Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American


How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

STEVE JEFFREY: on 1/16/10 at 10:40am UTC, wrote 1 ODD+ 1 EVEN= 2 ODD+ 2 ODD+2EVEN=4 EVEN= 6 EVEN+ 1/3 ODD+ 1/3 ODD+ 1/3...

Frank DiMeglio: on 11/25/09 at 19:10pm UTC, wrote The core theoretical/actual application and manifestation of the...

NN: on 11/5/09 at 13:04pm UTC, wrote THE author, Dennis has not visited his site forresponding to comments made...

Steve Dufourny: on 10/29/09 at 12:34pm UTC, wrote Dear Arjen , How can a wave have particle-like properties? Here is my...

Rickard: on 10/28/09 at 16:30pm UTC, wrote Dennis I feel your comments on wave interference and the practical...

Eckard Blumschein: on 10/27/09 at 14:20pm UTC, wrote Dear Dennis, While I feel not competent to correctly judge your model, I...

Arjen Dijksman: on 10/24/09 at 9:48am UTC, wrote Hello Dennis, A creative model thoroughly thought over for the whole of...

J.C.N. Smith: on 10/16/09 at 14:43pm UTC, wrote Mr. Crossley, Thank you for an interesting essay. Unfortunately, I lack...


John Cox: "OH! OH! Ms. Woodward Ms. Woodward! I know Iknow! It's to keep you..." in Quantum Dream Time

Georgina Woodward: "Dear Joe, if reality has nothing to do with what you think it might be, why..." in Quantum Dream Time

alice paul: "All data here is unfamiliar to me. I think Really weird. I think you have..." in Hyung Choi and the nature...

alice paul: "your link text" in Hyung Choi and the nature...

alice paul: "All data here is unfamiliar to me. I think Really weird. I think you have..." in Are We Merging With Our...

shery williams: "Kaspersky technical errors that are harming your device and its..." in Are We Merging With Our...

Lena Smith: "Though every Canon printer is manufactured with utmost proficiency, but it..." in Conjuring a Neutron Star...

Jaybee Demeester: "Cleo has proven how a skilled but beginner specialist can have an benefits..." in Plasma Tubes in the Sky

click titles to read articles

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?

November 23, 2017

CATEGORY: What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Essay Contest (2009) [back]
TOPIC: Solving the mystery of wave/particle duality---the road to a unified theory of physics by Dennis Crossley [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Dennis Crossley wrote on Oct. 5, 2009 @ 11:27 GMT
Essay Abstract

The mystery of wave/particle duality persists because of the stubborn adherence to the point-particle model of elementary particles. This has excluded a whole class of theories based on a three-dimensional extended wave model. It is this class of theories which holds the promise of giving both an intuitively obvious resolution to the mystery of wave/particle duality and the key to the unification of the fundamental forces. It has been incredibly difficult, however, to construct a wave model that is consistent with the observed behavior of the objects we call elementary particles. We present here a new wave model which holds the promise of being just such a consistent model. This model gives an intuitively obvious explanation of wave/particle duality. Furthermore, this model opens up a new path in the search for a unified theory of elementary particles and the fundamental forces.

Author Bio

Senior Lecturer in Physics. PhD in Physics from University of Wisconsin-Madison. Research interests are in the foundations of quantum theory and special relativity and in the search for a unified theory of physics.

Download Essay PDF File

Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 5, 2009 @ 16:21 GMT
Hello Mr .Dennis Crossley,

It's relevant your essay .

I think what the particles aren't points or strings but specific entangled spheres .

Their rotations are the key of the mass I think .

The orbitals of rotations and the rotations of the spheres around themselves imply an oscilllation ,these s^pherical waves thus .

It's logic indeed to link the wave and the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Uncle Al wrote on Oct. 5, 2009 @ 16:35 GMT
If an electron (positron) is a nonzero-radiused standing wave we can calculate the energy of the EM circulation necessary to make it fit in the box. The smaller the required wavelength, the higher the required frequency and energy associated with it. An electron masses 511 keV/c^2 near enough. Tell us how to squeeze a standing wave into a lepton's radius while uncreating the contingent abundance of excess field mass-equivalence as binding energy. What binds the field? Wherefrom spin, Fermi statistics, and the very naughty 720 degree phase angle? Is an electron a non-orientable surface?

