ARCUS:  The World Formula and its Solutions

Consequently constructed using the results of Albert Einstein and Max Planck leading to the Unified Field Theory

The Preaching
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 earned.

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 understanding.

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 mash.

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 interpreted confusedly.

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.

· All rights reserved: Arcus (Heinz-Joachim Ackermann, since1998) ·