[cpu68 (OP)]

New perspectives in physics

1. STM

Let us assume an existence of homogenous formation space-time-matter, shortly STM.
Illustrative formula but not mathematical: STM = S + TM = T + SM = M + ST [spacetimematter = space + timematter = time + spacematter = matter + spacetime]
M + ST is concerning macroscopic conditions. If - M, + ST matter loses then spacetime profit, it is distance - perspective, objects decrease with distance - ordinary contraction. If + M, - ST matter profit then spacetime loses, it is bringing closer - perspective, objects increase in progress of bringing closer - ordinary dilatation.
S + TM is concerning microscopic conditions. If - TM, + S timematter loses then space profit, it leads to waves and fields. If - S, + TM space loses then timematter profit, it leads to particles.

2. Quantum gravity

How to build new theory I have shown in my article from March of 2006:
"we must understand that modern quantum mechanics (which was started with idea of quantums in 1900 and 1905 year) is in its fundaments, only mechanics of particles and electromagnetism. Two main points of starting of quantum mechanics, solution of problem of thermal radiance, and next solution of photoelectric phenomenon, both refer only to problem of particles of electromagnetic waves.
If we are trying to express gravitation correctly we must go out beyond limitations that are accepting at the ground of electromagnetism (which were created old theory of quantums and its descendant, quantum mechanics, in one hand, it was a Planck's constant value, and first theory of relativity of Einstein, at the other hand, it was constant value of speed of light) and designate new field for phenomenon of gravitation. We must use different measurement for gravitation and different measurement for electromagnetism." Also in this article I have proposed new borders for gravitation.
We can say that there is, very much smaller than length of Planck, size right for quantums of gravitation, it is a new base very small size value is about 10^-65 m.

3. Galactical model of subquark particles

Electrons, quarks and gluons possess internal structure, consist of quadrillion of particles of size about 10^-35 m [they correspond with photons], these then from quadrillion of particles about 10^-50 m, these then from quadrillion of particles about 10^-65 m [they correspond with gravitons]. To confirm legitimacy of assuming of hypothesis of internal structure of smallest from hitherto known structural subatomic particles as electrons, quarks and gluons it can be invoked the theory of science created by A.Comte (see after text Comte's Theory of Science).



diagram. Galatical model

Every following field uses in a large extent from previous, sociology from biology - theory of evolution, biology from chemistry - an example biochemistry, chemistry from physics - even if structure of atom and periodic table, physics from astronomy. Invoking astronomy it can be in physics reach eg. conception of existence of atoms and their internal structure - stars, planets, planetary system. It can be also reach models applied in conception of subquark particles and QG. It is galactical, cosmical and supercosmical model. Mystery of dark matter can be explained in this way that preonical particles possess mass.

4.

Mass of rubbish fills present physics for example - cosmical branes giving beginning to big bang and creating other universes, multidimensionality, strings existing in 10 dimensions, parallel universes, spatiotemporal tunnels, microblisters, hyperspace and so on.
And several words about atomistic paradigm of Natural Sciences. Against claims of such philosophers as Popper atomism does not descend from metaphysical speculations. Democritus took over this view from Hindus during his travels in the east, conception of atoms existed there at the very latest about VIII century BC, and was based on paranormal perceptions of yogis - a source could be only paranormal activity, but for sure not philosophical speculation, in Europe spherical atoms appeared not before XIX century AD.

