Statistically, I have 1.4 siblings. The truth IS KNOWN to be different.
Statistically a bunch of EM energy run through a pair of slits will behave as both a particle and a wave. The truth is ... subject to some dispute.
I've heard of one or two experiments that claim a single photon will produce similar results in the neighborhood of a double slit. What about a single wave? (I'm still looking. Most researchers assume photons, so few would try to do the experiment assuming waves.) My BS detector is ticking, but has not gone off, sounded an alarm IOW, yet. Insufficient data, either way.
***
For obvious reasons we are not able to use a particle detector to detect waves. And we are not able to use a wave detector to detect particles.
So it takes two separate experiments, run either in series or in parallel, to collect the data that we then interpret as "dang - it's both"
The universe really is a strange place. But is it strange in the way we presently imagine, or is it actually strange in some other way?
<ul>
<li> Waves (a field of particles, like air or rock)</li>
<li>particles
<ul>
<li>similar to individual teeny tiny little boulders</li>
<li>or perhaps some sort of magical equation-like dingus with no attempt made to specify physical properties</li>
<li>other possibilities CAN exist. Do they?
</ul>
moving through absolutely empty space, like some popular impressions of the solar wind.</li>
<li>both</li>
<li>Or neither ... something else?</li>
</li>
</ul>
To be able to say which, we really need to understand the physics of EM energy rather than the math. The math is important to a detailed understanding of the physics, but the physics will drive the math.
<ul>Until we can measure things so small that we can seriously rule out the possibility of a field of particles that propagate EM radiation waves, no serious explorer can say they do not exist</ul>
Is there an aether that fills all of the visible universe, within which EM energy can propagate as (transverse) waves?
If there is<ul>
<li>the particles it is made of must be smaller than we can presently detect</li>
<li>these particles must not react with each other (to form 'compounds' analogous to molecules in normal sized matter)</li>
<li>they must be subject to gravitational force, becoming more dense near normal size masses and less dense away from them.</li>
<li>the individual particles must be more or less stationary relative to each other and relative to large accumulations of normal sized matter, like a bubble or an atmosphere, when 'near' said large accumulations of normal sized matter.</li>
<ul>
<li>The range of this effect and the amount of matter needed to cause it is still TBD. </li>
<li>Earth must be large enough (since our experiments detect no drift), so Venus must be as well.</li>
<li>Earth's bubble will move with it and Venus' bubble will move with Venus so there must be a transition zone somewhere between them.</li>
<li>We have bounced radar beams, sent from Earth's surface, off of Venus. And we can do it again if we want to. Might there be subtle anomalies in the return echo, caused by the beam's passage through the anticipated turbulence of such a transition zone? </li>
</ul>
<li>this particle field must be orders of magnitude more stiff than steel.</li>
<li>it must have orders of magnitude less interaction with normal sized matter than does the gas and dust of interplanetary space</li>
<li>but it must interact to some extent, especially with charged mater. Such interaction is the basis of much of our technology from candles and cook stoves to incandescent light bulbs and radio.</li>
</ul>
Some pretty strange properties. Is this a possible candidate for one of the various kinds of 'dark matter' being talked about these days? Maybe we are almost able to detect it?
LB
