Keep the good bit of quantum mechanics

[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:

 

Such autonomy requires that the waves emanating from each point on the screen carry a "marker" of some sort set by the state of the atomic or subatomic objects located at that screen point. Exactly what these markers look like is a present unknown. Waves carrying different markers do not interfere with one another. Wavelets from the two slits that carry the same marker interfere with each other and act together as a single wave at the particle source.

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

[swansont]

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?

 

I suspect the answer to that is that while you can write down superpositions, they don't represent probability. You could write down superposition of a|1> + b|2> but the particle would have to be in one of the two states the whole time. But that's just a guess.

 

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.

 

Sorry but that's not going to cut it. I'm not going to go out an buy the book, and you have to do more than present a few cherry-picked examples. You have to defend the hypothesis against the less convenient ones as well. If the impression I got was right and the view is that the particles are actually in one state the whole time, then how can there be an oscillation for a clock? (In addition to the difficulties of entanglement D H has already raised)

[Eugene Morrow]

Swansont,

 

You are criticizing the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) and supporting ideas from the quantum mechanics (qm).

 

I have not read a TEW explanation for the oscillations in an atomic clock, so I cannot comment there. I am basing my knowledge on the 1996 paper on TEW and the 2009 book, and neither mentions that effect.

 

The idea of superpositions of states was developed in qm to explain many experimental results that don't make sense without it.

 

TEW claims that the need for the concept of superpositions comes from the wave direction. The most central idea of qm is the wave-particle duality - that a particle is also a wave at the same time, which explains the wave-like behavior of particles.

 

As soon as you say that, you have made an assumption that the wave is going in the same direction as the particle. We cannot see the wave itself, so it's a hidden assumption that sneaks into qm. It's something that most qm believers have never even considered thinking about. All the claims of qm are based on that assumption.

 

TEW assumes that the wave is going in the opposite direction. Why? The neutron experiment I outlined in my original post give clear evidence that TEW has the correct wave direction. For qm, the key effect can only be explained by claiming it happens backwards in time, whereas TEW can explain the effect in normal time.

 

The wave direction is a huge issue. TEW has the same quantum wave simply going in the opposite direction, so a lot of qm is retained. TEW uses the same mathematics and so has the same predictive success, thanks to reciprocity. Reciprocity is the familiar idea that a radio antenna is equally good at transmitting as receiving radio waves. The waves work equally well going in or out. The wave mathematics of qm does not tie down the wave direction, and TEW works equally well with the wave going in the opposite direction (while still in normal time).

 

Once you look at the possibility of the wave going in the opposite direction, other quantum experiments have new explanations and become local and deterministic. Some classic "superposition" experiments involve polarization of light. The book on TEW covers them in Section 4.2 on pages 41 to 48, and shows that the TEW explains them without any need for superposition of states.

 

I am not going to reproduce all the words and diagrams here - too hard and takes too long. I am simply pointing out that there is a new theory that can explain the quantum world without any of the qm ideas of wave-particle duality, superposition of states, Heisenberg Uncertainty (of particles - in TEW the uncertainty applies to the waves not the particles), multiple universes, effects backwards in time, experimenters knowledge affecting outcomes, entanglement and so on.

 

TEW denies there is any entanglement in Chapter 6 of the book (pages 63 to 72. The short answer is that no theory, qm or TEW, can predict the outcomes so this is an area of further research. This is a rare situation where there are two elementary waves hitting a source of particles and the source responds by sending a particle to each of the two waves. The source not only sends a particle it also "programs" the particle on how to respond to changing polarizations later, e.g. "if the polarization rotates X degrees do this". This "polarization change behavior" is part of the particle, and is a bit like magnifying a slab of metal which will affect it's behavior later when exposed to magnetic forces. So nothing needs to be transmitted to the particles "in flight", and so there is no entanglement. From the TEW point of view, Bell's Theorem and the Innsbruck experiment prove nothing.

