Keep the good bit of quantum mechanics

[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

[The Observer]

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.

 

What about it exactly was too weird? The media and popular science books really hype it up as "spooky and strange" but if you do a real treatment of it, it really isn't so weird as they make it out to be. If your university was spending a lot of ideas on speculative theories like multiple universes then I would question the particular university you were attending. What level of physics did you make it to if you don't mind me asking? I also think you might be taking Feynman diagrams a little too seriously.

[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

[John Cuthber]

Since, at the microscopic level, the behaviour of matter is weird (from a common-sense point of view) any theory that predicts it correctly will have to be weird.

If you take the weird bits out it will give the wrong answer.

[D H]

The new theory is the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) and there are more benefits than just removing all the quantum weirdness.

TEW is not new and it is not physics. It is crackpot nonsense. Lewis first introduced this nonsense in 1996. Amongst other things, this theory is a local hidden variable theory and thus violates Bell's theorem.

 

Quantum mechanics is weird. The weirdnesses has been experimentally verified, over and over again. The double slit experiment is just a start of the weirdness.

[shawnhcorey]

Part of the problem is that physicists have only studied high-energy particle physics and have left the wave properties of quanta at the high-school level. Nobody is studying high-energy wave physics. They set up their experiments to use quanta as particles, measure quanta as particles and think of quanta as only particles that sometimes have weird wave-like side-effects if you're not careful to filter them out of your experiment. When you start thinking of quanta as having particle and wave properties at the same time, the weirdness goes away.

[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

[shawnhcorey]

Do you believe time was reversed?

 

No. When a quantum encounters the two slits, it becomes two superposition, entangled quanta which interfere with each others probability of travel. It's this interference pattern that gives you the classical wave interfere pattern. When one of them hits a detector, the superposition collapses causing the other to disappear. Nothing goes back in time.

 

This is from the quantum superposition page of Wikipedia:

Quantum superposition

is a fundamental principle of

quantum mechanics

. It holds that a physical system (say, an electron) exists partly in all its particular, theoretically possible

states

(or, configuration of its properties) simultaneously; but, when measured, it gives a result corresponding to only one of the possible configurations (as described in

interpretation of quantum mechanics

).

This creates a quantum arrow of time since the superposition cannot be recreate and then made to shrink back to a point.

[The Observer]

You are reading far to much into the analogies and interpretations given and not nearly enough into the actual mathematics if you ask me. There is nothing weird about the quantum world. Our natural intuition is the weird thing.

[John Cuthber]

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

For a start, I'm not "comfortable with the weirdness" for a finish , reality does not give a damn what I'm comfortable with.

It doesn't know or care if I'm "sold on the idea". The experiments do counter-intuitive things. If your scheme doesn't give you weird answers then it gives you wrong answers.

[Bignose]

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

 

I personally don't care how weird anything is. If the predictions are excellent, I'll take all the weirdness one can dream of.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Bignose

[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

[Bignose]

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.

 

But. The parts you want to toss out lead to the good predictions. Without those parts, you don't get good predictions.

 

You also don't just get to claim the good predictions by changing something fundamental. How can you change something and "[have] the same mathematics and successful predictions"? You really didn't change anything then. Changing the assumption about the wave and particle direction has to have consequences... if you got the exact same answers, then you either re-used the old assumption either explicitly or implicitly, or you made a mistake.

 

I'll give you the teeny tiny possibility that you may have found an assumption that doesn't actually affect anything, but I think you best post an awful lot of your work here to prove the point. (Sorry, but I am not going to buy someone else's book. If it is really as successful as you say, why is it not published in the journals? (Try not to make the usual claims of persecution, if possible.) If you want to discuss it, please do so here.)

Edited March 20, 2012 by Bignose

[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

[The Observer]

It is of my philosophical opinion that if two interpretations give all the same results then there is literally no difference in the theories and it is senseless to say one is correct over the other. Perhaps if your interpretation leads to new insights then it can be of value. If you are just reinterpreting the same maths because you are unhappy with how others are interpreting it then go ahead. But then you are just doing philosophy and not physics...

 

However, I doubt that your formulation as it stands is capable of reproducing the full quantum theory.

