Dear Alan,
I just detected an error. My comment on your essay should have been here but I posted it on my blog. So here I reproduce.
I have read your article on the wave-particle duality. As I said some of the problems may result from the view that space is a 'nothing'.
You said "So if an electron is truly a fundamental particle, it had to be a point particle,which clearly cannot be divided further.." Is your definition of point particle one of zero dimension?
You also said "Applying special relativity to this massive photon in its rest
frame.." Can a photon be at rest in any frame? What is the velocity in other frames? These are unintended fall outs of what you rightly pointed out as "Generations of physicists have been educated to ignore physical intuition about the paradoxes, while focusing on mathematics divorced from physical pictures. In response, the field of theoretical physics became more mathematically abstract, straying far from its origins explaining the behavior of real objects
moving in real space"
The correctness or not of NQP proposal must come after you have first settled the question whether space is nothing but a relational entity or on the contrary a substantial thing.
Regards,
Akinbo
Then, a question for you:
Is it being implied by the relational view of space and as suggested by Mach's principle that what decides whether a centrifugal force would act between two bodies in *constant relation*, would not be the bodies themselves, since they are at fixed distance to each other, nor the space in which they are located since it is a nothing, but by a distant sub-atomic particle light-years away in one of the fixed stars in whose reference frame the *constantly related* bodies are in circular motion?
You can reply me here or on my blog. And please pardon my naive view of physics.
Accept my best regards,
Akinbo