Keep the good bit of quantum mechanics

[D H]

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.

I think the main reason I am convinced entanglement exists is because it has been experimentally verified. Over and over again.

 

Bell's theorem does prove something. It proves that this TEW nonsense is just that, nonsense. Lorentz invariance is yet another problem with this nonsense, as is the uncertainty principle, as are quantum eraser experiments.

 

TEW was crackpot nonsense back in 1996 when it was published in the then crackpot journal Physics Essays, and it is still crackpot nonsense today.

[The Observer]

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

 

Don't bother dude. I sincerely doubt I will be convinced. Anyways, i'm in university, I have time to study the theories I need to and that's about it right now.

 

 

 

[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

[Bignose]

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,

 

So what you are saying is that you can change the sign of a variable and get all the exact same predictions? I think you had better demonstrate this, because I am highly skeptical of this claim.

[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

[Bignose]

If that assumption doesn't change the predictions (and I still don't see how that is possible -- whether that assumption is expressed a 'variable' or not, that assumption has implications somewhere) then it really doesn't matter what you assume there, does it? We might as well be arguing over whether neutrons taste like apples or cherries.

[elas]

The paper referred to was published in Physics Essays, Vol. 9 No. 1, March, 1996.

I assume that this means that the paper was peer reviewed and considered to be a valid theory.

 

Are those making dismissive comments on this forum better qualified? Or is it that 'Physics Essays' is not considered a quality journal?

 

Surely to have merit criticism should be supported with logical arguement.

 

For example take the following quote-

 

‘One might describe the space as curved, but by this one merely means that all objects that might be placed in that space are curved’.

 

Lewis visualises waves without mass (or matter) by proposing that the wave is the elementary object, for a man who believes in practical reality this seems to be a little weird; how is a wave curved and how does Lewis portray a wave that has been ‘curved’, surely it would still appear as a wave but, with a different wavelength and amplitude (i.e. the observer has no proof that the wave has been curved).

Edited March 29, 2012 by elas

[D H]

The paper referred to was published in Physics Essays, Vol. 9 No. 1, March, 1996.

I assume that this means that the paper was peer reviewed and considered to be a valid theory.

No, for two reasons.

 

One is that getting a new idea published in a peer reviewed journal represents the start, not the end of the scientific process. It most certainly does not automatically mean that it is a valid theory. Scientific journals are (or at least were; the internet has changed this paradigm to some extent) the place where scientists debate new ideas.

 

The other reason is that some journals are better than others. Physics Essays back in 1996 was somewhere between fringe and kook. The editorial board has tried to rein in the crackpot/kook aspects of the journal, but it still remains a fringe journal. It is far from mainstream -- and far from high quality.

 

 

This idea is nonsense.

[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:

 

Physics Essays back in 1996 was somewhere between fringe and kook. The editorial board has tried to rein in the crackpot/kook aspects of the journal, but it still remains a fringe journal. It is far from mainstream -- and far from high quality.

 

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

[uncool]

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.[/QUOTe]

You've said it has the same predictions as quantum mechanics in all situations; that makes this an interpretation, not a rival.

=Uncool-

[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

[questionposter]

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 only thing wrong with quantum mechanics is when quantum physicists ask me how these things work. Apparently many teachers of the subject push a bunch of math in your face and introduce different elements at the wrong time.

 

For instance, they state that the statistical probability of finding an electron through two slits is not in fact a single bulge of probability, but in fact a double bulge that is even larger than a single bulge, but that only makes any sense if you were told pre-hand that all particles exist as waves.

[elas]

No, for two reasons.

 

One is that getting a new idea published in a peer reviewed journal represents the start, not the end of the scientific process. It most certainly does not automatically mean that it is a valid theory. Scientific journals are (or at least were; the internet has changed this paradigm to some extent) the place where scientists debate new ideas.

 

The other reason is that some journals are better than others. Physics Essays back in 1996 was somewhere between fringe and kook. The editorial board has tried to rein in the crackpot/kook aspects of the journal, but it still remains a fringe journal. It is far from mainstream -- and far from high quality.

 

 

This idea is nonsense.

 

Clearly I should have said 'valid proposition' (not -theory) but, now I know the journal's reputation I have a better understanding of the debate so thanks for that. Personally I believe that both Newton and Einstein were correct in their statements on particle physics but, Lewis has chosen the wrong foundation for his proposition; Lewis has failed to realise why Newton and Einstein held the same view which is 'particle (or 'object') related' not 'wave related' yet he quotes Einstein as his opening quote in his book on waves.

