Seasons

Now, all by itself, the fact that a glass will break while other glasses in areas of equal or greater intensity do not would seem to support the spit-bullet theory: the effect is local because a spit bullet is small. "If it were a wave," argue the spit-bullet proponents, "it would spread out, and wherever the amplitude was sufficiently high, all the glasses would break at once." However, the proponents of the probability wave theory have an answer to this (see my previous post), and besides, the spit bullet theory can't explain diffraction, interference, and tunneling.
So we conclude with a theory has is in some ways a wave theory and in some ways a particle theory. It is a wave theory in that causation propagates as a wave, but it is particle-like in that its effects are highly local.
Also, the source of the wave is local, or, to use that delicious word, punctiliar (like or occurring at a point).

So I am not a wave-only theorist; I might however be called a propagation-by-wave-only theorist. I see no need for a particle that traces a unique, continuous path from source to target; but then, neither do you, Psimagus, since you say that the particle in the two-slit experiment goes through two slits at once. If you want to say, with David Bohm, that punctiliar particles ride on the wave, tending to the high points, I don't know of any contradiction you will get into; but since the wave alone is sufficient to explain everything, except at source and target, Occam's Razor would tend to shave them off.

Wait! Irinia says there is a particle like energy which travels in waves and has characteristics of both, and Psimagus says there is a wavicle, which is a partile-wave thing that shows characteristics of both. What exactly is the difference?

As for quantum computers, they would have to be largely based on wave behaviour, since, as I understand it, they mustn't decohere until the computation is finished. The computation is done with waves, the I/O is punctiliar.