Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 111Celt
I read it all, but the reservation I have relates to the wave-particle duality issue. I see this as a bit of kludge really; an expression of how little we understand about what is going on with so many 'particles'.
The problem for me is that your ideas cite the same thing as a solution. Your smaller particles also demonstrate this, er, behaviour -- wave-particle dulaity? That is if I understand you right?
|
I am really envisioning only one sub-quantum wave/particle. It has a duality like you say, along with the other characteristics that I mentioned. It does form various stable levels across environments that set up like the layers of an onion, and when different stabilized levels inevitable mix, I'm asking them to remain stable and form themselves into various quantum particles. I know it is a lot to ask
.
My view is that there is a natural duality in almost everything. There are two ends to every spectrum. In nature there is positive and negative, hot and cold, strong and weak, and probably an endless list. The same goes for politics with liberal and conservative, and religion with fundamental and permissive, and with love or hate, and even DNA splits in two.
I guess my point is that it seems perfectly fitting that the elemental particle would have a dual nature.
Quote:
My hunch is that electrons, for example, will turn out to comprise smaller particles circling within the radius of the classical electron, as per Ralph Sansbury's ideas. These subtrons, as Sansbury calls them, won't necessarily have wave like properties, I don't think.
|
I did check out some of Sansbury’s work. He has some exciting ideas and I will enjoy following up on them. He does seem to think of nature as a closely connected continuum and I like that, though the mechanism of the connection is over my head at least until I have time to do some reading on it.
Thanks for reading my post and contributing the Sansbury ideas.