So why did you bring it up in the context of "waves of nothing"? And why keep asking people to "look up" experiment X as evidence for P, and then insist that they "look up" experiment Y, when X turns out not to address P in the first place, and so on? How often do you plan to do this? Why not just settle down and discuss how one of these experiments proves that we are all made of nothing?
Hmmm, if the double slit experiment doesn't convince you that light is both a wave and a particle how about Planck's formula for black body radiation and Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect?
It's best not to bring Planck into this. IIRC he didn't believe in photons, and considered Einstein's usage of his quanta of action to be illegitimate or dubious at best. He had his own ideas about electromagnetic radiation.
Another oddity of QM is that even though it is fantastically precise
People often make this comment about quantum electrodynamics. But there are dissenters, such as E.T Jaynes.
As you well know, there is no single experiment that proves that we are all made of nothing. I don't think that is your real question though. You are disagreeing with the conclusion. How about if I said that we are made up of waves of Space-time. Does that help you?
It's best not to bring Planck into this. IIRC he didn't believe in photons, and considered Einstein's usage of his quanta of action to be illegitimate or dubious at best. He had his own ideas about electromagnetic radiation.
Using that logic I shouldn't bring Einstein in either, he spent that last half of his life arguing against QED too.
People often make this comment about quantum electrodynamics. But there are dissenters, such as E.T Jaynes.
The equations have one degree less of freedom and that is huge.