Keep the good bit of quantum mechanics

[ACG52]

You have given exactly the same post as AlexG on PhyForum.com

 

Yes, oddly enough it was already taken when I signed up here. I like to keep the same name across all forums, but ce la vie.

[Eugene Morrow]

ACG52,

 

Now that the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) has made different predictions to quantum mechanics (qm), we will have to wait to see which theory the experimental results support.

 

Why would we bother? TEW is a local and deterministic theory. TEW gets rids of all the weirdness in qm - effects backwards in time, multiple universes, and so on. For qm, there are also the mutliple interpretations. For TEW, there is only one universe and A causes B in normal time. For TEW, there is only one interpretation.

 

Even entanglement is explained without any spooky action at a distance. You can see that explanation in the paper:

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).

 

I have a simpler versions of the TEW explanation for entanglement - see: http://www.scribd.com/doc/99753535

 

Once you see how simpler TEW is compared to the qm explanations. It would be a huge revolution is TEW is favored over qm in the experimental results.

 

Eugene Morrow

 

 

 

[studiot]

Can you explain the 'wave' in your TEW theory?

 

I say this because the 'wave' in quantum wave mechanics is not actually a wave at all, the name is a bit of a misnnomer.

[D H]

 

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.

 

It was debunked here, too. He just cannot acknowledge it. Bell's theorem kills the idea.

[Eugene Morrow]

D H,

 

The other forum did not debunk anything - they were just absolutely closed to the idea of any improvement on quantum mechanics (qm). Some people shut their minds and call anything new "unscientific". What is good now is that experimenters will have the final say - and I can't wait for that.

 

 

Studiot,

 

I will give you a quick introduction.

 

Your comment is a great place for me to start:

 

the 'wave' in quantum wave mechanics is not actually a wave at all, the name is a bit of a misnnomer.

 

To understand the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) you need to go back to the wave in qm.

 

Yes, there is a wave in qm, and it's much forgotten. The first lesson in qm is "wave particle duality". We're going back to Neils Bohr in the 1920s and the explanations of the double slit experiment. The whole problem with the double slit experiment is that one particle going through the slits at a time still produces an interference pattern. Why?

 

The qm explanatiioni is wave-particle duality - the idea that a particle is also a wave at the same time, so you can call the particles "wave-particles" or "wave packets". The particle (as a wave) spreads out and goes through both slits and then the waves on the other side interfere with each other - hence the interference pattern. This is the core of the Copenhagen interpretation, still the most popular interpretation of qm.

 

Today, many people forget about this, because the focus is on calculating the probabilities of a particle arriving at some point on the screen. Since qm calculates very accurate probabilities, then everyone thinks in terms of probabilities and forgets why we get an interference pattern at all. The focus on calculating probabilities is behind the popularity of "shut up and calculate" in physics. What they mean is - do the calculations of probability and don't ask questions about why we get the answers. Since the calculations are supremely accurate, physics celebrates the accuracy and shuns discussions about what is really going on.

 

What physics ignores is that the picture of reality has big problems in qm. Let's look at a spreading wave-particle. A wave-particle has to spread - that's how it goes through both slits. Let's ask a very simple question: what happened to the mass and energy of the particle? Is that spreading as well? Does that mean the mass and energy goes through both slits? That means if we put a detector at one of the slits we'd detect a smaller amount of mass and energy there - but we get full sized particles if we do that. That's one problem.

 

Next we look at the space beyond the slits. To interfere, the two waves have to spread out over the whole area. Somehow these spreading waves choose a point on the screen to arrive at. Consider one of the points - why don't we lose mass and energy at the edges of the spreading waves? Why do we always detect full sized particles? That's another problem.

 

You can see two easy problems to spot with the Copenhagen interpretation. The picture of mass and energy does not make sense.

 

Now we can talk about the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) developed by Dr. Lewis Little. His thinking was like this: we know there is a particle - we can detect it at the source and the screen, so we know the direction it goes in. We know waves are something to do with the experiment, because the interference pattern on the screen is something to do with waves. What is important is that we can't SEE the actual waves - only the effects of the waves.