(2011)

5. Solution of the problem of Wave-particle duality

One of the biggest puzzles is the problem of how light in classical physics can be a wave, while in quantum physics it is in the form of photons or particles. The light ray is a wave but the energy transmits matter in the form of photons. Thus, it can also be assumed that any other particle, for example a moving electron, can be a wave of matter. The existence of matter waves was confirmed in 1927. Also in 1927 the uncertainty principle was formulated, stating that it is impossible to measure the position and momentum of a particle with unlimited accuracy. The issues considered are related to the problem of wave-particle duality.
Wave-particle duality, the property of matter, for example electrons, in that in some conditions the wave character is manifested, and in others corpuscular character. Wave properties are revealed by diffraction and interference phenomena. Classical physics could not explain, for example, the photoelectric phenomenon, the adoption of the concept of a discrete radiation structure enabled solving this difficulty. Electron diffraction has shown that molecules have wave properties in addition to their corpuscular properties. Current theory assumes that all molecules have both wave and corpuscular character. This fact has been checked not only for elementary particles but also for composite particles such as atoms. Recognition of the dual nature of matter is the basis of modern physics.
So far, considered duality remains a mystery, this is my explanation of this enigma. The problem of wave-particle duality is in fact a problem of trichotomy, where the third state are fields. At the explanation of this problem it is possible to invoke phenomenon of three states of concentration of the matter, the solid state, liquid and gas. This phenomenon determines the model for the problem of trichotomy in the microworld. Three states of concentration of the matter it is possible to implement by the fourth state which is the vacuum. Contractual condensation of the vacuum gives the highest state of concentration, gas. The further condensation gives the liquid state of concentration, still further the solid state of concentration. So the vacuum condenses into fields, fields condense into waves, waves condense into particles. The formation of particles directly from the fields corresponds to gas resublimation. These considerations make for the conclusion that the base for three states of the microworld is the vacuum. So particles, waves and fields are just a condensed form of vacuum (space). On the ground of STM (see paragraph 1) we can reach explanation where particles, waves and fields can be brought to the space.

6. Theory of everything (TOE)

Two theories which modern physics is based on is the general theory of relativity (GR) and quantum mechanics (QM). GR refers to great phenomena in cosmic scales, where gravity works. QM refers to phenomena in microscale, relates to particles and interactions. Years of research have shown that these two theories work well in experiments. On the other hand they are incompatible with each other. This inconsistency is revealed in very much small scale, Planck scale. To solve it, one should discover the theory showing a deeper reality, it will be the TOE, explaining all phenomena in the universe.
Among ancient theories, apart from atomism, we can find another one equally useful theory created by the Greek sophist Gorgias who lived in the 5th century BC, which turns out to be helpful in searching for the TOE. In the work On Non-Existence we can find the first thesis of this theory: nothing exists. Well, the ultimate basis for everything is nothingness.

7.

Regarding paragraph 3, a more careful analysis of the galactical model leads to the conclusion that there are more types of particles of the right type. Types of stars, by supergiants, giants, dwarfs, all the way to the black star (black hole, see paragraph 11) would correspond to the types of these particles. Cosmical model analysis leads to similar conclusions, where the types of particles would correspond to the appropriate types of galaxies. At the end, the analysis of the supercosmical model leads to similar conclusions.
In addition, it can be assumed that there are types of photon-like particles and corresponding waves with significantly higher speeds than the speed of light. So there are non-electromagnetic waves far above the speed of light.

8.

Popper's Falsificationism seems to be wrong because the theory tests always strive to confirm it or confirmation and not refute it. So this concept is not unreliable with the actual way science is practiced. From the point of view of scientific research, striving to refute the theory seems to be a kind of nonsense and is something illogical.
For example, General Relativity found confirmation in the Mercury orbit anomalies that Newton's theory could not explain. This confirmation is treated as proof of the validity of the theory. Of course, you can give more examples.
Knowledge is inherently uncertain, as the ancient skeptics have already demonstrated. Therefore, science must use invalid inferences. Induction inferences is one of the basic types of inference of empirical sciences. These are uncertain inferences. Deductive inferences belong to the field of formal sciences such as mathematics and logic. On the basis of empirical science, the use of deduction is not meaningfully possible. By the way, ancient skeptics have also undermined the credibility of the deduction.

(2019)

9.

