1. Evidence shows that a photon is some form of physical oscillation. It shows that a photon's energy is proportional to its oscillation frequency, and that photon oscillation frequencies range continuously from less than one cycle per second to over one trillion trillion cycles per second. Experience indicates that, for an oscillation to occur in nature, there must be something to oscillate (e.g. air, metal rod or bell). Is it plausible that a point particle can contain something that can oscillate or that it can become a wave (as orthodox theory assumes)? In the qm view, a photon's oscillation is an oscillation of the quantum medium. Possibly a photon's oscillation results in a concentration of its energy in a small particle-like volume during one phase of the oscillation cycle and a spreading of the energy during another phase of the cycle. Or perhaps we detect only the center of a particle's energy which is spread out in space. Evidence shows that the physical nature of a photon is a matter of great uncertainty and that many alternative views are possible and that any particular view (e.g. that photons are sometimes particles and sometimes waves) is unlikely to be consistent with the true nature of photons, which may eventually be known.

      2. Evidence shows that photons travel to us with a speed that is independent of the source's motion toward us or away from us. (Example: Two spaceships moving with high velocities in opposite directions pass close to one another, and each emits a brief radio signal as they pass. One ship is moving rapidly away from us and the other is moving rapidly toward us, but the signals from the two ships reach us at exactly the same time. Similarly, when a star explodes, we eventually see the light from the material blasted away from us at the same time we see the light from the material blasted toward us.) This simultaneous arrival of photons, which is independent of the velocities of the sources, is a logical consequence of the qm because all the photons travel the same distance with the same speed through the medium. It is not a logical consequence of a ballistic theory of photon emission. It is not explained by orthodox physics theory which does not explain what causes photons to move from source to destination. Orthodox theory simply assumes that, for some unknown reason, a photon has the same speed through every observer's frame of reference, regardless of the velocities of the frames relative to one another.

      3. Increasing our velocity toward a distant source of yellow light causes a Doppler blueshift in oscillation frequency of the arriving photons, and increasing our velocity away from the source causes a redshift. This is also a logical consequence of the qm because changing our velocity changes our velocity relative to the photons. It is not a logical consequence of orthodox physics theory, which assumes that the speed of the arriving photons relative to an observer is unaffected by a change in the observer's velocity toward or away from the light source.

      4. Photons are refracted, as would be expected if they are oscillations of the qm that propagate through the qm. And it is reasonable that higher-frequency, higher-energy oscillations (e.g. blue light) would be refracted more than lower-energy oscillations (e.g. red light) that would be impeded less when moving through a transparent medium. If photons were point particles, they would have no reason to be refracted. Therefore, Premise I of the qm view is consistent with refraction and dispersion phenomena.

      5. Photons create interference patterns (e.g. in two-slit experiments), and the diffraction suggests that a photon's energy is at times spread out and at times concentrated during its cycle of oscillation. This is possible if a photon is an oscillating system of energy moving through the qm. It indicates that photons are not point particles.

Orthodox physics theory does not explain physical causes for the phenomena discussed above but instead relies on the assumption that quanta of energy and quanta of mass can sometimes be particles and sometimes be waves, and on the assumption that quanta of energy (e.g. photons) always have the same speed through every observer's frame of reference. Although these two assumptions are consistent with observations, orthodox theory does not provide logical physical causes for the observations. A medium, in which systems of energy reside, move, and interact, provides the basis for explaining these and other observations. It also provides a basis for explaining fundamental phenomena including mass and gravity.

      6. One of the reasons for thinking that quanta of mass (e.g. electrons, quarks) are actually systems of oscillations in the qm is that we observe that mass quanta can be changed into energy quanta and vice versa. For example, an electron and a positron can interact and turn into two gamma ray photons having the same energy as the electron and positron. Conversely, a gamma ray photon having the energy of two electrons can become an electron and positron when it hits a relatively massive system such as an atomic nucleus. Further evidence that all quanta, (e.g. electrons, neutrinos, quarks, photons) are systems of oscillations in the qm is the fact that electrons can exhibit wave-like characteristics such as the creation of interference patterns in two-slit experiments. Therefore, is it not reasonable to assume that all mass and energy have a common cause -- oscillations in the qm?

      7. Another reason for thinking that quanta of mass are systems of energy oscillations in the qm is that this permits gravity to be explained simply and without having to assume the existence of a gravity force carrying particle. This eliminates the need for a so-called "gravitational" force because gravity is simply a logical consequence of the photon-slowing gradients in the qm, as specified in Premise II of the qm view.

      8. A further reason for thinking that quanta of mass are systems of energy oscillations in the qm is that this also explains why bodies have "mass" or resistance to acceleration. The qm view shows why the acceleration of a body results in an imbalance in the body's internal energy transfer, and why the imbalance results in a net force in the body that is proportional to the magnitude of the acceleration and opposite to the direction of the acceleration, and in agreement with experimental observations. This eliminates the need for still another hypothetical particle to provide matter with mass.

      9. Aboard an imaginary laboratory/observatory floating in deep space, the cosmic microwave background radiation is observed to be isotropic on a large scale. And the lab uses accelerometers and little rockets to detect and eliminate any rotation, thereby making lab's reference frame one of absolute zero rotation. The stars and other mass/energy seen by observers aboard the lab would appear to have a variety of velocities in the lab's coordinate system. Ernst Mach and others thought that the heavenly bodies are responsible for centrifugal forces such as those causing people's arms to move out from their sides when they spin around rapidly. Newton did not agree with this idea. He thought that we would not experience the effects of rotation if we remained still and the heavenly bodies began rotating around us. The heavenly body hypothesis does not explain how heavenly bodies establish a reference frame in which we rotate and experience the effects of rotation. What is the connection between the heavenly bodies and our bodies? The quantum medium establishes the absolute frame that Newton assumed and it permits a simple explanation for the centrifugal forces caused by rotation.

      10. In the qm view, bodies do not have mass per se. They have only internal energy due to the constant transfer of energy through the qm. These systems of internal energy, whether they be electrons or stars, appear to have mass because an external force (or gradient of energy propagation speed through the qm) is required to change the velocity of the body. The fact that a force is required to accelerate a body is evidence of the qm in which the body's internal energy is moving. Also, the fact that mass/energy is constantly materializing from, and disappearing into, the "quantum vacuum" or "quantum foam" is evidence of the qm. The qm may be the source of large amounts of energy that we do not detect directly but which influence universe expansion and other phenomena we do detect. The fact that the qm view of matter explains a wide variety of perplexing phenomena, including phenomena that orthodox theory can not explain, is evidence that it is a plausible representation of nature.

      11. In the qm view, the interactions between the "fundamental particles" (e.g. between two electrons or two quarks) are probably the result of effects that the particles have on the surrounding quantum medium. And "fields" are probably such effects in the qm. Certainly many people are thinking about the nature of particles, forces, fields, and related observed phenomena. String theory and its variations seem to be specific examples of oscillating systems of energy. Whatever the oscillations are, the qm view indicates they are oscillations in a medium because the medium is consistent with a wide range of observed phenomena and it eliminates the need for complicated or counterintuitive theory involving constant light speed, c, spacetime, wave-particle duality, mass and gravity particles, etc., as discussed above and elsewhere on this website.