Classical Physics and Quantum Mechanics: Can they possibly be combined?

A topic for discussion among scientists has always been: Can there be an ultimate theory of quantum mechanics and physics? As Stephen Hawking has said:

"My goal is simple. It is a complete understanding of the universe, why it is as it is and why it exists at all."

But how simple is it? Can our universe be completely understood when physics and quantum mechanics are so far apart? Their laws constantly conflict. Is it possible that perhaps one of them is wrong? Or are they both right, just under different conditions? If the conditions determine the laws, then couldn't the conditions be unified under one quantum theory of gravity?

I think that there should be a way to unify the two. If only the conditions separate them, then perhaps we need to better understand the conditions. How can these two sets of laws coexist if they conflict so much? I think there must be something we are missing in the whole grand scheme of things. Why can't the law of conservation of mass apply to the microscopic world of quantum mechanics? Why should wormholes supposedly be able to pop up in the quantum world? Doesn't gravity affect the quantum world? Scientists say that a particle will take every possible path to get to a certain spot including through time as well as space. If that's true, then how come the universe isn't flooded with an infinite amount of particles? Richard Feynman said that the universe must have multiple histories. That means that everything has existed an infinite amount of times, because there are an infinite amount of paths to get to something, because there is an infinite smallness that can be measured in the universe! I think this is outrageous and far too fantastic to be true.

If one of these two sciences had to be wrong, I would say quantum mechanics needs some help. Perhaps we will eventually figure out what the problems are with either of these sciences. Maybe they are both absolutely right, but I just don't see how it makes sense. We need more information. I think that these sciences should be able to be related, but we need to gather more evidence and understanding.

Is there a smallest particle in the universe?

Ever since the microscope, scientists have been finding new ways to look deeper and find smaller particles. Ancient Greece believed the atom was the smallest particle in the universe. It was later discovered (much later) that there are subatomic particles called protons, electrons, and neutrons. Then, quarks were discovered of six different flavors. The you have gluons to connect all of those particles. Where does it end? Or does it?

I think we are getting very close to finding the smallest particle. Atoms make more sense than ever, although there are still a few questions to be answered. Why do quarks have a charge? I propose that inside quarks are particles that cause it to be positive or negative. Why should up quarks have a 2/3 positive charge? Why do down quarks have a 1/3 negative charge? I think that answer lies in even smaller particles that determine a quark's flavor. Perhaps a certain amount of a particle changes the charge. Also, different flavors of quarks still have the same charge, but are of different mass. Charm quarks have the same charge as up quarks, but a much greater mass. Why is that? That answer probably lies in the particles within.

That is why I don't think we have reached the smallest particle yet. Should there be one? I think there would have to be an initial particle in order to form any other particles later. There needs to be a starting particle to form the particles which form larger particles which after many particles are formed, forms quarks, which form protons, neutrons, and electrons which form atoms which form... you get the idea.

There must be a starting point. Everything had to come from some starting particle, which we have yet to discover, or perhaps already have. Therefore, I believe there is a smallest particle in the universe and hopefully someday, humans will be able to find it.

Summer Session Begins! Do wormholes actually exist?

Many modern scientists believe that there are wormholes on a microscopic level that appear and disappear, taking particles through time and space. My question is: do these actually exist?

The idea of a wormhole was first conceived by Albert Einstein and Nathan Rosen. Hence, the Einstein-Rosen bridge was born. The only reason these were created was because they had to exist according to Einstein's equations. Couldn't his equations in some cases not work? I think many of Einstein's ideas are very correct, but does anybody remember what happened with the cosmological constant? He used that to make his equations "correct" even though it did not exist! He called it the biggest mistake of his life, and rightly so. Are wormholes the second biggest mistakes?

Einstein-Rosen bridges were abandoned by most scientists, but the newer theories of wormholes do not sound very possible. The modern type of wormhole is called the traversable wormhole. To function, the wormhole requires a negative energy density and a negative mass. Wait a minute. How can anything have negative mass? I don't understand how this is possible. According to Newton's law that F=MA, if an object has a negative mass, it would also have a negative acceleration. If you pushed a ball with negative mass (the push is a positive force), it would go in the opposite direction that you pushed it! That could really hurt if you pushed a ball with negative mass too hard.

Scientists believe that wormholes do exist on nanoscopic scales and occur all the time. If that is true, then wouldn't there be infinitely many particles in the universe? Couldn't the universe fill up with particles in all times? If wormholes can go through time, particles would move in and out of time until they eventually have gone through just about every time that ever existed, and keep on going through time. That would violate the law of conservation of mass in so many ways, because you would have particles appearing and disappearing, and the universe would gain and lose mass all the time! Then again, wormholes already break pretty much all of the other rules that have been established, so why not ruin that one too?

I do not think wormholes can exist. I do not see how it would make sense in accordance with the current laws of our universe. Perhaps somebody can enlighten me on how they exist. Why should they?