Regarding paragraph 1, thus, objects that move away decrease and objects that move closer enlarge. This can be called an ordinary contraction and dilatation, respectively. This ordinary phenomenon confirms the validity of the assumption about the unity of space and matter, and therefore also due to the concept of space-time on the unity of time, space and matter.

10.

Regarding paragraph 5, we are dealing here with densification by jumps, where we obtain successive states from vacuum to atomic matter. Of course, in modeling these processes, one can use the sigmoidal model, which I have used extensively in other studies. The sigmoidal model records these jumps. I would like to add that these jumps are quantitative and not qualitative, according to the principle that any qualitative change is in fact a quantitative change.

(2020)

11. Black holes, Big-Bang

On the basis close to my Quantum Gravity, we can obtain an explanation of the mystery of black holes. The use of quantization produces specific results. Alleged black hole is a kind of black star - with size about a star for our galaxy - consisting from condensate of small particles corresponding with gravitons. Black because does not let go photons. More suitable name than black hole is for this object name black star. So called event horizon is identical with its surface, so called Schwarzschild radius relates to its real radius. Inside the black star in the center of our galaxy a tunnel opens which leads in to the core of a distant galaxy.
I should add also that primeval object which was a beginning of Universe had size not about 1 cm or less but several light yeras - about size of the distance to one of the nearby stars, and we should call it primeval black hyperstar. A model of primeval explosion can be an explosion of supernova. An instability of hyperstar can be caused for exceeding of a certain threshold, a certain limit of mass/size analogous to Chandrasekhar limit for supernovas.
More strictly speaking, the primal object that started our cosmos was at the center of a small galaxy in another cosmos. A tunnel from another cosmos it has a small end of 1 cm, after primeval black hyperstar exceeded the critical mass this end began to widen rapidly. The growth of primeval black hyperstar lasted approximately 50 billion years. If the initial object has a quite big size, there wasn't age of inflation thus whole this conception must fall down.

12. Antigravity Drive

Antigravitons or antiparticles of gravitons can be used in the construction of an antigravity drive because they probably generate antigravity. The propulsion of the antigravity vehicle will be a miniature anti black star, built from antiparticles to particles at the level of gravitons, that is, on the order of the magnitude of 10^-65 m. So, visions of flying cars from science fiction movies can be put into practice.

(2021)

Gregory Podgorniak, Poland

about the author, My name is Gregory Podgorniak (brn. 01.1977, Szczecinek, West Pomerania, Poland). I am working on field of natural as well as social sciences. During philosophical studies at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan (1996-1999) I was actively act in student scientific organisation, got a scientific scholarship, and one from my articles titled Circulus vitiosus and fourfold petitio principii in the system of Descartes was published in Humanistic Drafts of Publishing House of Humaniora Foundation in Poznan, no. 6, 1998. Unfortunately certain fate events made impossible to me continuing studies to master's and later doctor's degree. Thence I was forced to be content only with a title of bachelor.
Thanks to deep and penetrating researchings I was able to establish indisputably some number of my past incarnations reaching of ancient period, these data are certain, these incarnations are: Auguste Comte (1798-1857) French philosopher and sociologist, Edme Mariotte (1620-1684) French physicist and meteorologist, Bodhidharma (5th or 6th century) buddhist patriarch, Aenesidemus (1 st century BC) Greek sceptical philosopher, Arcesilaus (315-241 BC) Greek sceptical philosopher, Gorgias (485-380 BC) Greek sophist.

[paul cotter]

If you are trying to rewrite physics(which is a laudable pursuit in my opinion) you need to understand current physics, in depth, before you embark on this journey. You have more errors and wooly concepts than I can count and I don't have the energy to address these. You really need to learn your physics first.

[cpu68 (OP)]

You have more errors ... than I can count

indicate at least a few

[alancalverd]

I think you outlined 12 in your original post. Not bad for a philosopher.

[cpu68 (OP)]

Not bad for a philosopher.

Thank you for this assessment

[Colin2B]

Not bad for a philosopher.

