Why is it that only English universities only offer physics Masters required with current research's mathematical techniques and principles?

No gravitational wave was measured yet, no graviton was detected accordingly. On the other hand no space- time curvature was observable. There is no successful experiment to validate the current theories. What is the nature of the mysterious gravity? What is the velocity of this effect ?

My question is: "What are the major and most effective refutations of Albert Einstein's Theories of Relativity?"

The question "Is Any Effective Refutation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity Possible?" which was asked on April 2, 2018, has been declared closed. Many of the best Answers were probably posted at the beginning, in April of 2018, long before I joined Research Gate on the recommendation of some of my university colleagues. Out of respect for the initiator of the original Question, who states his decision to close his Question, I am posting a very similar question in the interest of accommodating the views of scientists who have not yet had an opportunity to answer the Question, and, possibly, the repeated and updated views of scientists who have already posted on the original Question at Research Gate from April 2, 2018, to December 2019.

In my opinion, the E=mvc formula keeps a secret and this said secret will only be revealed when people have determined the formula and the value of the intrinsic energy of the electron. There had been a marriage between the formula E=mcc and the formula E=hf which has led to the Compton wavelength. But in my opinion it is a bad marriage because it has had a negative impact on the understanding and proper use of the formula E=mvc. I find that it was up to de Broglie to add a link equation which could have allowed him to determine the Compton wavelength equation without going through E=mcc. In my opinion, by determining the maximum speed of the electron, it is possible that this said speed is reached by the electrons in the sun, this speed could be considered as the limiting speed of a particle with mass. It is possible that this said speed serves as a reference as the limiting speed of a particle and it will be taken into account to calculate the maximum energy of each particle with mass to evaluate the mass of a particle at rest. In my opinion if photons have mass then the formula E=mcc is the good one where m is the mass of the photon.

Since Einstein proposed the fundamental shiftbin thinking, that time and space are interwoven, people began to doubt time's fundamental it. Althoughtbitbis still ladenly agreed to be so.

Einstein made the proposal to deal with incompatibilities between properties of light and principles of classical mechanics, the science of describing motion its causes and what its possible (given certain kinematics and so-called dynamics parameters in a system) . This then led to the most hroad, novel and consistent confirmstions of any theory in science. Yet, doubt remains.

Here are a few thoughts of mine that say space can't be curved because it doesn't exist. What we call space is actually the ubiquitous presence of gravitons and photons. Light passing the Sun is refracted because these particles follow curved paths. This naturally means the virtual particles currently theorized to fill space don't exist (only gravitons and photons do).

This might mean (a) gravity and electromagnetism can undergo a particular interaction to form particles with mass (this is supported by Einstein's publication in 1919 of an article suggesting gravity plays a role in the composition of elementary particles), and (b) space, while filled with gravitons and photons, is the absence of the mass-generating interaction.

However, it’s very convenient to simply speak of curved space – just as we say the Sun rises and sets while neglecting to mention Earth’s rotation … or speak of waves travelling without referring to the lack of horizontal propagation - photons merely "bob up and down" like particles of water. Electromagnetism would be caused by a travelling gravitational wave causing excitation of pre-existing photons (either in so-called "space" or in masses like atoms and objects).

Consistent with the unity of space and time, time could be something built into gravitons and photons. I believe these particles (what we call "space") are built from binary digits and topology immersed in the 3rd dimension, that they interact to form mass by a process I call vector-tensor-scalar geometry, and that the 4th dimension of "time" which is built into the particles is the real plus imaginary numbers of Wick rotation.

In the solution of time-dependent schrodinger partial differential equation it is assumed that The minimum energy of quantum particle is hf/2 but not zero.

The question arises is there any rigorous mathematical physics proof?

La física cuántica es una rama de la física que estudia el comportamiento de la materia y la energía a escalas muy pequeñas, del orden de las distancias atómicas. El mundo cuántico está gobernado por leyes muy diferentes a las del mundo macroscópico, y sus propiedades son a menudo contraintuitivas.

Una de las características más sorprendentes del mundo cuántico es la superposición. Una partícula cuántica puede estar en dos o más estados a la vez, lo que significa que puede estar en dos lugares diferentes al mismo tiempo, o tener dos velocidades diferentes.

¿Es posible que la cuarta dimensión sea la clave para comprender el mundo cuántico?

An event in 4 dimensional spacetime is designated by coordinates x, y, z and t. Spacetime physically has the three spatial coordinates (x, y and z). Does spacetime also have a physical property that gives it a temporal coordinate? For example, the rate of time depends on the gravitational potential. Clocks run slower in the 4D space close to a large mass compared to the 4D space far from a large mass. Is this just an effect on physical objects such as clocks and atoms or does the space itself have a temporal property that is slowed by the effect of gravity?

This is a discussion question. Therefore, I will express my opinion. I believe in John Wheeler’s spacetime foam representation of spacetime. He said “Empty space is not empty. It is the seat of the most violent physics.” He then described spacetime on the scale of Planck length as having Planck length oscillations at Planck frequency. If spacetime has oscillations at a frequency that can be affected by gravity, then spacetime has an internal clock and a physical time component. Even the physical constants G, c, and ħ each have time components. It is not possible to define any of these three physical constants without introducing a local rate of time.

I think that spacetime must incorporate Planck frequency oscillations to achieve the temporal properties (the 4^th dimension) of spacetime. Do you agree or disagree? If you believe spacetime does not have an internal clock (oscillations), then what determines the local rate of time?