This is an automated rejection. No LLM generated, heavily assisted/co-written, or otherwise reliant work.
Read full explanation
Quantum mechanics has been in existence for over a century. It remains one of the most precise and predictive theories in the human knowledge system, yet it is also one of the most deeply and enduringly controversial fields. The focus of its controversies is often attributed to a series of bewildering "paradoxes": wave-particle duality, the measurement problem, non-local correlations, Schrödinger's cat... From the instrumentalism of the Copenhagen interpretation to the infinite splitting of the many-worlds interpretation, from the classical insistence of hidden variable theories to the sophisticated evolution of decoherence theory, fundamental questions remain unresolved. But it now appears that the very formulation of the question may be flawed: Why do we argue about what a quantum "is"?
The true root of the century-long controversy in quantum mechanics may lie not in the obscurity of physical reality, but in the fallacy inherent in the way we pose questions. The most common inquiry we make is: "What is an electron (or any quantum object)? Is it a particle or a wave?" This seemingly natural question actually presupposes a crucial and unexamined premise: that there exists an objective entity that corresponds to a traditional singular "noun" (such as "particle" or "wave") and therefore inherits all its properties. From here, the entire direction of thought begins to drift.
We are still trying to understand the behavior of the quantum world with a macroscopic mindset. In our cognition, matter exists in only two states: particle and wave; each state possesses inherent characteristics, and thus we habitually equate those characteristics with the state itself. We stubbornly believe that the "particle-like" behavior of quantum objects is equivalent to them beingparticles, and their "wave-like" behavior is equivalent to them being waves, thereby falling into a dichotomous debate about essence. Quantum phenomena refuse to be explained by simple binary nouns. Any attempt to fix them into a single classical "noun" is immediately met with contradiction from another set of experimental facts.
Thus, the century-long debate of “particle vs. wave” is not, in essence, a dispute about the truth of the world, but rather a symptom of the acute conflict between outdated language and novel experience.
No one has seriously considered that we could construct a model that simultaneously possesses both particle-like and wave-like characteristics; more accurately, a model that exhibits wave-like features during propagation and particle-like features in response to detection. What we need to contemplate is never "whether it is a particle or a wave," but how to explain all its properties.
The true way forward is not to make an either-or choice between "particle" and "wave," nor to introduce more complex dialectical rhetoric like "both particle and wave." Instead, we must fundamentally abolish the pseudo-problems woven by the old grammatical framework. We need a complete leap in cognitive paradigm: from questioning "What is it?"—the inquiry into essence—to investigating "How does it respond in interaction?"—the web of relations.
We propose that the sole entity is a global quantum field. So-called "waves" are disturbances propagating within this quantum field, while "particles" represent the stimulus-response-reconstruction processes of these disturbances. In precise terms, "waves" are the continuous propagation and correlation patterns (disturbances) intrinsic to the quantum field itself; "particles" are discrete energy transfer event processes (stimulus-response-reconstruction) that occur when the quantum field couples with its environment (i.e., during detection), manifesting as phenomena such as click events in photodetectors or tracks in cloud chambers.
For blackbody radiation, the discrete energy spectrum originates from the eigenmode structure of the quantum field itself. The photoelectric effect is not a collision between particles, but rather a discrete response event triggered when the electromagnetic field and the electron field reach a specific energy threshold. The stability of atoms is attributed to the stable stationary modes of the electron field; quantization conditions naturally arise from the boundary conditions of the field equations, decrease additional orbital quantization postulates. Phenomena such as Compton scattering, de Broglie matter waves, quantum tunneling, and even spin effects find intuitive physical correspondence within the structure of field propagation, penetration, and propensity to respond—without resorting to the conceptually contradictory notion of "wave-particle duality."
The explanatory power of this framework is further demonstrated in its resolution of famous "paradoxes." The wave-particle duality contradiction stems from mistakenly attributing both the continuous evolution of a field and its discrete response events to the same entity. The measurement problem and wave function collapse are reduced to the physical dynamics of an irreversible coupling between the field and a detection system, leading to decoherence and a stable macroscopic outcome. The macro-superposition puzzle symbolized by Schrödinger's cat essentially reflects the rapid amplification of a microscopic quantum event through environmental interactions, naturally stabilizing the macroscopic system into a determinate state ("dead" or "alive"). The nonlocal correlations suggested by the EPR paradox and quantum entanglement reveal the inherent wholeness of quantum fields—an entangled state describes an indivisible, correlated field. Probing one part triggers an instantaneous reconstruction of the entire field state; this is not superluminal information transfer, but an update of the global correlation pattern.
Moreover, this picture is highly compatible with existing theories. It is fully consistent with the mathematical formalism of Quantum Field Theory (QFT), only reconstructing its physical interpretation—for instance, understanding "particle creation and annihilation" as field excitation and relaxation. It provides a demystified physical basis for the "complementarity" and "measurement" of the Copenhagen interpretation. Compared to the Many-Worlds interpretation, it replaces infinitely splitting universes with deterministic evolution of a single field in one universe, offering a more ontologically economical view. Compared to pilot-wave theory, it replaces the dual entities of "particle + guiding wave" with a single, active responsive field. Simultaneously, it furnishes a concrete physical carrier and realization mechanism for the "properties arise from relations" emphasized by Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM).
Therefore, from the perspective of a responsive field, quantum mechanics no longer presents a collection of fragmented marvels and paradoxes, but rather a coherent, self-consistent, and physically intuitive picture of reality. The resolution of many puzzles does not rely on more complex repairs, but on discarding old substantialist thinking and returning to the more fundamental level of describing "how the world responds in interaction."