Thank you for this assessment

You can thank him properly by going to that post and selecting the “action” dropdown (top right) and at the top of the list you will see “say thanks”, click on that.

[alancalverd]

We really do need a "tongue in cheek" emoticon.

[Colin2B]

We really do need a "tongue in cheek" emoticon.

I thought your post spoke for itself 😳

I can find a text symbol :-J  , but not a graphic

Edit: just noticed that he actually did it. You are right, we need one 👅

[Halc]

You have more errors ... than I can count

indicate at least a few

I will attempt it, but most of the errors are grammatical. I take it that English is not your native language, but most of the sentences don’t even parse.

New perspectives in physics

We can start with this. I see no physics being done. Poetry perhaps, but not a single prediction can be made based on what you’ve posted. So it isn’t science/physics.

If - M, + ST matter loses then spacetime profit, it is distance - perspective, objects decrease with distance - ordinary contraction. If + M, - ST matter profit then spacetime loses it is bringing closer - perspective, objects increase in progress of bringing closer - ordinary dilatation.

This collection of words is one of the things that doesn’t parse. I see references to financial terms as if matter and spacetime are exchanging money and one loses while the other profits. This in the same word collection (calling it a sentence would be too generous) that perhaps hints later on that things nearby appear larger than things further away, which seems unrelated to the STM thing altogether.

How to build new theory I have shown in my article from March of 2006

If you have a new theory that displaces existing quantum and relativity theories, then all the things from those established theories are discarded with it. You can’t reference things from a theory which you deny, or at least demonstrate a complete lack of understanding. You should take some physics courses so you can talk about it coherently.
For instance, quantum mechanics does not suggest ‘particles of electromagnetic waves’.

If we are trying to express gravitation correctly we must go out beyond limitations that are accepting at the ground of electromagnetism (which were created old theory of quantums and its descendant, quantum mechanics, in one hand, it was a Planck's constant value, and first theory of relativity of Einstein, at the other hand, it was constant value of speed of light) and designate new field for phenomenon of gravitation.

Another unparsable word collection. There is no ‘Planck's constant value’, somehow stuck into this string of words without a hint of why. Einstein has no second theory of relativity. Perhaps you’re referring to the special and general cases, but they’re the same theory. Constant local light speed relative to an inertial frame is a premise of that theory, and other theories do not posit it. It cannot be proven right or wrong.

We must use different measurement for gravitation and different measurement for electromagnetism.

But none are suggested I see.

We can say that there is, very much smaller than length of Planck, size right for quantums of gravitation, it is a new base very small size value is about 10^-65 m.

This seems to suggest that a quantum of anything has a meaningful size, but you give no indication where its size would matter to anything.

Electrons, quarks and gluons possess internal structure, consist of quadrillion of particles of size about 10^-35 m [they correspond with photons], these then from quadrillion of particles about 10^-50 m, these then from quadrillion of particles about 10^-65 m [they correspond with gravitons].

That’s a steep assertion, since accepted physics doesn’t say these things have meaningful extension at all. Exactly what empirical problem is solved by this string of words? This is what I mean by it not being physics. If an electron are made of parts, why can’t they smash one in two?

Invoking astronomy it can be in physics reach eg. conception of existence of atoms and their internal structure - stars, planets, planetary system.

This again doesn’t parse. It perhaps attempts to suggest the naive model of atoms being little suns with electron planets orbiting them. That had been falsified long ago.

Mass of rubbish fills present physics for example - cosmical branes giving beginning to big bang and creating other universes, multidimensionality, strings existing in 10 dimensions, parallel universes, spatiotemporal tunnels, microblisters, hyperspace and so on.

You have a falsification of the validity of any of these concepts? They’re the product of people actually trying new ways to explain things. They’re not just assertions on some forum.

