why did Einstein deny that theoretical physics could not be bound by a simple 3 dimensional atomic model?
26943
It appears that the question period has expired.  If you have received an answer that meets your needs, please choose one of those as a 'best answer.'  If you haven't received a good answer for your question, you may want to consider the following,\n\n1) Re-post your question.  Newer questions get more activity on Yahoo! Answers than old ones.\n2) If you do re-post your question, consider why it wasn't answered the first time.  Could it be more specific?  Could it be worded better? Were there grammatical or spelling errors? Was it in the best category?\n\nIf it doesn't seem likely that re-posting your question will help you, then here's a listing of my favorite 'answer sites'.  Maybe one of them will help you.\n\nAnswers.com http://www.answers.com/\nBartleby http://www.bartleby.com/\nYahoo Reference http://education.yahoo.com/reference/\nHowStuffWorks http://www.howstuffworks.com/\nWikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page\n\nSince I really haven't answered your question, it is not necessary to give me any points.  Regards.
287390
Einstein was a genius, no doubt, but he was wrong on a lot of counts-even in physics.  He denied the possibility of quantum physics to his dying day, and yet quantum physics is the basis of more discoveries than relativity.  There are a number of examples of brilliant men and women, Nobel laureates, who were absolutely wrong in many things.  No human is infallable.
836620
Quantum mechanics is often referred to as the non-relativistic theory. Where as Einstein's relativity theories were smooth continuums, quantum theory is based on quanta - specific quantities of energy that cannot exist in a smaller amount. At first, Einstein, in an effort to sort out both the wave and particle characteristics of light was a major contributor to the theory. When Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principal was later introduced to try and explain the seemingly random characteristics of sub-atomic particles, Einstein became a major opponent. There just was no wiggle room in Einstein's theories or thought process for randomness. The theories are somewhat contradictory in many points - my nickel's on Einstein, whose equations have been verified many, many times in actual laboratory experiments and scientific observations. Quantum mechanics, none the less, explain the seemingly arbitrary particle emissions and other sub-atomic phenomenon and have garnered a pretty steady following among today's theoretical physicists.\nPerhaps the two theories may be united some day in an all in one theory that unites all of the forces.
592242
Most don't have the ability or the experience yet to think in three dimensions.\n\nAlso, if they're not strong on being able to draw Lewis structures and determine positions of lone pair electrons, they'll never get the geometry right.
1060678
Imagine a situation where you would come back to your starting place no matter which direction you go as long as you kept going far enough. This is true, for example, on the surface of a sphere. But it turns out that there are analogs of this for going any direction in three dimensions. In this case, the universe would be finite (like the surface of a sphere), but would have no boundary (again like the surface itself). This is actually a simplified version of the models used by physicists for describing a finite universe. In reality, the evidence suggests that the universe is infinite.
591827
If you want to neglect time and space, that's your viewpoint.\n\nAll of quantum theory which gave rise to such views in the general public deals with maths which require a level of geometry which cannot be imagined. All the fancy stuff are suppositions necessary to keep it simple.
545067
"Time" is not a dimension in the same sense that x,y,z,a,b,c, ..etc are spatial dimensions.\n\nThough the human mind is cabable of imagining muti-dimensional space, and can create clever matematical concepts supporting the idea, there is not one whit of physical evidence to support it.  And there is ample evidence to refute it.  \n\nTake gravity, for example.  Measurments show that gravity decreases as the inverse square of the distance from the source, exactly as it should in three-dimensional space.  If there were more than three spatial dimensions, that wouldn't be the case.  So if you want to postulate there are more than three dimensions, you've got to explain why gravity ignores them!\n\nAlso, take ElectroMagnetic Radiation (EMR), which also behaves the same way - i.e. it decreases as the inverse square of the distance from the source, just as it should in three dimensional space.  So if you postulate more than three dimensions, you've got to explain why EMR doesn't know about it!\n\nAs to string theory, scientists proposing it can't agree whether it requires twenty-six dimensions in order for the math to come out right, or "just" ten!  And they all admit there's no known way to prove or disprove the theory itself. That's makes the theory pretty weak. In fact, it makes it almost science fiction! Great mind exercise, but no eidence of reality!\n\nEinstein's theories provide predictions that can be proved or disproved. That's one reason they are so powerful.\n\nSo the jury's still out on multi-dimensional space - and pobably will be for some time to come.\n\nBut it's fun to speculate!  Just don't bet your food money on it!
1726
space might have more than three dimensions; we don't know.  edwin abbott wrote a very famous book called "flatland" about people who were confined to life in a two-dimemsional world, and what it was like to live there.  it was part geometry, part philosophy about the nature of the universe, and part statement about the social behavior of humans.  it's excellent and you can read the whole thing online at the link below.
1160647
Neither,\n\nTheory is never proof so that's not it. Gravity is a weak force. M is an explanation why it is weak. Multidimensional theory is not about gravity, it's just part of it.\n\nEinstein tried to unify the fields, he failed. Many new theories came and went.... I'm not sure we 'got it' now. It is still a very unstable work in progress.
