posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 02:49 PM
reply to post by micpsi
I agree somewhat and disagree somewhat. I think of the concepts we have, 'waves' and fluid dynamics in general do a darn good job of making the
quantum world intelligible – and explaining several counter intuitive and 'irrational' or 'inconceivable' phenomenon.
I do think that fluid dynamics can help us before we completely throw out all of our past concepts in favor of some new ontological category like
'paves' or 'warticles'. This spectrum you speak of between waves and particles is something like the idea of a 'round square'... very
problematic. I think it is better to say the quantum world is like neither, than that it is somewhere in-between both.
I also think the probability that the quantum worlds is intelligible and within our grasp is higher than the probability of some totally new (and
never before conceived by the human race) paradigm which you speak of. There is simply too much evidence (IMO) that it is not nature that is funky,
but rather the historical development of quantum theory and our perception of nature that is funky. Also, seen historically, it would not be too
surprising to find out that we have taken about a century-long detour back to about the turn of the last century – to finally sit down and
re-evaluate and re-interpret the arguments of Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, de Broglie, Bohm and several others. Not
that we haven't progressed, but if we don't make sure that we haven't missed something it could be a really... really long time before we would
I think a cost/benefit analysis shows that we can afford to take a few minutes to go over our old notes before we spend more money on any 'next big
We model the quantum world with waves, and choose to interpret certain experiments as exhibiting 'particle behavior' instead of trying to understand
perhaps why a real physically existing wave could produce the phenomenon that appears like discrete particle behavior.
The concept of a (nearly) discrete wave packet has already proven indispensable in this area. It appears (for most reference frames besides the frame
of the quantum foam/ZPE/vacuum) to be discrete, but its 'edges' become blurry and continuous at those sub-quantum magnitudes.