I respectfully disagree with the premise of this paper. It is incomplete in the sense of Einstein in his debate with Bohr – not yet settled. I do agree that Heisenberg’s potent are physically real fields, but they are not a complete description of reality that also has classical matter dynamical degrees of freedom independent of h. This picture has been recently clarified and quantified in the papers of Roderick Sutherland.
Thanks Dr. Sarfatti for your comments. The authors in no way assert that this matter is settled, but simply propose what we believe is a fruitful avenue for exploration.
I respectfully disagree with the premise of this paper. It is incomplete in the sense of Einstein in his debate with Bohr – not yet settled. I do agree that Heisenberg’s potent are physically real fields, but they are not a complete description of reality that also has classical matter dynamical degrees of freedom independent of h. This picture has been recently clarified and quantified in the papers of Roderick Sutherland.
Potent should be “potentia” this website has a “spell checker” that deleted the “ia” and there is no “edit” option.
Thanks Dr. Sarfatti for your comments. The authors in no way assert that this matter is settled, but simply propose what we believe is a fruitful avenue for exploration.