tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post8100782645378665637..comments2024-03-24T09:28:42.755+01:00Comments on CJ on Mathematics and Science: Quantum Contradictions 26: There are No Particles!Claes Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07411413338950388898noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-58817397757619504732013-10-22T16:36:04.401+02:002013-10-22T16:36:04.401+02:00I think the same. But why are there so few who bo...I think the same. But why are there so few who bother at all? Is it because physics has been made impossible to understand in order to avoid questions? But science without questions is dead science. Claes Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07411413338950388898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-38716638058846398032013-10-22T16:14:19.420+02:002013-10-22T16:14:19.420+02:00To me, the unreality of quantum mechanics is parti...To me, the unreality of quantum mechanics is particularly well expressed by noting that, at its core, its strangeness involves--no, requires--the interference, not of particles, nor waves, nor even probabilities, but only of "probability amplitudes" (the absolute value of the square-root of a probability)--which have no physical representative whatsoever, it simply is not a physical property, of any physical object. When I first expressed this, while teaching an introductory course in physics 37 years ago, it was the proverbial light bulb turning on in my mind. Quantum mechanics requires the assumption that physical objects, on the quantum level, are not just describable mathematically, but are only mathematical, not physical at all. "Probability amplitudes" are not, and will never be, a proper foundation for understanding any physical system.Harry Dale Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.com