 

You don't have to buy the 2009 book to get more information on TEW. There is a 1996 paper that was published in Physics Essays that you can see for free here: 1996 paper in Physics Essays

 

Of course you may not be convinced by what i write. This thread is about showing that there is a choice of theories: qm versus TEW. It is a new situation - for 80 years qm has had no serious rivals and so physicists felt they had no choice but to believe what qm claims. Now the assumption of wave direction is exposed, we can all decide which wave direction works better. When you review all the TEW explanations, which are local and deterministic, the case for TEW is overwhelming. If you don't want to compare, that's your business.

 

Eugene Morrow

[swansont]

Swansont,

 

You are criticizing the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) and supporting ideas from the quantum mechanics (qm).

 

I have not read a TEW explanation for the oscillations in an atomic clock, so I cannot comment there. I am basing my knowledge on the 1996 paper on TEW and the 2009 book, and neither mentions that effect.

 

The idea of superpositions of states was developed in qm to explain many experimental results that don't make sense without it.

 

TEW claims that the need for the concept of superpositions comes from the wave direction. The most central idea of qm is the wave-particle duality - that a particle is also a wave at the same time, which explains the wave-like behavior of particles.

 

As soon as you say that, you have made an assumption that the wave is going in the same direction as the particle. We cannot see the wave itself, so it's a hidden assumption that sneaks into qm. It's something that most qm believers have never even considered thinking about. All the claims of qm are based on that assumption.

 

No, my particle is just basically sitting there, and the superposition is of energy eigenstates so there is no need to invoke any imagery of "wave is going in the same direction as the particle".

 

This thread is about showing that there is a choice of theories: qm versus TEW.

Not so much, if you're only prepared to explain a narrow slice of QM with it.

[Eugene Morrow]

Swansont,

 

When a particle is at rest, there's not much to explain for either quantum mechanics (qm) or the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).

 

When particles are moving, such as the neutrons in the interference experiment I outlined in my original post, qm describes the wave behavior of the particles using the idea of wave particle duality. The experimenters talk about "matter waves" and give an equation for them - equation (1) on page 31 of that paper.

 

In this situation, do you agree that qm assumes there is a wave going in the same direction as the moving particle?

 

Eugene Morrow.

[swansont]

Swansont,

 

When a particle is at rest, there's not much to explain for either quantum mechanics (qm) or the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).

 

On the contrary, I've given you an example. QM explains it with a superposition of states, which you say don't exist in TEW. So I want to know how TEW deals with it.

 

The problem with many "alternative" theories is that they focus on one problem or class of problems, and don't work for the others. They will never be accepted as replacements if they do not have the breadth of coverage as the theories they aim to replace.

[elas]

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

 

Eugene Morrow

 

When clicking on the paper referred to, I cannot view the illustrations, is there a way of seeing them?

 

In the book Little claims that the upper and lower lines in Figure 8.2 differ in length by the amount A to B but, they are the same length when measured; am I missing something?

 

Surely in ‘particle wave duality’ the matter wave orbits the vacuum field Zero Point, causing the wave rotation to be transferred to particles (gravitons) parallel to the axis of particle wave rotation. The wave will then travel out in both directions until the energy of the wave falls (as a result of the work done) to a value that no longer has sufficient energy to cause wave action within a graviton.

 

When explaining atomic decay Little mention only the ejection of a photon but, the photon is not observed experimentally; its (the photon) presence is deduced from the observation of the photon’s decay products that is electron plus neutrino or, on rare occasions, positron plus neutrino. This, in the theory of TEW; would require the presence of two waves. Current opinion is that the photon decays on exiting the atom but, it might just as easily occur on leaving the wave of the atomic element period. The only certainty is that decay occurs to fast to be observed.

Edited April 7, 2012 by elas

[The Observer]

On the contrary, I've given you an example. QM explains it with a superposition of states, which you say don't exist in TEW. So I want to know how TEW deals with it.

