Eugene Morrow

We are discussing the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) which is a rival theory to quantum mechanics (qm). elas, You seem to have looked at Figure 3.3 in the book on TEW without reading the text. The wave direction in TEW is the opposite to qm. One of the pieces of evidence is the neutron experiment I outlined in my original post. The key effect of that experiment is explained by qm by claiming it happens backwards in time, whereas TEW explains the effect in normal time. This is one example of how TEW has the correct wave direction. That is why Figure 3.3 has the waves going in the TEW direction. Point P is shown simply as an example point. I think you are asking why don't the waves from Point P interfere with waves from other points on the screen? It's a good question. Little describes it on page 31. He asks the same question and writes: It's up to you whether you accept the TEW explanation or not. I can cope with an aspect of TEW that still needs to be sorted, because TEW gets rid of all the qm weirdness, like multiple universes, effects backwards in time, particles being in two places at once and so on. The rest of your post talks about gravitons and clearly involves how TEW works with general relativity. Little has not yet finished his work in that area, so I'll leave that alone. swansont and question poster, The qm idea of superposition of states is not needed by TEW to explain all quantum experiments, so TEW does not accept superposition of states. There are many reasons, and you really need to read the entire book to get the idea. The best examples are in Section 4.2, pages 41 to 48 of the book. Eugene Morrow

Question Poster, No, spin is not relevant here. Let me go through my ideas one more time. Think of one of the central ideas of quantum mechanics (qm): wave-particle duality. It says that a particle is also a wave at the same time. As soon as you say that, you are implying that the quantum wave (as given by the Schrodinger wave equation) is going in the same direction as the particle. It's a "hidden" and unconscious assumption in qm that was made by the founding fathers and kept ever since. The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) challenges that. TEW has the same Schrodinger wave equation, this time going in the opposite direction. Elementary waves are a sort of "infrastructure" to the universe - they always travel at the speed of light (like photons). Elementary waves are emitted by all masses in all directions (like gravity, but they are not gravity itself). qm:...wave... ----->...................TEW.... wave <===== ........particle ----->............................ particle -----> Elementary waves do what waves do - they interfere and diffract from slits and so on. Particles always follow waves in the opposite direction. So a particle going from A to B is following elementary waves coming form B to A. Obviously, the particle keeps on meeting new waves coming from B, so the particle is following many waves. Why believe all this? Look at the neutron experiment in my original post, which I will summarize here. ....Nuclear reactor -----> Neutron Interferometer (NI) -----> Analyzer crystal -----> Detector (shows direction of neutrons) Result:........................2...changes NI result......... <=====....1..New crystal ... The key effect is that a new analyzer crystal changes what is happening in the interferometer ! See H. Kaiser, R. Clothier, S.A. Werner, H. Rauch, H. Wölwitsch, “Coherence and spectral filtering in neutron interferometry”, Physical Review A, Vol 45, number 1, Jan 1992. In qm, everything goes left to right here so the effect happens backwards in time (quantum weirdness). In TEW, waves are going right to left so the effect happens in normal time. This experiment is clear evidence that TEW has the correct wave direction. Eugene Morrow

Question Poster, Wave "direction" is always relevant - in the macro world and in the quantum world. In the neutron experiment, none of the maths answers the crucial question: why does the analyzer crystal affect the Neutron Interferometer (NI)? For qm, the only explanation is that his happens backwards in time. For TEW, the wave direction explains the effect using normal time. This is definite experimental proof that the TEW wave direction is correct. Saying the direction eventually loses physical meaning is an admission that qm is caught here without an explanation. Eugene Morrow

elas, Reading the book is a good idea - this thread started with a book review that I prepared, and Lewis Little himself approved of. It is possible in the debate since then that I have not represented the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) exactly how Little would have preferred. You will be able to judge this for yourself. Question Poster, I agree that without concept the maths is meaningless. TEW and quantum mechanics (qm) us the same maths - for example, the Schrodinger Wave equation. Both theories make the same predictions, thanks to reciprocity. So the only way to choose between them in by concept - and that means descriptions of reality. The difference is in the wave direction: for qm the quantum wave travels in the same direction as the particle, and for TEW the wave is in the opposite direction to the particle. Both theories have an explanation for all experiments, so they seem hard to separate. That's why the neutron experiment is such a focus for this tread. This is one experiment where there is clear choice in explanation. Unlike you, I find qm definitely has weirdness, and this experiment is an example. For qm, the key effect must happen backwards in time, and that's a classic example of quantum weirdness. For TEW, the effect happens in normal time, because the wave direction is a reason for the key effect. Maths cannot decide this debate - it's about the description of what is happening in the experiment. Eugene Morrow

