This paper introduces a novel theoretical framework in which wave energy serves as the fundamental basis for understanding the structure and dynamics of the universe. Within this model, elementary particles are interpreted as distinct vibrational modes of wave energy, while fundamental forces—such as gravity and electromagnetism—are represented as interference patterns arising from the interaction of these waves. Furthermore, spacetime is conceptualized as an emergent energy network formed by the multidimensional interference of wave energy. The framework incorporates the influence of extra spatial dimensions, offering new insights into phenomena such as dark matter and dark energy. Additionally, it provides corrected energy level calculations for the hydrogen atom that account for the effects of higher-dimensional contributions. The mathematical formulation is based on generalized wave equations in D-dimensions, with testable predictions for modified energy spectra.

Diverse interpretations of the fundamental nature of the world and its evolutionary patterns have shaped multiple paradigms of scientific and philosophical thinking. At the micro level, ontological understandings have evolved from the ancient Greek atomic theory to modern conceptions based on dynamic energy fields. At the macro level, the comprehension of evolutionary mechanisms has shifted from a teleological model of cosmic evolution to one characterized by bifurcation and chaos in complex systems. The epistemological framework that holds the world to be composed of immutable, indivisible particles with static mass is referred to as "substance thinking," whereas the view that the world consists of variable, massless energy fields is termed "energy thinking." While teleological thinking emphasizes stability and simplicity in macro-level evolutionary outcomes, bifurcation and chaos thinking highlights the variability and complexity inherent in such processes. Across both foundational constituents and evolutionary models, scientific cognition has demonstrated a clear transition from simplicity to complexity, thereby driving a paradigm shift in scientific thinking from simplicity-oriented to complexity-oriented approaches. However, the intrinsic multidimensionality and non-linearity of complexity render it incommensurable with any single or limited set of dimensional metrics. The dialectical integration of micro-level randomness, variability, and interaction with macro-level emergence and constructive dynamics may represent the core feature of complexity. On this basis, informational thinking-grounded in the theoretical framework of information philosophy-emerges as a cognitive paradigm that interprets the essence of phenomena through structural, relational, and processual dimensions. By means of symbolic representation, it reveals the historical states, operative mechanisms, and prospective trajectories of systems, thereby offering a novel theoretical dimension-both holographic and integrative-for the advancement of complexity studies.

# Can elementary particles be explained adequately by a wave-only model? Tags: quantum-mechanics, waves, wave-particle-duality, elementary-particles, point-particles - Score: 17 - Views: 3057 - Answers: 7 - Answered: yes - Asked by: mfergus9 (171 rep) - Asked: 2020-03-11 - Site: physics ## Question I have been watching quantum mechanics documentaries and reading a layman's book called "The Quantum Universe". I believe I understand why the double slit experiments exclude a particle only model. However I do not understand why the particle portion of particle-wave duality is needed. When I google the title to this question I do not get an adequate explanation of why the particle side of wave-particle duality is needed I feel. I believe the explanations assert that a particle moves in a wave-like/probabilistic manner but what is the evidence that requires a particle even exist instead of the wave itself being the whole story? Is it because elementary particles have quantized states? Can elementary 'waves' not simply exist in quantized states without a particle? I guess I would also like to know how a wave-only model would differ from string theory if you would not mind. My underst

# No Evidence for Particles arXiv (Cornell University). Published: 2008-07-24. Preprint. 8 citations. ## Authors - Casey Blood: h-index 4; 48 citations; corresponding author ## Topics - Quantum Mechanics and Applications - Radioactive Decay and Measurement Techniques - Biofield Effects and Biophysics --- # No Evidence for Particles ## 1. Introduction The centuries-old concept of particles is one of the cornerstones of our view of the structure of the physical universe. It has led to many insights and advances and is now so thoroughly accepted that it seems to be an indispensible feature of our conceptual landscape. In contrast to this apparent certainty, however, the mathematics of quantum mechanics, which gives an astonishingly accurate and wide-ranging quantitative description of nature, makes no mention of particles. Particles seem necessary, not to obtain the correct numerical answers—wavelengths, energies, cross-sections and so on— but rather to qualitatively account for observations that quantum mechanics, by itself, allegedly cannot explain. Subjectively, it seems awkward to have a two-tiered scheme in which wave function-based quantum mechanics determines all the n