The correct answer to this question is fundamental because it has to do with the nature of the matter. Therefore, I consider this to be the most critical issue of modern physics. This question may be even harsher: is the human body a massive body made up of smaller particles, or are we waves? The man – a wave?! It may be unheard of for a non-physicist, but it’s been a century ever since physics has paved the way to this question. Modern physics has found a “discreet position”: matter has a dual, particle-wave nature. There are physicists who even magnify some strange terms of physics, especially of quantum mechanics, and draw the conclusion that we are not made up of matter particles but of waves; or all that we see and meet in the Universe, including our bodies, are made up of waves.

 What is matter?

Matter is one of the two essential ontological categories of the Universe (the other is space). As such, it is the material that builds everything in the Universe. At the most basic level, matter consists of elementary particles whose behavior produces the basis of all objective phenomena – including rays and physical fields.

The most fundamental property of matter is its motion. The old philosophical saying: “there is no matter without motion and no motion without matter” has now been scientifically proven. Types of movement are taught in elementary courses of mechanics. Some of the types of movement are: linear, circular, oscillating, and even wave movement. So, particles also make waves. Many philosophers and scientists (Leucippus, Democritus, Gassendi, Descartes, Hagens, Boyle, Newton, Lavoisier, Proust, Dalton, Avogadro, Brown, Maxwell, Boltzmann, Planck and many others of the 20th and 21st centuries) have proved that matter is composed of particles by using philosophical, theoretical and experimental methods. In spite of this, modern physics when it comes to the nature of matter states that matter has a dual nature – matter has particle-like and wave-like nature. So, where does the need come from to call matter a wave?

 What is the wave?

We all easily understand the oscillation (the movement of a body (particle) from one side to the other). All bodies in nature (gas, liquid, solid) consist of oscillating particles. So each particle of a body can be considered an oscillator. And when these oscillators are so close to each other that oscillation of one causes oscillation of the other, then oscillation of one particle causes oscillation of the surrounding particles. The process of the transmitting of oscillation from one particle to another is called a wave. In other words, the wave is the disturbance of particles of a body under the influence of an initial oscillation (the source of the wave). This is how waves occur in air, water, and solid bodies. When discussing the explanations of matter and wave, we face a problem when it comes to light.

 What is light, and how does it spread?

There are two possible answers to this question: light represents particles traveling from the source to the target, or light represents oscillating particles that transmit the impulse and energy from one particle to another – from source to target. The first option – known by modern physics as the corpuscular nature of light – was explained by Gassendi and later Newton. While the second answer- known by modern physics as the wave nature of light – was explained by Descartes, Hegens, Jung, and others. As seen, both of these options essentially consist of particles. Because of this reason, the latter had invented ether, a substance found “everywhere,” whose particles oscillate and carry light (similar to the air carrying sound). Therefore, like sound, light was written as a wave equation too. But physics failed ever to identify the ether. Modern physics, in its beginnings, “threw away” the ether, but stuck with the wave of light! As a result, it remained with a “strange creation” – the “wave without particles”! So, the “wave nature of the light” was actually invented by modern physics, not Descartes, Huygens, and Jung. I consider that with the fall of the ether as an option, the idea of the latter physicists falls as well because there can be no light waves without the “ether particles”. Then, all that should be taken into consideration is the first initial answer: the travel of light particles from the source to the target. Especially so when it was confirmed that light also spreads in a vacuum. In this case, we must return to the definition of the wave once again.

 Then again, what is the wave?