elas, What is the Lewis Little quote you are referring to? Question Poster, In quantum mechanics (qm), they claim "wave particle duality" and present a lot of maths. What they don't tell you is that when you claim a particle is a wave at the same time, you are assuming that the wave is going in the same direction as the particle. That is the hidden assumption in everything in qm. As you know, qm are great at throwing a lot of maths around. The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) has the opposite assumption - that the wave is traveling in the opposite direction. TEW uses the same maths as qm - so they have the same predictions. The difference is in the explanations of experiments. Have a look at the neutron experiment I outline in my original post. The qm and TEW explanations are completely different. Would be interested to hear what you have to say. Eugene Morrow

Uncool, Yes, philosophically you could argue that since the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) has the same maths and predictions as quantum mechanics (qm) then TEW is just an interpretation. I don't agree, and I think qm supporters may agree on this. Firstly, the expression "interpretation" normally means a part of qm, so all qm "interpretations" share the same assumption of wave direction. Since TEW has a different assumption, then it's not merely a different "interpretation", it's a whole new theory of why things happen. Secondly, although qm and TEW share the same maths and predictions, the physical explanations are so wildly different that the two theories are about as different as it is possible to be. For qm, all these ideas are encompassed, some optionally: 1. Multiple Universes (in the Many Worlds interpretation) 2. Effects backwards in time (like the neutron experiment I mention) 3. Entanglement, and instantaneous action at a distance 4. Wave-particle duality 5. Conscious knowledge by the experimenter changes results 6. A particle being in two places at once 7. Superposition of states and the collapse of the wave function 8. Quantum Logic 9. Claims that the wave is the square root of the probability of the position of the particle. 10. and more based on more interpretations. TEW is local and deterministic and explains all experiments without any of these qm ideas. TEW is hence a hugely different theory. I doubt qm would simply accept TEW as an "interpretation". Eugene Morrow

Bignose, Yes, the assumption of wave direction makes no difference to the mathematics - the predictions of quantum mechanics (qm) and the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) are the same. The bit that is different is the explanations of reality. TEW is local and deterministic. For qm, there is "quantum weirdness" which covers ideas like: 1. Multiple Universes (in the Many Worlds interpretation) 2. Effects happening backwards in time (like the the qm explanation of the neutron experiment) 3. Particles being in two places at once 4. The knowledge of certain information by the experimenter changes the result 5. Quantum Logic 6. Non-locatlity = entanglement - instantaneous action at a distance. TEW does not need any of the above things to explain all the results of quantum experiments. That is a massive difference between the two theories. The fact that such different explanations while sharing the same maths and predictions is an indication of how crucial that assumption about wave direction is. It may be boring if you only care about maths - it is everything if you care about how science describes the real world. elas Good point about Physics Essays. As for the quote, I am going to stay out of any claims Little makes about General Relativity and how TEW fits. That area is ongoing work for him. I hope he finishes the work soon (he's 71). D H I agree that publishing a paper does not mean the paper is necessarily true or "proven". All theories are just that - theories and are subject to criticism. The point is that Physics Essays considered that TEW is worth publishing - a theory that merits comparison with qm. It shows that TEW clearly is a serious rival. You say this: What's your evidence? Are you saying this simply because Physics Essays published a paper on TEW? Just because you disagree with TEW is not enough. I don't think you should attack the integrity of a journal without giving clear reasons why. Eugene Morrow

Bignose, The wave direction is not a variable in quantum mechanics (qm). It's an assumption - that the quantum wave is in the same direcion as the particle. The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) assumes the opposite wave direction. In may post number 14, I talked about reciprocity - which is already part of physics. The Schrodinger wave equation and the other equations don't actually nail the wave direction down, so they apply for both theories. Hence both theories use the same mathematics and we get the same predictions. The wave direction makes no difference here. The wave direction does make a big difference in the explanations the two theories give. TEW is local and deterministic, whereas qm has effects before causes and lot so non-local claims. What's the evidence in favor of TEW? It's the neutron experiment I mentioned in my original posting for this thread. The short summary is that qm explains the key effect of the experiment by claiming a change backwards in time. TEW explains the effect in normal time. It is clear evidence that TEW has the correct wave direction. Which bit do you want to debate? Eugene Morrow