 

The problem with many "alternative" theories is that they focus on one problem or class of problems, and don't work for the others. They will never be accepted as replacements if they do not have the breadth of coverage as the theories they aim to replace.

 

Its always such a random choice too, some strange experiment or something. Why not try to explain the simple stuff first before claiming victory that your idea can explain something to do with neutron diffraction.

[Eugene Morrow]

We are debating the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) as a potential rival to quantum mechanics (qm).

 

Swansont,

 

You wrote:

 

On the contrary, I've given you an example. QM explains it with a superposition of states

 

The only example you seem to have given me is a particle at rest. Why does QM need to explain this with a superposition of states? I am not following why you think a particle a rest demonstrates superposition. If you give me more details of what you have in mind I will keep debating it.

 

You wrote:

 

The problem with many "alternative" theories is that they focus on one problem or class of problems, and don't work for the others. They will never be accepted as replacements if they do not have the breadth of coverage as the theories they aim to replace.

 

TEW has the same breadth as qm in explaining quantum experiments, and TEW uses the same maths and predictions as qm. This means that the results of the experiments are the same for TEW and qm, so the results do not separate the theories. Little has suggested some experiments where the results of qm and TEW would differ, but these have not been performed yet (and are expensive). So the only way to separate the two theories is on their explanations of known experiments.

 

For most experiments, both qm and TEW have credible sounding explanations, and most impartial observers would get frustrated saying "Show me some experiment where we have a clear choice of explanation." That's why I outlined the neutron interference experiment: qm claims the effect happens backwards in time, and TEW explains it in normal time. This is clear evidence that TEW has the correct explanation. It's worth looking at.

 

 

elas,

 

I had forgotten the images do not appear in the link ! I have a copy of the 1996 paper as published in Physics Essays that has all the diagrams, and I refer to that. I will chase up Lewis Little and see if he knows the people who are hosting that site and can get the diagrams working.

 

 

The Observer,

 

See my answer to Swansont - if we discuss the double slit we'll just be discussing which explanation is better, and that's like two people discussing whether tea or coffee is better - it's hard to change someone's preference. The point about the neutron experiment is that qm claims to explain everything. Either you swallow an effect backwards in time, or you start considering that perhaps qm cannot explain the effect in that experiment. Either way, the TEW explanation for that experiment is a very serious challenge to qm. If TEW is right in that experiment, it may be right in all experiments.

 

Eugene Morrow

[swansont]

The only example you seem to have given me is a particle at rest. Why does QM need to explain this with a superposition of states? I am not following why you think a particle a rest demonstrates superposition. If you give me more details of what you have in mind I will keep debating it.

 

A superposition of energy eigenstates does not require motion. In QM you can interpret this as an oscillation between the states (which is required for the operation of an atomic clock), but that's not possible if the particle is thought to "really" be in one state, which is why I wanted to know how TEW explains this.

 

TEW has the same breadth as qm in explaining quantum experiments, and TEW uses the same maths and predictions as qm.

 

Apparently not, if it doesn't use superposition.

 

This means that the results of the experiments are the same for TEW and qm, so the results do not separate the theories. Little has suggested some experiments where the results of qm and TEW would differ, but these have not been performed yet (and are expensive). So the only way to separate the two theories is on their explanations of known experiments.

 

Atomic clocks fall under the category of known experiment.

 

 

For most experiments, both qm and TEW have credible sounding explanations, and most impartial observers would get frustrated saying "Show me some experiment where we have a clear choice of explanation." That's why I outlined the neutron interference experiment: qm claims the effect happens backwards in time, and TEW explains it in normal time. This is clear evidence that TEW has the correct explanation. It's worth looking at.

…

If TEW is right in that experiment, it may be right in all experiments.

 

And that would be the demonstration you have to make.

[Eugene Morrow]

Swansont,

 

I have not seen the how the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) explains the oscillations in an atomic clock.

