Home| Letters| Links| RSS| About Us| Contact Us

On the Frontline

What's New

Table of Contents

Index of Authors

Index of Titles

Index of Letters

Mailing List

subscribe to our mailing list:


Critique of Intelligent Design

Evolution vs. Creationism

The Art of ID Stuntmen

Faith vs Reason

Anthropic Principle

Autopsy of the Bible code

Science and Religion

Historical Notes


Serious Notions with a Smile


Letter Serial Correlation

Mark Perakh's Web Site


[Write a Reply] [Letters Index]

Title Author Date
Failure to demystify Perakh, Mark Aug 30, 2006
It looks like David C. is confused regarding the relationship between theoretical constructs like the Schroedinger equation, and physical reality. The Schroedinger equation, and the wave function which is found via solving that equation for specific boundary conditions, while among the greatest achievements of the human mind and apart from being highly instrumental in describing particles' observed behavior, are mathematically formulated theoretical constructs. Whether my hypothetical explanation of the material particles's wave spectra is correct or incorrect (and in my essay I unequivocally admit it can be wrong), it has nothing to do with the validity of the solutions of Schroedinger equation. If my hypothesis, attributing the wave behavior to the interaction of particles's magnetic momenta with electric fields within the solids, happened to be correct, it would not affect in the least the applicability of the Schroedinger equation to the hydrogen atom (or to any other problem). The Schroedinger equation correctly describes the behavior of particles viewed as waves, but in itself sheds no light on the underlying physical mechanism of what appears as a wave behavior.

David C. further rejects not just my particular hypothesis, but the commonly accepted view of physicists (so I seem to be in good company). In David's opinion, the observed behavior of particles is not a manifestation of a wave-particle duality, but on the contrary, a manifestation of what he calls "non-duality." Such a bold rejection of a commonly accepted view may be taken seriously only if supported by substantial evidence. David C. offers none. The gist of that statement is obscure and can't be discussed absent a clarification (although I hardly expect that any further clarification from David C. would shed more light upon his idiosyncratic version of particle physics).

In a reply to another letter from David C., Talk Reason characterized David's attitude as supercilious. It looks like that characterization was right on the mark.
Related Articles: Wave-particle duality demystified?