 

From other experiments there is a big hint - that the wave might be going in the other direction. I will go into those experiments in another post. For now, it is important to know that he spotted an assumption in qm - that the wave is going in the same direction as the particle. The key to TEW is the idea that the wave is going in the opposite direction.

 

I'll give a very quick lesson 101 in elementary waves:

 

1. Elementary waves are going in all directions at all times - they are a sort of "infrastructure" to the universe. The go in and come out of all masses.

 

2. Each elementary wave has a unique marker from the last mass it came from.

 

3. Two elementary waves with the same marker can interfere with each other. If two waves have different markers then they just ignore each other.

 

4. A source of particle emits a particle in response to incoming elementary waves. A stronger incoming wave means it is more likely the source sends a particle.

 

5. A particle always follows a particular elementary wave IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION at all times.

 

So in the double slit experiment, elementary waves are given off by the screen and go through the slits in the opposite direction to the source. The waves are spreading and interference happens after the slits heading towards the source. If the interference is constructive at the source, then it is likely the source sends a particle back. If the interference is destructive it is unlikely the source will send a particle back. Any particle created follows the elementary wave (that had constructive interference) back along that wave to the point on the screen where it came from. The particle only goes through one slit and always has the mass and energy we measure. The problems of mass and energy do not apply to TEW. If the source sends only one particle at a time it does not affect the interference - which comes from incoming elementary waves which are always there. If the source sends only one particle at a time then the pattern on the screen simply builds up more slowly to the same pattern.

 

That's only an extreemly short summary of TEW. The key points are:

 

A. TEW has the same quantum wave as qm, only it travels in the opposite direction.

 

B. The same probabilities calculated in qm apply to TEW. Think of a sine wave. What direction does it travel in? Both - it is the same graph whether going to the right or to the left. A more formal proof of this is the Reciprocity theorem, which applies to radio antennas being equally good at transmitting as receiving. It means the probability calculations are exactly the same for TEW and qm.

 

C. Why bother believing in TEW rather than qm? Because TEW is a local and deterministic theory. For qm, they always believed that a local and deterministic theory of the quantum world is impossible. The truth is that qm found it impossible because of the wave direction in qm. if you reverse the wave direction, then you can have a local and deterministic theory.

That means that TEW has only one interpretation - no multiple universes, no effects backwards in time, and all the other quantum weirdness. That's a good reason to choose TEW over qm.

 

D. TEW explains my qm has such accurate probabilities (because the waves maths is correct) but such weird explanations (the qm wave is in the wrong direction). If we adopt TEW are keeping the good bit of qm (the accuracy) and discarding the bad bit (the weirdness).

 

I know you will have zillions of questions. It's only a quick introduction.

 

What matters to me is that experimenters now have a chance to prove which theory - qm or TEW - is right, because Boyd 2013 has described a way to separate the two theories. It's a really exciting time in physics.

 

Eugene Morrow

 

Everyone,

CORRECTION: the physicist in Poland is PIOTR Kolenderski (not Diotr Kolenderski as I previously posted). This misprint is in Boyd 2013 as well, unfortunately.

Eugene Morrow

[ACG52]

The other forum did not debunk anything - they were just absolutely closed to the idea of any improvement on quantum mechanics

Nobody who's had a 'theory' debunked says, 'yep they debunked it'. They all say 'they had closed minds'.

[Bignose]

D. TEW explains my qm has such accurate probabilities (because the waves maths is correct)

I still have an awfully hard time believing this. How can the 'waves math [be] correct' when you TEW states that the wave travels in the opposite direction?

 

This needs to be explicitly demonstrated, as I asked many, many posts above. Please post this and show how the velocity of the wave can be reversed and still have the math come out exactly the same. (It is worth mentioning that in that other thread, this was also explicitly asked, and this was about where you started to become unresponsive. Don't let that happen here.)

Edited May 29, 2013 by Bignose

[studiot]

Good morrow, Eugene (pun intended). I do not want to seem ungracious about the considerable length of your reply to my question, but it was pitched at far too simplistic a level.

