No it doesn't, really. That's pretty much what all physicists think. Not in terms of particles or waves or "wave-particle duality" or whatever, but in terms of the quantum physical concept of the wavefunction. The other views, as he says himself, are regarded as historical baggage. Or: "The 1920's called, they want their debate back."Now a lot is made of the whole wave-particle duality stuff in introductory physics textbooks and popular science lit, because the _educational_ convention is to teach stuff in that chronological order. Which is also a bit misleading, because the foundations of QM were reformulated in a much more stringent mathematical manner later. If you read a high-level textbook (e.g. Landau-Lifs**tz), you'll see QM re-derived from an entirely different direction.
Ignore the last guy wanting to make electrons just waves. Rather, listen to Richard Feynman who showed that electrons and photons are particles that exhibit wave-like behavior. When you fire a beam of electrons or photons at a detector you will see discrete spikes in energy that can only come from particles hitting the detector. What's wavelike about these particles is their probabilities regarding their eventual destination when their wavefunction hasn't collapsed.Trying to make the duality go away merely by saying "electrons are waves! electrons are waves" isn't going to work.
It began in 1905 when Einstein created SRT, (theory of photon/electron?s behaviour). Minkowski, tried to understand SRT using 4D space. Poor young Einstein, reading Minkowski interpretation, said, that now he couldn?t understand his own theory.? Einstein, you are right, it is difficult to understand SRT using 4D space. But it is possible using my 5D space" - said Kaluza in 1921. This theory was tested and found insufficient. "Well", said another mathematicians, - "maybe 6D, 7D, 8D, 9D spaces will explain it". And they had done it. But the doubts still remain. "OK", they say, "we have only one way to solve this problem. We must create more complex D spaces". And they do it, they use all their power, all their super intellects to solve this problem. Glory to these mathematicians !!!! But???. But there is one problem. To create new D space, mathematicians must add a new parameter. It is impossible to create new D space without a new parameter. And the mathematicians take this parameter arbitrarily (it fixed according to his opinion, not by objective rules). The physicist, R. Lipin explained this situation in such way: "Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant. With four I can make him wiggle his trunk?" To this Lipin?s opinion it is possible to add: "with one more parameter the elephant will fly." The mathematicians sell and we buy these theories.Where are our brains?===============.The SRT is a real theory.But " 4-D Minkowski space " is an abstract theory.Minkowski's mathematic theory has nothing to do with physics, with the Nature. There isn't any proof of its existence.And if we mix these two theories then we are surprised with its paradox. What does the man usually do in such situation? It is clear, he must understand what ? 4-D Minkowski space " is. I say, it is Vacuum.But somebody can say: ? You are wrong, 4-D Minkowski space is only a part of 11-D space.?Maybe this argument is correct. Then we must supposethat the 11-D space will be a part of some 47-D space in 50 years. And who knows where its end is.Perhaps in 123-D space the physicists will find the God there.And if we don't know what 1+1 = 2how can we know what 5+4 = 9 ?And if we don't know what is 4-D negative space ( 4-D positive Minkowski space )how can we understand 11-D space ( string theory) ?In another words, if we don?t know what ? 4-D Minkowski space " is, so it is impossible to take SRT as a finished one.The proof of SRT isn?t over yet. We must give a real interpretation to ? 4-D Minkowski space ". I only hope that a simple, usual logic will help a man to understand its essence. ====== =========If I were a king, I would publish a law: every mathematician who takes part in the creation of 4D space and higher is to be awarded a medal "To the winner over common sense". Why? Because they have won us over using the absurd ideas of Minkowski and Kaluza. == .Best wishes. Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.<a class="user" href="http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scientists&amp;tab1=Display&amp;id=1372">http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scient ...</a>===================== . .
It began in 1905 when Einstein created SRT, (theory of photon/electron’s behaviour). Minkowski, tried to understand SRT using 4D space. Poor young Einstein, reading Minkowski interpretation, said, that now he couldn’t understand his own theory.“ Einstein, you are right, it is difficult to understand SRT using 4D space. But it is possible using my 5D space" - said Kaluza in 1921. This theory was tested and found insufficient. "Well", said another mathematicians, - "maybe 6D, 7D, 8D, 9D spaces will explain it". And they had done it. But the doubts still remain. "OK", they say, "we have only one way to solve this problem. We must create more complex D spaces". And they do it, they use all their power, all their super intellects to solve this problem. Glory to these mathematicians !!!! But………. But there is one problem. To create new D space, mathematicians must add a new parameter. It is impossible to create new D space without a new parameter. And the mathematicians take this parameter arbitrarily (it fixed according to his opinion, not by objective rules). The physicist, R. Lipin explained this situation in such way: "Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant. With four I can make him wiggle his trunk…" To this Lipin’s opinion it is possible to add: "with one more parameter the elephant will fly." The mathematicians sell and we buy these theories.Where are our brains?===============.The SRT is a real theory.But " 4-D Minkowski space " is an abstract theory.Minkowski's mathematic theory has nothing to do with physics, with the Nature. There isn't any proof of its existence.And if we mix these two theories then we are surprised with its paradox. What does the man usually do in such situation? It is clear, he must understand what “ 4-D Minkowski space " is. I say, it is Vacuum.But somebody can say: “ You are wrong, 4-D Minkowski space is only a part of 11-D space.”Maybe this argument is correct. Then we must supposethat the 11-D space will be a part of some 47-D space in 50 years. And who knows where its end is.Perhaps in 123-D space the physicists will find the God there.And if we don't know what 1+1 = 2how can we know what 5+4 = 9 ?And if we don't know what is 4-D negative space ( 4-D positive Minkowski space )how can we understand 11-D space ( string theory) ?In another words, if we don’t know what “ 4-D Minkowski space " is, so it is impossible to take SRT as a finished one.The proof of SRT isn’t over yet. We must give a real interpretation to “ 4-D Minkowski space ". I only hope that a simple, usual logic will help a man to understand its essence. ====== =========If I were a king, I would publish a law: every mathematician who takes part in the creation of 4D space and higher is to be awarded a medal "To the winner over common sense". Why? Because they have won us over using the absurd ideas of Minkowski and Kaluza. == .Best wishes. Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.<a class="user" href="http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scientists&amp;tab1=Display&amp;id=1372">http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scient ...</a>===================== . .
Closed AccountAug 25, 2008
No it doesn't, really. That's pretty much what all physicists think. Not in terms of particles or waves or "wave-particle duality" or whatever, but in terms of the quantum physical concept of the wavefunction. The other views, as he says himself, are regarded as historical baggage. Or: "The 1920's called, they want their debate back."Now a lot is made of the whole wave-particle duality stuff in introductory physics textbooks and popular science lit, because the _educational_ convention is to teach stuff in that chronological order. Which is also a bit misleading, because the foundations of QM were reformulated in a much more stringent mathematical manner later. If you read a high-level textbook (e.g. Landau-Lifs**tz), you'll see QM re-derived from an entirely different direction.
xkingadrockxAug 25, 2008
<a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j50ZssEojtM">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j50ZssEojtM</a>
lewikeeAug 25, 2008
Ignore the last guy wanting to make electrons just waves. Rather, listen to Richard Feynman who showed that electrons and photons are particles that exhibit wave-like behavior. When you fire a beam of electrons or photons at a detector you will see discrete spikes in energy that can only come from particles hitting the detector. What's wavelike about these particles is their probabilities regarding their eventual destination when their wavefunction hasn't collapsed.Trying to make the duality go away merely by saying "electrons are waves! electrons are waves" isn't going to work.
tech42erAug 26, 2008
That movie did more to retard basic understanding of science in this country than Kansas schools teaching "intelligent design".
feignnuAug 26, 2008
nah, it's not worth it. If you can't read what he wrote and see the retardation clearly and distinctly, you aren't worth my time either.
principleAug 28, 2008
We already have a new theory. The String Theory.
socratusAug 5, 2009
It began in 1905 when Einstein created SRT, (theory of photon/electron?s behaviour). Minkowski, tried to understand SRT using 4D space. Poor young Einstein, reading Minkowski interpretation, said, that now he couldn?t understand his own theory.? Einstein, you are right, it is difficult to understand SRT using 4D space. But it is possible using my 5D space" - said Kaluza in 1921. This theory was tested and found insufficient. "Well", said another mathematicians, - "maybe 6D, 7D, 8D, 9D spaces will explain it". And they had done it. But the doubts still remain. "OK", they say, "we have only one way to solve this problem. We must create more complex D spaces". And they do it, they use all their power, all their super intellects to solve this problem. Glory to these mathematicians !!!! But???. But there is one problem. To create new D space, mathematicians must add a new parameter. It is impossible to create new D space without a new parameter. And the mathematicians take this parameter arbitrarily (it fixed according to his opinion, not by objective rules). The physicist, R. Lipin explained this situation in such way: "Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant. With four I can make him wiggle his trunk?" To this Lipin?s opinion it is possible to add: "with one more parameter the elephant will fly." The mathematicians sell and we buy these theories.Where are our brains?===============.The SRT is a real theory.But " 4-D Minkowski space " is an abstract theory.Minkowski's mathematic theory has nothing to do with physics, with the Nature. There isn't any proof of its existence.And if we mix these two theories then we are surprised with its paradox. What does the man usually do in such situation? It is clear, he must understand what ? 4-D Minkowski space " is. I say, it is Vacuum.But somebody can say: ? You are wrong, 4-D Minkowski space is only a part of 11-D space.?Maybe this argument is correct. Then we must supposethat the 11-D space will be a part of some 47-D space in 50 years. And who knows where its end is.Perhaps in 123-D space the physicists will find the God there.And if we don't know what 1+1 = 2how can we know what 5+4 = 9 ?And if we don't know what is 4-D negative space ( 4-D positive Minkowski space )how can we understand 11-D space ( string theory) ?In another words, if we don?t know what ? 4-D Minkowski space " is, so it is impossible to take SRT as a finished one.The proof of SRT isn?t over yet. We must give a real interpretation to ? 4-D Minkowski space ". I only hope that a simple, usual logic will help a man to understand its essence. ====== =========If I were a king, I would publish a law: every mathematician who takes part in the creation of 4D space and higher is to be awarded a medal "To the winner over common sense". Why? Because they have won us over using the absurd ideas of Minkowski and Kaluza. == .Best wishes. Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.<a class="user" href="http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scientists&amp;tab1=Display&amp;id=1372">http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scient ...</a>===================== . .
socratusAug 5, 2009
It began in 1905 when Einstein created SRT, (theory of photon/electron’s behaviour). Minkowski, tried to understand SRT using 4D space. Poor young Einstein, reading Minkowski interpretation, said, that now he couldn’t understand his own theory.“ Einstein, you are right, it is difficult to understand SRT using 4D space. But it is possible using my 5D space" - said Kaluza in 1921. This theory was tested and found insufficient. "Well", said another mathematicians, - "maybe 6D, 7D, 8D, 9D spaces will explain it". And they had done it. But the doubts still remain. "OK", they say, "we have only one way to solve this problem. We must create more complex D spaces". And they do it, they use all their power, all their super intellects to solve this problem. Glory to these mathematicians !!!! But………. But there is one problem. To create new D space, mathematicians must add a new parameter. It is impossible to create new D space without a new parameter. And the mathematicians take this parameter arbitrarily (it fixed according to his opinion, not by objective rules). The physicist, R. Lipin explained this situation in such way: "Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant. With four I can make him wiggle his trunk…" To this Lipin’s opinion it is possible to add: "with one more parameter the elephant will fly." The mathematicians sell and we buy these theories.Where are our brains?===============.The SRT is a real theory.But " 4-D Minkowski space " is an abstract theory.Minkowski's mathematic theory has nothing to do with physics, with the Nature. There isn't any proof of its existence.And if we mix these two theories then we are surprised with its paradox. What does the man usually do in such situation? It is clear, he must understand what “ 4-D Minkowski space " is. I say, it is Vacuum.But somebody can say: “ You are wrong, 4-D Minkowski space is only a part of 11-D space.”Maybe this argument is correct. Then we must supposethat the 11-D space will be a part of some 47-D space in 50 years. And who knows where its end is.Perhaps in 123-D space the physicists will find the God there.And if we don't know what 1+1 = 2how can we know what 5+4 = 9 ?And if we don't know what is 4-D negative space ( 4-D positive Minkowski space )how can we understand 11-D space ( string theory) ?In another words, if we don’t know what “ 4-D Minkowski space " is, so it is impossible to take SRT as a finished one.The proof of SRT isn’t over yet. We must give a real interpretation to “ 4-D Minkowski space ". I only hope that a simple, usual logic will help a man to understand its essence. ====== =========If I were a king, I would publish a law: every mathematician who takes part in the creation of 4D space and higher is to be awarded a medal "To the winner over common sense". Why? Because they have won us over using the absurd ideas of Minkowski and Kaluza. == .Best wishes. Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.<a class="user" href="http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scientists&amp;tab1=Display&amp;id=1372">http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scient ...</a>===================== . .