Signal loss in vacuum seems to suggest that wave theory is flawed
Experimentation in phased arrays shows us that a signal can be boosted with a
harmonic transmission shortly following the original transmission, which certain
people might intuitively perceive as maintaining the wave-like nature of RF
signals. However if this were the case then there would be no inherent signal
loss over distance if the original transmission is pointed directly at the
receiver, as the wave would keep osciltating perpetually in its original vector.
If one were to overlay the purely-particle-nature of radiation then the very
same principle as harmonic signal augmentation would be expected, because the
augmentating burst of particles would steer the cone of particles comprosing the
original transmission into a more compacted/concentrated cone of radiation,
while still maintaining the expectation of signal loss over distance as we
observe in nature.
If wave theory were true then the inverse square law would not apply to signal
strength of radiation in a vacuum environment (to discount atmospheric
interference; RF interference of from other radiation sources would need to be
accounted for), for we would be dealing with self-regulating (in direction)
beams of osciltating radiation, not particles whose vectors must be carefully
aimed and whose aim, even if slightly off, will miss their target (the receiver
in this example) as distance is multiplied.
The further away the target is, the exponentially greater the chances of them
missing their target is in fact closer to what we find in reality.
At this point it seems meaningless to view the individual quanta as having
wave-like properties, but rather the wave model can be applied to the
transmission as a whole as a sort of short-hand. An intuitive caricature of a
model, if you will. But it is much more accurate to portray radiational quanta
as possessing a purely particle nature.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Forces/isq.html#c4
I would love to provide equations to support my claims; however as we currently
lack the technology required to truly measure the actual quanta being
transmitted my math would be based on nothing whatsoever, and so I won’t bore
the reader with pure conjecture. The point remains, however, that my
counter-hypothesis are much more plausible than those it counters, and that
alone (despite deep magic formulae which break down in certain observed
phenomena and are therefore screaming out for replacement) should be enough to
merit at least some further looking into.
To truly get an an accurate measure of how much quanta we’re dealing with for a
specific strength of a radio signal we’d have to put a spherical array of radio
receivers at planks length away from the transmission antena, and that can’t
currently be constructed as far as I can tell.
Waves act the way they do in water because water has surface tension, initial
force, thermal layers, and gravity to keep it all together. What are the
equivalents in photons/electrons/quanta?