Given your model, tell us why gravitation cannot be shielded. Neutrons can be shielded. Neutrinos in a supernova do not freely propagate during collapse.

You say, "But in the wave model of matter, both the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear "force" have a common interpretation in terms of the localized wave mode (soliton) that is a nucleon. The strong nuclear force is a nonlinear wave interaction between nucleons and the weak nuclear force is an instability in the wave pattern of a single nucleon. A separate "weak nuclear force" (in the Newtonian sense) is not required."

I rebut: Yang and Lee.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 7, 2009 @ 11:19 GMT
Dear Uncle Al ,

You have always relevant questions in fact .

It's very interesting about the sense of rot in fact .Of course - + always but perhaps this polarity has many synchronisations due to the rotations thus the polarity is more complex than + - ,but in the whole ,the add of systems imply a + or - with different steps of polarity thus .Two senses but in details ,a complexity of polarities due to these rotations ,or whole of rotations .

The strong and weak interactions are just some steps in the same sense but the electro magnetism there it's relevant and the gravity too ,just a question of sense and synchro of rotations ,the evolution point of vue thus is important .

Fusion of fission ....



report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 7, 2009 @ 15:15 GMT
Hi Dennis

A very central subject, good points made, but perhaps the community rating is low as you didn't move on, of perhaps they thought you went off track. It also seems you have to be a buddy and well known to even get read!

I think you may be very interested to follow up the link in the posts below my essay 495, which deals with the same subject but as part of a greater and very important picture (that the community hasn't even noticed yet!).

I'd be very interested in your views.

Best of luck.

Peter Jackson

report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 7, 2009 @ 22:29 GMT
Hi Dennis.

What do you think of wave/particle duality as it applies to:

1. This: The union of gravity and electromagnetism/light would make gravity [fundamentally] repulsive and attractive as electromagnetic energy/light.

2. In dreams: In keeping with the fact that dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general (including gravity and electromagnetism/light), the ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sense. This is consistent with the known mathematical unification of Einstein's theory of gravity (general relativity) with Maxwell's theory of light (electromagnetism) that is achieved by the addition of a fourth dimension of space to Einstein's theory.

3. Space that is both visible and invisible at the same time.

My essay is listed second. Thanks. Frank

report post as inappropriate

Author Dennis Crossley wrote on Oct. 8, 2009 @ 01:53 GMT
Thanks to those who have offered comments on my essay. Let me respond to each of you.

Steve, your idea of entangled spheres sounds interesting and I'm wondering if what you envision is similar to my idea of circulating space waves. What are your spheres made of? You refer to "quantum spheres of light." One advantage of my proposal is that I don't need to introduce any objects beyond space itself and its mods of motion. And in your reply to Uncle Al, you emphasize the sense of rotation and +- polarity. Can you elaborate?

Uncle Al, you mention calculating the energy of EM circulation and use several quantum mechanical concepts. The theory I am proposing is more fundamental than both classical E&M and quantum mechanics, so these concepts will be derivable from the fundamental ideas that I present. So it would not make sense to use these classical concepts at the fundamental level of my theory. I can answer your question about why gravity can't be shielded. What I call the ripple field travels out from all elementary particles and, being a linear wave phenomenon, passes through matter relatively unchanged. One point I didn't make very clear in my essay is that, while positive and negative electric force is associated with ripple oscillations that are either net inward or net outward, the gravitational force is associated with the sum of these oscillations (from a combination of negative and positive source particles) and hence ascillates both inward and outward about an equilibrium point. It is the divergence of this "neutral ripple field" (since it spreads outward from its source) which leads to a very weak interaction. I can't comment on your questions about neutrons and neutrinos because I don't understand what you mean.