D H, You are convinced by the explanations provided by quantum mechanics (qm), where the quantum wave is assumed to be in the same direction as the particle. I am convinced by the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) that assumes the wave is in the opposite direction to the particle. Both theories explain all experiments, so they appear equally good, and share the same mathematics (because the maths does not decide the direction of the wave). The one where they have a clear difference is the neutron experiment I mentioned. For qm, the effect happens backwards in time, but for TEW the effect happens in normal time - because TEW has the correct wave direction. That is the experimental evidence that shows that TEW is the better theory, and is why I support it. You seem so convinced by qm, that you are not bothered by qm claiming an effect happened backwards in time. The Observer, I had guessed you are a student at university, and I am sure I will not convince you when I finally get to explain the derivation. I will still do it, because others reading this forum may want to see what I say about it. You helped by providing the link to the 1996 paper, and since everyone can see it, I will make sure that the derivation in Chapter 5 is understood. Eugene Morrow

The Observer, I have not forgotten your claim that the derivation of the Uncertainty Principle equation is wrong in the 1996 paper about the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW). I have emailed to Lewis Little my intention to reply and the logic I will use to explain his derivation. So far no reply from him. I don't want to cause problems to him by incorrectly presenting something. So we both have to wait for him to respond. I think you are probably watching my debate with Marcus on TEW on the other forum, so you can see there is plenty to think about in the meantime. Eugene Morrow

The Observer, I've decided that if I am going to give a tutorial on the derivation of uncertainty by the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) than I better check with Lewis Little himself that I am going to represent his logic correctly. I am trying to email him at the moment, but no luck yet. When I have checked with him, I'll be able to step you through it. Watch this space. Eugene Morrow

D H You are supporting quantum mechanics (qm) and rejecting the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW). I think the main reason you are convinced entanglement exists and Bell's Theorem proves something is because you believe the assumption of qm about wave direction. In qm, the quantum wave function travels in the same direction as the particle. In TEW, the wave and the particle travel in opposite directions. It is the wave direction in TEW leads to the TEW claims that entanglement does not exist and Bell's Theorem proves nothing. So the way to resolve whether TEW is right is to have a debate on the central issue: the wave direction. Look back at the neutron experiment I outlined in my original post. For qm, everything goes left to right. When we change the crystal on the right this changes the neutron interferometer on the left. Why? For qm, the only explanation they offer is that it happened backwards in time. What else can they say? For TEW, the wave goes right to left here, so there is an obvious reason why something on the right affects something on the left. That experiment shows that TEW has the right wave direction. That's why I am a supporter. What is your view on how this experiment works? Do you believe something happened backwards in time? Eugene Morrow

The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) was first published in Physics Essays in 1996. A copy of that paper is here: http://elementarywaves.com/TEW96paper.html I still recommend the 2009 book as a much easier read and gives more information. Thanks to The Observer for providing the link (I'm asleep - I had forgotten about this link). Eugene Morrow

The Observer, I was quoting from the book: You seem to have been referring to the paper: By sheer coincidence, both have a Chapter 5 on Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. No wonder we are not communicating well here. You seem to be doing something that is common in qm - looking at the mathematics only. The whole point of both the paper and book is that there is a huge discussion of reality first, and it indicates why he choose the equations he does. If you don't read the reality explanation, then of course nothing makes sense. I'm glad you have a copy of the 1996 paper. We can now talk much more constructively, because you can see much more detail. Instead of having to type up summaries, I can just refer you to the relevant bits. Will get back to you later, Eugene Morrow

