Incorrect.

I say when we see (measure) energy we separate it from a continuum (of probabilities) and it is quantized.

Basic:

https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/mathur.16/quantummechanics27-...

E=hf...you do not get that E without measuring f. That is the quantum in quantum physics. And I think that is why we do not have a unifying law of physics yet, because this measurement is the basis for all quantum physics. We are trying to take particles to a place that is only waves.

The fact that you think I disagree with this means you do not understand me, nor the idea of the wave function.

Huh? From the article:

"Pi is a non-terminating and non-recurring irrational number. When we say that pi is infinite, we intend to say that pi has an infinite expression, not an infinite value."

That is what I meat by infinte, as in the number never ends.

I am not commenting about being more precise. I am talking about exactness. Yes, with every didgit we add to pi we become more precise, and there is a limit to what we need, but to know that there is not exact value we can give to the area of a thing, how can we say that is a thing at a deeper level? If we know things because we "measure them" and measuring is never exact, what do we really know?

Which is why we need new theories, and "everything is a wave" is a new theory.

What exists between the wave functions?

> This is because energy is quantized and does not exist in continuous quantities.

"Quantized" in quantum mechanics means that a physical quantity can take only a discrete set of values rather than any value from a continuous range.

Yes, energy is quantized because we see it separate from a continuum. Because we SEE it as separate from a continuum does not mean it is separate from any continuum. This is the theory of everything is wave in a nutshell.

Since you have another theory, that the wave function can have properties of a particle and a wave, so you disagree with me. To me, the wave function only shows the properties of a wave, after you have made a measurement, the probability of what you have measured suddenly changes to 1, and the wave function appears as a particle, but still has the properties of a wave, which are there, but ignored.

Yet…

Because we do not have the formulas does not mean they are not quantized.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-time-quantized...

The field is the continuous state so nothing has to jump through anything.

For example the hydrogen wave function does not tell us where the electron will be located, only where most likely will be located. What is discrete about that?

You seem to be avoiding the question of how we can know the exact area of a circle knowing that pi is infinite.

I am saying that the area of a circle is impossible to know. And that has both philosophical and physical ramifications.

Very fact that this well-known scientific truth is hard to accept those people is telling.

https://www.scienceabc.com/pure-sciences/can-the-area-of-a-c...

“Hence, not only is it impossible to ever determine the exact value of the area of a circle, but it is equally impossible to measure any area with 100% accuracy.”

And by difference, I mean, establish boundaries between objects.

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

There is no "quantum wave", there are only waves. Immeasurable, undefinable waves.

A quantum state is a mathematical entity that represents a physical system. Since waves are not physical can you see where I can assume that the math needs to start from a different place? If it is even useful at all?

> it’s known that these particles exhibit quantum behavior. Many measures are in fact quantized.

To measure is to quantize, so this is circular reasoning. If particles are always waves we would still see the quantum behavior.

> Second, existing as a wave does not mean no discrete quantities.

Where is the precise point a standing wave ends and begins? The best we can do is guess with calculus and differential equations. Again, yoiu are quantifying things that in and of themselves are not quantized outside of our conception.

"I insist upon the view that 'all is waves'."

    Letter to John Lighton Synge (9 November 1959), as quoted by Walter Moore in Schrödinger: Life and Thought (1989) ISBN 0521437679 

"All is a wave" is the unifying principle. I am no mathematician, but the math needs to start with that fundamental principle.

The very notion of calling it "qunatum" physics is probably wrong since quantum is "a discrete quantity of energy proportional in magnitude to the frequency of the radiation it represents."

And if everything is a wave there are no discrete quantities beyond our definition of what constitutes the end, or borders, of the wave.

When we understand that everything that we see is a manifestation of a probability wave, then we will understand everything is a wave and end these foolish experiments.