I thought QM built on using a canvas whereupon your forces and quanta danced Lightarrow? That is, that it presumes a background. That is actually a different concept compared to Einsteins SpaceTime. Also I was under the distinct impression that all will be quanta in it.

Including waves?

You have a clear, no BS introduction to how you see it?

I would really like something unambiguous for this.

==

That link is talking about QED right? Well QED is neither one if you listen to Feynman. He also said that he didn't believe in any of the explanations made yet, including his own, if I remember right. So maybe, but then we're not talking quanta anymore. We're instead talking, depending on your interpretation 'waves' 'fields' or as Feynman most probably thought

Approximations. And to me a 'field' may be the closest if you accept that SpaceTime, all included is one whole 'field' to me.

QFT has this to say "(It is important to note, at this point, that this article does not use the word "particle" in the context of wave–particle duality. In quantum field theory, "particle" is a generic term for any discrete quantum mechanical entity, such as an electron or photon, which can behave like classical particles or classical waves under different experimental conditions, such that one could say 'this "particle" can behave like a wave or a particle'.)"

==

Looking it up some more, QTF is not compatible with General relativity, and so QED fail too? It really gives me a headache reading theories that think they come from a SpaceTime approach, still not able to support a almost 100 year old theory that is the best approximation we have so far to gravity. Talking about string theory being 'before its time' while being totally theoretical at the same time as schools stop teaching General relativity? It's not strange that so many gloss it over, they can't even do the theory any more. I'm getting grumpy here

"Although Quantum Field Theory is fully compatible with, and in fact requires Special Relativity, the most naive application of field theory to General Relativity is known to be unworkable. This is generally considered to be the most difficult outstanding problem in Physics.

The incompatibility is due both to the complications of curved space-time required by GR, as well as from presumed properties of gravitons. Gravitons are hypothetical bosons which, in the most naive application of Field Theory to GR, would mediate the gravitational force between particles. Unlike the bosons mediating the other forces of nature, which are spin 1, gravitons in the simplest case would be bosons of spin 2, coupled to the Einstein mass-energy tensor. This difference in spin greatly complicates the renormalization of quantum gravity.

Consequently, alternative theories of quantum gravity are an active area of research among physicists, including popular theoretical attempts such as string theory and loop quantum gravity. None of these alternative approaches yet has experimental confirmation. "

And renormalization really make me suspicious. Using those any theory will work it seems, you just set in parameters you find 'working' in reality and voila, your 'theory works'. I mean, most theorys have to accept some parts of reality to be accepted, don't they? It would be interesting to se an study in how far you can go from what we know to work (like 'laws' we already use) and still make the theory seem reasonable. That should be a good field of study. Yep, I'm definitely getting grumpy here