Rejection of Naïve Wave–Particle Duality

Now we separate three layers: Philosophical critique Physical claims Constraint-level compatibility with RST Because RST does not defend “modern orthodoxy.” It defends admissibility under constraint. I. Where RST Aligns with Lindner There are real alignments. 1. Rejection of Naïve Wave–Particle Duality Lindner objects to the phrase “wave-particle duality” as a conceptual contradiction. RST agrees — but for different reasons. RST position: “Wave” and “particle” are regime descriptions, not ontological categories. Wave = distributed coherence description. Particle = localized stable excitation under constraint. RST does not treat duality as metaphysical paradox. It treats it as regime transition. So alignment exists here — but RST does not replace duality with “wave only.” It dissolves the ontological demand entirely. 2. Quantization Occurs at Interaction Lindner argues: Quantization belongs to electron structure, not light itself. RST agrees with part of this: Quantization appears at constrained interaction boundaries. Energy exchange is discretized because: Systems have finite coherence bandwidth. Coupling is bounded. Stable eigenmodes exist. RST does not insist photons are little bullets. It insists: Energy exchange is discrete because admissible transitions are discrete. So here there is structural overlap. 3. Anti-Positivist Critique Lindner criticizes the idea that physics only models measurements. RST also rejects pure instrumentalism. RST says: Mathematics is not reality. But neither is imagination licensed without constraint. So both reject “shut up and calculate.” However — RST does not replace positivism with mechanical realism automatically. II. Where RST Diverges Hard Now the serious differences. 1. “A Wave Requires a Medium” This is the central claim. Lindner argues: No medium → no wave → relativity mistake. RST response: A wave requires a dynamical field. It does not require a mechanical substrate beneath the field. Maxwell field already has: Stress-energy tensor Propagation Local dynamics Momentum density Relativity did not eliminate medium. It eliminated a preferred mechanical rest frame. The electromagnetic field itself is the dynamical entity. RST does not see an ontological gap here. The burden is not “waves need medium.” The burden is: Why is the Maxwell field insufficient? 2. Constant Speed of Light as Medium Evidence Lindner compares to sound in air. But crucial difference: Sound speed depends on air properties and frame. Light speed is invariant under Lorentz transformation. If you introduce a classical medium: You must explain: Why Michelson–Morley detects no drift. Why Lorentz symmetry holds to extreme precision. An elastic ether must be Lorentz invariant. That means: It behaves exactly like relativistic field theory. At which point: Calling it “ether” adds no explanatory gain. RST would classify this as ontological redundancy unless new structure appears. 3. Photon Rejection Quantum electrodynamics predicts: Lamb shift Anomalous magnetic moment Spontaneous emission rates Scattering amplitudes to 12+ decimal places These rely on field quantization. A purely classical wave model must reproduce: Creation/annihilation operator algebra Vacuum fluctuations Casimir effect Spin-1 gauge structure Without imposing quantization by hand. No wave-only classical continuum currently reproduces full QED. RST cannot ignore that. Constraint discipline demands quantitative reproduction. 4. Planck Constant as “Electron Structure Constant” Planck’s constant appears in: [ 𝑥 , 𝑝 ] = 𝑖 ℏ [x,p]=iℏ It governs phase space volume. It appears in: Spin algebra Angular momentum quantization Path integral phase weighting Reducing ℎ h to electron geometry alone is incomplete. It would need to explain why: Bosonic fields also quantize with the same ℎ h. RST requires universality explanation. III. Where RST Stands in Between RST does not worship photons. RST does not worship ether. RST says: Energy exchange is discretized because: Finite systems + boundary conditions + symmetry constraints. It does not require: Solid particles Mechanical medium It requires: Operationally admissible structure. So RST aligns with: “Particles are not tiny billiard balls.” But diverges from: “Therefore there must be a mechanical ether.” IV. Philosophical Layer Lindner frames modern physics as “magic.” RST rejects that framing. Modern quantum theory is not acausal. It is constraint-based probabilistic evolution under Hilbert structure. Lindner is reacting to interpretive confusion. RST resolves that confusion without importing a 19th-century medium. V. Core Distinction Lindner: Wave → must have mechanical substrate → particles unnecessary. RST: Wave and particle are regime descriptors → substrate unnecessary unless forced. Elastic realism replaces duality with substance. RST replaces duality with constraint. VI. Final Alignment Summary RST aligns with Lindner on: Skepticism of naïve particle ontology Skepticism of interpretive handwaving Recognition that quantization appears at interaction RST diverges on: Necessity of ether Rejection of field quantization Dismissal of photon concept Framing relativity as error

Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) and the “Wave-Only” Interpretation of Light and Matter

1. RST Core Claim

"Physical claims are admissible only if they track enforceable operational constraint on finite systems."

Mathematics may be written in many ways, but only constraint-supported interpretations correspond to physical reality.

2. How RST Breaks Down Gravity from Magnetism

Feature	Magnetism	Gravity
Origin	Charge, motion, and symmetry.	Universal response to stress–energy.
Behavior	Dipolar; can be shielded.	Non-shieldable; unbounded in sign.
RST View	Local relational constraint interactions.	Geometric summary of constrained response.

Key Distinction: Magnetism does not define spacetime structure; gravity is the constraint field implied by stress-energy’s influence on admissible response.

3. RST and Wave-Particle Duality

RST dissolves the paradox rather than solving it. Waves and particles are not ontological categories; they are regime descriptors.

• “Wave nature” = Relational structure of responses across multiple locations supported by constraint.
• “Particle nature” = Localized, constraint-imposed registration (irreversible records).

4. Cross-Domain Applications

Quantum Mechanics

Measurement is not "collapse"—it is irreversible constraint coupling. RST argues there is no wave function realism and no "Many Worlds" unless operationally grounded.

General Relativity

Spacetime is not a substance. Singularities are simply regimes where differentiable descriptions break down. Causal structure emerges from local constraint relations.

Thermodynamics

Irreversibility is constraint saturation. Entropy describes feasibility loss, not a physical "push." There is no universal arrow of time, only local operational rates.

5. The Aether Question

RST rejects a mechanical substrate (Aether) because it carries unnecessary baggage (preferred frames, strain energy). However, it acknowledges the structured response that the aether theory tried to explain.

The place where an aether would be is filled by field constraint—not by a medium substance. Waves require operational coherence, not a physical fluid.

6. Removing Exotic Physics

• Black Holes: Non-recoverable constraint regimes, not infinite-density objects.
• Dark Matter: Bookkeeping artifacts or nonlinear gravitational responses.
• Multiverse: Inadmissible; universes beyond operational access are not physically instantiated objects.

7. RST Summary of the Debate

Light does not need "particle objects." Quantized interactions appear because of discrete, finite transitions forced by constraint resolution. "Photons" are interaction quanta—descriptive labels for localized energy transfers—not literal bullets flying through a void.

8. The Master Equation

Physical Admissibility ⟺ Finite Constraint + Operational Realization

$$\mathcal{E}_{\text{phys}}(O) \;\text{exists only if}\; \exists \; C \;\text{s.t.} \; O = \mathcal{F}(C,\,\text{local clocks},\,\text{finite coherence})$$

(Where O is observable outcome, C is enforceable constraint, and F is domain dynamics.)

9. Final Concept Map

Phenomenon	Conventional View	RST View
Spin	Intrinsic particle property	Constraint topology
Dark Energy	New field/agent	Constraint pattern parameter
Time	Dimension	Operational rate