And several words about atomistic paradigm of Natural Sciences. Against claims of such philosophers as Popper atomism does not descend from metaphysical speculations. Democritus took over this view from Hindus during his travels in the east, conception of atoms existed there at the very latest about VIII century BC, and was based on paranormal perceptions of yogis - a source could be only paranormal activity, but for sure not philosophical speculation, in Europe spherical atoms appeared not before XIX century AD.

You do realize that the word ‘atom’ is used differently now than it was at that time, right?

One of the biggest puzzles is the problem of how light in classical physics can be a wave, while in quantum physics it is in the form of photons or particles.

Quantum physics does not suggest light is particles. Misunderstanding a theory always leads to mistakes.

The light ray is a wave but the energy transmits matter in the form of photons.

Light is not. Is it in your “theory”? Light does not transmit matter.

The existence of matter waves was confirmed in 1927.

Water waves are matter waves, and we’ve know about those a bit further back than 1927. You seem to be referencing something else.

Wave-particle duality, the property of matter, for example electrons, in that in some conditions the wave character is manifested, and in others corpuscular character.

Bad grammar and Newtonian terminology aside, this is closer to being accurate.

Recognition of the dual nature of matter is the basis of modern physics.

Recognition that physics is not fundamentally classic is closer to the basis of modern physics.
So far, considered duality remains a mystery, this is my explanation of this enigma. The problem of wave-particle duality is in fact a problem of trichotomy, where the third state are fields. At the explanation of this problem it is possible to invoke phenomenon of three states of concentration of the matter, the solid state, liquid and gas.[/quote]This seems to suggest that quantum wave particle duality is in any way related to the states of classical matter. This is an error. You asked that they be pointed out. An electron for instance cannot ‘boil’.

the fourth state which is the vacuum

Vacuum is not a state of matter. One cannot do something to say water to make it a vacuum.

This inconsistency is revealed in very much small scale, Planck scale. To solve it, one should discover the theory showing a deeper reality, it will be the TOE, explaining all phenomena in the universe.

You’re referring to the unified field theory. The TOE is something else. Relativity works fine at Planck scale, but it breaks down where it is singular.

Regarding paragraph 3

You seem to be referencing a work that we cannot access. You should post the relevant text here if you want us to know what you’re talking about. Is this document written by somebody who can write English? You seem to be equating subatomic particles to various types of stars. What possible predictions can come of that without immediate falsification.

In addition, it can be assumed that there are types of photon-like particles and corresponding waves with significantly higher speeds than the speed of light.

What’s the point of such an assumption if you can’t measure one?

From the point of view of scientific research, striving to refute the theory seems to be a kind of nonsense and is something illogical.

This seems to attack the scientific method itself.

For example, General Relativity found confirmation in the Mercury orbit anomalies that Newton's theory could not explain. This confirmation is treated as proof of the validity of the theory.

Theories are not proved. The simply fail to be falsified, and GR has been spectacular at avoiding falsification. What the Mercury thing did was falsify almost every competing model at the time.

Regarding paragraph 1, thus, objects that move away decrease and objects that move closer enlarge. This can be called an ordinary contraction and dilatation, respectively.

The words contraction and dilation mean something else in physics. It has nothing to do with things appearing to grow larger when they get nearer. Length contraction is a geometric effect that is not related to whether a moving object is approaching or not.

Alleged black hole is a kind of black star - with size about a star for our galaxy - consisting from condensate of small particles corresponding with gravitons.

This is about as wrong as you can get. It is not composed of particles at all. It is a set of spacetime events. It isn’t a star. Most of them are far smaller than stars or even planets. Calling them alleged means you are in denial of relativity, which is fine. There are competing theories (actual theories) that don’t have them. No big bang either.

Black because does not let go photons. More suitable name than black hole is for this object name black star. So called event horizon is identical with its surface, so called Schwarzschild radius relates to its real radius. Inside the black star in the center of our galaxy a tunnel opens which leads in to the core of a distant galaxy.

