Keep the good bit of quantum mechanics

Eugene Morrow · June 18, 2013

Uncool,

I will answer you first because there is one important point about quantum mechanics (qm).

I wrote:

Table VIII shows the calculated coherence lengths that apply to the NI. You are not looking at the results that show the analyzer crystal affects the NI.

You wrote:

You haven't demonstrated that any of the results show that. You continue to claim it, but have yet to show it.

The experimenters have given us everything we need to know. Table VIII on page 41 shows the analyzer crystal gives different results for the coherence length:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE VIII. Calculated longitudinal coherence lengths delta x of the neutrons in the different analyzer configurations.

Beam...................................Delta X (Angstrom units)

Direct C3 (and C2)_______________86.2

PR analyzer, (111) parallel_________ 97.5

PR analyzer, (111) antiparallel______148

NP analyzer, (111) antiparallel_____3450
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The experimenters write on page 41:

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

And later on page 41:

If the wave packets “were” the neutron particle, we could not vary their physical extent, at will, after the fact, as we have apparently done in this experiment.

Notice how the second quote says "vary their physical extent, at will, after the fact". This says it all - the coherence length (physical extent) which affects the interference in the NI is varied by the experimenters after the neutrons have left the NI.

If the analyzer crystal changed the coherence length, then the experimenters would not have bothered to measure the coherence length after the neutrons have gone through it. It would be like trying to measure the fridge temperture of a glass of water - after you have taken the glass of water out of the fridge and boiled it. They know that the coherence length is a property of the interference in the NI, and it was changed in the NI by something that the neutrons had not reached yet.

I think you find it hard to acknowledge quantum weirdness. You also denied that qm claims entanglement involves instantaneous communication between particles - but that is exactly what qm claims. I think secretly you know underneath that qm makes claims that simply don't make sense, and you are trying to avoid that. It is great to celebrate the predictive successes of qm. The only way we will improve qm is to face the reality the explanations have bits that are just totally weird. This is one of them - the analzyer crystal is affecting the NI apparently backwards in time.

Studiot,

I will answer each of your questions on the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) in the same way I have been answering Uncool, so hopefully I'll cover everything.

You wrote:

Back to the model and the light bulb within walls.

Do the waves follow Huygen's principle?

I will be careful here. Dr. Little has not, to my knowledge, said anything directly about Hughen's principle.

I think elementary waves do effectively follow Hughen's principle. If you look at the first diagram I have for TEW in the double slit experiment, where we have number 1 for the waves coming out of point D1 and number 2 where there interfere after the slits. That diagram has similarities to Figure 3.3 on page 29 of the TEW book. You can see Hughen's principle in action there, so I think we can say it applies.

Notice how elementary waves have a different mechanism for spreading out at the slits. Instead of a wave in medium, the waves have collisions in the slit area. This is a different physical mechanism, but the final effect is the same.

Your next question is:

Consider the wave travelling from point A on the walls to point B on the bulb and carrying the marker from point A.

Since the wave extends beyond B it should pick up a marker from material at B, but it is already carrying a marker from material at A and you say that a wave can carry only one marker. How is this resolved?

When a wave hits a mass called B the wave already has an existing marker (say A). What happens is that marker A is replaced by marker B. Marker A is entirely wiped clean from that point on. This happens everytime an elementary wave enters a new mass and leaves the other side.

If point B is on the light bulb, the light bulb may supply a photon to make the return journey to point A. That is an option that the bulb has (as do all sources of particles) and the particle will follow marker A because that is what stimulated it. No matter whether the light bulb sent a photon or not, the elementary wave with marker A still changes to marker B once it exits point B on the light bulb.

You next question:

Since the wave is 3D is must also pass through points C, D etc. In fact I assume the whole wave must carry the marker away from A?

When a wave goes from the surface of a room to the light bulb, the journey is passing through many points in the air in between. Nothing happens as the wave propgates through the air. The marker is still A. Rermember that the marker stays the same unless the wave has a collision or enters a new mass. So going from the surface of the room to the light bulb does not change the wave or the marker.

