More on quantum mechanics

This is some additional thinking on Quantum Mechanics by
our resident philosopher-physicist, who originaly posted
this response to a reader's question about Quantum Mechanics as
it related to my
posting
discussing, in part, the hierarchical nature of knowledge.
*************************************************************
Tom M. Wrote:
I think one reason why some scientists want to fight against the
idea that quantum particles jump from one position to another
(at least under certain circumstances) is that they tend to
think such particles as not being surrounded by anything (say in
the absence of fields or in the absence of being directly
influenced by other particles colliding with them).

But existence is a full plenum -- there is no nothing anywhere.
And, again, the reason for this is that existence is identity.
For there to be an actual bubble of nothing (or even a large
amount of it) surrounding elementary particles would be to say
that nothing is something, and that this
existent-which-has-no-identity could influence particles in any
way would also violate the law of causality. To be is to be
something specific, which also means it would act or change
according to its identity.

So, a further implication that the surrounded-by-nothing
advocates are claiming is that nothing can become something --
i.e. a given point in the nothing can suddenly become
transformed into a particle, as the particles moves from point A
to point B, with nothing in between; say at points A1 and A2,
those "points in space" go from having no quality to suddenly
having the quality of the particle as the particles passes
through them. And some physicists don't even mind saying that
something can come from nothing! Now, I'll grant you that some
of them don't mean it literally, but some of them do (as in the
Big Bang theory). And some of these physicists claim that a
particle that does jump does not pass through any point in
between. I think it "passes through" the sub-points A1 and A2,
but given the nature of that-which-is-in-between, it just can't
stop at those points.

Having a conception that there is something there can account
for some of the weird effects observed in quantum mechanics.
Whoever discovers its properties would have the right to name
it, but I like to call it the aether, and I've written a poem
about it on my website in the aesthetics section:

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~philosophic-essays/esthetics.htm

The aether, or whatever it gets named, would have certain
specific properties and would act accordingly. So, instead of
having the conception that particles "pass through empty space"
the conception would be that such particles interact with
that-which-is-in-between and both the particle and the aether
would act according to their own identities -- which would then
be the answer to many of the weird effects investigated in
quantum mechanics (and probably Relativity as well).
©2006 Tom Miovas
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~philosophic-essays/