DrChinese said:
You obviously did not follow the earlier link, and here is a specific paper that explicitly rejects your concept of "wave strength" (which is wrong).
http://marcus.whitman.edu/~beckmk/QM/grangier/Thorn_ajp.pdf
"While the classical, wavelike behavior of light (interference and diffraction) has been easily observed in undergraduate laboratories for many years, explicit observation of the quantum nature of light (i.e., photons) is much more difficult. For example, while well-known phenomena such as the photoelectric effect and Compton scattering strongly suggest the existence of photons, they are not definitive proof of their existence. Here we present an experiment, suitable for an undergraduate laboratory, that unequivocally demonstrates the quantum nature of light. Spontaneously downconverted light is incident on a beamsplitter and the outputs are monitored with single-photon counting detectors. We observe a near absence of coincidence counts between the two detectors—a result inconsistent with a classical wave model of light, but consistent with a quantum description in which individual photons are incident on the beamsplitter. More explicitly, we measured the degree of second-order coherence between the outputs to be g(2)(0)=0.0177+/-0.0026, which violates the classical inequality g(2)(0)>1 by 377 standard deviations."
You might want to look at prior research (such as the above, 2003/2004) BEFORE you start telling folks "where physics lost its way". Also Mandel's theoretical treatment (1976) and Aspect's earlier experiments (1986). All of which shows that your (wrong) idea has been thoroughly considered already... and rejected by experiment as untenable. Turns out that PDC crystals have a number of useful scientific applications.
So I would rate your bowling pin idea as a strike...out.
I am not going to try to overturn years and years of physics, and established physics, here.
I will simply say, that the detector, is determining the result, and you can make detectors, to give you results that you look for, and that is the physics of today.
I will however show you an article, which shows quite clearly, that all these assumptions in the defunct standard model regarding free floating particles are erroneous, and that is with regards to BEC experiments, where you can cool a group of atoms, until they become one large atom, and further cool that large conglomerate atom, until it disappears into the background.
Let me clarify that just a bit, when you cool this BEC, using lasers, at one point, you get the Bosenova. An implosion, then a small explosion, which mimics what happens on the grand scale, of a supernova.
So you see there is some consistency, from the very large, to the very small.
And on this very small scale, some of that mass disappears completely during the Bosenova.
It becomes one with the background.
But the point is, that the quality of what we think of as matter, is not like little pieces of dust particles at all. It behaves quite predictably as wave energy, which can be cooled, until it simply disappears.
You see the idea of a particle on a trajectory, would merely imply, that if you were to try and detect it, along a trajectory, you can plot points along that trajectory. That does not mean those points are moving.
ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosenova"
http://www.weizmann.ac.il/home/davidson/tomography.pdf"
In case some are not able to read between the lines in the above article, because the authors do not wish to overturn established physics either, they are merely stating the results of their work, and the results themselves are self evident, but what it shows in a nutshell, is that if you cool BEC, until it becomes one with the background, it will not always Bosenova, it will at times, merely perform a conversion of mass to energy, in accordance with relativity, such that the mass will be converted to kinetic energy, or in this case what is referred to as phonon energy.