Please take some physics courses, and don’t try to explain a thing about which you have zero concept. This is utterly wrong. There’s nothing wrong with a new theory if it helps explain things better, but misrepresenting an established theory like you’re doing is just going to label you as a crank, and nobody will read your paper any more than they read the papers of the other rabid deniers. This comment only demonstrates that you lack the education to produce an actual viable theory.

I think I will quit here. There’s little point in reading the rest. I actually got most of the way through.

[cpu68 (OP)]

Halc you have formulated a lot of objections, but I will only answer a few of them.

I see no physics being done. Poetry perhaps, but not a single prediction can be made based on what you’ve posted. So it isn’t science/physics.

This is physics. For example from three models galactical, cosmical and supercosmical, predictions can be made about the existence of a hidden mass in the universe. Which agrees with the mystery of dark matter.

that things nearby appear larger than things further away, which seems unrelated to the STM thing altogether

This shows the unity of spacetime and matter.

It perhaps attempts to suggest the naive model of atoms being little suns with electron planets orbiting them. That had been falsified long ago.

The Bohr model is also called the planetary model of the atom, as recognized in physics

You seem to be referencing a work that we cannot access

The reference to paragraph 3 is a reference to the 3. Galactical model of subquark particles, in the text. This division of the text was imposed by different dates of writing both parts. One paragraph 3 in 2011, the other paragraph 7 in 2019.

like you’re doing is just going to label you as a crank

I don't think I am a crank. By the way, if you had more culture in your statements, it would be a better testimony to you.

[paul cotter]

I don't know what you mean by your "culture" remark but I find it offensive. Halc has been kind enough to reply to your ideas in great detail. We may disagree as to what x+y is equal to without the need for personal insults.

[Colin2B]

that things nearby appear larger than things further away, which seems unrelated to the STM thing altogether

This shows the unity of spacetime and matter.

Not at all, it shows the principle of visual perspective, an effect of the angles subtended at the eye

It perhaps attempts to suggest the naive model of atoms being little suns with electron planets orbiting them. That had been falsified long ago.

The Bohr model is also called the planetary model of the atom, as recognized in physics

The Bohr model is considered obsolete in physics. It is still taught as part of the historical perspective showing the development of the models and to show it had value as an approximation. It has been replaced by more advanced models.

[cpu68 (OP)]

Not at all, it shows the principle of visual perspective, an effect of the angles subtended at the eye

However, I assume that it has to do with STM

The Bohr model is considered obsolete in physics...It has been replaced by more advanced models.

Contemporary views on the structure of the atom are derived from the theory of the atom given in 1913 by N. Bohr. Moreover, the planetary model remains a useful for physics, astronomical model of the atom.

[Bored chemist]

I will only answer a few of them.

Then you aren't truly engaging in debate and shouldn't be on a discussion forum.

[Deecart]

Not at all, it shows the principle of visual perspective, an effect of the angles subtended at the eye

I dont agree with this.
The "perspective" has nothing to do with "the eye" or anything related to the view ("visual perspective"). It works with gravitation too, so nothing to do with some "eye").

But at least you are right when we consider some point : It is (only) a principle, based on some particular mathematical approach of tridimentional space.

It is prety amusing to understand that "we" accept that the contraction of space within RS is the reality and that we deny this possibility (it is the reality) for more simple facts.
So almost any physicist agree that perspective is an illusion but space contraction within RS is reality : Why those double standards ?

To make clear that this question is not closed, take a look at the many research about the reason why the space is 3 dimentional (so trying to understand this "principle").
And we actually know that 3D space + 1D time is not suited to describe the reality at any scale (10 or 11 dimensions could be better... when we start with the naive "perspective view" you talked about).

[cpu68 (OP)]

It is prety amusing to understand that "we" accept that the contraction of space within RS is the reality and that we deny this possibility (it is the reality) for more simple facts.
So almost any physicist agree that perspective is an illusion but space contraction within RS is reality : Why those double standards ?

good points

[Kryptid]

Contemporary views on the structure of the atom are derived from the theory of the atom given in 1913 by N. Bohr.