Peter, thanks especially for the encouragement. It is perfectly understandable that friends tend to read their own friends paper. But hopefully some gradual diffusion outside that circle will also take place. I am very curious what you meant by the suggestion that I "didn't move on". I was limited by the page limit of the contest and could have said more. What directions do you think I should follow? I haven't looked at your essay yet, but I will do that.

Frank, the union of gravity and EM/light is very apparent in my proposal - they are two manifestations of the wave motion in the fabric of space. But I don't see how gravity can be made repulsive. Following on the comment

I made above (to Uncle Al), since gravity is associated with the divergence of the ripple field, the displacement of the ripples is slightly greater in the direction toward the source (because the waves are converging) than they are in the direction away from the source (where they are diverging), which leads only to an attractive force. I can't really comment on the connection to dreams, which I see as the result of a physiological phenomenon in the brain; I don't see the connection to physics. What do you mean by space that is both visible and invisible at the same time? We don't really see space since to see something requires receiving light from whatever we are seeing. Elementary particles are the source of light, so we see matter as such, but space itself is not a source of light, just a carrier.

Once again, thanks to all of you for your comments. I look forward to continued discussion.


Anonymous wrote on Oct. 8, 2009 @ 14:42 GMT
It seems that the author ignores the advancements carried by the quantum field theory and the fact that states represent the number of particle instead of probability densities. Can the author explain how to rephrase its conclusions in a modern terminology based on the ordinary results of quantum field theory?

report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 8, 2009 @ 23:14 GMT
Hi Dennis. Thank you for your reply.

To unify gravity and electromagnetism/light fundamentally and comprehensively, balancing/unifying scale by making gravity repulsive and attractive as electromagnetic energy/light is required. I have proven this in dreams conclusively. You have to read my essay. The union of gravity and electromagnetism/light balances/unifies scale by making gravity both...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Terry Padden wrote on Oct. 9, 2009 @ 09:30 GMT

You write (1) "The current state of understanding of fundamental particles is that particles exist but somehow (mysteriously) have wave properties associated with them. This approach leads to the many mysteries of quantum theory (and, incidentally, also relativity theory) which to this day remain unresolved. The classical concepts are clearly inadequate here because the fundamental properties of particles and waves appear to be mutually exclusive." and you continue (2) " No one has yet been able to answer the question "How can a particle have wave-like properties." "

No competent scientist should ever assert (2). The point of QM is that we can choose to measure a physical entity in such a way that it exhibits particle properties - OR - we can measure it in such a way that it exhibits wave like properties. But we can NEVER measure it as having BOTH simultaneously. You spell out the accurate situation when writing "mutually exclusive"; but it is not merely apparent. It is the physical reality underlying QM. Observing one always excludes observing the other.

You have interpreted the word "associate" in (1) wrongly, and expressed it as a faulty assumption about QM. I am not surprised for you are not alone. Many physicists are not very competent or careful at making this distinction between joint properties and alternative properties. Many standard texts spread the confusion contained in your words.

My essay has a parenthetical comment on the crucial need for careful use of natural language, for it is the tool by which we think and communicate.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 9, 2009 @ 10:14 GMT
Dear Dennis Crossley ,

You are welcome and thanks too to ask me these questionns.

I think What all is in the coded ,probably in the main central spher

My fractal is the same than a cosmological fractal of spheres ,thus like the center of our Universe and I continue with a specific serie with prime numbers and in the complexification the natural numbers...the volumes ,the density ,the mass ,the rotations ,the inertie ,.....

all that can be correlated with the thermodynamic and the specific dynamic of our Universe .

The entanglement I think is relevant about the interactions .

And of course, all these rotating spheres .

The time creates the strong interactions and the evolution polarises with the gravity and the eletromagnetism with their coded senses ot rotations ,the synchroniazation thus .

These spheres are probably a kind of super incompressible coded liquid ,the lattices are relevant about the rotations ,spinals and orbitals and their synchronizations .

Of course the space and wave are linked with all these rotations implying mass and waves .

