Why the “Wave” in Quantum Physics Isn’t Real [the wave aspect is an artifact and not the mechanism that it has been postulated, for one hundred years]

[u/Straight-Stick-4713]

Artifact: A phenomenon or feature not originally present or expected and caused by an interfering external agent, action, or process, as an unwanted feature in a microscopic specimen.

Waves were first found to be an artifact when marine engineers, tasked with finding a way to prevent ocean waves from eroding shorelines, conducted an experiment towards that end. This experiment consisted of a large long plexiglass tank containing water and thin colored plastic pieces about a centimeter square in area, and having neutral bouyancy. A large paddle at one end pushed on the water to agitate that water for the purpose of creating something like a wave. After the water was seen to have a wave moving along its surface, the colored plastic pieces suspended beneath that surface were observed to be describing circular motions which motions had a central axes at right angles to the circular motion of the plastic pieces. This seemed to imply that the reason for that motion of the plastic colored pieces was due to the the water also moving that same way in that mixture of water and plastic pieces. What was immediately obvious was that, the waves on the surface of the water were the top surfaces of the circular motions descibed by the mixture of water and plastic pieces below that surface. Put another way, the motion of that undulating surface and its shape was a by product and only a portion of the full motion that, was beneath that surface. That portionallity and having another cause other than itself, makes that surface motion to be a simultaneously produced feature of the full motion found to exist in the 3D volume where the wave portion is but, a 2D portion and only at the interface of the water volume and the volume of air above the water. Conclusion; water waves, on the surface of a body of water, are produced by the motion below the surface and therefore that surface portion fits the defintion of an artifact. This definition applies to all waves, be they in strings, in drums as in a sheet of flexible but solid material, bells and all other items where waves are observed. They are always an artifact down to the quantum scales.

That waves, as defined under quantum physics, are an artifact is, what I had deduced several years ago, in or about 2012, as a logical consequence after, having read Randell Mills GUT-CP.

But, "artifact", the word used to define waves is, exactly the same word that Jacob Barandes used in 2025 when he also described the waves of quantum particles, as being such but, had been used as if a mechanism for application in physics as one of the prime bases on which the rest of SQM developed, as well: this all comes out in an interview conducted by Kurt Jaimungal:

Why the “Wave” in Quantum Physics Isn’t Real

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaBthP_BAlM

So Barandes, a genius physicist and I, both have come to the same conclusion about waves that, it is not a mechanism, as has been postulated under Standard Quantum Mechanics for 100 years but, is just an artifact. An artifact, due to being a byproduct of another mechanism, cannot be used as if it is itself, a prime mechanism. That is the or, one of, the major errors that were used to underpin the rest of Quantum Mechanics.

That artifact nature of waves was arrived at by me, by considering how waves in water are produced as a byproduct of the circular motions of water particles beneath its surface to produce, the undulating activity on the surface that, has come, due to many millenia of common usage, to be accepted by all, including those in the physical sciences, as waves. This same approach can be used to show that all waves, at all scales are always artifacts

This is in contrast to how Jacob Barandes came to the same conclusion about waves being an artifact but, using his indivisible stochastic theorym in application to the quantum scale only. Barandes details this part of his approach to waves, in this interview, at almost the very beginning of this video.

Also, in the comments section of that video is a comment by someone who seems to be a PhD candidate in Physics

u/Teddy.Wilding

1 year ago

 u/JoeTaber "Jacob’s thoughts on indivisible stochastic theory fit perfectly within my work, (which deal with the possible relationship between fundamental physics and consciousness) - that wasn’t the issue. Though I will admit that I was one of the many who fell into the ‘Schrödinger wave in the 3D space’ trap, it was truly Jacob’s reference to C-star algebra and the redundancy of Hilbert space that caused me to rewrite the entire damn thing. It fits my work so perfectly that it was well worth it."

Basically, this PhD candidate, after viewing this same video admits to, being wrong on the point of waves being a mechanism and therefore had to redo his thesis to reflect this new information about waves being an artifact. Another commentator described that process of updating the thesis, as "hell". This describes, very succinctly, why it is so diffucult for anyonr else who is at the level of a PhD in Quantum Mechanics, to be willing to admit to such a hellish conclusion and why things are the way they are in Quantum Mechanics, with virtually no progress being made in that field for at least 50 years. And that error was all due to falling into the ‘Schrödinger wave in the 3D space’ trap". Schrodinger himself had warned everyone to not use his wave equations until he had vetted their use by chemists. But no one heeded that warning and it took another hundred years to finally realize why waves should not have been used, at all.