[Comment on list]: I'm still not sold on it all being particles. For one thing, it would be so incredibly radioactive, we would fry very quickly. The fact is that waves/fields do make a lot of sense, even if we cannot fully define them. There was an experiment some years ago to prove vacuum fluctuation. The experiment involved suspending two sheets of metal very close together. Because the frequency of the waves between the sheets were limited by their closeness, the fact that there was a greater range of frequencies of those waves outside the sheets, they pushed them together. Obviously this would also prove the particle theory of gravity, but as I said, if these were individual particles, as opposed to cohesive waves, it would be radioactivity that would be detrimental to living flesh, but it should be testable. I have a deeper philosophic issue as well. In that I feel that reality is ultimately wholistic, when it breaks apart, these are opposing forces and interacting waves, while particles are inherently individualistic and simply bounce around, rather then interact. Both arguments leave open questions and while particle theory might explain various micro problems, i think waves solve more macro problems. Maybe it is both.

[R. N. Boyd]: If you will examine the situation very closely, it is easy to see that waves are made of particles which are made of waves, which are made of particles, and so on. And the fact is that indeed everything, every atomic element, is radioactive to some extent. This has been in evidence since the 1890s. Here, if you want to perform a little experiment, place a sheet of pure tin at the focal point of a magnifying glass in direct sunlight for a few hours. Then get yourself a Geiger counter and see what it does when you get near the tin. You'll think you just ran across radium!

This effect is just as well explained as a pressure effect which is due to a density gradient in a hyperfine gaseous medium, which gradient is caused by the mass of the parallel plates, which obstruct the passage of subelemental particles through the plates. The original experiment was designed to show that so-called "vacuum fluctuations", also termed "virtual particles", produce physically measurable effects. Unfortunately, both these descriptive terms are inaccurate. "Vacuum fluctuations" are simply direct evidence of the activities of the subquantum aether particles. And there are no "virtual particles". Please read http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/obvious-flaws-relativistic-electrodynamics.htm

Furthermore, this is testable. Experiments have proved this thesis, in a history of related experiments going back into the 1890s. I suggest that you might find the works of Gustave Le Bon interesting. See if you can find copies of two of his papers: "Evolution of Matter", published by Walter Scott of New York in 1907, and "Evolution of Forces, published by Dryden House of London in 1908.

Get the idea that all non-local phenomena are intermediated by these superluminal subquantum particles. Action at a distance is an actual fact, in spite of Einstein's distaste for the notion, which distaste was probably the result of his prejudice which precluded the possibility of faster-than-light anything. Indeed, there are a great many kinds of events that are superluminal. At this point, I have come to consider relativity theory as one of the greatest hindrances to scientific progress in the history of science. Sorry to say.

"Both" is perfectly accurate! :) I never said it was "all particles". Again, waves are made of particles which are made of waves which are made of particles, ad infinitum. By the same token, all "wave only" theories are doomed to failure because they must deny the existence of ponderable matter, which would contradict untold decades of direct human experience, and decades of experimental results. As you have pointed out, we can deny the existence of neither waves nor particles, since both observably exist. What is still at issue is exactly how these two interact, under various circumstances. (Related to this, experiments proved last year that Planck's constant is not always a constant. Under some circumstances, it varies.)