Maynard Handley wrote:
>> In article <81omtn$f9e at web.nmti.com>, peter at abbnm.com (Peter da Silva) wrote:
>> >In article <383FAD5A.5DA023B4 at earthlink.net>,
> >kenneth Collins <kpaulc at earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> they are engineered with the a priori presumption of 'particles', so
> they 'see
> >> particles', when everything is continuous.
> >
> >You know, Einstein's Nobel Prize was for explaining an experiment that saw
> >particles when everyone assumed everything was continuous. If you can come
> >up with a better explanation of the photoelectric effect, or with some kind
> >of experiment that would differentiate your energy soup universe from the
> >one everyone else works with, you might be able to get somewhere.
>> I'm happily ignoring most of the crap in this thread, but I'd like to
> clarify this because this misunderstanding is one of the reasons people
> get so bent out of shape about QM.
>> (1) There are no particles, only fields. There is an EM field, an electron
> field etc.
I'm not sure but I think that may be OK to say in the Bohr/Copenhagen
interpretation. But there are lots of interpretations floating around.
The one Jack Sarfatti likes (and I do too, but my likings count for
nothing) is the Bohm interpretation where there are genuine particles
going around and there is a quantum force acting on them. Bohm got
this by splitting the Schroedinger equation into two parts.
--
************************************************************************
The Pattern Recognition Basis of Artificial Intelligence
Backpropagator's Review NN freeware for UNIX and PCs
A Professional BP Version for X and W95
************************************************************************
Don Tveter drt at christianliving.nethttp://www.dontveter.com
************************************************************************