You seem to have worked this out when you wrote:

If this is the case, consider the situation where the wave front from A and carrying the maker from A reaches B. At this point it apparantly changes marker at B.

This is a good question to ask, becuase I have not made myself clear. The wave going form point A on the surface of the room to point B1 on the light bulb is entirely separate from the wave going from point A to point B2 on the light bulb. Both waves carry marker A. In the abstract for the article Boyd 2013 in Physics Essays, Jeff Boyd talks of each wave being a "ray" and he writes:

The photon will follow backwards that ray alone

Since elementary waves are waves that propagate themselves in a vacuum, you can think of them as these rays, rather than a collective wave front, which is how we often think of waves.

Your next question follows on:

What about the rest of the wavefront? What maker does it now carry? How fast does this change propagate through the wavefront?.

Each ray coming out of point A has marker A and each of those rays has it's own journey. Some will hit points on the light bulb and hence change marker (and they may get a photon coming back). Other rays will hit the socket for the light bulb and change marker (probably lots of times as they pass through many masses). The entire "wavefront" is really individual rays and each is entirely separate.

I will jump forward a question, becuase it is linked:

If point C is the same distance from A as is B the wave will arrive at B and C simultaneously. If there is material at C as well as at B how will the wave decide which marker to carry, since it can carry only one?

You can see now that a ray going to point C gets the marker for C as it leaves C and that is entirely seperate from the ray that gets marker B as it leaves B.

Now back to the question I jumped over:

What happens if the wavefront is very large so B and another point on the wavefront are many light years apart?

As above - each ray is separate.

An important point to raise here. Imagine a photon is coming from the sun to the earth to a camera. In the 8 minute journey, the photographer puts the lens cap on the camera. What happens?

The photon was following a marker from a mass in the camera. Suddenly, the marker on that same elementary wave changes to the marker from a mass on the lens cap. The photon is now following the marker from the lens cap and eventually gets absorbed there.

This is the idea that a particle is always following a particular elementary wave with a particular marker, but the marker may change while the particle is "in flight". Clearly this happens many times for photons traveling in space. Just because the photon started it's journey following a particular marker, it is forced to follow whatever that marker changes to during the journey.

It's the reason we can get interference patterns from photons from distant galaxies. The incoming photons are effectively a source of photons, and it's the elementary waves from our measuring devices here on earth that reorganize the incoming photons into an interference pattern.

Your last question:

Again since the wave is 3D is must also travel away from A along the path AB of the wave you say is incoming towards A. Do these interfere destructively?

I think you are saying that as waves are leaving point A there are other elementary waves coming into A. Yes, there are elementary waves going into and out of every point in the universe in all directions.

Normally all these elementary waves ignore each other. They will interfere only if the have the same marker (like the two waves on the other side of the slits). If they have different markers, there is still a slight chance they have a collision (of markers) like the collisions I described happening in the slits area.

Overall, both interference and collisions are rare - most of the time elementary waves are busy ignoring each other.

Eugene Morrow

uncool · June 18, 2013

Uncool,

I will answer you first because there is one important point about quantum mechanics (qm).

I wrote:

You wrote:

The experimenters have given us everything we need to know. Table VIII on page 41 shows the analyzer crystal gives different results for the coherence length:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TABLE VIII. Calculated longitudinal coherence lengths delta x of the neutrons in the different analyzer configurations.

Beam...................................Delta X (Angstrom units)

Direct C3 (and C2)_______________86.2

PR analyzer, (111) parallel_________ 97.5

PR analyzer, (111) antiparallel______148

NP analyzer, (111) antiparallel_____3450

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The experimenters write on page 41:

And later on page 41:

Notice how the second quote says "vary their physical extent, at will, after the fact". This says it all - the coherence length (physical extent) which affects the interference in the NI is varied by the experimenters after the neutrons have left the NI.

Not quite. You are mixing up the coherence length before the crystal with the coherence length after the crystal.