Perhaps so, but it's still wrong.

[cpu68 (OP)]

I see that most of the participants in this discussion do not realize the importance of my discoveries. For example, the Galactical model of subquark particles, and actually three models, galactical, cosmical and supercosmical, is a discovery greater than the Bohr model, not to mention other theories.

[Kryptid]

I see that most of the participants in this discussion do not realize the importance of my discoveries. For example, the Galactical model of subquark particles, and actually three models, galactical, cosmical and supercosmical, is a discovery greater than the Bohr model, not to mention other theories.

I don't think you can call those "discoveries" until you can provide much better evidence for their accuracy (preferably in the form of testing predictions) than you already have. What I see in your original post mostly seems to consist of assertions and/or speculation without supporting evidence. For example, how do you know that electrons, gluon and quarks have any internal structure, much less that they are made up of a quadrillion smaller particles?

By the way, it's against the rules of this discussion board to post threads that you've already posted elsewhere on the Internet:

It is not acceptable simply to post material onto this forum that you have posted elsewhere, except where the post is specifically pertinent to an ongoing thread.  If you start a thread with a post that is for all practical purposes the same as you have posted elsewhere, we will generally assume that you are evangelising, and will act accordingly.

I see now that you have posted this exact same thing here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/127666-new-perspectives-in-physics/

As such, this thread will now be closed.

[cpu68 (OP)]

One of the biggest puzzles is the problem of how light in classical physics can be a wave, while in quantum physics it is in the form of photons or particles. The light ray is a wave but the energy transmits matter in the form of photons. Thus, it can also be assumed that any other particle, for example a moving electron, can be a wave of matter. The existence of matter waves was confirmed in 1927. Also in 1927 the uncertainty principle was formulated, stating that it is impossible to measure the position and momentum of a particle with unlimited accuracy. The issues considered are related to the problem of wave-particle duality.
Wave-particle duality, the property of matter, for example electrons, in that in some conditions the wave character is manifested, and in others corpuscular character. Wave properties are revealed by diffraction and interference phenomena. Classical physics could not explain, for example, the photoelectric phenomenon, the adoption of the concept of a discrete radiation structure enabled solving this difficulty. Electron diffraction has shown that molecules have wave properties in addition to their corpuscular properties. Current theory assumes that all molecules have both wave and corpuscular character. This fact has been checked not only for elementary particles but also for composite particles such as atoms. Recognition of the dual nature of matter is the basis of modern physics.
So far, considered duality remains a mystery, this is my explanation of this enigma. The problem of wave-particle duality is in fact a problem of trichotomy, where the third state are fields. At the explanation of this problem it is possible to invoke phenomenon of three states of concentration of the matter, the solid state, liquid and gas. This phenomenon determines the model for the problem of trichotomy in the microworld. Three states of concentration of the matter it is possible to implement by the fourth state which is the vacuum. These considerations make for the conclusion that the base for three states of the microworld is the vacuum. So particles, waves and fields are just a condensed form of vacuum (space).
The vacuum or space itself is in three states, the firstfruits of particle, wave and field matter. First we have the firstfruits of particle matter, the square microgrid (sizes of the order of 10^-80 m), which is what the particles are made of. Later we have the firstfruits of wave matter - asymmetric microgrid (sizes of the order of 10^-80 m), waves are made of it. Then the firstfruits of field matter, straight lines (sizes of the order of 10^-80 m), from which the fields are composed. It can be said that these firstfruits of fields are themselves a field, and the vacuum (space) itself is a field.
So it appears that matter is simply of a threefold nature, because the space from which it arises has a threefold nature. There are three microgrids, a particle microgrid, a wave microgrid, and a field microgrid.

author of text: Gregory Podgorniak, Poland, 2023