 

TEW does explain many experiments where quantum mechanics (qm) uses superposition of states to explain the results. TEW is able to explain those results without superposition. Lewis Little claims that the experiments he has explained show that the qm claims of superposition come from the assumption about wave direction, because when you apply the TEW wave direction superposition is no longer necessary.

 

Do you want to discuss some other experiments, since I cannot make a comment on atomic clocks? We could also discuss the double slit experiment or cavity emission experiments or light polarization experiments. I think Little did not think oscillations in atomic clocks was worth a mention.

 

Eugene Morrow

[Eugene Morrow]

Swansont,

 

Are you interested in debating quantum mechanics (qm) and the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) any further?

 

Eugene Morrow

[questionposter]

Now that I think about it, I don't see how such a small object with so many random forces acting upon it could possibly constantly oscillate or perturb or w/e in a single direction.

[swansont]

Swansont,

 

Are you interested in debating quantum mechanics (qm) and the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) any further?

 

Eugene Morrow

 

Not really. They sound like they are a one-trick-pony.

[Eugene Morrow]

Question Poster,

 

I think you are referring to the oscillations of atomic clocks, so I can't comment.

 

 

Swansont,

 

When you say "one trick pony", I think you are implying that the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) has only one experiment supporting it - the neutron experiment. The supporters of quantum mechanics (qm) claim that at least all the other experiments support qm.

 

Comparing qm and TEW is actually quite difficult. They both have a quantum wave which we can't directly see, and they differ only in direction. For qm, the wave direction can be called the Forward Wave hypothesis, because the wave moves forward with the particle. In TEW, the wave direction can be called the Reciprocal Wave hypothesis, because the wave moves in the opposite direction to the particle. So both theories have waves.

 

We now apply the Reciprocity Theorem which applies to any system with waves. 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. The objects in between could be, for example, the double slits. So the Forward Wave hypothesis and the Reciprocal Wave hypothesis use the same maths thanks to the Reciprocity Theorem.

 

What does all this mean? We have two theories that use the same maths and hence make the same predictions. The each have an explanation for all experiments. A neutral observer would ask the obvious question - where can I see a difference between the two theories? There are only a few experiments where the explanation between qm and TEW differs sharply, and the neutron experiment is the most obvious to see.

 

So TEW claims the following:

 

1. The neutron experiment demonstrates that TEW has the correct wave direction, when compared to qm. A few other experiments say the same thing clearly too.

 

2. Since there is no reason to believe that the wave direction changes from experiment to experiment, TEW must have the correct wave direction in all experiments and be the better theory, even though they make the same predictions.

 

Hence TEW is not a "one trick pony". TEW is better described as a local and deterministic explanation for all the mathematical successes of qm. Hence I called the thread "Keep the good bit ...".

 

In a sense, TEW is an easy choice - just consider the opposite wave direction. In another sense, this is a challenging choice, because qm has never considered the wave direction to be an assumption. It's hidden - as soon as you say "wave particle duality" you are assuming the wave direction without realizing it.

 

Eugene Morrow

 

Swansont,

 

I forgot to mention one thing in my last post.

 

Most physicists believe qm has "proved" that a local and deterministic description of the quantum world is not possible.

 

The answer to that is to remember that all theories are subject to their assumptions.

 

For qm, the assumption is the Forward Wave hypothesis. So all claims by qm must start with that, for example: "Assuming the Forward Wave Hypothesis, then a local and deterministic description of the quantum world is not possible".

 

You can see now that TEW would agree with that statement. TEW would add: "Assuming the Reciprocal Wave hypothesis, it's possible".

 

Eugene Morrow

[ukgazzer]

My humble input(I hope I don`t sound too ignorant):

1/I`m not a mathematician,but it sounds a bit like induction maybe?Some underlying principle?It sounds attractive because it potentially leaves something for future theorists to figure out- And please leave them something!

