Some say we live in a 'Quantum Universe', some say a 'Classical Universe'. Both are a bit too pure for me, like religions and dialectic philosophies. No one has convinced me that we live in a 'Perfect Universe' that *always* follows this or that 'law'. There-in lies all probabilities however one wishes to present them, whether in a universe of perfect information or one without any.
For an entire century, the scientific community has ignored the essential question of *why* "If an experimenter chooses to measure the wavelike properties of a photon for instance, that photon will act like a wave. If she elects instead to measure it's particle-like attributes - for example, by pinpointing its location - then a particle it shall be."
The question should be; what IS that photon?
Accepting the literal definition of Einstein that E=mc^2 means that, 'the energy of a closed system is equal to its inertia' requires that we allow an inertial reference frame to exist that is itself (for some yet to be explained reason) that quantity of energy of Planck's Constant, which is observable in any single wave event or particle impact. The only difference between a relative rest particle and a wave event of equal energy is that the inertial reference of the wave event in an electromagnetic photonic emission is that the physical shape of the energy packet is elongated, that does not mean we can ignore that is has an inertial property. The so-called *massless particle* is the sweetest fudge to be cooked up, so sweet that no one has challenged it as a complete SOP. ANY successful effort to reconcile SR, QM, and GR, will take the shine of the shoes of Lorentz. To obtain co-variance will require that we who bore the great multitude of shoppers and huxters, rethink the assumption that *any size mass* can not attain light velocity. Simple as that. jrc