If the analyzer crystal changed the coherence length, then the experimenters would not have bothered to measure the coherence length after the neutrons have gone through it. It would be like trying to measure the fridge temperture of a glass of water - after you have taken the glass of water out of the fridge and boiled it.

Good, you seem to finally be getting what I'm saying; this is the first sign that you do.

They know that the coherence length is a property of the interference in the NI, and it was changed in the NI by something that the neutrons had not reached yet.

Not necessarily.

What I think they were doing with this experiment was they were trying to dispute a certain interpretation of quantum mechanics - namely, that of wave packets as "being" the actual particle. The analyzer crystal basically changes the packet itself; if the particle "was" the packet, that would be changing the particle. The point of the experiment was to deliberately "measure the fridge temperature" after "boiling it", in order to show why the interpretation fails.

But this is a very tentative interpretation of the reasons they are giving for the experiment, given that I am unable to read the entire paper.

I think you find it hard to acknowledge quantum weirdness.

You would be wrong, then. There is plenty of quantum weirdness; I acknowledge it freely. I don't acknowledge that this is an example of it.

You also denied that qm claims entanglement involves instantaneous communication between particles - but that is exactly what qm claims.

Depending on your definition of "communication", no, it doesn't. As I have shown, there are local interpretations of quantum mechanics, which under most definitions of "communication" do not require instantaneous communication.

I think secretly you know underneath that qm makes claims that simply don't make sense, and you are trying to avoid that.

Then you would again be wrong. You aren't very good as a mind reader; please stop trying.

It is great to celebrate the predictive successes of qm. The only way we will improve qm is to face the reality the explanations have bits that are just totally weird. This is one of them - the analzyer crystal is affecting the NI apparently backwards in time.

Again you assert your conclusion, and again I request that you stop. Unless you can find an expert on quantum physics who says that this experiment is about reaching backwards in time and into the NI, please stop asserting that that's what quantum mechanics says.

=Uncool-

Edited June 19, 2013 by uncool

studiot · June 19, 2013

God morning.

A ray is a one dimensional entity.

How do you square this with your statement that TEW waves are three dimensional?

If you wish to have TEW waves comprised of vibrating one dimensional rays (shades of string theory?) that is brings its own implications.

Unidimensional waves can only be longitudinal since they have no transverse dimensions to vibrate in.

This might, however, form the basis of an explanation as to how they can avoid interference in general.

The question arises how far apart your points B1 and B2 need to be to be distinguishable?

Finally you have not understood my question about the ray approaching A.

You have stated that the ray from A to B extends 'backwards' indefinitely from A. By backwards I mean away from B along the line BA produced.

You have also stated that rays carying the A marker leave A in all directions.

The ray leaving A along the line BA produced is exactly the same as the incoming ray, except for sign. ie it is going the opposite way along the same path.

Further it is additional to any of the myriad rays passing through A in the normal manner you have already described.

Why do they not destructively interfere?

Eugene Morrow · June 19, 2013

Studiot,

You have an interesting point of view. You wrote:

A ray is a one dimensional entity.

How do you square this with your statement that TEW waves are three dimensional?

I think Dr. Little would still say that the waves are three dimensional. He has hinted that his work on the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) and General Relativity requires that an elementary wave curves under the influence of gravity. So even though an elementary waves is very thin, it still travels in three dimensions.

Dr. Little has said that an elementary wave is a flux that propagates in a vacuum (there is no medium). He has not attempted to give dimensions (e.g. thickness) - this is a subject for more research. I don't think he would agree that an elementary wave is one dimensionsal. It would be like saying a photon is one dimensional: it might be very small but we cannot say it has zero width. The same with elementary waves - they are definitely very thin, but it's going too far to say they are one dimensional.

You wrote:

If you wish to have TEW waves comprised of vibrating one dimensional rays (shades of string theory?) that is brings its own implications.

Unidimensional waves can only be longitudinal since they have no transverse dimensions to vibrate in.

This might, however, form the basis of an explanation as to how they can avoid interference in general.

The question arises how far apart your points B1 and B2 need to be to be distinguishable?