[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

[questionposter]

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

 

Honestly I don't see much of the point of introducing a new theory and causing even more complication if all of QM can already be accurately described with the math we currently have.

Quantum mechanics isn't weird at all if it's taught properly and teachers cared more about the conceptual side, because without concept, math is meaningless.

Edited March 31, 2012 by questionposter

[elas]

elas,

 

What is the Lewis Little quote you are referring to?

 

“You believe in a dice playing God and I in perfect laws in the world of thing existing as real objects”

-Albert Einstein

 

In a similar manner the following is taken from "The Particle Garden"

 

“It is to the glory of all God’s work, that they be done with the greatest simplicity”

-Isaac Newton

 

Isaac Newton also wrote:

“Perhaps the universe is corpuscular in nature”

 

Eugene Morrow

 

Newton and Einstein were 'classical physicist' and QT implies both (Newton and Einstein) are wrong in regard to particles; we have changed from using mathematics as a scientific tool to using mathematical prediction (QT) as science but, please do not go down this road as it has been well travelled many times before.

 

I have ordered a copy of the book by Lewis; if it contains what I am looking for I will make a submission, otherwise I will remain silent on the points mentioned here.

Edited March 31, 2012 by elas

[questionposter]

"You believe in a dice playing God and I in perfect laws in the world of thing existing as real objects"

-Albert Einstein

 

In a similar manner the following is taken from "The Particle Garden"

 

"It is to the glory of all God's work, that they be done with the greatest simplicity"

-Isaac Newton

 

Isaac Newton also wrote:

"Perhaps the universe is corpuscular in nature"

 

Eugene Morrow

 

Newton and Einstein were 'classical physicist' and QT implies both (Newton and Einstein) are wrong in regard to particles; we have changed from using mathematics as a scientific tool to using mathematical prediction (QT) as science but, please do not go down this road as it has been well travelled many times before.

 

I have ordered a copy of the book by Lewis; if it contains what I am looking for I will make a submission, otherwise I will remain silent on the points mentioned here.

 

Quantum mechanics doesn't disprove the science they discovered, but rather their personal philosophy.

Edited April 1, 2012 by questionposter

[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

[questionposter]

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

 

I think with quantum mechanics, "direction" eventually loses physical meaning.

[Eugene Morrow]

Question Poster,

 

I think with quantum mechanics, "direction" eventually loses physical meaning.

 

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

[questionposter]

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

 

Could you possibly be referring to spin?

 

 

 

[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

[elas]

The first flaw in Little’s book is apparent in figure 3.3 in that the waves appear only on one side of the slits; Little does not define or give a cause for the waves. Furthermore, why is the wave at point P on the screen dominant when all other possible points on the screen should emanate the same wave pattern?

 

Sometime ago I published a mathematical table on Science Forums that proposed the presence of a (2) graviton shell around each of the five most common baryons. This was backed by a paper showing the position of gravitons within graphene. In a similar manner I would propose that gravitons are present in the slits.

 

In a paper on particle structure, backed by a paper on periodic structure of the elements, it was shown that particle waves are caused by the partial vacuum (vacuum and matter) field nature of all charged particles.

 

As each graviton has a wave on each radius there will be a minimum of four waves across each slit. The graviton waves determine the path of photons just as the Sun curves the path of light but; having a far greater curvature (i.e. smaller field) than the Solar G field; the gravitons in the slit have a far greater effect on photons than the Sun does. The variation in the density of the graviton field within the slits, coupled with collisions between photons on their way to the screen is the cause of the wave pattern on the screen. When there is only one slit there are no collisions and therefore no wave pattern but, the photons are still scattered by the gravitons to produce an even field of photons across the screen.

 

That said I fully agree with Little’s arguments about the reverse time line. I will read further and add to this criticism in future submissions.

Edited April 4, 2012 by elas

[swansont]

TEW denies the "superposition of states" in Chapter 4.

 

How does TEW explain the operation of an atomic clock without a superposition of states?

[questionposter]

How does TEW explain the operation of an atomic clock without a superposition of states?

 

That actually doesn't make sense, because if they are waves that can still be described by Schrodinger's equations, how can they be denied superposition? And what about all the statistical data saying otherwise?

Edited April 4, 2012 by questionposter