I would like, if possible and you have time for it, to clarify something.

To get an idea where I am standing.

You say that electrons and neutrinos are phases of the same wave

(let's call it lepton-wave), and that the

phase is measured with respect to some sort of wave embeded in the

spacetime (let's call it reference-wave).

Now, consider the following systems of leptons interacting each other:

a) two electrons;

b) two neutrinos;

c) one electron and one neutrino.

a) and c) are rather well known experimentally and directly.

b) is also well known, but indirectly (so you can question this knowledge).

1. If all that matters is the two interacting lepton-waves, then two

interacting

electrons and two interacting neutrinos must behave in the same way (both

have a

zero relative phase with respect to each other). But we know that this is

not true.

A pair of electrons interact a lot stronger than a pair of neutrinos.

2. Interaction between two leptons is actually mediated by the reference

wave:

The electron couples to the reference wave stronger (is in phase) than the

neutrino (which is at 90 degrees). This approach seems to give the desired

results (compatibility with experiments).

However, the latter approach is nothing else than the Standard Model (SM)

approach: the reference-wave is the FIELD, the lepton-wave is the particle.

For the moment there are four different fields (or three if you take weak

and electromagnetism together), yet people hope to unify all within a single

field. Therefore the approach is not new.

Yet, there is a MAJOR difference: in the SM the field is the extended

object, while the particle is LOCALISED (some people would love to see it as

point-like, others string-like, others membrane-like and so on). The field

is wave-like, the particle is corpuscule-like.

So, separated particles interact with each other via the field to which they

couple.

(However, one always have the particle and the field together, therefore the

duality.)

In your model you have just waves: the leptonic waves and the

reference-wave. My question is what's the role of the reference-wave in your

model? The lepton-wave are overlapped already and they should be interacting

directly, without any mediator. But if this would be the case you run into

problems with the phase difference between two neutrinos (zero) and two

electrons (again zero), which give different physics.

You see, why experiments and a sort of logic (in which we might've become

prisoners) conducted to this idea of interaction: Particles are localised,

they couple (interact) locally with the field, the field is extended (and

allegedly created by the sum of all localised particles)?

Precisely because people have seen that two electrons do not interact in the

same way as two neutrinos or an electron-neutrino pair. The same with other

particles from the same family. If particles would've been waves only such a

scenario is not possible. I don't know how to say it more clear.

The SM gives very good predictions, which means that the model described

above is at least mathematically correct (may be wrong, but the mathematical

formulation is correct; there are plenty of examples of different

systems/models which are described by the same set of mathematical

equations). The big unanswered question is the following: why particles

couple differently to the field? Where those masses are coming from? Where

all those various properties are coming from?

If they are point-like they should all be identical (a point is a point and

has no other features). Therefore point-like particles are in a way already

ruled out as a possibility.

But string-like have also been ruled out for other reasons. So people are

trying now membrane-like objects, which I am 100% confident they will fail

too :-).

Both extremes: corpuscules only and wave only objects seem not to fit the

reality properly. I strongly believe that particles are in between: they

have a wave like structure AND a corpuscule-like structure.

General relativity equations are surprisingly similar to the equations used

to compute stress and deformations in the solid bodies. This suggests the

fact that spacetime may have a CRYSTALLINE structure (the fact that

torsional/shear stress-like terms appear in gravity is from the start a sign

that spacetime cannot be fluid-like). Particles may be either oscillations

modes of this structure (in which case they are bosons, associated thus with

fields), or defects in the crystalline lattice (in which case they are

fermions, associated thus with localised particles). This view fits Pauli's

exclusion principle (you can overlap bosons/fields, but you can't overlap

fermions) and with other quantum laws.

>From the arguments listed above, I give more credit to those models in which

the vacuum is modelled like a solid (see Finkelstein model), rather then

those in which the vacuum is modelled as a fluid (which are incompatible

with GRT).

So, although I am not satisfied with the Standard Model, I see no point in

replacing it with another model which is as unsatisfactory or even less.

This is a sort of personal statement (to explain my behaviour/way of

thinking and so on) and should not be interpreted in an offensive way, or

lack of respect way and things like this. Or like I don't give a dime on

such models/ideas. And above all, no one is fully qualified to decissively

rule what is true and what is wrong.

Yours,

Daniel