Manu de Hanoi

i've had a quick look at the pilot wave theory, and it's not my cup of tea. I find "my" theory more elegant/simplifying. My theory, in short, is that particles dont exist, everything is wavy, and made of real waves, not waves of probabilities.

I suggest you dont censor yourself here or anywhere else. Truth doesnt care about being mainstream or not. The childish reputation point strategies, schorlar pride, and group think you'll find here must be what they are, but no more than that. If u wrong , let them prove you wrong if they can. If they can't, their opinion doesnt matter.

I call it like it is.
1- John Rennie didnt bother replying to my message above. That's rude. He initially closed my comment as duplicate and initially provided a single link that was not really a duplicate of my question.
2-Emilio insisted on applying dumb rules like "mainstream science" (argumentum ad populus fallacy) & "personal theory" for downplaying my question. It was later shown I wasnt that far from mainstream science (and in agreement with JR himself) . As for the "personal theory" that rule is stupid beyond understanding. It is important for clarifying a question to give context,…

@EmilioPisanty, let me lay it out *flat*. My question is an exact duplicate of this one
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/148642/how-to-rebut-denials-of-the-existence-of-photons

So closing it is fair.

I find the "mainstream" criterion you invoqued earlier ridiculous, and that's why I made fun of you. What's the name of that scientist who got burned at the stake for developping heliocentrism against the heavy handed *mainstream* moderators ?

This mainstream thing is nothing more than the Argumentum ad populum fallacy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum ) . And…

4-John Rennie himself who closed my question, posted an answer in the duplicated link he provided (self promo ?) titled "Do photons truly exist in a physical sense or are they just a useful concept like i=−1−−−√ ?"
This quote from his answer also goes along "my theory", so I believe I'm not far from the mainstream :
"The only time we really see light behaving as a photon is when it exchanges energy with something. So when an excited hydrogen atom decays a photon is emitted. Likewise a photon can be absorbed by an atom and excite it. As the light propagates to or from the atom it is rarely …

Dear Emilio
1- My *question* is worded carefully for asking for mainstream physics answer .
At not point do I imply that "I know that it is directly contradicted by established evidence but I still have that theory." for the simple reason that my question is asking for that evidence because I dont know it.
2-The duplicate links have been updated with more relevant link. Thanks to who did that. At first glance, the most appropriate duplicate is "What is the experimental evidence for a quantized EM field?". By clicking on that link you will find that the selected answer to that question conta…