Bibliographic record
Abstract
Here, the concept of a wave-particle duality is questioned. First, the experimental proofs existing, respectively, for particles and waves are examined. In the case of particles, no experimental evidence can be found which establishes them; it seems that particles have always been taken for granted. In the case of waves, considerable evidence has accumulated with results on diffraction, interference, and self-interference of larger and larger objects. Then an important remark is made concerning the fact that unlike particles, waves are not observation-dependent: waves existed before observation otherwise the patterns of diffraction or interference would not have been appearing; the wave nature does not depend on the making of a measurement, there is no measurement problem for waves. Consequently, since waves are not observation-dependent, if the objects are demonstrated to be waves, they are only waves. This fact, along with some other evidence, disagrees with the current interpretation of the Wheeler-type delayed-choice experiments, where the absence of interference is interpreted as a particle behavior. Finally, recent works regarding the de Broglie‐Bohm theory are presented, which lead to suggest a new wave-only version of this theory. It is concluded that a wave-only view might be worth considering instead of the wave-particle duality view which has prevailed so far.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".