244070
Scientist have two theories one is that universe does not have a center point and therefore it cannot have a ending or edge. the other theory is that since the universe is so vast that pin pointing the "edge" of the universe can be harder than it looks.
1058278
A Grand Unified Theory of Everything cannot be explained in such fashion. I would recommend reading "Hyperspace" by Michio Kaku.
272958
There is a continuum between quantum laws and classical physics, they just haven't discovered a unified theory that expresses this continuum mathematically. Quantum laws govern all particles, and since matter is comprised of particles - naturally quantum mechanics supports material reality.\n\nuh... to "goring" - quantum mechanics does not posit that light has no mass.\n\nEinstein did not challenge all particle theory - when he said "god does not play dice with the universe" he was challenging Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and quantum laws based on probability, which were subsequently validated in double-slit light experiments. So Einstein was wrong. He considered it his greatest failing as a scientist not to unify relativity with quantum laws in his lifetime.
615732
He was never able to write it. He was in the middle of trying to create one theory for electromagnatism and his own theory of relativity when he died. It is yet to be done to create such a theory, although the string theory could possibly be it.
1022238
That's an old fundamental problem.  Mathematicians and physicists tend to disbelieve their own observations and replace their experience with empirical results and tautological proofs.
425786
Third dimensional particles (this includes light and electronic data streams) must move through Time (4th Dimension) in a single straight line.  Though you may make them go any direction at any speed within the three dimensions of our reality, time is constant.  The only way to move something in a different direction along Time you would have to get these particles into that dimension and move them along a 5th.\nSo it's just not possible at our current understanding of physics
697707
Quantum mechanics is fascinating, as Einstein's famous quote that "God does not play dice with the universe" is turned on its head.  The random nature associated with the inner workings of atoms and quarks is astonishing when one considers that despite all of the unpredictability of subatomic activity, things in the macroscopic world follow predictable patterns that seem to defy common sense.
928403
You must be one of those people who only believe in things they can tactilely handle.  The world of incredibly small objects will be a philosophical challenge, but I'm sure you're up to it.   \n\nFirst, let me give you the short and easy answer:  \n\nThe entire universe runs on a few very simple mathematical equations.  The solution of these equations is extremely difficult, but they perfectly predict and describe physical reality (when solved perfectly), so we're pretty happy with them.  \n\nMathematically speaking, orbitals and electrons exist, and because they exist and have certain properties, they must obey certain rules.  One of those rules is that only two electrons can ever fit into the same orbital, and they have to have opposite spin.  Any random orbital may have zero, one or two electrons but no more because if you tried to shove a third (or more) electron into an orbital, the orbital would vanish.  Think of it this way... its the only way that the elctrons can forever coexist without ever crashing into each other or falling apart in a chaotic state, because electrons (by Coulomb's law) HATE each other and strive to maintain maximum distance from one another while all trying to get close to the positively charged nucleus, which they LOVE.\n\nNow for the long answer:\n\nBefore you can accept that two electrons go into an orbital, you need to be able to accept that electrons exist.  JJ Thompson is credited with discovery (though not postulation of) the electron in his famous cathode ray experiments.  Electrons are evidenced regularly on a macroscopic scale through the use of electricity (the name is not coincidental!) and in such interesting objects as scanning tunneling microscopes and electron microscopes.  Robert Miliikan managed in 1901 to measure the charge on the electron in his oil-drop experiments.\n\nAn important piece of information came through Ernest Rutherford's (and his students Hans Geiger and Ernest Marsden) experiments on gold foil wherein they demonstrated that the mass of an atom resided in a small region of space in its center, which had a positive charge.  Later, Niels Bohr proposed that electrons reside in orbits around the nucleus, which would contain the protons and neutrons (both already demonstrated to exist independently).  The usefulness of Bohr's model was widely realized because it could predict experimentally observed phenomena, such as why atomic emission spectra have discrete lines while blackbody radiators give broad spectra.  \n\nA key moment in Bohr's theory was the existence of discrete energy states (that is, well-separated) that electrons could exist in.  The electrons could change energy levels, but could not occupy any energy states between those energy levels. The idea was hardly unique to Borh, having originated with Max Planck and Albert Einstein in reference to photons; yet its application to the atom was Bohr's own contribution.\n\nThis theory was pretty good, but it was a little rough.  Many very good physicists decided to work on the combination, including Paul Dirac and Erwin Schrödinger.  The final equation describing the behavior of quantum systems (and in particular atomic structure and the resultant properties) is known as the Schrödinger equation.  Solution of the Schrödinger equation provides perfect agreement with experiment (i.e. Balmer series of hydrogen) where the solution is exactly possible, and within experimental error where it is not. The Schrödinger equation is a simple, elegant, yet frighteningly hard mathematical equation relating the energy of a system to its wavefunction descriptor (remember, Einstein already showed wave-particle duality):\n<Ψ | H | Ψ > = E\n\nMax Born showed that if you multiply the wavefunction ( Ψ) from the Schrödinger equation by itself (i.e. Ψ*Ψ ) you will get a shape that corresponds to the region of space in which electrons that can exist in that level of energy (wavefunction) mo