Dear Sir,
We do not understand why scientists should use terms that are unscientific. Something weird means it is strange, odd, unusual, uncanny, eerie, creepy, bizarre, etc. It implies that the theory is unclear. Then how can it be called great? Is it not a contradiction? Is it not superstition? And when such statements are followed by comic/fantasy characters and their achievements, does it not denigrate science to fiction level?
There are a large number of different approaches or formulations to the foundations of Quantum Mechanics. There is the Heisenberg's Matrix Formulation, Schrödinger's Wave-function Formulation, Feynman's Path Integral Formulation, Second Quantization Formulation, Wigner's Phase Space Formulation, Density Matrix Formulation, Schwinger's Variational Formulation, de Broglie-Bohm's Pilot Wave Formulation, Hamilton-Jacobi Formulation etc. There are several Quantum Mechanical pictures based on placement of time-dependence. There is the Schrödinger Picture: time-dependent Wave-functions, the Heisenberg Picture: time-dependent operators and the Interaction Picture: time-dependence split. The different approaches are in fact, modifications of the theory. Each one introduces some prominent new theoretical aspect with new equations, which needs to be interpreted or explained. Thus, there are many different interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, which are very difficult to characterize. Prominent among them are; the Realistic Interpretation: wave-function describes reality, the Positivistic Interpretation: wave-function contains only the information about reality, the famous Copenhagen Interpretation: which is the orthodox Interpretation. Then there is Bohm's Causal Interpretation, Everett's Many World's Interpretation, Mermin's Ithaca Interpretation, Brukner-Zeilinger interpretation, etc. With so many contradictory views, quantum physics is not a coherent theory, but is truly weird.
String theory, which was developed with a view to harmonize General Relativity with Quantum theory, is said to be a high order theory where other models, such as supergravity and quantum gravity appear as approximations. Unlike super-gravity, string theory is said to be a consistent and well-defined theory of quantum gravity, and therefore calculating the value of the cosmological constant from it should, at least in principle, be possible. On the other hand, the number of vacuum states associated with it seems to be quite large, and none of these features three large spatial dimensions, broken super-symmetry, and a small cosmological constant. The features of string theory which are at least potentially testable - such as the existence of super-symmetry and cosmic strings - are not specific to string theory. In addition, the features that are specific to string theory - the existence of strings - either do not lead to precise predictions or lead to predictions that are impossible to test with current levels of technology.
There are many unexplained questions relating to the strings. For example, given the measurement problem of quantum mechanics, what happens when a string is measured? Does the uncertainty principle apply to the whole string? Or does it apply only to some section of the string being measured? Does string theory modify the uncertainty principle? If we measure its position, do we get only the average position of the string? If the position of a string is measured with arbitrarily high accuracy, what happens to the momentum of the string? Does the momentum become undefined as opposed to simply unknown? What about the location of an end-point? If the measurement returns an end-point, then which end-point? Does the measurement return the position of some point along the string? (The string is said to be a Two dimensional object extended in space. Hence its position cannot be described by a finite set of numbers and thus, cannot be described by a finite set of measurements.) How do the Bell's inequalities apply to string theory? We must get answers to these questions first before we probe more and spend (waste!) more money in such research. These questions should not be put under the carpet as inconvenient or on the ground that some day we will find the answers. That someday has been a very long period indeed!
Then how can it be a great theory? Is it so described to suppress the inferiority complex that has arisen because of lack of real progress? The technologists are doing an excellent job, but the theoretical scientists, who should be leading them, have taken to the back benches! They can only 'imagine' as a possibility - not envision a quantum theory - without weirdness.
EPR is fiction, as the entanglement does not extend infinitely or "over distances that light can not even reach", but is over after a limited distance. Wave being continuous and ever moving and particle being discrete and stationary (when a particle moves, unlike waves, its mass moves in space), they cannot be the same. In our essay, we have explained it.
The concept of length contraction suggested by Einstein in his SR paper is wrong. Two possibilities suggested by Einstein were either to move with the rod and measure its length or take a photograph of the two ends of the moving rod and measure the length in the scale at rest frame. However, the second method, advocated by Einstein, is faulty because if the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be perceptible according to his formula. If the length of the rod is big or velocity is comparable to that of light, then light from different points of the rod will take different times to reach the recording device and the picture we get will be distorted due to different Doppler shift. As a result, gamma is wrong. Hence SR is wrong. The inertial mass increase is wrong.
Similarly, we have proved that the definition of simultaneity by Einstein in his SR paper violates the principle of relativity as his clock at A is a privileged frame of reference, with which, he synchronizes the clocks at B and C. We have also shown that the equivalence principle is a wrong description of facts, as it leads to the Russell's paradox in set theory.
God is not Devil, who plays dirty tricks. Don't blame God for your lack of understanding.
Those who criticize God often worship Devil. So no wonder, after discussing their ideas at length, you have landed up with a toy model.
Regards,
basudeba
