Hi Marina
Indeed, some people, including myself, think that the quantization arises from the continuum and some plausible explanations have been given.
I didn't understand what you really mean in your 3rd paragraph. From your 4th paragraph I could notice that you don't have clear the physical meaning of the uncertainty principle and the measurement problem.
The uncertainty principle tells us, in its general formulation, that when two observables, say, A and B, do not commute it is not possible to determine their values simultaneously. The relation between two non-commuting observables is AB-BA=ih where i is the imaginary number and h is the planck constant divided by 2pi. When we work out the math we obtain that DeltaA*DeltaB=h/2, this is the expression of the uncertainty principle. Two observables that do not commute are, for example, the position X and the velocity V (or momentum P=mV) of a particle. So, according to the latter expression, we cannot measure with precision V and X simultaneously, because the measurement of V will affect the actual position of the particle and viceversa. Thus, in the case of the double slit experiment, the detector is placed to measure the X of the particle but the measurement of X affects its velocity. The more accurate the determination of X the higher the ignorance of V (and viceversa).
Now, before the measurement, in theoretical terms, the quantum state of the system IS WELL DEFINED, but given that the measurement affects the state of the system it is said that the state collapses, that is, it becomes unknown. It's unknown because we don't know how the measurement will affect the system. Thus, that the detector "interferes" means that the detector perturbs the initial quantum state of the particle by either affecting the particle's velocity or its position (depending on what we are measuring). As you say, the particle is in one of many possible states and, according to the theory, the state before the measurement is WELL KNOWN but the measuring process destroys the knowledge of the state. Does it make sense?
With respect to your 5th paragraph. I don't remember Andrew but I do remember the article, it's very interesting. Actually, you can see a new and beautiful video of that phenomenon here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmC0ygr08tE. The droplets are called walkers for two reasons, because the last name of the discoverer of this phenomenon is walker and because the droplets appear to walk on the liquid. In the most recent reports, researchers seem to reproduce quantum phenomena such as interference. These results suggest that the microscopic world is not different from the macroscopic one. In this analogy the droplet represents the resonances or excitations (that we see as particles) of space and the water represents the medium, i.e., the substantial space (the substance for me is matter). Again, I would like to insist and make this very clear, the water is the absolute system of reference just as space is. The velocity of the particles is defined absolutely not relative to other objects in space, as relativity affirms, but with respect to the water (i.e. space). Do you agree? Do you understand why the kind of resonating space (that you, Devereux, me and others support) implies an absolute system of reference? In relativity the velocity of the particles is defined relative to other objects because space itself is not a substance and cannot be taken as a reference system. Space in relativity is neither a fluid nor a material medium. Do you now understand why this contradicts relativity?
You: Yes, I surely do, even though I --in my naivete perhaps-- also differentiate in the types of.. signals? it can carry. For example, EMR is a transverse wave and gravity is supposedly longitudinal (in 4D), but in addition, it can carry the resonances of vibrations, no?
Hmm, it seems that you have a mixture of the notion of "medium" and that you use the word "milieu" as synonym of "medium" or "environment". From your comments I have the impression that you also understand "medium" as something that carries energy or information. I sense that you are considering a wave also as medium. No, I think that notion is sort of colloquial (no offence). In physics, in particular, in mechanics of continuous media (check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_mechanics), when we say medium we mean a continuous distribution of a substance (usually matter), lets say like water, that extends over some region. For instance, the waves in the ocean are perturbations of water (the medium), without the medium waves cannot exist. On the contrary, Einstein argued that EMR needs no medium (the so called aether) and that EMR can move in empty space. According to him electromagnetic waves are not perturbations of space. It's as if we removed the water and left the waves alone moving without water, the waves are not perturbations of nothing, not even of space. Do you see what I mean by medium?
Regards
Israel