2/To oppose a new idea because it violates some theorem or other,is bogus science.If the idea fits the facts more satisfactorily then it should be at least considered-That`s my religion anyway-Is it a totally crackpot one?I don`t know whether TEW fits the bill but to argue against it by saying that it violates Bells Theorem irritates me.

3/Determinism?Didn`t Einstein bring in the concept of the fundamental importance of the speed of light?If the sun exploded would we know about it for the next 8 minutes?That`s weirdly quantum mechanical isn`t it?

[Bignose]

2/To oppose a new idea because it violates some theorem or other,is bogus science.If the idea fits the facts more satisfactorily then it should be at least considered-That`s my religion anyway-Is it a totally crackpot one?I don`t know whether TEW fits the bill but to argue against it by saying that it violates Bells Theorem irritates me.

 

But, Bell's Theorem has been verified experimentally several times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments We also 'only' have a theory of gravity... should we also give credence to speculative ideas that violate the theory of gravity too?

 

It doesn't mean that we shouldn't keep testinbg Bell's Theorem, and for that matter we certainly don't know everything about gravity yet either. But, to date, many experiments validating Bell's Theorem have been found. Based on what has been posted, TEW would violate Bell's Theorem, ergo TEW cannot replicate or explain the experiments that have been done.

[Eugene Morrow]

As usual, we are debating the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) in comparison to the existing theory quantum mechanics (qm)

 

 

ukgazzer,

 

Thanks for the open mind. I'll answer the Bell's Theorem stuff below when I address the points raised by Bignose.

 

A theory being "local and deterministic" means that causes happen before or at the same time as the effects (not after the effects) and that if A affects B then A and B are spatially close with nothing traveling faster than light.

 

Both TEW and qm accept the speed of light c, and that if the sun exploded we would not know until 8 minutes later. That is a local and deterministic description, because the photons travel from the sun to us, so there is a clear cause and effect and the effect is local when the photons actually reach us.

 

Bell's Theorem is an example of a claim that two particles affect each other over a distance in a manner faster than light. In qm there are many claims of "non-locality" where something happens that depends on one or more things that are widely separated. By the way, TEW explain everything without this "non-locality" and that's why TEW is local and deterministic.

 

 

Bignose,

 

 

TEW and qm each have an explanation of Bells' Theorem and the Innsbruck experiment.

 

For qm, there are two claims:

1. That entanglement exists, i.e. spooky action at a distance traveling faster than light

2. That TEW violates Bell's Theorem (as you claimed).

 

To start with, remember what I wrote to Swanson earlier. All claims by qm start with 'Assuming the Forward Wave hypothesis,...". So the qm claims do not prove anything about TEW, which has a different hypothesis.

 

TEW claims that the entanglement claim is a result of the Forward Wave hypothesis in qm.

 

The TEW explanation is in Chapter 6 of the TEW book, pages 63 to 71. I will summarize.

 

A. Neither qm or TEW can explain the results of the Innsbruck experiment, so it's an area for more research.

 

B. This is a rare case of a source of particles responding to two different elementary waves by sending two particles, one in each direction. The source programs into the particles some "polarization orientation behavior" so that the particles know what to do even if the polarizers change orientation on their journey. Nothing needs to be transmitted to the particles while they are "in flight", so there is no entanglement.

 

C. For TEW, Bell's Theorem and the Innsbruck experiment prove nothing.

 

 

So in summary, qm has not proved anything about TEW, because the two theories have different assumptions. TEW has a different explanation to qm, and we have a choice.

 

Eugene Morrow

[D H]

A theory being "local and deterministic" means that causes happen before or at the same time as the effects (not after the effects) and that if A affects B then A and B are spatially close with nothing traveling faster than light.

 

Both TEW and qm accept the speed of light c, and that if the sun exploded we would not know until 8 minutes later. That is a local and deterministic description, because the photons travel from the sun to us, so there is a clear cause and effect and the effect is local when the photons actually reach us.

