[cpu68 (OP)]

This text comes from a bigger work: New horizons in physics by Gregory Podgorniak (it's me, search the text in google)

Solution of the problem of Wave-particle duality, condensing and interference models

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 - I will correct this model accordingly in a moment. 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.
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, which is what the particles are made of. Later we have the firstfruits of wave matter - asymmetric microgrid, waves are made of it. Then the firstfruits of field matter, straight parallel lines, from which the fields are composed.
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.
Vacuum (space) has a threefold nature depending on the degree of rarefaction. The most compact is the square microgrid, corresponding to solid bodies. The asymmetric microgrid, corresponding to fluids, is more rarefied. The most rarefied is the linear microgrid corresponding to gases. The fourth hypothetical state of space is nothingness, a higher vacuum without any structures, or maybe with some very rarefied and very simple structures. This means that in a certain case the space would be truly empty, as it seems in the ordinary way of perceiving it.
In the original model, I assumed that vacuum condenses into fields, fields condense into waves, and waves condense into particles. In the current model, I assume that the vacuum (space) itself is in the appropriate four states and is itself subject to internal condensation through subsequent states corresponding to vacuum, fields, waves and particles. The basis and state corresponding to vacuum is nothingness. Vacuum, fields, waves and particles are the state of space.

The second proposed model, interference, assumes that particles are created by interference of waves (see diagram, crossing waves).



diagram. Interference of waves. This is how particles can be created.

This model is an extension of the first one. Waves are created by vibrations of fields, and fields are a vacuum state.
Just as we have three or rather four states of matter: vacuum, gas, liquid, solid. The condensation model corresponds to these basic states of matter. So, for example, particles are just a condensed form of vacuum (space), which is consistent with my previously presented results (see my TOE - https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=86332.0). So we have a unified explanation of both TOE and wave-particle duality based on the notion of vacuum (space) as a basis. In both cases we are dealing with a condensation of space.

Gregory Podgorniak, Poland, year 2024, 2025

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.

[Bored chemist]

The key to solving the wave-particle duality is the statement that the wave nature is revealed in fast motion, and in relative stillness we are dealing with particle nature.

No.
Because particles of light travel at ... the speed of light.

[cpu68 (OP)]

No.
Because particles of light travel at ... the speed of light.

As far as we know, the molecular nature of light can only be detected during interaction, i.e. when still. This is the case, for example, in the photoelectric effect. Thus, at the speed of light we are dealing with electromagnetic waves, and the molecular nature is revealed during interaction, i.e. in relative stillness.

[Bored chemist]

Light is never still.

[cpu68 (OP)]

Light is never still.

During the interaction, the movement of the electromagnetic light wave is stopped, so we have stillness. As we know, light interacts and therefore sometimes remains in stillness.

[Bored chemist]

Light is never still.

During the interaction, the movement of the electromagnetic light wave is stopped, so we have stillness. As we know, light interacts and therefore sometimes remains in stillness.

Only one of us learned about time dependent perturbation theory at university; and it shows.

Light is never still.

[cpu68 (OP)]

Light is never still.

If I agreed to this, and I don't have to, I could talk about interaction instead of stillness. Because, for example, light propagates as waves and interacts as particles. So I could say that particles in rapid motion turn into waves and during interaction they turn into particles.

[Bored chemist]

If I agreed to this, and I don't have to

No; you can continue to be wrong- at least until one of the mods closes the thread.

[alancalverd]

The way to solve the "puzzle of duality" is to ignore it. Electromagnetic radiation can be modelled as a wave or a particle. For the most part, transmission is best modelled as a wave, interaction as a particle at energies above a few eV.

Never confuse a model with reality. That is the conceit of philosophers and economists, not the business of science.   

[cpu68 (OP)]

The way to solve the "puzzle of duality" is to ignore it.

But this is the greatest mystery of physics.

Never confuse a model with reality.

What if this model agrees with reality to some or greater extent.

[alancalverd]

That's why we have two models. Duality of photons or particles is nonsense, but we have a duality of models for their behavior.

[cpu68 (OP)]

The explanation of wave-particle duality presented in the first post may perhaps be considered not entirely satisfactory. This can probably be seen as a step towards the final solution. And the issue of wave-particle duality itself is probably the largest and most difficult issue in physics. In my solution, however, I draw attention to the perhaps important fact that the wave phenomenon appears in motion.

[Bored chemist]

The explanation of wave-particle duality presented in the first post may perhaps be considered not entirely satisfactory

Yes; because it doesn't explain wave-particle duality.

This can probably be seen as a step towards the final solution.

Yes; that step concludes when you realise it's tosh and you stop wasting time on it and do something useful instead.

[alancalverd]

And the issue of wave-particle duality itself is probably the largest and most difficult issue in physics.

No, it's perfectly straightforward, just very badly explained. The word "duality" is what causes confusion. Stuff happens, with absolute consistency, but you need two different mathematical models to predict it.

[Origin]

Particles in rapid motion turn into waves, and in relative stillness they turn into particles. This is how the phenomenon of wave-particle duality can be explained.

First of all there is no puzzle to be solved.  Quantum objects can modeled quite well.  The problem you seem to have is trying to describe a quantum objects using a classical description.  That cannot be done.  Quantum objects don't 'turn into' waves or 'turn into' particles.  Quantum objects have a wave like property, this wave like property is not really like a classical wave.   In quantum objects the 'wave' is localized and a classical wave is not and quantum 'waves' collapse to a point, classical waves do not.
As Alan said the term particle-wave duality is an unfortunate term because it implies that quantum objects are part wave and part particle which is not accurate.  A quantum object is neither a particle nor a wave.   

[cpu68 (OP)]

Stuff happens, with absolute consistency

I don't mean to be rude, but you don't seem to get the wave-particle duality problem.

A quantum object is neither a particle nor a wave.   

So what is it ?

[Bored chemist]

So what is it ?

It's a quantum object.
So a photon is not a wave or a particle- because it's a photon.
And so on.

I don't mean to be rude, but you don't seem to get the wave-particle duality "problem".

[Origin]

I don't mean to be rude, but you don't seem to get the wave-particle duality problem.

What do you think the problem is?

[alancalverd]

The problem is in the minds of people who talk about wave-particle duality as though the phrase were meaningful. You could equally usefully talk about how many angels can dance on a pinhead.

[Zer0]

@cpu68

Have you ever tried performing the Double-Slit as a Thought Experiment?

If possible, could you Imagine doing it with Buckyballs & share/post your Results in here.

ps - I'd really like to hear your version of it.
: )