 

However I have found a copy of Little's paper and have been reading it for myself. I note he refers to the exact question I asked

 

Perhaps it is confusing that I call them `waves' and then state that there are no field equations. But, as described above, they are waves only in the sense that they combine with one another in a wave-like manner when stimulating the emission of particles. There is a periodicity along the `wave.' But these are not waves in a medium, and the signal is not carried by wavefronts.

 

Whilst there is some mathematics in the paper it disintegrates into mysticism at the point of my question

 

So it is not the elementary waves theory that should not be criticized for the fact that it has no field equations. Rather, current theory should be criticized for the fact that it does have such equations, but without the appropriate physical foundation.

Perhaps the elementary `waves' might better be termed `periodic fluxes.' Rather than being waves-which might imply a medium-they are fluxes with a wavelike pattern. If one wishes to call the collection of waves an `aether,' one might say that the waves are a flux of aether stuff carrying a wavelike pattern-bearing in mind my earlier reservations as to the idea of a `stuff' making up the waves.

 

One issue is the continues reliance on the mathematics of continuous functions, when it is far from proven that the real world is continuous not granular. another is the fact that all our equations are models that bump into discontinuities somewhere and often fail to descibe conditions on the other side of the discontinuity.

 

I note that Bignose has already asked for an explanation of why you think qm requires waves travelling in any direction. I too had always understood the analogy in terms of standing waves.

[Eugene Morrow]

ACG52,

 

That's true that the debunkee usually denies what the debunker says. Everyone will have to make up their own minds.

 

 

Bignose,

 

The wave travelling in the opposite direction is the hard bit for people to grasp when they first hear about the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW). That's why my last post was so simple - I am trying to introduce the idea in easy steps.

 

As for the maths, if you are a maths expert it should be rather obvious. Thinks of reciprocity - a radio antenna works equally well as a transmitter and a receiver of radio waves. Why? Look at the graph of a sine wave - it is symmetric in the forwards/backwards directions. A more formal statement is the Reciprocity theorem.

 

One of the statements of the Reciproticy theory says that the intensity of a wave from A to B is exactly the same as the intensity of the identical wave from B to A, no matter what the obstacles in between A and B. That applies to my explanation of the double slit experiment. The quantum mechanics (qm) explanation has the wave from the source to the screen. The TEW explanation has the wave from the screen to the source. The slits in between do not change the fact that the same wave probabilities can be measured at the screen and the source.

 

That's how qm and TEW share the same wave maths, because the probabilities are the same no matter whether the wave goes in the forward direction (qm) or the reverse direction (TEW).

 

The reverse wave direction is a real surprise for people to imagine. That's the hard bit. The maths of reciprocity is easy.

 

 

Studiot,

 

As I said to Bignose, I kept the explanation simple because it's hard for people to get their head around the idea of the wave going in the opposite direction. Since you're read the 1996 paper on TEW in Physics Essays, so you already have some idea. The book is better:

 

“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.

 

The best example of why Dr. Little proposes the idea that the wave goes in the opposite direction is the neutron interference experiment I described at the start of this thread. Have a look again. Why does a new Analyzer crystal affect the interferometer? In TEW, elementary waves travel from the crystal to the interferometer, so there is a clear reason in normal time. For qm, the only explanation is an effect backwards in time.

 

Eugene Morrow

 

[Bignose]

Why? Look at the graph of a sine wave - it is symmetric in the forwards/backwards directions.

A sine wave is only symmetric at its peaks and troughs. Not over the entire curve.

 

There is a very significant difference between [math]\sin(x - ct)[/math] and [math]\sin(x + ct)[/math].

 

I'm sorry, I may be the 'maths expert' here (what I will readily admit is overall a rather meaningless title the forum's administers decided to give me), but this is an idea you are defending. Why can't you actually post the math and demonstrate to me, to everyone that the change in the direction doesn't actually change the final results.

 

Can you do that? Or is this all just wordsmithing and handwaving? Show us all wrong by posting it and demonstrating what you claim.

[studiot]

@Eugene Morrow.

