EINSTEIN’S ERROR: The Multiverse

In 1905, his so-called Wonder Year, Albert Einstein presented a theory of the photoelectric effect. The new idea came in just two lines. However I boldly claim that Einstein’s theory of the photoelectric effect, although crucially correct, was also crucially wrong.

I claim that Einstein talked too much. His intuition was not careful enough, and too tied up with old fashion particles. Quantum Mechanics, one of the inventors Einstein was, questioned the very nature of elementary particles. Einstein imposed, at the outset, a solution, which, I claim, was erroneous.

What Einstein ought to have said is that electromagnetic energy was absorbed in packets of energy hf (h was Planck’s Constant, f the frequency of the light). That explained immediately the photoelectric effect. It was just enough to explain the photoelectric effect.

My Intuition Is More Informed Than Yours

My Intuition Is More Informed Than Yours



An electron receiving energy from light, receives a packet hf. If f is too small, the electron cannot be emitted: the electron needed some energy, say A, to escape the material. One needs hf > A.

Nor can an electron just pile up energy from light until the stored energy exceeded A. Why? Because energy is RECEIVED in such packets, and only these packets. It was hf, or nothing.

That explanation of the photoelectric effect was both necessary and SUFFICIENT. Such an explanation is exactly the symmetric statement of the one made by Planck in 1900.

(Planck did much more than that, he had to invent his constant, and it is astounding that he did not explain the photoelectric effect, as he had done 99% of the work).

Should Einstein have said what I said, he would have explained the photoelectric effect, instead of putting all of physics on an erroneous path.



However, Einstein instead said something prophetic he had no reason to proffer.

Here is Einstein statement from 1905, translated from German:

“Energy, during the propagation of a ray of light, is not continuously distributed over steadily increasing spaces, but it consists of a finite number of energy quanta LOCALIZED AT POINTS IN SPACE, MOVING WITHOUT DIVIDING and capable of being absorbed or generated only as entities.”

[I emphasized what I view as the grievously erroneous part.]

With Planck’s E = hf, this is what gave Einstein the Nobel Prize in 1921. So not only Einstein got it wrong, but so did the Nobel committee.

(Planck objected strenuously, because he never meant for the Electro-Magnetic field to be quantized outside the blackbody cavity. I agree about quantization upon reception, as that explanation works. My objection is that Einstein had no proof of what he advanced about LOCALIZATION.)

Einstein claimed that light is made of “quanta localized at points in space, moving without dividing”. Thus, Einstein invented elementary particles. Einstein had no reason for of this fabrication, whatsoever, and did not need it, as I said.



Fast forward thirty years. By then, thanks to the likes of Dirac (inventor of Quantum Electro Dynamics, who stumbled on Cartan’s Spinor Space and Antimatter) and Von Neumann (Functional Analysis maven), etc. the Quantum formalism had been sculpted like Mount Rushmore in the mountains of natural philosophy.

The formalism consisted in claiming that the elementary particles invented by Albert were vectors in a (Hilbert) space whose basis was made of the possible results of the experiment E.

The mathematics worked well.

However, IF Einstein’s initial invention was false, so was the picture of reality it conveyed.

And indeed, as we saw, Einstein had no reason to claim what he did: he violated Newton’s “Hypotheses Non Fingo” (“I do not FABRICATE hypotheses”… my translation).

Isaac Newton: …”I do not fabricate hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction.”



Galileo, to expose his ideas more pedagogically, set-up a trialogue, between “Simplicius” and two others (one being Galileo himself).

I pursue my exposition of what those who believe in the Multiverse cannot dare to articulate, as it would expose their utter confusion, and more:

Simplicius: So you say that Einstein fabricated localized Quanta, out of his fertile imagination, and that axiom wrecked all of physics?

Patrice Ayme: Exactly. I would prefer to call it not fertile, but obsolete, imagination. After Einstein had fabricated his seemingly innocuous hypothesis, the localized elementary particle, the next step was to identify it with the wave function.

Simplicius: Do you not insist that the world is mostly made of Quantum Waves?

PA: Yes but “Wave Functions” are just fist order approximations of “Quantum Waves”. “Wave Functions” cannot be real, they are mathematical artefacts.

Simplicius: How come?

PA: Wave functions are made of end states, the so-called eigenvectors, the end products of experiments. That makes wave functions intrinsically teleological, made up of the future. You may as well identify human beings to their tombstones, that’s how they end up.

Simplicius: What is the connection with the Multiverse?

