[McQueen (OP)]

We also have submarines, jetski, trains, bus, bicycles, roller blades, aeroplanes, and helicopter. Seeing this way, 2 looks like a small number.

I shouldn't really be responding to this post but can't help it. Surely, all of these things you mention such as submarines, jet skis, trains, buses, bicycles, roller blades, aeroplanes and helicopters are based on empirical science. It has long been my contention that if you don't want to depend on empirical science, call it a new discipline call it metaphysical physics. In that way philosophical speculation can get as zany as one likes in order to suit everyone′s taste, and yet the distinction would exist that the one is hands on and the other can be whatever you want provided it doesn't have practical applications.

[paul cotter]

Both the wave and photon models have vast areas of direct application. If you can produce a better theory there are multiple Nobel prizes waiting.

[McQueen (OP)]

Both the wave and photon models have vast areas of direct application. If you can produce a better theory there are multiple Nobel prizes waiting.

Thank you for your post. I agree not only do both models have vast areas of direct application. At present I am working on a mathematical theory to account for the missing mass in the Milky Way Galaxy.

[Zer0]

@McQueen

You are Cordial & Polite.
A Rarity on Science fora.
(very good)

Nowadays, it's mostly seen as a Boxing ring, & laymen used as Punching bags.

Anyways, back to the Topic...
Missing mass!

You not satisfied with the Dark Matter Hypothesis?

[hamdani yusuf]

A unification between wave model and particle model of light will be either modifying the wave to incorporate explanation for phenomena currently explained using particle model, or modifying the particle to incorporate explanation for phenomena currently explained using wave model. Either way, it must naturally explain well known phenomena and properties of light, like superposition, diffraction, interference, reflection, refraction, polarization, photoelectric effect, doppler effect, sagnac effect, aberration, frequency and wavelength.

[Origin]

A unification between wave model and particle model of light

It has already happened, it is called Quantum physics.

either modifying the wave to incorporate explanation for phenomena currently explained using particle model, or modifying the particle to incorporate explanation for phenomena currently explained using wave model.

It didn't work out that way.  In quantum physics it is known that a photon (like an electron or any other quantum object) is not a particle and it is not a wave, it is something completely different it is a quantum object.

[McQueen (OP)]

@McQueen

You are Cordial & Polite.
A Rarity on Science fora.
(very good)

Nowadays, it's mostly seen as a Boxing ring, & laymen used as Punching bags.

Anyways, back to the Topic...
Missing mass!

You not satisfied with the Dark Matter Hypothesis?

Sincere thanks Zero, your comment is greatly appreciated. I do believe in the Dark Matter hypotheses, especially so after looking into how the measurements are calculated: https://www.astronomynotes.com/ismnotes/s7.htm I have hypothecated a substance that Dark Matter might be made of and tried to calculate if it would fit the missing mass, using data from the net such as  the volume of the Milky Way Galaxy, its mass etc., and got surprisingly good answers.

[hamdani yusuf]

A unification between wave model and particle model of light

It has already happened, it is called Quantum physics.

either modifying the wave to incorporate explanation for phenomena currently explained using particle model, or modifying the particle to incorporate explanation for phenomena currently explained using wave model.

It didn't work out that way.  In quantum physics it is known that a photon (like an electron or any other quantum object) is not a particle and it is not a wave, it is something completely different it is a quantum object.

How do you explain refraction and diffraction using quantum physics?

[Origin]

I have hypothecated a substance that Dark Matter might be made of and tried to calculate if it would fit the missing mass, using data from the net such as  the volume of the Milky Way Galaxy, its mass etc., and got surprisingly good answers

Interesting.  What is the substance?  Could you show the calculations?

[Origin]

How do you explain refraction and diffraction using quantum physics?

I'm sure I have discussed it before on one of your threads.  I am not interested in giving you an explanation and then having you spam the thread with 3 or 4 random Youtube videos and proclaiming no one knows anything!!

[alancalverd]

I do realise that there are two models of everything in physics, now-days. ................................., One model is used for performing calculations and the other for philosophical speculation.

Philosophical speculation is not physics.

[alancalverd]

How do you explain refraction and diffraction using quantum physics?

Only a fool would try.

[hamdani yusuf]

How do you explain refraction and diffraction using quantum physics?

Only a fool would try.

Is it impossible?

[alancalverd]

You are welcome to try, but why bother when the wave model works so well?

[hamdani yusuf]

I prefer the wave model of light, since it can explain various observations. But it has some significant difference from mechanical waves like sound, waves on water surface, string or spring.

[alancalverd]

Except it doesn't explain the interaction of light with materials. Photography, photoelectricity.....all require a particle model, and at very low intensities you can even count the photons!

[Zer0]

@McQueen
Please do Allow a few randomly absurd thoughts...

Can " Space " bend over itself?

Could the ' Higgs field ' twist, tangle, entangle in on itself?

Can ' Relativistic mass ' not produce a similar, but not the same, effect such as Gravity?

[McQueen (OP)]

@McQueen
Please do Allow a few randomly absurd thoughts...
Can " Space " bend over itself?
Could the ' Higgs field ' twist, tangle, entangle in on itself?
Can ' Relativistic mass ' not produce a similar, but not the same, effect such as Gravity?

                     Wonderful thoughts, and as such scope for discussion certainly does exist. Unfortunately, if an argument lacks structure, it turns out to be an exercise in futility, like hypothesising on how many sugars the mad hatter had in his tea.
 
                   Take for instance, the detection of ′gravity′ waves by LIGO. Ligo is a two billion dollar plus experiment that is being replicated all over the world, from Italy to India and China. The sensitivity of LIGO has to be something on the order of one ten thousandth the width of a proton or 10^-20 m approx. in order to detect gravity waves.  Taking as a very approximate value the fact that the force generated by a man weighing 100 Kg taking a single step in a place 1000 km distant from ligo, would generate a signal of  981 N / (10^6)^2 = 10^-10 N. Or a signal that is 10^10 times greater than the signal needed to detect gravitational waves, one realises has staggering implications.

                   This raises several problems. How is it possible to distinguish between the myriad (vast understatement) of different types of signal? The only possible answer that makes any sense at all is that Hal must do it, or to put it in other words. The calculations are all done by computer. But how accurate are these computer calculations, when does the computer decide that a signal isolated from the trillions and trillions of different signals, is the one signal denoting gravity? Surely the very noise generated inside the circuits of LIGo should swamp any credible signal? A very dodgy situation. If similar criteria are used to determine the higgs boson and other hard to detect particles, where does this leave science. Even what should be experiments that yield empirical results are more or less hypothetical. 

                     

[hamdani yusuf]

Except it doesn't explain the interaction of light with materials. Photography, photoelectricity.....all require a particle model,

Not necessarily. A modified wave model can do the same job.

and at very low intensities you can even count the photons!

You don't really count the photons. Only some activations of sensory equipment, which can also be activated by other stimulants, such as temperature and cosmic rays.

[McQueen (OP)]

The first problem I see is that no one, that I am aware of, thinks that light is no longer real when light travels from point A to point B.  I think you are mistaking the mathematics that describe light with the actual photons themselves.  The light does not travel as an abstract mathematical wave form, the wave form is a mathematical description about aspects of a photon.

Well, I knew that there was some kind of documentation on the hard interpretation of quantum mechanics made at the  5th Solvay Conference held in  1927 where a decision was made that light travelling from A to B did not exist as something real but as an abstract wave-function: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=068rdc75mHM&t=768s  from 12.18 on.