 

I am sorry you chose to merely repeat your spiel about keeping it simple, rather than actually reply to my point.

 

The second time round it becomes condescending and patronising.

 

I see from your profile you studied maths at university.

 

I too have a degree in (applied) maths, along with other technical qualifications, including postgrad level.

 

So please pitch your replies accordingly.

Edited May 30, 2013 by studiot

[Eugene Morrow]

Bignose, Studiot,

 

If you want to see the maths of the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) then read 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. See also www.elwave.org.

 

It's not expensive, and the book goes into all the mathematics you need, including deriving the E=mc squared formula in quite a different way. I am not going to reproduce it here.

 

True, Bignose, a sine wave is only symmetric at the peaks and troughs. The Reciprocity theorem is already accepted by all sides of physics and it already describes the situation - the direction of a wave does not affect the intensity that can be measured at the two end points. The wave direction is an issue that has not been considered, and it catches everyone by surprise.

 

What is important is that TEW provides a new description of physical reality with the same mathematics as quantum mechanics (qm). The TEW physical description is local and deterministic, something which qm claims is impossible. The wave direction is the key to the proposed experiments where qm makes different predictions to TEW, and so the physical reality of the results will decide the better theory.

 

You two are both concentrating on the issue of maths. In qm, often reality is not discussed, and the maths is the central focus. There is a good example here - I pointed out how qm does not explain what happens to the mass and energy of the particles in the double slit experiment, and no one has attempted to defend qm at all. The physical descriptions of qm are full of weirdness like this, and since the mathematics works many physists ignore the issue what the underlying reality is. The value of TEW is that we can finally have a single interpretation that makes sense of the reality.

 

You two may want more time to read and consider the maths of TEW. I'm here to let you know there is a choice of theory, and I'm eagerly awaiting the results of the experiments to compare qm and TEW.

 

Eugene Morrow

 

[Bignose]

Bignose, Studiot,

 

If you want to see the maths of the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) then read the book:

Nope. I am not spending my money to buy your book. Frankly, it is no skin off my teeth whether you decide to defend your idea or not. I'm not the one that comes off looking foolish by refusing to provide asked information.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Eugene Morrow

 

You have been asked direct questions which require direct answers. Either fulfill your obligations as the proposer of a hypothesis in speculations forum or we will close the thread - it is completely unacceptable to merely respond by hawking a book. Your two interlocutors have are both well trained in higher level maths and physics so there is no fear that your explanation will fall on untrained ears - so fire away and please focus on the questions posed rather than restating your entire idea.

 

[studiot]

Eugene, since you introduced reciprocity, you may find it interesting to know that it was originally introduced by Maxwell and I understand it in that form.

 

A stimulus applied at point A of a linear system produces the same response at point B of that system as an identical stimulus applied at point B produces at point A.

 

Unfortunately the world is decidely non linear and I have spent my working life dealing with this uncomfortable truth.

Edited May 31, 2013 by studiot

[Eugene Morrow]

Bignose, imatfaal,

 

The book on the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) is 153 pages long. It is unreasonable for me to simply reproduce that to give a complete answer on all the maths involved. It would also be impossible (I cannot post all the graphics and equations using this technology) and would breach copyright. As well, I am not Dr. Lewis Little himself - I am simply someone who has read the book and agrees with it. That is why I am debating the merits of TEW as compared to quantum mechanics (qm).

 

If you want to shut down this thread because I have not posted enough maths, then there is nothing I can do. It is strange to make an exception of this thread, where maths must be posted, whereas other threads do not necessarily have to be so mathematical.

 

I am here if anyone wants to debate how TEW explains physics compared to qm. A comparison of two theories is much more useful than simply reproducing what is already published and available.

 

As I also pointed out before, the big difference between TEW and qm is the explanations, not the maths. Both theories use the Schrodinger equation and so on. The difference is what the maths actually means in the physical world. For TEW, there is a totally different explanation to the double slit experiment, to cavity emission experiments, to entanglement and all quantum experiments. TEW leads to a new understanding of what mass and momentum are (they are both characteristics of elementary waves, not the particles following them), and of energy. The famous e = mc squared formula is about elementary waves interacting, not about making mass and energy the same thing.