Quantum mechanics has been in existence for over a century. It remains one of the most precise and predictive theories in the human knowledge system, yet it is also one of the most deeply and enduringly controversial fields. The focus of its controversies is often attributed to a series of bewildering "paradoxes": wave-particle duality, the measurement problem, non-local correlations, Schrödinger's cat... From the instrumentalism of the Copenhagen interpretation to the infinite splitting of the many-worlds interpretation, from the classical insistence of hidden variable theories to the sophisticated evolution of decoherence theory, fundamental questions remain unresolved. But it now appears that the very formulation of the question may be flawed: Why do we argue about what a quantum "is"?
The true root of the century-long controversy in quantum mechanics may lie not in the obscurity of physical reality, but in the fallacy inherent in the way we pose questions. The most common inquiry we make is: "What is an electron (or any quantum object)? Is it a particle or a wave?" This seemingly natural question actually presupposes a crucial and unexamined premise: that there exists an objective entity that corresponds to a traditional singular "noun" (such as "particle" or "wave") and therefore inherits all its properties. From here, the entire direction of thought begins to drift.
We are still trying to understand the behavior of the quantum world with a macroscopic mindset. In our cognition, matter exists in only two states: particle and wave; each state possesses inherent characteristics, and thus we habitually equate those characteristics with the state itself. We stubbornly believe that the "particle-like" behavior of quantum objects is equivalent to them beingparticles, and their "wave-like" behavior is equivalent to them being waves, thereby falling into a dichotomous debate about essence. Quantum phenomena refuse to be explained by simple binary nouns. Any attempt to fix them into a single classical "noun" is immediately met with contradiction from another set of experimental facts.
Thus, the century-long debate of “particle vs. wave” is not, in essence, a dispute about the truth of the world, but rather a symptom of the acute conflict between outdated language and novel experience.
No one has seriously considered that we could construct a model that simultaneously possesses both particle-like and wave-like characteristics; more accurately, a model that exhibits wave-like features during propagation and particle-like features in response to detection. What we need to contemplate is never "whether it is a particle or a wave," but how to explain all its properties.
The true way forward is not to make an either-or choice between "particle" and "wave," nor to introduce more complex dialectical rhetoric like "both particle and wave." Instead, we must fundamentally abolish the pseudo-problems woven by the old grammatical framework. We need a complete leap in cognitive paradigm: from questioning "What is it?"—the inquiry into essence—to investigating "How does it respond in interaction?"—the web of relations.
We propose that the sole entity is a global quantum field. So-called "waves" are disturbances propagating within this quantum field, while "particles" represent the stimulus-response-reconstruction processes of these disturbances. In precise terms, "waves" are the continuous propagation and correlation patterns (disturbances) intrinsic to the quantum field itself; "particles" are discrete energy transfer event processes (stimulus-response-reconstruction) that occur when the quantum field couples with its environment (i.e., during detection), manifesting as phenomena such as click events in photodetectors or tracks in cloud chambers.
For blackbody radiation, the discrete energy spectrum originates from the eigenmode structure of the quantum field itself. The photoelectric effect is not a collision between particles, but rather a discrete response event triggered when the electromagnetic field and the electron field reach a specific energy threshold. The stability of atoms is attributed to the stable stationary modes of the electron field; quantization conditions naturally arise from the boundary conditions of the field equations, decrease additional orbital quantization postulates. Phenomena such as Compton scattering, de Broglie matter waves, quantum tunneling, and even spin effects find intuitive physical correspondence within the structure of field propagation, penetration, and propensity to respond—without resorting to the conceptually contradictory notion of "wave-particle duality."
The explanatory power of this framework is further demonstrated in its resolution of famous "paradoxes." The wave-particle duality contradiction stems from mistakenly attributing both the continuous evolution of a field and its discrete response events to the same entity. The measurement problem and wave function collapse are reduced to the physical dynamics of an irreversible coupling between the field and a detection system, leading to decoherence and a stable macroscopic outcome. The macro-superposition puzzle symbolized by Schrödinger's cat essentially reflects the rapid amplification of a microscopic quantum event through environmental interactions, naturally stabilizing the macroscopic system into a determinate state ("dead" or "alive"). The nonlocal correlations suggested by the EPR paradox and quantum entanglement reveal the inherent wholeness of quantum fields—an entangled state describes an indivisible, correlated field. Probing one part triggers an instantaneous reconstruction of the entire field state; this is not superluminal information transfer, but an update of the global correlation pattern.
Moreover, this picture is highly compatible with existing theories. It is fully consistent with the mathematical formalism of Quantum Field Theory (QFT), only reconstructing its physical interpretation—for instance, understanding "particle creation and annihilation" as field excitation and relaxation. It provides a demystified physical basis for the "complementarity" and "measurement" of the Copenhagen interpretation. Compared to the Many-Worlds interpretation, it replaces infinitely splitting universes with deterministic evolution of a single field in one universe, offering a more ontologically economical view. Compared to pilot-wave theory, it replaces the dual entities of "particle + guiding wave" with a single, active responsive field. Simultaneously, it furnishes a concrete physical carrier and realization mechanism for the "properties arise from relations" emphasized by Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM).
Therefore, from the perspective of a responsive field, quantum mechanics no longer presents a collection of fragmented marvels and paradoxes, but rather a coherent, self-consistent, and physically intuitive picture of reality. The resolution of many puzzles does not rely on more complex repairs, but on discarding old substantialist thinking and returning to the more fundamental level of describing "how the world responds in interaction."