The scientific community faces a seriously challenging situation.
From Reality Waveform Theory (RWT)…
There is objective reality from any possible perspective (or absence of perspective), but there is also a pseudo-objectivity equal to humanity’s perspective (i.e. no human being can fully honestly perceive a result differently). The latter has scientific validity, while that science acknowledges the possibility that actuality deviates from that perspective.
Science is academically wrestling with the seamless nature between objectivity and subjectivity.
They’ve been shaken up by scientifically solidified uncertainty.
They’ve been leveraging scientific credibility in the form of “scientific consensus”, despite strict application of the scientific method demanding no less than 100% consensus.
There’s even scientists apparently deifying mathematics by concluding reality is fully generated by (and is) math.
They’re understandably seriously addicted to distinction, despite no objective distinction literally ever being discovered.
Thankfully, the scientific method itself is a certainty that cannot be muddied, so hope protectively remains strong in terms of healthy adaptation.
The solution is thankfully rather simple. Stop taking distinction too seriously.
To elaborate, science has so far revealed that reality is purely energetic, but particle/wave duality in quantum physics has caused (and still causes) confusion due to the false axiom of objective distinction.
Due to the purely energetic (so seamless) nature of reality — including my recent exposure to the brilliant Dr. Edward Witten describing a particle as a “blur” (in addition to at least one other knowledgeable person calling particle distinction “fuzzy”) — there really is no particle/wave duality.
A particle resonates seamlessly with an observer (or such), so remains a wave.
That means the double-slit experiment is no longer odd.
When you focus upon something, that something obviously resonates with your perception. Same thing in that experiment, so quantum reality and common sense now agree in that case.
Distinction is necessary for scientific exploration (even survival), so it cannot be abandoned, but energetically factored into mathematical frames to the fullest possible extent.
Hard-line distinction always represents the imperfection of math, so always provides a hint towards proper mathematical frame adjustment.
I remain healthily confident that RWT is the actual theory of everything (nothing and something) that opens the scientific door to elegantly resolving the problems plaguing physicists these days.
Whereas science has been about breaking things down to better understand them (which has been brilliantly executed to the point where observation itself is impactful), RWT meets that science from the most fundamentally possible anchor certainty (the ground up).
In addition to removing objective distinction, RWT necessarily results in a serious hint to end that plague — space (including dimensionality and other spatial properties) is energetic.
No longer can scientists insist that a rigid number of dimensions exist in a reality demonstrably unable to sustain actualized rigidity/linearity (e.g. entropy). For prime example, string theorists conclude eleven dimensions must exist for a mathematically stabilized connection between general relativity and quantum physics. RWT validates particles being energetic, but logically challenges that dimensional conclusion, so…
Dimensionality (including the number of dimensions) modulates in all possible ways. Think literally oceanic dimensionality.
Mathematical frames can obviously include a fixed number of dimensions representing the best dimensional shape involving our species, but that fixation requires further digging to discover more modulating dimensions where it’s reasonable to hypothesize that dark matter, dark energy, gravitons, disappearing virtual particles, particle entanglement — and whatever other forms of hidden reality — modulates.
Despite the common misconception, quantum truths do occur at our scale, but reality modulates so vastly beyond human perception, our seriously limited perspective greatly decreases the odds of recognizing that supposed oddity (e.g. funky spatial spikes and redirections — perhaps including déjà vu).
Our universe is seamlessly connected with the rest of the apparent multiverse in an unimaginable number of ways, so redefinition for clarity is likely necessary, because universe joins galaxy as a useful distinction (subjectively speaking, of course). However, the multiverse clearly is the universe, so we logically need a new term to define the limited universal scope (e.g. not soupballs). Our universe didn’t start with a bang (or such), because it didn’t start at all.
The notion of reality’s creation (i.e. initial waveform generation) makes no sense. To clarify, one can ask the nonsensical question, “What existed before existence?” or “What exists outside of existence?” That is similar to asking, “What is north of the North Pole?”
Returning to the aforementioned anchor certainty, without objective distinction and the inability to exist outside of existence, relativity cannot possibly exist at reality’s extreme, so neither can distinction, definition, shape, size, and any other relativistic such — i.e. reality objectively can only be an undefinable extreme.
The ‘standing wave end points’ of the fundamental reality waveform sine wave are everything and nothing (i.e. the same undefinable extreme), but a human being perceives that undefinable extreme as a complexly modulating ocean of energy, because each human being is a seamless part of the reality waveform, so a seamless part of that undefinable extreme (i.e. perception is the effect from a set of limits due to subjectivity amplification).
Like all of my informational roots, I periodically refine RWT (usually monthly these days) to ensure maximum accuracy and efficiency — which I did yesterday, after referring someone in our thankfully growing community to that authorship.
The language is challenging in spots, because I’m a stickler for certainty, while using a language that often lacks that necessary quality (e.g. too many words with multiple meanings capable of forming confusion — the antithesis of scientific conclusion). It’s critical that RWT says one (obviously right) thing only, and I maintain it does with a casual invitation to anyone interested in trying to debunk a theory that literally fits with every scientific certainty ever established.
By Fourier analysis, any complex waveform can be broken down into its sinusoidal parts, so reality is purely sinusoidal (the scientifically sought after pattern literally forming all we know, which cannot possibly be a mathematical equation due to guaranteed waveform complexity in any mathematical exercise).
One of my favorite parts of RWT is it validates Dr. Albert Einstein’s instincts against quantum physics — without disproving quantum physics. The sine wave is simple and elegant, and the logical notion of modulating the overall sinusoidal volume with an undefinable extreme (i.e. sine waves exist, because observation is sinusoidal) is equally simple and elegant.