The Observer, You clearly know a lot about qm and mathematics. We can debate some more advanced stuff. Let's start with your words: You sound like a qm professional, which means you live in the world of mathematics. As I explained to Bignose in a recent post, the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) is based on reciprocity, and that means that the wave mathematics works equally well in both directions. I pointed out how the wave direction matters to explanations of reality, which TEW cares about but qm does not. Mathematically, the Schrodinger wave equation applies to TEW as well, and the Schrodinger wave equation is symmetric - it does not have a "direction", hence reciprocity applies. In qm, everyone is too busy doing mathematics which blinds qm to the issue of wave direction. It's the big difference between qm and TEW. TEW denies the Uncertainty Principle is Chapter 5. In TEW, the Uncertainty comes from the fact that the elementary waves we encounter are in a range of frequencies. A particle could be following any one of the elementary waves in that bandwidth, and the range of possibilities derives the Uncertainty equation. However, one particle always follows only one elementary wave and has one exact momentum and one exact position at all times, so there is no inherent uncertainty about a particle. We just have to learn how to narrow down the elementary waves to be able to measure it more precisely. How we will do that is something to discover in the future. TEW denies the "superposition of states" in Chapter 4. In qm, "superposition of states" means that particle has "all" values of something until we take a measurement and the wave function "collapses" into a actual value. In qm, there is hope for quantum supercomputers that will use this to do lots of calculations at once. In TEW, we look at experiments on polarization of light that appear to "prove" this superposition. Using the TEW explanation there is no need for a particle to have "all" values - a particle always is always in a single state at all times. It's too lengthy here to describe it because it takes 7 pages and a lot of diagrams to go through the polarization experiments and then give the TEW point of view. The short answer is that the wave direction of TEW explains the results in a local and deterministic way. As for developing a theory purely from the mathematics, Lewis Little sees that as a negative for qm. Little claims that elementary waves are fundamental to everything - mass, energy, momentum - all the things that Newton and others described. For TEW, the frequency and wavelength of the elementary waves are the key to all the other concepts. For TEW, you start with the physical reality of the waves and their direction and develop everything from there. TEW can derive Newton, Special Relativity, conservation of momentum, E = mc2, the Dirac equation and more all from elementary waves. Most importantly, Newton is based on elementary waves, not the reverse. Hence Lewis Little disagrees about the qm methods of developing the mathematics. On page 101 Lewis Little says: In TEW, we start with the physical reality of the elementary waves and their direction. We develop maths about the waves, and the rest of physics - mass, energy, momentum etc flows from that. In TEW, we start with a picture of reality. TEW strongly disagrees with your idea that physics is done purely with mathematics, useful though maths is. Some really big stuff you have brought up. Eugene Morrow

The Observer, What you say is valid. We are re-interpreting the same maths, so in a sense this is only philosophy (and I've posted my text on philosophy forums too). Does that mean it's irrelevant to physics? Definitely not. TEW denies concepts like Heisenberg Uncertainty, entanglement, superposition of states and other qm ideas. For TEW, these are simply illusions created by the wave direction problem, similar to the illusion of time reversal in the neutron experiment. If TEW is accepted, a whole lot of concepts disappear, and both the teaching of physics and the expectations of future work change. As well, TEW is already compatible with Special Relativity, and Lewis Little is working on how TEW works with General Relativity. If he finishes, and TEW is accepted as a replacement theory to qm, this would mean an end to all the work on quantum gravity and other projects to unite the quantum and relativity worlds. That would be a major change in the activities and priorities of physicists. So I think the TEW debate is still relevant to physics, even though the maths does not change. Wave direction matters to a lot of things. You expressed doubt that TEW can reproduce the full quantum theory. There is an easy answer: TEW simply changes the direction of the quantum wave. There is nothing more TEW needs to do to cover the same ground as qm. The next step is a debate on wave direction - which direction works best? You certainly sound skeptical of TEW. Which is the bit that seems the weakest part of TEW to you? Eugene Morrow

Bignose, The reason the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) uses exactly the same mathematics as qm is reciprocity. It has two parts. The first part is the principle of reciprocity. As I said in my original post, a radio antenna is equally good as a transmitter and receive of radio waves. The waves work equally well going in or out. The second part is the reciprocity theorem which goes a step further. Think of waves between two points A and B. One statement of the reciprocity theorem says that the intensity of a wave going from A to B is exactly the same as the same wave going from B to A no matter what objects are between A and B. How does that apply? Think of the double slit experiment. In qm, the waves go from the source of particles through the slits to points on the screen. In TEW, waves go from each point on the screen through the slits to the source. The reciprocity theorem says that the intensity from A to B is the same as the intensity form B to A. That is why TEW uses the same mathematics as qm - reciprocity means the wave mathematics works exactly the same in the reverse direction. Reciprocity is already a fact in physics and is accepted by all sides of this debate. For me, that's enough - I'm convinced. All the wonderful mathematical precision of qm does not tie down the direction of the wave. So in the mathematical sense you're right - changing the wave direction has no effect at all. Why consider the opposite wave direction? Because the explanations lose the weirdness and become local and deterministic. In my previous posting to John Cuthber, you and The Observer, I talk about the neutron experiment again. The qm wave direction means something happens backwards in time, whereas the TEW wave direction makes it an intuitive result. That's the effect of changing the assumption. Physics has not debated this before. The neutron experiment is clear evidence that TEW has the right wave direction. Which wave direction seems right to you in the neutron experiment? Do you support the qm direction? If so why? Eugene Morrow

