<quoted text>Quantum physics.
The laws of the atom are different from what Einstein predicts, UA astronomer Don McCarthy said. Einstein’s theory does well in explaining the universe as a whole, but it doesn’t do well at the smallest scale of an atom
Here's the problem: our understanding of the universe is based on two separate theories. One is Einstein's general theory of relativity—that's a way of understanding the biggest things in the universe, things like stars and galaxies. But the littlest things in the universe, atoms and subatomic particles, play by an entirely different set of rules called, "quantum Mechanics"
Take the beginning of the universe, the "big bang." At that instant a tiny nugget erupted violently. Over the next 14 billion years the universe expanded and cooled into the stars, galaxies and planets we see today. But if we run the cosmic film in reverse, everything that's now rushing apart comes back together, so the universe gets smaller, hotter and denser as we head back to the beginning of time.
As we reach the big bang, when the universe was both enormously heavy and incredibly tiny, our projector jams. Our two laws of physics, when combined, break down.
S. JAMES GATES, JR.: The laws of nature are supposed to apply everywhere. So if Einstein's laws are supposed to apply everywhere, and the laws of quantum mechanics are supposed to apply everywhere, well you can't have two separate every where's.
In the years since, physics split into two separate camps: one that uses general relativity to study big and heavy objects, things like stars, galaxies and the universe as a whole...
..and another that uses quantum mechanics to study the tiniest of objects, like atoms and particles. This has been kind of like having two families that just cannot get along and never talk to each other...
There just seemed to be no way to combine quantum mechanics...
...and general relativity in a single theory that could describe the universe on all scales.
"Einstein’s theory says that when energy increases, so does mass, leading to the equation E=mc^2. But depending on whether the atom is in flat or curved space, its mass might be different, and the equation might not hold up."
Classical mechanics is unable to explain phenomena like superfluidity, superconductivity, ferromagnetism, Bose-Einstein condensation etc. Similarly quantum mechanics is incompatible with general relativity.Other problem areas of this theory are some Interpretation ambiguities of mathematical structure .These are role of measurement, determinism vs probabilty, transition from microscopic quantum mechanical to macroscopic quantum behaviour (Schrodinger’¨ s cat,“dead and alive”), Entanglement and hidden-variable, Bohr’s (& Born’s) Copenhagen Interpretation vs.“many-worlds-theory. all these has been explained in this note.
Prof. Vladan Vuletic,8.04 Quantum Physics I, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: MIT OpenCourseWare), http://ocw.mit.edu
(Accessed Sept 16th,2011). License: Creative Commons BY-NC-SA: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms/#cc
String Theory Now on Life Support
Posted by Tom Hartsfield at Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:06:32
There are plenty of reasons not to like string theory. Philosophical and logical arguments against the theory have long been apparent. Strong scientific evidence is increasingly joining them. The discovery of the Higgs boson exactly where the Standard Model says it should be last summer at the LHC was a first blow. Now, more evidence is coming in.
This week, LHCb (LHC-B), one of the many huge experiments along the LHC ring, reported a major result. The result itself is very technical, but its implications are general: big trouble for physics theories that involve supersymmetry (SUSY), string theory and many similar theories included. If SUSY is discarded, string theory goes right out with it.