Yanniru wrote:
So I quess we have a choice. We can either believe that particles exist with a flux of forward time moving interacting with an equal and opposite flux of backward time moving anti-particles; or we can believe that particles do not exist. I prefer to believe that particles do not exist, and that the future is unknown.

After all the times Yanniru has suggested my credentials are lacking, he resolves this central question of physics as "believe what you want." Although I don't think that resolves the question, I agree otherwise.


Another point: The paper cited addresses the question but did you notice? -- the jury still may be out on whether the paper actually succeeds in proving its assertions.

The abstract states (boldface added) :
"It is shown that Hamilton's canonical equations of motion remove Newton's error quantitatively, and also lead to the most basic formulas of quantum mechanics without reference to any of the pioneering experiments of the late nineteenth century. An alternative formulation of the wave-particle duality principle is then suggested . . . "

"Shown" is a perfectly fine choice of words. We should remember it is an assertion.

• Ruquist is right - wandaqueen - January 22, 2005 - 03:33 UTC
  • Ruquist very well might BE anonymous Wandaqueen - kantolfir2 - January 22, 2005 - 20:31 UTC
    • Mike is just illiterate about science - wandaqueen - January 23, 2005 - 04:04 UTC
      • Devise a proof which will satisfy an unfair, anonymous person - kantolfir2 - January 23, 2005 - 04:28 UTC
        • That's no proof - wandaqueen - January 23, 2005 - 14:08 UTC
          • The alleged question was not asked coherently - carefuluniverse - January 23, 2005 - 23:06 UTC
            • What is the matter? - wandaqueen - January 24, 2005 - 02:51 UTC
              • Anonymous Wandaqueen requested proof then dropped the ball - kantolfir2 - January 27, 2005 - 18:51 UTC
                • My preference - wandaqueen - January 27, 2005 - 19:27 UTC