PA: Wave functions are intrinsically multiversal, they are made by adding different outcomes, as if they all happened. But only one can ever happen, in the end. However, when in flight, we are been told that (Einstein’s) localized particle is made of as many pieces of universes as there are eigenstates.

Simplicius: So you conclude that Einstein’s localized quantum hypothesis plus the basic Quantum Formalism implies that the simplest elementary particle is made of pieces of different universes that will happen in the future?

PA: Exactly. Einstein, in conjunction with the Hilbert formalism, invented the Multiverse. This is what Everett observed, and, at the time, it made the inventors of Quantum Mechanics (minus Planck and Einstein) so uncomfortable that Everett was booted out of theoretical physics, an even his adviser Wheeler turned against him.

Simplicius: But did not Einstein demonstrate with the EPR thought experiment that “elements of reality” could not be localized?

PA: Exactly. With a little help from Karl Popper, maybe. Entanglement has been experimentally shown to not be localizable with the metric used in General Relativity. So light quanta themselves not only are not points, something that was obvious all along, sorry Einstein, but also, the speed of light is an emerging metric for the Universe.

It has been a conspiracy all along.

Simplicius: Conspiracy?

PA: Yes, there is a famous mistake in Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics. He insists that a photon interfere only with itself. That is demonstrably false (radio interference and independent lasers playing double slit). Dirac had to say that to NOT make the Quantum Waves themselves the main actors.

Simplicius: Why would physicists conspire to push false physics?

PA: Because, if they admit that their physics is false, and have nothing better to propose, they are losing status. (Whereas I improve mine by showing why they are wrong.)

Another point is that the “Multiverse” is suitably mysterious and absurd to impress common people. It is obviously the greatest miracle imaginable, so those who have penetrated this secrecy are very great men.


We saw Einstein’s hypothesis of localization led to the Multiverse. As the Multiverse is unacceptable, so is the localization hypothesis.

But we already knew this in several ways (diffraction, 2-slit, and other non-local wave effects; plus EPR style experiments, let alone the QM formalism itself, which also predicts non-localization).

The intuition of the real sub-quantic theory depends, in part, on such facts.

Patrice Ayme’

P/S (2021); In one sentence: The multiverse theory comes from a nefarious cognitive interference between Einstein’s unproven theory of momentum-energy pointwise localism with the nonlocal nature of (quantum) dynamics.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

21 Responses to “EINSTEIN’S ERROR: The Multiverse”

  1. ianmillerblog Says:

    I think you are being too hard on Albert. Electromagnetic radiation is emitted in discrete quanta, it is absorbed in discrete quanta, and it moves through space at a very fixed velocity c. The simplest explanation is that the centre of the energy quanta is a point moving along a line, in accord with Fermat. It cannot go on any other path without exceeding light velocity.

    Also, the usual interpretation of the EPR experiment is not that Einstein believed in non-locality, but rather he thought something was wrong with the standard formation of quantum mechanics, with which, as it happens, I fully agree. There is no point in having the localisation discussion again, but I think it is reasonable to assert that Einstein did not agree with it.

    Also, the Newton quote about hypotheses was, I suspect, his “get out of jail” speech to account for his not being able to account for instantaneous action at a distance with his gravity.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Ian: I am neither soft or hard on Albert. Frankly, he could have guessed that, quanta as points, but keep it for himself.

      Whom I am tough with is the parrots who have repeated exactly what he said, 110 years ago.

      It is telling that you evoke Fermat as the excuse for Einstein’s point delirium. Fermat lived 4 centuries ago. And he was a lawyer. OK, he also invented calculus.

      Newton did not believe in instantaneous interaction at distance (I even gave the quote, not so long ago). That probably helped the invention of field theory.

      The localization discussion will not stop, until the heathens submit. Seems clear to me that, (be it only) diffraction imposes photons to be spread out.


      • ianmillerblog Says:

        Dear Patrice: I disagree that diffraction imposes photons to be spread out. C60 molecules (Buckminsterfullerene – an ugly name) diffract in a 2-slit experiment, and surely you do not think they are spread out. If they were, it must be magic how they reassemble. That, of course, is part of the reason why I believe there are particles AND waves, as argued by de Broglie.

        Also, I doubt Albert considered photons as points, because sit is impossible for an alternating electric and magnetic field to occur in a point, which has no dimensions. He would surely merely assume it was in a discrete volume.