Earlier, the wave was defined as the oscillation of particles that were so close to each other that these oscillations were transformed into wave motions. So, there must be an environment of oscillators in order to create a wave. This is the reason why ether, a substance made of some special oscillators that carry the light, was invented. However, since ether does not exist and since light is also spread in vacuum, then, what is it that oscillates and transmits light as a wave from the source to the target? According to modern physics, it is the electromagnetic field. Now, what does this field consist of? Modern physics states that its quantum is the photon. Wouldn’t it be clearer if these two answers changed the order? If we do, then it becomes clear that the “vacuum” is filled with “photon gas”, which plays the role of the unidentified ether. Modern physics knows this to be untrue because, in that case, the light wave would be an environmental (sound-like) wave, which is clearly opposed by at least two experiments: the photoelectric effect and the Compton Effect. In order to stay within the second option, modern physics comes up with a “stable” attitude- that the nature of light is twofold. I find this attitude unscientific, so we should consider the first option of explaining light. In this case, let’s ask the question: is it possible to write a wave equation for particles that make a linear motion from their source to the target? The answer is YES. We can even easily demonstrate in practice. For example, we take a sack of tennis balls and shoot them one by one against a wall. We give them certain speeds and throw them one after the other with a given period in between. The throwing of the tennis balls has a frequency, wavelength, period, and ball energy. Therefore, we can also describe it as a wave with all the features that a wave has. Even if the person throwing the tennis balls moves away or approaches the wall; or if the wall moves away from the balls, the Doppler effect can still be fully applied. The balls move because the thrower throws them, so they do not need a medium to carry the impulse and energy. With this, we conclude that there are waves without oscillation, that is, only with linear motion of particles. The wave of light is one of these waves of emitted photons, which is precisely the same as the wave of the tennis balls in the example above.

 Confusing the manifester with manifestation

All particles, even massive bodies (including celestial bodies) can oscillate and ripple. However, this property of theirs cannot be their nature of existence. Their way of moving cannot change their essential character. Big confusion resulted when a being (particle) was confused with its manifestation (wave). The particle is the being, while the wave is one type of movement of this being. The particle is the manifester – the wave is the manifestation. The particle is the thing that exists; it exists by performing different motions, meaning that it exists even if it does not ripple. But the wave cannot exist without the particle, because without it there is no waving or rippling; there is no movement of any kind. So, I consider that the fundamental mistake of the 1900s physics is the confusing of beings with their behavior. This entanglement is the same as confusing the dancer with the dance. A person does not become a dance if he is dancing. Dancing is the manifestation of the person, not the form of his existence.

 The lost case of 1927 and other recent cases

Until 1924, the light was the only thing described as being dual in nature. In this same year, de Broglie did not find the “secret of the wave nature of particles”, but only found the possibility of writing particles as a wave. Just like Davisson-Germer’s (1927) electron experiment did not confirm the “secret of the wave nature of particles”, but only confirmed their capacity to perform wave motions. To conclude that wave motion, interference, and diffraction are nothing but manifestations of particles, it would be sufficient only the confirmation that electrons interfere and diffuse like photons (Davisson-Germer’s experiment). This conclusion should have been made in the early 21st century when experiments proved that both C60 molecules and 60A macromolecules exhibit interference and diffraction backgrounds.

So the main argument, which is also printed in university textbooks, that particles do not interfere and diffuse like “waves” – is invalid. So, why is modern physics reluctant to wake up?

 What is the real obstacle to rejecting the idea that the nature of matter is unique?

I consider the answer to this question to be: the survival of special and general theories of relativity (STR and GTR). The particle nature of the matter strips the light of its “super properties”, thus STR collapses. The particle nature of the matter denies the possibility of the existence of gravity ether (space-time), as an entity whose existential nature has perfect continuum, thus GTR collapses.

 Physics greatly benefits if it renounces particle-wave dualism

Light is a wave of particles. Not only that. All physical fields are particle waves – or in the general case, they are particle configurations. The dual nature attributed to matter must be rejected, and instead, the true dual nature of the methods of studying particle matter must be confirmed. There are two such methods: wave equations (when particles are many) and Galilei-Newton equations (when they are a few). The existence of these two methods does not produce the dual nature of matter.
Understanding that the nature of matter is unique would put physics on a consistent track; and would remove many “strange” terms from physics which have begun to turn physics into a “strange science”! Understanding that the nature of matter is particle and particle only, would greatly help clarify and progress the quantum physics. Only with matter having a particle nature, quantum physics is physics in the full meaning of the word.