I am sure Dr. Little would not agree with phrases like "no transverse dimensions to vibrate in". Elementary waves are some sort of flux, that's all we know about them.

How far apart to B1 and B2 need to be? We don't know yet, but any two masses that are separate are far enough apart to have a different elementary wave.

Why do elementary waves avoid interfering most of the time? Dr. Little bases it on behavior - they only interfere when they have the same marker. He does not know why, mainly because he doesn't know what the markers are.

You wrote:

Finally you have not understood my question about the ray approaching A.

You have stated that the ray from A to B extends 'backwards' indefinitely from A. By backwards I mean away from B along the line BA produced.

You have also stated that rays carying the A marker leave A in all directions.

The ray leaving A along the line BA produced is exactly the same as the incoming ray, except for sign. ie it is going the opposite way along the same path.

Yes. Rays are leaving A in all directions, including the BA direction. So there are rays going outwards from A in all directons and all have the marker from A. All of those rays have different directions, but are otherwise identical.

You then asked:

Further it is additional to any of the myriad rays passing through A in the normal manner you have already described.

Why do they not destructively interfere?

The rays leaving A are all going in different directions, so they don't meet each other. They will meet each other when at least one of the markers changes direction, such as at the slits as I described.

As for rays coming into A from all directions, they normally have different markers, so they will not interfere. If you set up a double slit arrangement near A, then yes there will be waves coming into A that are interfering. If A is not a source like a light bulb, then A will do nothing in response to the interfering elementary waves. Only sources of particles care about interference.

Your questions surprise me and are really fascinating to bring such a different point of view.

Uncool,

Granted - I'm no good at mind reading !

You did say something that is potentially very controversial:

Depending on your definition of "communication", no, it doesn't. As I have shown, there are local interpretations of quantum mechanics, which under most definitions of "communication" do not require instantaneous communication.

What are these "local interpretations of quantum mechanics"? Do you have any references? The quantum mechanics (qm) I read is explicitly non-local, and qm even claims that a non-local description of the quantum world is not possible.

Remember the quote from David Bohm:

If the price of avoiding non-locality is to make an intuitive explanation impossible, one has to ask whether the cost is too great.

David Bohm et al. Physc. Rep. 144, 321 (1987)

I would be very interested to see publications claiming a local and deterministic version of qm.

It looks like we will not make any further progress on the neutron interference experiment Kaiser et al 1992. I think we should turn our attention to the entanglement experiment I mentioned before. The actual experiment is this one:

S. P. Walborn, M. O. Terra Cunha, S. Padua, C. H. Monken, "Double-slit quantum eraser", Physical Review A, Volume 65, 033818, Feb 2002.

You can download it for free:

Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment
The link is en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment
Under “External links”, look for “The original paper on which this article is based.”

The experiment creates two “entangled” photons, and investigates how one entangled photon appears to affect the other photon backwards in time.

The experiment starts with a basic setup to create two entangled photons. See the diagram below.

An Argon laser at A creates a photon called Photon A of wavelength 351.1 nm, which is in the ultraviolet part of the spectrum of light. Photon A bounces off a mirror at B to pass through a lens at C which changes the photon in a way to assist results in this experiment. Photon A bounces off a mirror at D to reach a crystal at E.

Located at E is a beta Barium Borate (BBO) crystal. This crystal splits Photon A into two photons: Photon P and Photon S, each with a wavelength 702.2 nm (which is twice the incoming photon wavelength). This new wavelength is in the red part of the spectrum of visible light.

Photons P and S have orthogonal polarizations which add up to the polarization of Photon A.
For qm, Photons P and S are “entangled” which means they are linked: a change to one will change the other instantaneously (while the entanglement lasts).

The experimenters then put Photon S through a double slit experiment, and then make changes to Photon P to show it affects the interference of Photon S. The really critical part is that they make the changes to Photon P further way, so that the changes happen after Photon S has finished the double slit apparatus and already been detected. Photon S is still affected, so for qm there absolutely has to be communication between the photons and backwards in time.