The senses must be for me a new science due to the combinations ,we know the + - but it's more complex in the different steps of the entanglement .But for the scale ,the main central sphere turn in the max and the light in the other ,of course between .....but I see the gauge like that .

The numbers of quantum spheres is the same than our cosmological spheres .Let's take too the plan system of our solar system ,relevant too about the polarisations and the evolution .There the strong and weak interactions are relevant I think with the entanglement and its lattices .

Best Regards


report post as inappropriate

Author Dennis Crossley wrote on Oct. 10, 2009 @ 05:51 GMT
I would like to rebut two comments made in the posts above.

To Anonymous: The main point of my essay is that the space wave model of elementary particles that I present is an alternative to the traditional formalisms of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. I don't see QFT as an "advancement"; I see it as an attempt to explain phenomena which are fundamentally continuous and wave-like in terms of the inadequate particle concept. The more interesting path to pursue will be to reinterpret QFT in terms of the continuous waves of my space wave theory.

To Terry: Have you read my essay carefully? The model of elementary "particles" I present does in fact display both particle-like and wave-like properties simultaneously. You repeat the traditional either-or position of the Copenhagen convention, which perpetuates the mystery of quantum mechanics. Rather than accept the traditional either-or interpretation of wave/particle duality, I am trying to understand the physical mechanism underlying the behavior of elementary particles which leads to wave/particle duality. My space wave model opens up a new path to this deeper understanding.

Narendra nath wrote on Oct. 13, 2009 @ 17:53 GMT
What a beautiful essay in simple language explaining the fundamental nature of waves to describe both the wave and particle like pictures for so-called particles and electromagnetic waves. It also conceptually identify the four field concept in a simple way pictorially. However, the author needs to go further to show the differences in the interaction pattern for the four different fields, like range, change in nature from attractive to repulsive nature as a function of distance ( strong nuclear), etc. The interpretation of weak interaction as a part of the strong interaction, through a change in the wave's configuration appears an interesting development. Can it account for the corresponding difference in the relative strengths of the two. Also, can you now propose some experiment that may help get a check on the graviton, the particle aspect of gravity waves?

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 14, 2009 @ 09:53 GMT
Hi dear Dennis Crossley,

Dear Narendra Nath,

You say

change in nature from attractive to repulsive nature as a function of distance ( strong nuclear),

Thanks Narendra Nath for this relevance .

It is Very important about the micro gravity and the polarity too .

The combinations of synchronizations are so numerous with the rotations .

I think that all is a question of rotations of elementary particles .

Several laws interact at this quantum scale about the rotations .Like a classment ,a taxonomy of the volumes ,velocities orbirtals or spinals ,the angles ,the senses ,the directions ,the densities ,the lattices too .....a real taxonomy exists between quantum spheres ...and thus the 4 interactions too .The fields ,too ....all is linked in fact with our fundamenatsl with a relativistic perception ,adaped and synchronized .

The electromagnetism and the gravity are on a specific dance of polarisations And this time which implant in the strong interactions .The lattices there are relevant I think.

Best Regards


report post as inappropriate

J.C.N. Smith wrote on Oct. 16, 2009 @ 14:43 GMT
Mr. Crossley,

Thank you for an interesting essay. Unfortunately, I lack sufficient expertise to comment constructively on the technical details of your essay, but I very much applaud your general approach of going back to basics and questioning the various generally accepted operative assumptions which have been made about these matters. It appears to me that when faced with seemingly intractable conundrums, and especially those involving fundamentally "unintuitive" issues such as the wave-particle duality, it is useful sometimes to begin afresh with a clean piece of paper and re-build our thinking on the topic from the ground up. This appears to be what you have done in your essay.

Of obvious interest is whether your proposed interpretation of the wave-particle duality will lead to testable predictions which differ from those which can be made on the basis of other current approaches. I will look forward to following these discussions to see how your ideas stand up to critiques from experts in the field and, most importantly, what they ultimately may offer in the way of furthering our understanding of Nature.

