One can never ramble too much about the mysteries of the universe! 
Particle/wave duality, for example, always eludes me. I mean, I've read about it, and I get the basic premise and its power to explain observations. But my brain just isn't equipped to truly grasp the concept.
This is a conundrum and I don't grasp it either – I keep wanting to have something to compare it to. There might be something, though. Take a look at the experiments in this video:
This is not mainstream physics, but it kind of stares you in the face all the same.
There is also something called solitons. Solitons are not particles, but special waves that can appear in the ocean. They are extraordinary because they do not spread out, instead they keep their shape even if they move really far. That, in essence, is what a particle is, too. Namely, a self-sustaining pattern that can move around, without "spilling over", falling down or fading out. The oceans where the particles exist, is so-called fields.
This brings you into the subject of Quantum Field Theory, which does away with a lot of past confusion and simply states that pretty much everything in the universe is interacting fields. All that matters is which fields are connected and how strongly. What I'm currently trying to understand, is what it means for a field to form a particle, and whether the fields can interact directly with each other, without the detour through a particle.
And it ties in to the forces, because in Brief History, gravity stars as a particle (a graviton), and objects are only afftected by gravity when struck by gravitons. But, at the same time, it's a wave and so is present everywhere within its particular field. But you can't be 'struck' by something that is everywhere at once (or everywhere within a range). Similarly put, something that has a locational range rather than a fixed location could not have speed, because speed is defined as a change of location (movement). If a wave/particle occupies a range of positions at the same time, then it already occupies the position it is moving towards, rendering the idea of motion meaningless.
The clue is this: a wave collapses into a particle. The duality states that what we know as a particle, IS also a wave, but it actually isn't both at the same time. It becomes a wave between interactions, but every time it interacts, it has to reveal itself as a particle. This instantaneous collapse of a wave into a particle is a great unsolved problem in physics.
Basically, when you are "struck" by a quantum wave, it is as if a cloud sails above your head, and each spot under that cloud has a certain chance to be hit by a raindrop. There will only be one raindrop, though, and it will drop at random, with a higher chance of falling where the cloud is denser. And, once the drop has hit the ground, the cloud is gone.
So basically, a moving quantum wave is a moving, evolving pattern. The trunk of a car also moves in the direction of the front seat, so this is valid. Like a car, a wave has structure that enables you to tell the front from the back. (In the mathematical calculations, of course, you can never look at one. In the mainstream theories, quantum waves are not considered to be physically manifest.)
And another thing! If an object travels at very high speeds, less time passes for that object than for a stationary observer. But speed is measured as distance over time. So, if you travelled across my vision at the speed of light, every second you experience should be an infinite length of time for me. So, if it's taking you an infinite amount of time to do anything (from my perspective), then you aren't travelling very fast at all.
Well spotted. But this is actually not a problem. It is only the internal time that changes. If I run past you really fast, I will appear not to move my body, but I will still speed past you. Why? Because my moving past you is part of your experience of time.
In my perspective, I didn't move very far at all. How does that make sense? Because the entire universe in front of me is compressed, and distances are much shorter in that direction. Even you were practically flat until I ran past you. Then you got really long.
Unless you invert the problem, and then it's fixed. If you are travelling at the speed of light, and time is not passing for you, then you must be (from your perspective) taking zero time to reach your destination. From your perspective, you are travelling with infinite speed, and so you occupy every position on your journey at once. It is only from the observational perspective of a slower/stationary observer that you appear to change from one position to another. This is Star Trek fixed. Do you remember the old problem: "Even if you could travel at the speed of light, it would take you millions of years to reach the nearest planet! You would never survive the trip!" Well, perhaps if you were travelling at the speed of light, then it would take you no time at all. It is only the universe that would age around you as you 'blink' to a different section of spacetime.
Exactly! Neat, isn't it? :D Photons, being the particles of light, can have no idea of the concept of distance.
We could always make a separate thread for this.
