[timey]

I agree Syhprum - however it would also be nice to know why both are correct.

In examining the scenario where both descriptions are correct, it becomes necessary to consider that a vital peice of information that links the waves to the particles, and the particles to the waves must indeed exist.

And in accepting that a peice of information is missing - and this is the most important bit - it is paramount that one be open and willing to consider ideas!

An 'open' state of mind on the whole being a quality that appears to be somewhat lacking...

[jeffreyH]

It is not even a case of open mindedness. Theory has to be driven by observation and be able to make verifiable predictions. That is just the way things have to be done. Established theories work because they fit the above criteria. Rewriting them for the sake of it is unproductive.

[timey]

In addition to post above:

It is not even a case of open mindedness. Theory has to be driven by observation and be able to make verifiable predictions. That is just the way things have to be done. Established theories work because they fit the above criteria. Rewriting them for the sake of it is unproductive.

There is nothing unproductive about re-writing the laws of physics, if doing so unites the standard model with gravity.
That has been the goal of physicists for the best part of a century, or are the books I'm reading lying?

[Petrochemicals]

I am inclined to a push theory in a field that pushes on matter, I have proof for that, other than this idea seems to continually crop up.No smoke without fire. Such theorys also give a very good reason for for dark matter.