Good luck!

report post as inappropriate

Arjen Dijksman wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 09:48 GMT
Hello Dennis,

A creative model thoroughly thought over for the whole of particle physics. I appreciated the in-depth 3D search for alternative wave behaviors, which demonstrates that wave phenomena may still have unexplored properties. You start from the question "How can a wave have particle-like properties?". Did you also consider the question "How can a particle have wave-like properties?".

When you say "recall that photons only occur in right- and left-circularly polarized form", wouldn't it be more correct to state that photons may always be described as a linear superposition of right- and left-circularly polarized forms.

I didn't understand why your wave is inward directed for negative charges, while for positive charges it is outward directed. By what experimental fact is that supported?


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 27, 2009 @ 14:20 GMT
Dear Dennis,

While I feel not competent to correctly judge your model, I would like to ask you for your opinion about similarity between the relationship momentum/energy and time/frequency.

You may find some of my ideas in my essay 527 and more speculative ones via .

While I am suggesting new singularity functions myself, I distrust theories that take singularities for reality. Accordingly I love the function sinc.



report post as inappropriate

Rickard wrote on Oct. 28, 2009 @ 16:30 GMT

I feel your comments on wave interference and the practical uselessness of a mathematical construct are central. I've just read the (well disguised) concept behind Peter Jacksons essay 'Perfect symmetry', which demonstates not oonly how right you are in some ways but I think gives the answer to unification! See his latest post on viXra HE. He removes the billions of Doppler folmulaes 'floating in space' (to maintain 'c' at shifts), with an actual quantum mechanism,based on Frequency Modulation,we've all been chasing. It's so simple, but I can't understand why it's still hidden away. I'm sure you'll empathise with it as it's very close to your beautiful space waves.


report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 12:34 GMT
Dear Arjen ,

How can a wave have particle-like properties?

Here is my idea about this question .

Simply still I think that the duality takes all its sense too with the rotating spheres implying mass and waves .The space thus is relevant in my model because thus all spheres are in contact with the waves .I imagine two kinds of entangled spheres mainly in the whole ,in rotation thus wave and mass ,and without rotation thus only for the tranfert of waves.The mass is due to these rotations ,they imply waves by contact with others in rotation and without rotation .There I imagine the space ,the dark matter like elementary particles without movment but with a code of becoming ,the mass .The waves mass duality is linked by contact of entangled spheres .Thus in an universal point of vue ,the volume of space decreases ,the mass increases ,the lattices(space between entangled sphere different than sphere without rotation) are constants but variables in the evolution .

Just a thought



report post as inappropriate

NN wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 13:04 GMT
THE author, Dennis has not visited his site forresponding to comments made after Oct.11. may be he responds before Nov., 06 voting deadline!

report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Nov. 25, 2009 @ 19:10 GMT
The core theoretical/actual application and manifestation of the wave/particle duality is evident when thought is more like sensory experience in general. Wave/particle duality occurs in dreams. Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general.

report post as inappropriate

STEVE JEFFREY wrote on Jan. 16, 2010 @ 10:40 GMT

1/3 ODD+ 1/3 ODD+ 1/3 EVEN= 1 ODD= 7 ODD.

SIX EQUATIONS OF SEVEN= 42................

This can be a computer program.

But hold on a moment isn't this anti Christ..............

Actually Jesus equation is 12hours+ 12 hours= 24 Hours.

That is 2*6+2*6=4*6.

So Jesus answer is two sixs wheras the antichrists answer is 3 sixs.

It is natural for Jesus to make six two rather than three because he calls a spade a spade.............................

I have given up caring if anybody actually programs this I have tried to gte indian after indian to program it but they have simply non understod.

Even some Americans could not understand the idea of adding apples to oranges.

1/3 APPLE+ 1/3 ORANGE+ 1/3 oRANGE= 1 APPLE/ORANGE..........

You can use this equation to add 1 million equations three at a tiem and add the products in 1/3s until you reduce to one equation for everything.



attachments: Einsteins_Loaded_Dice.mht

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.