix particle properties with wave properties to a
37. Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988) described the interactions of quanta.
Because of the opinion of dual nature of waves and particles the results are
39. Murray Gell-Mann (1929) searches at the interactions of the wave quanta,
however, but one says particles to this. The quarks of his hypotheses in this
respect cannot be the real subparticles of the known particles. Rather they are
only interaction quanta of the waves which are replaced between subparticle
types. If there are three quarks for example in the baryons, then these aren't
the constituents (for such a sheet-wording Heisenberg is responsible), but they
are the interaction types. One can infer from this that in a baryon there are
three kinds of particles, which are coming out strongly from the formation of
all the subparticles, that they do not interact. One doesn't know their number,
only their type. Who only knows a type of particles cannot claim that at the
highest energy the big bang came out from wave quanta foam. Where does someone
want to know where this kind of particles has to be found, if he only
investigates interactions of wave momenta?
45. Stephen Hawking (1942) built his theories of vaporizing and later
exploding black holes as well as about "quantum foam" at the
"beginning" of the universe just on dual nature of waves and
particles, this way he moved wave quanta in the foreground and he did it without
knowledge about the real particles. So he came to wrong conclusions.
New experiments of CERN aren't interpreted correctly, too. Lead atoms
collided at extremely high energies which should be near to the hypothetical big
bang. There gluons and quarks should be free. My theory denies this
interpretation. In this one coherences are explained differently, because
particles (corpuscles) and waves (their quanta) aren't one thing.