 

So the reason TEW is a better theory is about the explanations, not the equations. By insisting on maths you are making sure that what is different in the new theory is not discussed. Alternatively, you can consider me not a maths expert.

 

 

Sudiot,

 

You have written the most interesting point:

 

Unfortunately the world is decidely non linear and I have spent my working life dealing with this uncomfortable truth.

 

I agree the world is non linear. How does that relate to what we were discussing? Reciprocity for radio antennas works in our non linear world. I'm not sure why you made your point, and I think it will be a fascinating path to follow - if this thread continues.

 

Eugene Morrow

 

[uncool]

If the math isn't different, then the predictions aren't different; if the predictions aren't different, then it's another interpretation of quantum mechanics.

 

And demonstrating the math shouldn't need to come even close to breaking copyright.

=Uncool-

[Eugene Morrow]

Uncool,

This is just what needs to be debated. The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) is not just another interpretation of quantum mechanics (qm), even though they use the same maths.

 

Let's look at the differences between qm and TEW:

 

qm idea__________________TEW idea

 

non-locality................................everything is local and deterministic

multiple interpretations..............one interpretation

entanglement.............................no communication between particles - just two elementary waves combining

supeposition of states................all particles have one position, one momentum etc at any one time

effects backwards in time..........all effects are in normal time

 

Is TEW just "another interpretation"? Clearly TEW is a totally different theory that uses the same maths as qm.

 

I think qm supporters are used to the idea that only maths matters. To me, the explanations of reality are what matter.

 

Eugene Morrow

 

[uncool]

Uncool,

 

This is just what needs to be debated. The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) is not just another interpretation of quantum mechanics (qm), even though they use the same maths.

Then are the predictions from "TEW" and quantum mechanics the same or different? If the predictions are the same, then it is an interpretation; if the predictions are different, then they do not use the same math.

Let's look at the differences between qm and TEW:

 

qm idea__________________TEW idea

 

non-locality................................everything is local and deterministic

Actually, this idea is specifically from one of the interpretations of qm, not from qm itself. There are interpretations of qm which are local. Further, you've added determinism, which should be on a separate line; even then, there are interpretations of qm which are deterministic - and even interpretations of qm which are both local and deterministic, which can work by violating other hypotheses of Bell's theorem.

multiple interpretations..............one interpretation

There is one interpretation of the pilot-wave interpretation of quantum mechanics; this doesn't change anything about whether "TEW" is an interpretation of quantum mechanics.

entanglement.............................no communication between particles - just two elementary waves combining

What you're saying here is unclear, but it looks exactly like a different interpretation.

supeposition of states................all particles have one position, one momentum etc at any one time

See above.

effects backwards in time..........all effects are in normal time

Actually, "effects backwards in time" is not a part of quantum mechanics at all; it isn't even a part of quantum physics except as a specific interpretation of it.

Is TEW just "another interpretation"? Clearly TEW is a totally different theory that uses the same maths as qm.

 

I think qm supporters are used to the idea that only maths matters. To me, the explanations of reality are what matter.

 

Eugene Morrow

Then are the predictions the same or different? You've claimed earlier that there is an experimental difference, which implies a predictive difference; a predictive difference does imply a mathematical difference. And "explanations of reality" are not physics; they are metaphysics, and not scientific in the sense that they are not testable - what is testable are predictions, which are derived from the math.

=Uncool-

[studiot]

Eugene,

 

I have not asked you for maths, others have done this.

 

If you choose to respond mathematically, that is fine. If you choose to respond with a chain of reasoning, that is also fine.

 

But I cannot accept a 'because I say so' type of explanation.

 

Waves are very precisely defined in their properties and also what they do not do. Mathematics is very convenient for this, but you can also do this descriptively.

 

I asked you descriptively about some proposed properties of Little's 'wave' that I cannot reconcile with my understanding of basic requirements for wave motion. You cannot cherry pick some properties and ignore others. As an example you would be erroneous to say that because clay is a soil it behaves as a granular material like sand. They are both soils with some common properties. But there are also differences.

 

The modern quantum theory can provide many accurate outputs. But this is only the same as same as a modern engineer saying that his steam tables are accurate to n decimal places because some gentlemen in the 1920s made many measurements to synchronise them with reality. We still use the gas laws for understanding gas behaviour. The kinetic theory and the gas laws form logical basis for deducing much about the behaviour of gasses.

 

So am seeking a gas law explanation of TEW, that is as consistent with and develops further the theory of waves as the kinetic theory is for the gas laws.

 

As to the reciprocal theorem, you introduced it, not I. However I would observe that the principle of reversibility of light, which is in fact a simple application of the reciprocal theorem, depends upon a linear system. It does not hold for a non linear one. The initial switching on or off is always non linear. The principle assumes a steady stae (=linear) condition.

 

So, specifically I recap on my original question:

 

Why does a Little wave need to be a travelling wave, not a standing wave?

 

And if it travelled from effect backwards towards the source what happens during the initial switch on?

Edited May 31, 2013 by studiot

[Eugene Morrow]

Uncool,

 

The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) is a different theory to quantum mechanics (qm) because in a few rare situations TEW makes different predictions to qm.

 

In the article Boyd 2013, Jeff Boyd outlines two experiments where there are different predictions. Hopefully they will be performed soon. You can read about the specfics of the proposed experiments in:

 

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). Download here: http://www.physicsessays.com/

You are trying to claim a local and deterministic interpretation exists for qm. In fact, qm claims that a local and deterministic explanation of the quanum world is impossible. There are experiments where the only explanation from qm is an effect backwards in time. We can discuss some if you like and you can give the local and deterministic interpretation from qm.

 

 

Studiot,

 

Thanks - you have reminded me about an easy way to see some TEW maths.

 

On May 30 in reply 83, you quoted from the 1996 paper Liittle wrote in Physics Essays. For the record, Little's 1996 paper in Physics Essays is:

 

"The Theory of Elementary Waves", Physics Essays Vol 9, No.1, 1996, pages 100-132.

 

Everyone can see a reproduction of that paper (with formulas but not diagrams) for free here:

http://elementarywaves.com/TEW96paper.html (the link is to elementarywaves.com/TEW96paper.html).

 

So for people who are keen to see some TEW maths, just use the link above.

 

I am not simply saying something is right because I said it. I am pointing out that physics now has a choice of theories, and most people are not aware of that. For around 80 years, qm has been making very accurate predictions, and so most people said to themselves "I must accept what the weird explanations of qm because the predictions work". Now we have a situation where there are alternative TEW explanations to choose from and we still retain the accurate predictions. That is a new situation in physics that needs plenty of thinking to make a decision.

 

I have been trying to make the case for the TEW theory as a better choice than qm. My post about the double slit experiment and how qm cannot account for mass and energy of the particles is a critical part of that. I was surprised when you called it simplistic. To me, the problems with the qm explanation are obvious and the TEW explanation is a refreshing new choice.

 

Dr. Little proposes a traveling wave because of the explanatory power of that idea. The 1996 article gives reasons, for example the double slit experiment and experiments on atomic emission in resonant cavities. My quick outline of the double slit experiment shows how Little's idea of a traveling wave accounts for the interference pattern on the screen.

 

Standing waves can occur in TEW, but elementary waves are not normally standing waves. In the cavity emission experiment, TEW proposes that elementary waves that have a wavelength that is appropriate for the cavity will be reinforced by reflections off the walls, whereas the wavelengths that do not fit the cavity will mutually cancel each other out. This was also discussed in the 1996 paper.

 

As the 1996 paper also discusses, elementary waves are like an "infrastructure" to the universe. They are not created by masses or anything else. They are a flux that is elementary to the universe - there is no medium underneath. They pass through masses and get a signature of some sort from that mass. The signature matters because if two waves have the same signature, then they can interfere (constructively or destructively) but if the two waves have a different signature then the two waves ignore each other. Interference obviously matters in experiments like the double slit.

 

There is no "switch on" of the elementary waves. They are always there. So when the experiment starts there are already elementary there interacting. What is different about TEW is that elementary waves from the screen or detector are the key driver to the effects we see.

 

For example, in the double slit experiment, elementary waves from the screen go through the slits to the source (which is the opposite direction to the waves in qm). The interference of waves at the source means that where there is constructive interference the elementary waves stimulate the source to send a particle back. The particle goes backwards along only one of the elementary waves and arrives at the screen to give the particles we detect.

 

You can see that if we switch the source off (for example a laser or an electron gun) then the source sends nothing. However, the elementary waves are still coming in to the source.

 

How much headway is this making in answering your questions?

 

Eugene Morrow

 

[uncool]

Uncool,

 

The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) is a different theory to quantum mechanics (qm) because in a few rare situations TEW makes different predictions to qm.

Then the math must be different, because the math is exactly what gives the predictions.

In the article Boyd 2013, Jeff Boyd outlines two experiments where there are different predictions. Hopefully they will be performed soon. You can read about the specfics of the proposed experiments in:

 

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). Download here: http://www.physicsessays.com/

I'm not subscribing to a journal that looks like it's a crackpot journal. If you're going to try to claim your theory, present its ideas here; don't just point elsewhere.

You are trying to claim a local and deterministic interpretation exists for qm. In fact, qm claims that a local and deterministic explanation of the quanum world is impossible.

You are quoting a common claim about Bell's theorem that is only true if you make other assumptions. Look up superdeterminism; it is both local and deterministic.

There are experiments where the only explanation from qm is an effect backwards in time.

Please name them.

We can discuss some if you like and you can give the local and deterministic interpretation from qm.

Any superdeterministic theory. I personally prefer such theories. The claim that there are no local hidden variable theories makes the assumption of counterfactual definiteness; denying that allows both locality and determinism, at the expense of some ideas of free will.

=Uncool-

Edited June 1, 2013 by uncool

[Eugene Morrow]

Uncool,

 

The difference in maths betweeen the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) and quantum mechanics (qm) occur in rare cases where there is a radically different explanation of an experiment. Entanglement is the key experiment. For qm, the two particles are believed to be linked, so they are described with one field equation. For TEW, the two particles are following two seperate elementary waves, so there are two equations not one. They add up to the same result.

 

You believe in Superdeterminism? Then let's see it applied to an experiment.

 

The experiment is a neutron interference experiment:

 

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.

 

It is discussed in depth in the 1996 paper and the TEW book - I have simplified it here so it's easy to see the central issue.

 

The setup is that neutrons from a nuclear reactor are sent through a Neutron Interferometer and an analyzer crystal to reach a detector:

 

 

The Neutron Interfereometer is a setup similar to the double slit experiment - it creates interference patterns. The coherence length of the neutrons is determined here. The analyzer crystal is like a prism or lens.

 

From the quantum mechanics view, neutrons are both waves and particles. So both the neutron particles and the neutron "waves" are going left to right.

 

From the TEW point of view, elementary waves start at the detector and go left through the apparatus to the reactor and stimulate neutrons coming back. If you change the elementary waves you get different neutrons coming back.

 

The point of the experiment is that we change the analyzer crystal, and this changes the neutron coherence length in the NI:

 

 

Huh? How can something on the right affect something on the left?

 

From the qm point of view, this must have been a change backwards in time. The experimenters write on page 41 (italics in the original) :

The thing to keep in mind is that we determine the coherence length after the interference has taken place, far downstream from the interferometer.

 

Many qm supporters of course are quite comfortable with this - they believe that time can be reversed easily like this. I do not accept this explanation at all.

 

I much prefer the TEW explanation, which is simple. Elementary waves start at the detector going left. The new analyzer crystal changed those elementarty waves, which changed the interference in the NI which changed the waves reaching the reactor. Different elementary waves mean different neutrons are sent back - with a different coherence length. Cause and effect are obvious - it's a local and deterministic explanation. Everything happens in normal time:

 

 

The TEW explanation makes sense to me. In lots of ways, this experiment is screaming out "The wave is going in the opposite direction ! ". Not many people can see that.

 

I would be very interested to hear your view on how qm explains this in a local and deterministic way. Or perhaps you are comfortable with reversing time here.

 

Eugene Morrow

 

[swansont]

The difference in maths betweeen the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) and quantum mechanics (qm) occur in rare cases where there is a radically different explanation of an experiment. Entanglement is the key experiment. For qm, the two particles are believed to be linked, so they are described with one field equation. For TEW, the two particles are following two seperate elementary waves, so there are two equations not one. They add up to the same result.

 

What are the equations?

[uncool]

Uncool,

 

The difference in maths betweeen the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) and quantum mechanics (qm) occur in rare cases where there is a radically different explanation of an experiment.

Then they don't have the same math. They have some math in common, but they do not have the same math in general. Now that you've agreed with that, we can continue.

Entanglement is the key experiment. For qm, the two particles are believed to be linked, so they are described with one field equation. For TEW, the two particles are following two seperate elementary waves, so there are two equations not one. They add up to the same result.

 

You believe in Superdeterminism? Then let's see it applied to an experiment.

How about the easiest relevant experiment, that of Bell's theorem? In order to rule out the combination of locality and determinism (that is, to rule out both of them being true simultaneously), Bell's theorem needs that the experimenter must be able to set the detectors to be in any direction; however, superdeterminism (or alternatively, the denial of counterfactual definiteness) basically says that that is impossible - that the detectors themselves are set by the laws of physics and cannot simply be set in any direction.

The experiment is a neutron interference experiment:

 

 

It is discussed in depth in the 1996 paper and the TEW book - I have simplified it here so it's easy to see the central issue.

 

The setup is that neutrons from a nuclear reactor are sent through a Neutron Interferometer and an analyzer crystal to reach a detector:

 

Fig Kaiser A 01.gif

 

The Neutron Interfereometer is a setup similar to the double slit experiment - it creates interference patterns. The coherence length of the neutrons is determined here. The analyzer crystal is like a prism or lens.

That doesn't really explain what it does. Please explain further.

From the quantum mechanics view, neutrons are both waves and particles. So both the neutron particles and the neutron "waves" are going left to right.

 

From the TEW point of view, elementary waves start at the detector and go left through the apparatus to the reactor and stimulate neutrons coming back. If you change the elementary waves you get different neutrons coming back.

 

The point of the experiment is that we change the analyzer crystal, and this changes the neutron coherence length in the NI:

You need to explain this further.

Fig Kaiser B 02.gif

 

Huh? How can something on the right affect something on the left?

 

From the qm point of view, this must have been a change backwards in time. The experimenters write on page 41 (italics in the original) :

 

 

 

Many qm supporters of course are quite comfortable with this - they believe that time can be reversed easily like this.

Please link to such a "qm supporter", please. Even without superdeterminism, no time reversal is needed, unless you are referring to the propagation of antineutrons as a move backwards in time by neutrons (which, again, is an interpretation).

I do not accept this explanation at all.

 

I much prefer the TEW explanation, which is simple. Elementary waves start at the detector going left. The new analyzer crystal changed those elementarty waves, which changed the interference in the NI which changed the waves reaching the reactor. Different elementary waves mean different neutrons are sent back - with a different coherence length. Cause and effect are obvious - it's a local and deterministic explanation. Everything happens in normal time:

 

Fig Kaiser C 01.gif

 

The TEW explanation makes sense to me. In lots of ways, this experiment is screaming out "The wave is going in the opposite direction ! ". Not many people can see that.

 

I would be very interested to hear your view on how qm explains this in a local and deterministic way. Or perhaps you are comfortable with reversing time here.

 

Eugene Morrow

I cannot answer, as the experiment really hasn't been described fully enough. What, precisely, is detected, and how do you derive the coherence length from that? What precisely does the analyzer crystal do?

 

Finally, I am a math person. Please show the math, not just the diagrams.

=Uncool-