John Cuthber, I like what you are saying - it's reality that counts - and it certainly does. You mentioned that reality does "counter-intuitive" things. Let me show you that those things become intuitive with the new theory. Look back at the neutron experiment in my original posting. For qm, the neutrons and the waves go left to right. We change the analyzer crystal, and the neutron interferometer (NI) changes (so the right hand side changes the left hand side). For qm this is clearly counter intuitive, and hence they can only suggest a change backwards in time. Just for a moment, imagine you had two magnifying glasses, and you wanted to know which one was better. There is some snow outside, so you take the first magnifying glass and melt some snow for some period of time. Then you take the other magnifying glass and repeat for the same length of time. Whichever melts more snow is a guide to which is the better magnifying glass. Let's look back at the neutron experiment. For TEW, the analyzer crystal is somewhat analgous to a magnifying glass. We change the analyzer crystal and this changes the elementary waves going left. This affects both the NI and the source of neutrons. Of course the crystal affects the neutrons coming back - in TEW we expect this. It's only an analogy. Lewis Little didn't like it when I suggested it to him - we are not melting anything. The point of the analogy is that the elementary waves are going left here, and the crystal affects them, which is why something on the right affects things on the left. It's obvious and intuitive when you think of the TEW wave direction. The difficult bit is that we can't see the waves. If you think the waves are going right, then it's definitely weird. If you think the waves are going left, it's straight forward. That's what I mean when I say supporters of qm are "comfortable with weirdness". I'm trying to hammer the point about having a choice now. Bignose, The predictions are certainly the "good bit" of quantum mechanics. You don't have to give that up - TEW has the same mathematics and successful predictions. All you have to give up is the assumption that the wave travels in the same direction as the particle. Give it a try - the book is refreshing and exhilarating. The Observer You are voicing a famous qm idea - that maths is all that counts. One of the favorite interpretations of qm is "shut up and calculate". The good news is that the maths is not in danger in this debate - the new theory keeps it all. The new theory simply has an explanation that makes much more sense than qm. Have a look at what I said to John Cuthber just above in this post - I hope it gets across what I like about the new theory. Eugene Morrow

John Cuthber, You're clearly sold on the idea that the quantum world has to be weird. I'm not, so I guess it's going to be hard to discuss that one. To me, physics is divided like no other science. One part is qm with all the weirdness, and the other part is the other bits (relativity, normal mechanics etc.) that are very mechanical, local and deterministic. I see this split into two parts as a huge negative for physics, and the qm believers agree because they are trying to develop quantum gravity and to unite qm with relativity. The new theory provides that unity. Surely, it's worth letting go of any "requirement for weirdness" for a while to check it out. D H, Yes, Lewis Little published an article in Physics Essays in 1996, and his book was published in 2009. Yes, it's not "new". Not sure why you say it's "not physics". Read the book - it's physics alright. You can call it crackpot - but why? I don't see a reason. What concerns me is that most of physics (and science in general) has not even heard of the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW). I believe that when most physicists and scientists have heard, there will be a big, and healthy, debate. You are clearly trying to dismiss TEW by using the expressions that qm believers disqualify a new theory. Your claims are not true. TEW has no new variables - just the quantum wave going in the opposite direction. That's all it needs to make sense of it all. TEW has it's own explanation of Bell's Theorem - given in the book. It's a bit long a complicated, as is the experiment. The short answer is that TEW gives the same predictions and for TEW they prove nothing in particular. There is no "entanglement" so the results are rather dull from the TEW point of view. Like John Cuthber and Shawnhcorey, you are very comfortable with the weirdness. I think you three will prove to be rare. When the wider community of physics and science finds out about TEW, most will reject the weirdness because they have a choice. To me, the weirdness has been believed only because there was no alternative at that time. There is an alternative now, and I believe weirdness will be a much harder sell in the future. Shawnhcorey, Look again at the neutron experiment I outlined in my original post. You change the analyzer crystal, and it changes the results in the Neutron Interferometer (NI). Saying that particles are also waves does not take the weirdness away. For qm, the only explanation is that something happened backwards in time. What else can qm say? For the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW), the wave is in the opposite direction, so it's obvious why the crystal affects the NI. This is the classic experiment that shows TEW has the right wave direction. I'd be interested to know what you think about that experiment. Do you believe time was reversed? Eugene Morrow