        Sorry, I obviously missed your Newton quote re action at a distance.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Diffraction ( one slit) is simpler than interference (two and more slits).
          Hmmm… I did not think about the C60 and other De Broglie predictions in light of interference. It would seem weird that they di-assemble, and then re-assemble… So you and De Broglie are making a good point here. At first sight.

          I googled: “Patrice Ayme Newton action at a distance”. Second mention was:

          It has the Newton quote.

          One further thinking: Re-assembling may not be so magical, depending upon the definition of space… 😉 I mean the de-localization could preserve, and would certainly preserve, the C60 geometry. Particle everywhere, but everywhere the same…


          • ianmillerblog Says:

            Ah, the Newton quote clearly shows the usual story that he believed in instantaneous action at a distance is wrong. My error. Apologies. As an aside, I most certainly was not believing in instantaneous action at a distance, but merely stating what I thought most believed about Newton.

            I am not too sure I can accept “particle everywhere” for a C-60 molecule. If it were to dis-assemble, why not revert to graphite, which is at a much lower energy? The problem for me is such a molecule, given half a chance, immediately falls down the energy well. As for particle “everywhere” there is a very immediate generation of virtual mass. No, I shall still stick with the concept that the particle goes through one slit, and an accompanied wave goes through both.

            As an aside, recent weak measurements (Kocsis, S. and 6 others. 2011. Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer Science 332: 1170 – 1173) have shown unambiguously that photons go through one slit, then fit into interference patterns as they leave the slits. My view is, if photons do that, then surely C-60 molecules can be accused of doing it too 🙂


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Answered in separate comment. “Trajectories” depend on “weak measurements”. I can’t remember for sure what they are doing. But they may determine momenta a postiori, nd then back-compute. In which case they would be using what I think is false to prove it.


  2. gmax Says:

    Nice illustration of the importance of philosophy in physics, and stupendous elucidation of why physicists have gone completely off the rails. They think Einstein is God.


  3. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Dear Ian:
    First, I read the “photon trajectory” paper pretty much in detail. I don’t remember my reasons, but I found that the paper was actually nothing new, and claimed more than it showed.
    From my point of view, my conclusion was there are NO “photon trajectories”.

    Second I do not propose to dis-assemble C60. And then re-assemble it.

    From my point of view, something like C60 is all entangled waves forming a space of extremely high dimensions. When the whole thing gets in the piloting mode, the whole thing spreads, but keep its own topology.


  4. No Multiverse, No Teleportation. Yet Quantum Consciousness? | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/einsteins-error-the-multiverse/ […]


  5. Black Hole Paradox | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] my theory, elementary particles are not only non-local (Einstein’s Error was to suppose that they were), but they break (giving rise to Dark Matter). But I will not go as far as to say that “nothing […]


  6. REALITY: At Your Command, Faster Than Light | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] of reality” probably exist, but they are NON-LOCAL. (Einstein was obsessed by locality; but that’s an error. All what can be said in favor of locality is that mathematics, and Field Theory, so far, are […]


  7. Happy In the Sky With New Logics: Einstein’s Error II | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] assumed reality was localized and definite in one of his famous 1905 papers, and physics never recovered from that ridiculous, out-of-the-blue, wanton, gratuitous error. (The present essay complements the preceding one found in the […]


  8. We Think, Therefore Not Straight | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] discovery of the 2-slit experiment. A century later, Einstein scrambled the whole thing with (what I view as) poorly considered statements, in the photoelectric paper which earned him the Nobel Prize. Those […]


  9. People Need Faith, Not Philosophy? | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] For example,  Poincaré had observed that light was always observed to be going at speed c, thus that had got to be a fundamental law. Bohr and Heisenberg similarly put in their theory of reality only ingredients which were observed (or, more exactly, observable). (Einstein chomping at the bit, tried for years to ruin the notion of reality of the Copenhagen school; ultimately, after a wise debate with the philosopher Popper, Einstein came out, in 1935, with the famous EPR paper revealing that Quantum mechanics was nonlocal… Amazingly nobody, aside from yours truly, seems to have noticed that this showed that a crucial part of Einstein 1905 Photoelectric Effect paper is nonsensical… This is an error which led to the absurd “Multiverse” Theory…) […]


  10. SUB-QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE 2 SLIT Thought Experiment | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] Einstein wrote is this, in what is perhaps his most famous work (1905 CE): “Energy, during the propagation of a ray of […]


  11. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to Ian Miller Blog
    https://ianmillerblog.wordpress.com/2017/12/21/that-was-2017-that-was/ ]

    Happy winter Solstice 2017, Ian!
    By the way, I replied rather extensively to you on my site about the size of the universe question (92 billion light years across, not 28….)

