So I have some questions

1. Do we really believe "DP" comprises the ultimate limits of all existence?
2. Could it simply be that the very ability to observe something is the limit, but beyond observation perhaps an analog space-time still exists?
3. Just because something is unobservable, unmeasurable, undefinable, does that mean it cannot exist?

I am thinking I may be in a camp all my own. Marching to the beat of my own drummer so to speak. I guess this all has to depend on your definition of "exist." I see it all as a matter of perspective. Take this dispersion wave for example:



What this represents is several wave patterns on top with the resulting summation of all the wave patterns represented below. This of course a very slow motion representation. If you imagine all of the top wave patterns moving at any given speed (for example the speed of light) you will see that the summation pattern actually moves faster than individual parts. Hence by all practicalities, the dispersion wave is sending a "signal" faster than the individual signals.

So, some more questions then:

4. Is this signal "Real?"
5. Is the signal really "faster?"
6. Does the signal "exist?"

I firmly believe that our "Reality" is discreet and digitized (i.e. planck constant, planck length, planck time). But that is only our ability to measure and observe. This then begs the final question:

7. Is what we can observe really all that there is?

Yes this has been discussed in here before. I was just glad I could put a motion gif inside this WordPress forum post and it actually displays properly. :)

I think one of the reasons I am bringing it up again is to further develop the idea that the "dual" wave/particle behavior of light explanation is somewhat lacking.

In actual practice, it is not that light constantly behaves as both wave and particle, but more that in some situations light behaves as a wave and in others as a particle. There is a difference.

That is why I have been thinking about the "nested variables" approach to looking at this. In some experiments we look at light from one perspective (nested locally in our perspective) and then from a different perspective (nested non-locally) in others. And therein lies the whole "non-locality" theory. When we are doing straight light experiments to measure the speed of light it acts like wave. When we measure the energy signatures, it acts more quantized.

Perhaps what we are really doing is looking at light first from a local perspective when testing the speed of light and looking at non-local behavior when measuring the energy.

That article about using electrons as the "information" carrier to make the "photo" possible does sort of give you both a dimensional and interdimensional view all at the same "time." It always seems to come back to building new logic paradigms that consider a reference for observation that is non-local ("outside-in" rather than "inside-out"). Here are some additional insights on developing such transitional logic so that quantum computing can become more useful to us.Transitional Logic