- #1

- 7

- 0

From General Relativity Einstein tried, in vain, to come up with a theory that unified everything. Why are we looking at all this from the top down? (I admit I am not a physicist and need a calculator to figure out the right tip at a restaurant so my terms my not be spot on.) Why not start from nuetrons, protons and quarks instead of Spacetime, light and what have you?

It seems that Einstein and everyone else have been tying to explain quantum mechanics, and such, the wrong way around. Shouldn't the starting place be quantum mechanics and then to Special and General Relativity? Trying to figure Special and General Relativity without knowing all the underlying physics is like trying to figure how a computer works using only the keyboard as the point of reference. for the past 50 or 60 years the quantum mechanic theories are "Spaghetti Theory." They get all messed up unless you allow for 5 strings not 1 or if you have a constant this or constant that. The physics of Quantum Mechanics is still "By Chance." Things do not always work the same way in QM.

Maybe David Hume was right. Back in the 1600s, Hume postulated that everything that happens is by chance. Gravity was chance, the sun rising was chance.... The odds of the Gravity acting differently one minute and different the next where a Gazzlion to 1 yet it was just chance. I think quantum mechanics has proved him right so far. Unless, is it possible to work quantum mechanics, and it's underlying physics, before the theory of General Relativity

Thanks