Sorry about that. I'm sure the remainder of the article could be interesting.
Simply put, my objection is the the inclusion of particles rather than quanitzed fields in this abstract statement. Particles, as existent things, are an addition to quantum mechanics, not part of it. Nothing in quantum mechanics saysmatter 'n stuff comes in particles, unless we are talking about the old quantum mechanics of Niels Bohr or very speculative interpretations of quantum mechanics such as Bohmian Mechanics. The popular science culture always wants to talk about particles like little billiard balls because they are so much easier to understand. What particles? Well, they are an easy cruch for laymen rather than continuous fields. If you want an alternate perspecive to particles, see the Feynman Auckland lectures, presented in a manner accessible to laymen. So, nevermind. On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 12:27 AM, Damon Craig <[email protected]> wrote: > That's fairly amazing, as quantum theory says nothing about particles, > flittering, flitting or otherwise. > > On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 11:07 AM, francis <[email protected]> wrote: > >> "Abstract: One of the most surprising predictions of modern quantum >> theory is that the vacuum of space is not empty. In fact, quantum theory >> predicts that it teems with virtual particles flitting in and out of >> existence..." >> > >