There is no getting around the qm claims here. TEW can explain the same experiment in a local and deterministic way, with everything happening in normal time. See an explanation that I wrote here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/99753535

I will be most interested to see if you can explain what qm says in this experiment.

Eugene Morrow

studiot · June 19, 2013

Your questions surprise me and are really fascinating to bring such a different point of view.

Why is it suprising that I wish to take your axioms, or propositions and test them logically against each other?

And why do you not answer a direct question whenever it is inconvenient?

If the ray or wave or call it what you will has more than one single dimension then some part of it must, by definition, be off the direct line between A and B.

If all parts of the ray or wave carry the marker from A then there must be parts that do not strike B.

What marker do they carry an infinitesimal time after the ray has struck B?

I am not trying to say your theory contracticts any conventional theory.

But I am trying to get you to present it in a manner that does not contradict itself.

A while back in this thread I said I cannot accept something just because you say so.

I can accept even less appeal to someone not involved in this thread ie Dr Little.

I don't care what he pronounces from on high, since I thought we were rational beings discussing an interesting proposition that you have presented to us.

For all that I thank him for the original interesting idea.

Surely we can jointly analyse it in the light of cold logic?

Edit

I don't mind whether TEW waves have one dimension, 3 dimensions or some private dimensions like strings.

Whichever you choose, all I ask is that other propositions are logically consistent with that choice.

Incidentally why are you against them being longitudinal waves?

Edited June 20, 2013 by studiot

uncool · June 20, 2013

Uncool,

Granted - I'm no good at mind reading !

You did say something that is potentially very controversial:

What are these "local interpretations of quantum mechanics"? Do you have any references?

I've already shown several to you. Remember superdeterminism? That's one local interpretation. There are also interpretations that are local, but deny determinism, such as the many-worlds interpretation. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

The quantum mechanics (qm) I read is explicitly non-local, and qm even claims that a non-local description of the quantum world is not possible.

No, it doesn't, and to claim so would be to severely misunderstand Bell's theorem.

Bell's theorem says that it's impossible to construct a local, deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics under certain assumptions, including that of counterfactual definiteness. Any of those three can be assumed to be false,

Remember the quote from David Bohm:

Note that it explicitly doesn't say that there isn't such an interpretation - just that such an interpretation would be very difficult to understand.

I would be very interested to see publications claiming a local and deterministic version of qm.

Superdeterminism. If you deny counterfactual definiteness, then it is possible to get a local, deterministic interpretation of qm.

It looks like we will not make any further progress on the neutron interference experiment Kaiser et al 1992. I think we should turn our attention to the entanglement experiment I mentioned before. The actual experiment is this one:

S. P. Walborn, M. O. Terra Cunha, S. Padua, C. H. Monken, "Double-slit quantum eraser", Physical Review A, Volume 65, 033818, Feb 2002.

You can download it for free:

Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment
The link is en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment

Under “External links”, look for “The original paper on which this article is based.”

The experiment creates two “entangled” photons, and investigates how one entangled photon appears to affect the other photon backwards in time.

The experiment starts with a basic setup to create two entangled photons. See the diagram below.

Intro_01.gif

An Argon laser at A creates a photon called Photon A of wavelength 351.1 nm, which is in the ultraviolet part of the spectrum of light. Photon A bounces off a mirror at B to pass through a lens at C which changes the photon in a way to assist results in this experiment. Photon A bounces off a mirror at D to reach a crystal at E.

Located at E is a beta Barium Borate (BBO) crystal. This crystal splits Photon A into two photons: Photon P and Photon S, each with a wavelength 702.2 nm (which is twice the incoming photon wavelength). This new wavelength is in the red part of the spectrum of visible light.

Photons P and S have orthogonal polarizations which add up to the polarization of Photon A.

For qm, Photons P and S are “entangled” which means they are linked: a change to one will change the other instantaneously (while the entanglement lasts).

