Even worse, I am less mindless, I split hair. Why do I so?
Wave functions are undoubtedly functions of the
interactions of waves, particularly of the electromagnetic waves,
anyway. The theories are o.k. The results are o.k. But the
terminology isn't o.k. So I think.
Hairsplittingly, I have separated the particles from the
waves (wavequanta) in my theory (TBA I, II, III, IV, V) and described a new coherence between
particles and wavequanta in their appearances. Particles are
transmitters and receivers (resonators) of wavequanta. Therefore, they don't have
to be the same as their interaction fields of wavequanta.
In my theory, I show this difference again and again, because
a particle is a spatial cosmos that has a true dimension which isn't
divisible (electron radius: 3.7e-13 m). The electron therefore cannot have spread out into such strange wave spaces
more than its radius.
The electron consequently isn't some powder in the s-orbital
around the atomic nucleus.
It rotates calmly on its flat orbit around the atomic nucleus
in which it interacts with wavequanta. The result of the
interaction of the electron with the X-ray is the subscription
of the spherical orbital.
The p-orbital isn't either a degenerated s-orbital.
Interactions of the wavequanta of several electrons yield
superimpositions (interferences) and show us a typical picture
in the space. Into this cohesion, however, the electron doesn't fly as
degenerated dust and it is not there directly.
Therefore nobody has seen the electron. One will never get
it for face, too. Perhaps, one finally has "seen" or detected the interaction
hits of the electron wavequanta. But this is
also not quite correct, because the effects still had to get
pictorially in a simulation of the computer.