Wrong. Quantum mechanics allows non-local phenomena. This is one of the things that bugged Einstein about quantum mechanics. His is the first initial in the EPR paradox, named for Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen. Einstein should have known better. He came up with several of the paradoxes in relativity, and the answer to those questions is "yep. That's what happens." The answer to the EPR paradox is similarly "yep. That's what happens."

 

 

Bell's Theorem is an example of a claim that two particles affect each other over a distance in a manner faster than light. In qm there are many claims of "non-locality" where something happens that depends on one or more things that are widely separated. By the way, TEW explain everything without this "non-locality" and that's why TEW is local and deterministic.

And that is exactly why TEW is wrong. A valid theory of quantum mechanics cannot be both local and deterministic.

 

 

 

For qm, there are two claims:

1. That entanglement exists, i.e. spooky action at a distance traveling faster than light

Aspect experiments, QHW experiments, and so on, and so on. Entanglement does exist, and it is "spooky action at a distance."

 

The TEW explanation is in Chapter 6 of the TEW book, pages 63 to 71. I will summarize.

 

A. Neither qm or TEW can explain the results of the Innsbruck experiment, so it's an area for more research.

That's a half-truth. That TEW cannot explain the Innsbruck experiment (better known as the QHZ experiment, for Daniel Greenberger, Michael Horne, and Anton Zeilinger) is absolutely true. This experiment falsifies TEW. That quantum mechanics cannot explain these results is an out-and-out lie. The results were consistent with the predictions of quantum mechanics to within 30 standard deviations.

 

 

C. For TEW, Bell's Theorem and the Innsbruck experiment prove nothing.

Baloney. Bell's Theorem is a mathematical theorem, not a physical theory. You have to prove that the mathematics is wrong (which it isn't), or that TEW can pass through one of the loopholes in Bell's Theorem (which it can't). The QHZ experiment, along with Aspect's experiment before it, let alone the many experiments since, are a death blow to TEW. TEW is nonsense.

[Eugene Morrow]

D H,

 

You are clearly a supporter of quantum mechanics (qm) and you reject the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).

 

I totally agree that qm is non-local. When ukgazzer mentioned that light takes 8 minutes to get from the sun to the earth I was simply pointing out that both qm and TEW agree on that. The 8 minute trip for photons is a straight forward description that is local and deterministic.

 

Of course qm has many non-local aspects, and qm believes it has proved that a local and deterministic description is impossible. You echoed this when you wrote:

 

A valid theory of quantum mechanics cannot be both local and deterministic.

 

You may have missed what I wrote a few posts ago about this.

 

All theories are subject to their assumptions. For qm, the assumption is the Forward Wave hypothesis which means the wave goes in the same direction as the particle. For TEW, the assumption is the Reciprocal Wave hypothesis which means the wave goes in the opposite direction to the particle. Any claims by a theory must be qualified by their assumptions.

 

So all claims by qm are written like this for example: "Assuming the Forward Wave Hypothesis, then a local and deterministic description of the quantum world is not possible".

 

You can see now that TEW would agree with that statement. TEW would say: "Assuming the Reciprocal Wave hypothesis, it's possible".

 

The assumption on wave direction is something that the founding fathers of qm (Nels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg) did not consider. It's been a hidden assumption behind qm for about 80 years.

 

TEW is now putting a spotlight on that assumption. Obviously I prefer the TEW assumption, and so I disagree with all your claims that qm works and TEW does not. To me, the experiments prove that TEW is right and qm is wrong.

 

Your stated:

 

"yep. That's what happens."

 

We agree on what happens in the experiments. What the experiments prove depends on the assumptions you already have.

 

Eugene Morrow

[Eugene Morrow]

D H, Swansont, and anyone else,

 

I think you're all a bit stunned.