    Seems that we are on similar wavelength on the question of matter waves. Note that professional physicists are ignoring the most obvious experiment in physics:
    Here below, from:
    The preceding essay is a follow-up on:

    Einstein claimed that a “particle” was a lump of energy, even while in translation. He had no proof of this assertion, and it underlays all modern fundamental physics, and I believe it’s false. As I see it, this error, duplicated by 99.99% of 20 C theoretical physicists, led the search for the foundations of physics astray in the Twentieth Century. How could one prove my idea, and disprove Einstein?

    What Einstein wrote is this, in what is perhaps his most famous work (1905 CE): “Energy, during the propagation of a ray of light, is not continuously distributed over steadily increasing spaces, but it consists of a finite number of energy quanta LOCALIZED AT POINTS IN SPACE, MOVING WITHOUT DIVIDING…” [What’s in capital letters, I view as extremely probably false. Einstein then added nine words, four of which explaining the photoelectric effect, and for which he got the Nobel Prize. Those nine words were entirely correct, but physically independent of the preceding quote!]

    If those “energy quanta” are “localized at points in space“, they concentrate onto themselves all the mass-energy.

    It’s simple. According to me, the particle disperses while it is in translation (roughly following, and becoming a nonlinear variant of its De Broglie/Matter Wave dispersion, the bedrock of Quantum Physics as everybody knows it). That means its mass-energy disperses. According to Einstein, it doesn’t.

    However, a gravitational field can be measured. In my theory, SQPR, the matter waves are real. What can “real” mean, in its simplest imaginable form? Something is real if that something has mass-energy-momentum. So one can then do a thought experiment. Take the traditional Double Slit experiment, and install a gravitational needle (two masses linked by a rigid rod, like a hydrogen molecule at absolute zero) in the middle of the usual interference screen.

    Sub Quantum Patrice Reality Is Experimentally Discernible From Einstein’s Version of Quantum Physics! Notice in passing that none of the physics super minds of the Twentieth Century seem to have noticed Einstein’s Axiom, which is ubiquitously used all over Quantum Physics and QFT!

    According to Einstein, the gravitational needle will move before the process of interference is finished, and the self-interfering particle hit the screen (some may object that, because photons travel at c, and so do gravitons, one can’t really gravitationally point at the photon; however, that’s not correct, there should be a delayed field moving the needle).

    According to me, the particle is dispersed during the self-interfering process: it’s nowhere in particular. Thus the mass-energy is dispersed before the collapse/singularization. Thus a gravitational field from the self-interfering particle can’t be measured from inside the self-interfering geometry.


  12. Peter Woit vs Sean Carroll: string theory, the multiverse, and Popperazism | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] of Quantum Mechanics…which many specialists consider equivalent to the Multiverse. https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/einsteins-error-the-multiverse/ So what is the scientifically minded to do? Well, make an experiment! In the lab. It’s simple: […]


  13. Patrice Ayme Says:

    By the way, Feynman also believed that light was a stream of particles (this is how einstein’s Error propagated):

    http://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170 Richard Feynman, “QED: The strange theory of light and matter”, p. 15:
    “I want to emphasize that light comes in this form – particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I’m telling you the way it does behave – like particles. You might say that it’s just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles.”

    RECEIVED AS PARTICLES, is different from IS PARTICLE WHILE IN FLIGHT…. We have no proof of the latter, but it can be found out experimentally whether it’s true or not. Say by building a gravitation detector!


  14. CONSCIOUSNESS, ATOM OF THOUGHT, Atom of Computing: All Found In Electrons? | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] Einstein ascribed properties to the photon, and the electron, which I claim, have not been observed … However the ulterior formalism sort of implemented Einstein’s design (which is older than […]


  15. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Believing zillions of universes are created every picosecond in every neighborhood: not serious. Even Broglie disconnects wave & particle, whereas things are one or the other depending @ stage of process. A particle is a point interaction, wave is global: https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/einsteins-error-the-multiverse/


  16. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Sent to Sean Carroll’s blog:
    The Many Worlds Int of QM is a contradiction in adjecto. Moreover it rests ultimately on hypothesized physics by Einstein which is entangled with the formalism of Quantum Mechanics:
    It will all be decided by experiments so far only proposed by yours truly.


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: