- #1
Dense
- 37
- 0
So I'm reading this article, where Johan Prins of the University of Pretoria argues that renormalization is unnecessary if you treat electrons as nothing more than waves. Rather than model electrons as having attributes or behaviors of particles, he says they should be modeled as a "holistic wave that occupies space."
He says things such as "the uncertainties describe the size of the wave in position and wave-vector spaces. These sizes can morph instantaneously when the boundary conditions change. Furthermore, a photon can merge with such a wave [entangle] to form another electron-wave with a higher energy. It is such instantaneous entanglement that corresponds to a quantum jump.” So, according to Prins, an electron is a wave; not a particle, or even a particle with wave-duality. “There are only waves which can instantaneously morph to occupy a large space [delocalize] or a smaller space [localize] and then act as if it is a particle owing to Gauss' law being applicable.”
Prins claims that Heisenberg was in fact wrong, as “it is possible to visualize what is happening on the quantum scale and this visualization also defines the interface between quantum mechanics and classical mechanics. They are both valid within their respective domains. Quantum mechanics does not encompass classical mechanics as has been believed all these years.” This latter point highlights again the fact that Prins is not claiming that there is anything wrong with quantum mechanical theory, only that what is being measured needs to be reconsidered. “In terms of waves, quantum mechanics is a complete theory, which seems to neatly mesh with classical mechanics and most probably also with the general theory of relativity. It is that electrons are not modeled on waves that constitutes the crisis in physics,” he added.
Prins maintains that his theory offers a better model of reality; “because, once accepted, one finds plausible explanations for many of the outstanding problems in physics; for example, why ‘particles’ can diffract; why the so-called nuclear forces are not separate forces, but can be explained in terms of the same mechanism responsible for covalent bonding; why the cosmic background radiation is fairly uniform; the possible nature of dark energy; the possible nature of dark mass; why mass is energy etc. Nature is not random; it is causal, just like Einstein always wanted. In terms of my interpretation everything that occurs has a cause; once it is analyzed in terms of waves.”
Although I am intrigued by the idea, it's striking me as missing something important. The problem is, I can't figure out what it is that's sounding false. Ignoring the other controversial (to be generous) things this guy has said in the past, just trying to identify why this particular idea is setting off my B.S. alarm.
What do you think?
He says things such as "the uncertainties describe the size of the wave in position and wave-vector spaces. These sizes can morph instantaneously when the boundary conditions change. Furthermore, a photon can merge with such a wave [entangle] to form another electron-wave with a higher energy. It is such instantaneous entanglement that corresponds to a quantum jump.” So, according to Prins, an electron is a wave; not a particle, or even a particle with wave-duality. “There are only waves which can instantaneously morph to occupy a large space [delocalize] or a smaller space [localize] and then act as if it is a particle owing to Gauss' law being applicable.”
Prins claims that Heisenberg was in fact wrong, as “it is possible to visualize what is happening on the quantum scale and this visualization also defines the interface between quantum mechanics and classical mechanics. They are both valid within their respective domains. Quantum mechanics does not encompass classical mechanics as has been believed all these years.” This latter point highlights again the fact that Prins is not claiming that there is anything wrong with quantum mechanical theory, only that what is being measured needs to be reconsidered. “In terms of waves, quantum mechanics is a complete theory, which seems to neatly mesh with classical mechanics and most probably also with the general theory of relativity. It is that electrons are not modeled on waves that constitutes the crisis in physics,” he added.
Prins maintains that his theory offers a better model of reality; “because, once accepted, one finds plausible explanations for many of the outstanding problems in physics; for example, why ‘particles’ can diffract; why the so-called nuclear forces are not separate forces, but can be explained in terms of the same mechanism responsible for covalent bonding; why the cosmic background radiation is fairly uniform; the possible nature of dark energy; the possible nature of dark mass; why mass is energy etc. Nature is not random; it is causal, just like Einstein always wanted. In terms of my interpretation everything that occurs has a cause; once it is analyzed in terms of waves.”
Although I am intrigued by the idea, it's striking me as missing something important. The problem is, I can't figure out what it is that's sounding false. Ignoring the other controversial (to be generous) things this guy has said in the past, just trying to identify why this particular idea is setting off my B.S. alarm.
What do you think?