 

I pointed out in my last post that quantum mechanics (qm) and the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) have different assumptions about wave direction, so neither theory can prove anything about the other.

 

This applies to the qm claim that the quantum world cannot have a local and deterministic description. This "proof" does not apply to TEW because of the different assumptions.

 

No need for that to be a problem - you can still choose qm and there may be lots of other reasons you don't like TEW. It just means that there is no quick "proof" in qm that can reject TEW and vice versa.

 

I think you're all still strong qm supporters. What is the main reason you are not interested in a new theory like TEW?

 

Eugene Morrow

[Eugene Morrow]

Everyone,

 

As usual, we are debating the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) in comparison to the existing theory quantum mechanics (qm)

 

One of the best ways to learn TEW is by examples. The link below is to a document about the Quantum Eraser experiment. The document gives both the qm and TEW explanations, giving an example of how the two theories have completely different explanations for the same experimental result.

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/99753535

 

Eugene Morrow

[Eugene Morrow]

Everyone,

At last we have progress - two experiments are proposed to split quantum mechanics (qm) and the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW), and at least one of the proposed experiment has a physicist interested in performing it.

The two proposed experiments are mentioned at the end of a paper just published, see:

Boyd, Jeffrey H., "Re-thinking a delayed choice quantum eraser experiment: a simple baseball model," Physics Essays, March 2013, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 100-109, (doi: 10.4006/0836-1398-26.1.100). This re-thinks Y.-H. Kim, R. Yu, S. P. Kulik, Y. H. Shih, and M. O. Scully, Phys. Rev. Lett. 8, 1 (2000).

This paper can be downloaded from:
Physics Essays website

One of the two proposed experiments is a variation on the double slit experiment.

This is a double slit experiment with one electron produced at a time, with a pause between each. The idea is that each time an electron is generated at the source a powerful laser shuts ONE of the slits at the same picosecond the electron is produced. Once the electron has reached the screen (or not), the slits are opened again before the next electron is produced.

For qm, the prediction is that there should NOT be an interference pattern, because the electron can only go through one slit during it's flight.

For TEW, the prediction is that we will STILL get an interference pattern. For TEW, the elementary waves have already gone through the slits and interfered at the source by the time the electron is created and a slit closed. This means any electron that goes through the one open slit will still arrive in an interference pattern at the screen. What matters is that just before the electron is created both slits are open, and so both slits allow elementary waves to get to the source.

A physicist Diotr Kolenderski in Poland is interested in performing the experiment, because it would contradict qm if the results agree with TEW.

The other proposed experiment is a variation on Y.-H. Kim, R. Yu, S. P. Kulik, Y. H. Shih, and M. O. Scully, Phys. Rev. Lett. 8, 1 (2000). See Boyd 2013 for details of the second proposed experiment.

This is very exciting - finally a chance to separate two theories (qm and TEW) that until now have had the same predictions for all experiments.

Eugene Morrow

[ACG52]

This is very exciting - finally a chance to separate two theories (qm and TEW) that until now have had the same predictions for all experiments.

 

 

Except TEW makes no predictions, just a lot of assertions.

 

TEW and the Little paper, were well discussed and debunked over a year ago here:

 

http://www.thescienceforum.com/pseudoscien...-mechanics.html

 

He just waits a while and then starts over again.

Edited May 26, 2013 by ACG52

[Eugene Morrow]

ACG52,

 

You have given exactly the same post as AlexG on PhyForum.com. So I will answer it the same way.

 

You wrote:

QUOTE Except TEW makes no predictions, just a lot of assertions.

That is now untrue - the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) has made predictions different from quantum mechanics (qm) in two experiments. That is the point of my last post.

Now it will be up to experimenters to tell us which theory is the better.

The discussion on the other forum proved only that qm supporters don't want to hear about a new theory. Experiments are the final judge, and I can't wait for the first of the experiments that compare qm and TEW. I have no idea how long to wait - the sooner the better.

Eugene Morrow