The Observer, I did a Bachelor of Science at Adelaide University (South Australia) in 1977 to 1979. In first year I did Physics, Pure Maths, Computing and Chemistry. It was simply a detailed discussion of the double slit experiment that had me convinced I could not continue in Physics. Let me give you a quick idea of what bothers me. In qm, a particle is also a wave, so we have "wave particles' or "wave packets". They must be spreading, because qm claims they go through both slits. On the other side the waves interfere with each other. Hence we get a interference pattern on the screen (detector). We only detect particles at the screen, but in between the source and the screen we have waves. What controls the particles changing into waves and back again? How does the spreading wave choose one point on the screen? If the wave is spreading, why don't we lose mass and/or energy at the edges - why do we always detect full sized particles? Then qm says the wave is the "square root of the probability of the position of the particle". Things just get worse - if the wave is just that where did all the mass and energy go? If the wave includes all the mass and energy, why is nothing lost at the edges? At the time, the lecturers did not mention the many worlds interpretation. I just read that later, which only increased my whole feeling of the whole thing making no sense. As you know, there is a whole zoo of interpretations, and to me they only discredit each other. I did not want to be teaching qm or defending qm. So I dumped Physics, even though I've always had a deep interest in it, and did Maths and Computing as my majors. Nothing I have read since has changed my view that qm has no coherent explanation for the double slit experiment. The neutron experiment I mentioned in my original post above exposes qm even more, which is why I choose it (and Lewis Little highlights it in his book on TEW). You seem to be quite satisfied with the Copenhagen interpretation of the double slit experiment. I guess we won't go very far trying to convince each other. Eugene Morrow

The "good bit" of quantum mechanics (qm) is the predictions, right to 11 decimal places at times. Unfortunately the "good bit" comes with quantum weirdness – claims of multiple universes, effects backwards in time, and more. How do we keep the "good bit" with no weirdness? A new theory. A particle goes from a source (A) to a detector (B). In qm, a wave function goes with the particle. Let's remind ourselves of reciprocity: a radio antenna is equally good as a transmitter and receiver of radio waves. The waves travel equally well going in or out. Apply this to the particle. We cannot see the wave function so how does qm know the direction of the wave? The direction is a hidden assumption behind qm. It's time to challenge that assumption. qm: wave.....-----> ........particle -----> new theory:..wave....<<<=== ..................particle -----> The new theory has the wave in the opposite direction. The source responds to the incoming waves and sends back a particle, which follow the waves back changing direction as the waves do. The double slit experiment works with the other wave direction. Unfortunately, I cannot post diagrams here in the text area (see the one page PDF file attached for useful diagrams). Waves start from every point on the detector (say D1) and travel in the opposite direction through the slits. The waves from D1 interfere with themselves only at the source. The source sends a particle based on the amount of interference arriving. The particle follows the wave from D1 (that stimulated it) because the waves from D1 are still arriving continuously. The particle follows the waves back to D1. Both theories have an explanation for all experiments. Thanks to reciprocity, the new theory has exactly the same mathematics and predictions as qm, so we keep the good bit. Is there an experiment that separates the two theories? Yes – see the neutron experiment below: ....Nuclear reactor ---> Neutron Interferometer (NI) ---> Analyzer crystal ---> Detector (shows direction of the neutrons) Result:........................2.... changes NI result...<<<===..1. New crystral The key effect is that a new analyzer crystal changes what is happening in the interferometer. See H. Kaiser, R. Clothier, S.A. Werner, H. Rauch, H. Wölwitsch, "Coherence and spectral filtering in neutron interferometry", Physical Review A, Vol 45, number 1, Jan 1992. In qm, everything goes left to right here so the effect happens backwards in time (quantum weirdness). In the new theory, waves are going right to left so the effect happens in normal time. This is just one example of how the new theory removes the quantum weirdness. The qm founders did not have this experiment, and never considered the other wave direction. Which wave direction makes sense to you? The new theory is the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) and there are more benefits than just removing all the quantum weirdness. TEW gives a reason why momentum is conserved for particles. TEW also gives a new understanding of magnetism, especially the Faraday effect. TEW is local and deterministic, so cause and effect are always clear. TEW is already fully consistent with Special Relativity, and even predicts Special Relativity. Work is underway on how TEW works with General Relativity. We get all this from just considering the opposite wave direction. For more, read "The Theory of Elementary Waves by Dr. Lewis E. Little, 2009, ISBN 978-0-932750-84-6, published by New Classics Library, Georgia, USA. See also www.elwave.org. I am an enthusiast of the new theory, and do no benefit from the book in any way. I am someone who studied physics at university and stopped because quantum mechanics was too weird for me. If the new theory had been around, I would have stayed and become a physicist. Keep the good bit.pdf