[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

[The Observer]

There are many things I am skeptical about. The uncertainty principle is a really fundamental part of quantum mechanics. But there is nothing strange about this. Are you familiar with the classical uncertainty principle brought in through standard Fourier analysis of waves? There quantum uncertainty principle arises for the same reason. I also don't really know what you mean by wave direction. And what is so weird about superposition? Its just Fourier's theory, that applies to any kind of waves. Sound waves can be decomposed into a superposition of simple waves. Its actually really important for describing the wave packets.

 

Another thing you should know, is that it isn't the philosophical aspects of QM that are incompatible with GR, its the mathematics itself. If you are just shifting points of view then the mathematics will still not work. However you also seem to be saying that the math is different. Which aspects are different? When I saw quantum mechanics for the first time in my second year modern physics class we developed the theory from the ground up mathematically. You will need to do that with your theory as well and make sure you can reproduce all of the accepted science. The double slit experiment is basically just a neat trick, commonly used to show an very visible aspect of the theory but it's hardly important to theory itself. Just explaining that alone is not good enough.

 

Physics is done with mathematics, not wordy philosophical arguments.

[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:

 

I also don't really know what you mean by wave direction.

 

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 their giant mathematical formalism, Newtonian mechanics came first, so that quantum mechanical formalism is built up from that. Physicists have developed an enormously complicated, yet totally arbitrary and useless, mathematical procedure known as "canonical quantization" by which they take the laws of classical physics and "quantize' them to obtain quantum mechanics. They believe, in effect, that Newtonian physics explains quantum mechanics, not the reverse.

 

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]

This "paper" is one you are referencing? If so, I think you've been had. The first piece of mathematics is in chapter 5 and it makes no sense. It just pulled the equation for momentum out of nowhere, differentiated it and called it the uncertainty? Where did the de broglie momentum equation come from? In what sense is its time derivative its uncertainty? What does it mean to be centred on the time derivative of wavelength? It hasn't been deriving anything, its just throwing in a few known QM equations every so often, with no justification.

 

 

I'm sorry dude, but this is not how you do physics. Not at all. If you want to debate QM you have to actually develop a theory from the ground up, not describe a some things in words and then drop a bunch of equation derived from the postulates of quantum mechanics where it fits your needs. It said that it would develop the theory of waves in chapters 7-9. But then it didn't. It started right with some work salad about relativity and then stated some known equations from SR.

 

I fear this is a result of the way mathematics/physics was taught in high schools. Just formulas stated outright, with no derivation or actual development of the theory.

 

Also, I'm no professional, but even I can see how flawed this "paper" is.

Edited March 20, 2012 by The Observer

[Eugene Morrow]

The Observer,

 

I was quoting from the book:

 

The Theory of Elementary Waves by Dr. Lewis E. Little, 2009, ISBN 978-0-932750-84-6, published by New Classics Library, Georgia, USA.

 

You seem to have been referring to the paper:

 

"The Theory of Elementary Waves", Physics Essays, Volume 9, Number 1, 1996, pages 100 to 132.

 

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

[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

[D H]

The abstract of the 1996 paper shows that the concept is crap.

 

A fundamental error is identified in the foundations of current quantum theory. The error is shown to be the source of the various noncausal and unphysical aspects of the theory.

Those noncausal and unphysical aspects of the theory are not errors. They are essential elements. Drop them and you have nonsense that is falsified by experiment.

 

When the error is corrected, a new theory arises which is both local and deterministic, but which nonetheless does not conflict with Bell's theorem.

Nonsense. Bell's theorem rules out exactly the kind of theory proposed by Little.

 

The new theory reproduces quantitatively all of the predictions of current quantum mechanics, with the exception of double-delayed-choice Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen phenomena.

And entanglement, too.

 

A shortcoming in Aspect's experiment testing such phenomena is pointed out, and a definitive experiment is proposed.

This supposed shortcoming doesn't exist. Aspect's experiment has been performed multiple times. Entanglement is weird. Get rid of it and you have a false theory.

 

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox is resolved.

Not by Little. The EPR paradox and Bell's theorem are the heart of the problem the problem with this supposed theory. It's crap.

[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

[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

[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