[unspun]

Previous to the experiments leading to QM, objects were believed to be either a wave or a particle, but not both.

Thank you both for your comments. I'm still working on yours when I find a moment... here... and there, A-G.

As to the above, why can't something so very itsy bitsy be neither, actually, but inherently somewhat like both? And why should that bother us macro-functioners and macro-observers? Granted, it may give us a clue to what "is" is, but there seems to be a-lot of "statistical noise" being generated about it.

Quanta Rights! They have the right to be what they are and not what they're not, despite what anyone has to say.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

As to the above, why can't something so very itsy bitsy be neither, actually, but inherently somewhat like both?

They were observed to be both, depending on the experiment. Objects didn't behave somewhat like one or the other, they were like one or the other. At the time this was a shocking result.

I think that people who have worked with QM should receive preferential treatment in hiring and government aid, but it doesn't seem likely to happen. ;)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

Indeed, quantum mechanics has been troubling to many - Einstein among them. But on the other hand, space/time which was sensible to Einstein is still a stumbling block to many (if not most.)