Quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity do not match.

Einstein created his theory after the Michelson-Morley experiments in 1881 / 1887 failed to verify the presence of a medium conducting the light. Scientists had assumed the light was conducted by an existing agent, like the sound is conducted by air.

Ever since then, physicists assume there was no such medium at all, the so-called aether. But Einstein supposed it had to exist, even a long time after introducing his theories of relativity:

● “The mechanical aether, identified by Newton as 'the absolute space', has to be acknowledged by us as a physical reality.”

● “The occurrence of centrifugal effects on a (rotating) object […] indicates that this aether has to be understood not just as a fancy figure of the NEWTONian theory, but that something real in nature correlates with it.”

● “But even if […], we cannot miss out the aether; since the general theory of relativity […] rules out an unlinked long range effect. But every theory of close-by effects requires continued fields and with them the existence of an 'aether'”.

(Albert Einstein 1924, „Über den Äther“, in: Verhandlungen der Schwei­zerischen Naturfor­schen­den Ge­sell­schaft, volume 105, pages 85-93)

The theory of special relativity dates from 1905, the one of general relativity from 1915.

Maybe an error occurred while the Michelson-Morley experiments were performed.

They were designed to prove a motion of the earth relative to the aether, which was supposed to be present everywhere in space. As the results were negative, the scientists switched to other suppositions, like the aether was not moving or it was adhering to the earth. But even these suppositions could not be verified. After many futile trials, all showing the same results, they weary categorized the collective result as a “null result”.

They overlooked that an aether vertically streaming into the earth could not be registered by the composition of the experiment at that time. This motion would have affected both measuring tracks at the same time, generating the effect that no influence on the speed of light could be detected, no matter how the breadboard construction was oriented. This was possible in just one plane: It could be turned around its vertical axis only.

The Nobel Prize in physics 2015 was awarded for the proof that neutrinos have mass. They detected more neutrinos streaming into the earth than out. So at least in this case it is proven that there is a stream of particles, coming from space, intruding into the earth and remaining there. Why should this not apply to a broader basis?

Maybe to Einstein, like to almost all physicists of his time, just not occurred the notion the aether might act that way. In fact, Ivan Yarkovsky already in 1888 educed a theory that it streamed into the earth and transmuted into the elements there. This simultaneously explains gravity. He, however, was not a main-job physicist, but a building engineer, so that well-established physics magazines did not announce it. He published his book by himself in Moscow. It hence was hardly taken notice of; he as a person was almost unknown. (Although he was quite a remarkable scientist; the Yarkovsky effect is named after him, which describes the aberration of the paths of asteroids caused by radiation, proven in 2003.)

Obviously, Einstein did not know this theory either. In the Einstein biography by Abraham Pais, which also delineates the development of his theories, Yarkovsky is not mentioned. While perusing the description of the Michelson-Morley experiment and its influence on Einstein´s theories there, you gain the impression he never seriously reviewed the composition of it. He seems to have accepted the common construe in science (“null result”) without serious doubts.

Indeed, never in history an experiment was conducted that could have detected the effect of a mass of particles streaming vertically into the earth.* The construe of the old-established results (“There is no aether.”) has never been questioned seriously by science for more than a hundred years now.

Imagine a point in space, somewhere between two galaxies, about 1/1000 mm in dimension. If you have got a special camera (equipped with glass fiber optics maybe), you were able to  see something. We orient it to a star. According to the current understanding of light as particles, photons are traveling and transmitting the light. Now we move the camera a 1/1000 mm aside. We will see something there, too. But at the point just left there still are photons because they, of course, do not terminate their presence since we detracted our camera. Let us do this a million times; forward, back, to the left, to the right, up and down. At every point the same happens, anytime. Space is full of “photons”.

Even if we understand light and other electromagnetic waves as single particles, flying around, there has to be a vast number of them.

If we go back to our camera, the photons are rushing in at 670 million mph. We turn it around to the star on the opposite site. It emits photons at the same speed, if you believe in this concept. What happens at the point where they should collide? What is the sum of speeds? Ask this a physicist. You will be surprised at the common answers.  

Maybe it was more reasonable to assume there was a mass of particles, present everywhere and conducting the light and all other electromagnetic waves, than to stay with a conception there were single particles, originating from nothing, having no mass when not moving, accelerating to 300 000 km/s in vacuum (no slower, no faster) and having particle nature and wave nature at the same time.

Many physicists suspect there is something wrong in the concepts of physics.

We created a book in which a theory evolves again about a particle mass streaming from space into planets. It is called “Über­le­gungen zur Gravi­ta­tion und zum Licht“, meaning “Considering Gravity and Light”. Presently it is available in German only, to our regrets. If the therory is correct, it does not only explain gravity, but simplifies the perception of electromagnetic waves, too.

*) At the most, there has to be mentioned that of Martin Grusenick of 2009, which has to be considered with some skepticism, since the impact of gravity on separate components of the measuring units is hard to quantify. A deflection of just 0.0005 mm represents a complete amplitude here already. According to Michelson and Morley, there should be detected an aberration in the interference pattern, which in fact appeared there