Particles and Waves

What is the difference between a particle and a wave?
Particles have identity. You can name a particle. It is like a person having a cristian name. Say there are identical twins, but each will have a different name, we treat each as a seprate person. You see the difference of a particle and a wave, only when you try to observe it. When you observer a particle you observe it all the way. When it moves you watch it's path continously. The wave you can't do it. In a wave you see the starting point and end point only. You can name a particle, since you observe it all the way in it's movement you know that it is the same thing that moves. What you had in position A is the same when it moves to position B. We watch it all the way. It is causal or localised not logical. But when a photon moves we cannot watch it all the way. We use logic to identify it as the same photon imited. We do it logically. We prevent any other photon to enter in to that space. Then we know what arrived is the one that was emited. It is like sending a ball in a opaque tube. We see the ball entering the tube, then we see the ball coming out of the tube. How do we know it is the same ball? logically. It is not causal. We know no other ball entered, so we know what came out is the same ball that entered the tube.

Understand this and it will solve lot of current problems in physics. The observer effect, "the moon is shining even when we don't look at it" - Einstein. Seeing the moon is logical. Seeing a table in front of me is causal. I touch the table on top of seeing it and get the feeling that it is real and not an illusion.

Identity of a particle in quantum physics

Philosophical Investigations-Wittgenstein, para 215. But isn't the same at least the same?
We seem to have an infallible paradigm of identity in the identity of a thing with itself. I feel like saying" here at any rate there can't be variety  of interpretations. If you are seeing a thing you are seeing identity too."
Then two things on the same when they are what one thing is? And how am I to apply what the one thing shews me the case of two things?

Take the case of single electron going threw two slits, how do we know it is the same electron the emitter emitted that strikes the detector? Our intuition, we emitted a single electron, we design the experiment so that outside electrons can't come in, like when you roll a marble in a opaque tube, you expect the same to come out. There's another way of doing it like watching the marble move through a transparent tube. Here you watch the marble move. The identity of the marble is fixed and not changing. There is a difference between the two methods.
In the first method identity is fixed, and in the second method the identity is vague, but we use our intuition to get the identity.

A particle behaves like a particle when the identity is fixed and it behaves like a wave when we use intuition to identity the particle.

When identity is fixed we know that the same particle moves. And in the other case, it is the negativity, like "this cannot be any other, therefore it is the same particle", we use logic to make the identification. The other case it is physical, you can touch and see the particle all the way.

In the second case an observer is present, whereas in the first case observer is absent.

Secondary Knowledge

What is the connection with schrodinger's cat and Wheeler's delayed choice experiment. In the first the secondary knowledge is blocked, until the box is opened to see whether the cat is alive or dead. In the second the secondary knowledge is cooked up, or forcibly confirmed.

27 May 2018
Leave aside the above statement. Primary knowledge is the detection of the evidence of an event by our senses. Light photon entering your eye. A sound phonon entering the ear. something like th e wind brushes your skin. The more important part is a photon entering your eye.
Primary knowledge is no knowledge. It will tell us nothing about the environment around us. To be knowledge others should also know what I knew. Others also should experience the same experience I had. So primary knowledge is almost useless, without supporting structure. Even in a court of law someone giving evidence of seeing something is doubted in the first instance. The doubt need to be cleared by showing that the witness is an expert witness, or pass the cross examination by the opposition lawyer. Someone saying something is not accepted in a court of law.

Real knowledge need secondary knowledge. Knowledge of an event is mostly, receipt of a photon resulting from the event. (Other events will have similar interactions). But it seems that, that is not enough. Secondary knowledge is other things that happen around the event. Evidence of a candle light  in existence is stream of photons emitted by it. Not one photon. The structure of the candle, the appearance of the flame, the shape of the flame, the colour of the flame, how long it was light. Many people could see it light. Then there should be a structure in the receiving end. It should be able to analyse the picture of the flame(this is done by our brain). If we take a photograph of it for others to see later, it need a camera. Also some sort of evidence should be provided that the photo is actually of that candle(not a photo of some other candle taken before). If a renowened scientist say he saw the candle light people will except his word. There is a similarity of evidence given by an expert witness. The court trust the witness. The world at large should trust the expert. Evidence to prove he is an expert should also be provided.

Therefore proof of an event is not primary knowledge. I feel both in schrodinger's cat and Wheeler's delayed choice experiment tries to use the primary knowledge to prove an event. Putting the cat in a box shut out all interaction with the environment of the experiment. Using one single photon to do the delayed choice experiment, only primary knowledge is used.