The experimenters then put Photon S through a double slit experiment, and then make changes to Photon P to show it affects the interference of Photon S. The really critical part is that they make the changes to Photon P further way, so that the changes happen after Photon S has finished the double slit apparatus and already been detected. Photon S is still affected, so for qm there absolutely has to be communication between the photons and backwards in time.

There is no getting around the qm claims here. TEW can explain the same experiment in a local and deterministic way, with everything happening in normal time. See an explanation that I wrote here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/99753535

I will be most interested to see if you can explain what qm says in this experiment.

Eugene Morrow

I'm looking into it.

=Uncool-

Eugene Morrow · June 20, 2013

Studiot,

Am I still not directly answering your questions? I will keep trying.

You wrote:

Why is it suprising that I wish to take your axioms, or propositions and test them logically against each other?

And why do you not answer a direct question whenever it is inconvenient?

If the ray or wave or call it what you will has more than one single dimension then some part of it must, by definition, be off the direct
line between A and B.

I need to give more detail in my answers. I had explained that Dr. Little is working on how the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) works wtih general relativity. That will require that an elementary wave will curve under the influence of gravity. That means that between A and B, it will not be a straight line if there is a gravitational field close by. I am certain Dr. Little would not agree that an elementary wave ray is only in one dimension. His work on general relativity is still going on, so this part of TEW is not yet complete.

You wrote:

If all parts of the ray or wave carry the marker from A then there must be parts that do not strike B.

What marker do they carry an infinitesimal time after the ray has struck B?

I think you're making the point about the dimensions of a ray, and the idea that parts of a single ray do not hit B. The understanding I have got from his book and article is that a single elementary waves ray is always smaller than the smallest mass, and must be at least as small as a photon, so even though the ray might curve (and hence be in 3 dimensions) the entire ray will either hit B or not hit B. So either the entire ray hits B and emerges the other side with a new marker, or misses B entirely and something else happens.

An infinitesimal time after the ray hits B, it now has the marker from B.

You wrote:

I am not trying to say your theory contracticts any conventional theory.

But I am trying to get you to present it in a manner that does not contradict itself.

A while back in this thread I said I cannot accept something just because you say so.

I can accept even less appeal to someone not involved in this thread ie Dr Little.

I don't care what he pronounces from on high, since I thought we were
rational beings discussing an interesting proposition that you have
presented to us.

For all that I thank him for the original interesting idea.

Surely we can jointly analyse it in the light of cold logic?

Well said - of course a theory must not contradict itself. One of my own criticism of quantum mechanics (qm) is that to me qm does contradict itself. That is because my idea of the universe is a local and deterministic one with nothing happening backwards in time, so a lot of qm is contradictory on that basis. Of course when people read TEW they will check if TEW contradicts itself.

I am not expecting anyone to believe something just be I or Dr. Little said so. I don't believe what qm says even though the predictions are so good.

I am only here to debate TEW and qm. The first step is for me to let everyone know what TEW claims, so the debate can then start. I prefer to quote Dr. Little because I want to avoid mis-representing his theory as much as possible. I just want to be fair on his ideas. However, I don't want to go too far and answer nothing, because then there is no debate. So I do the best compromise I can.

When you initially say nothing, I assume it is because you are thinking about the TEW position, not because you have accepted anything. I always assume participants like you have a healthy skepticism unless someone comes out and says they agree with TEW (which has never happened).

I am interested to see what parts of TEW people choose to question. For example, I have been very surprised by your questions about how many dimensiions a ray is in. There's nothing wrong with you checking TEW out - I find if fascinating to hear how someone else approaches TEW ideas.

Cold logic is most welcome. I wish there was more of it in the qm explanations of reality.

You wrote:

I don't mind whether TEW waves have one dimension, 3 dimensions or some private dimensions like strings.

Whichever you choose, all I ask is that other propositions are logically consistent with that choice.

Incidentally why are you against them being longitudinal waves?

I am reluctant to accept elementary waves as longitudinal waves because of interference patterns. To me, the interference in the double slit experiment seems inconsistent with a longitudinal wave. To my knowledge, Dr. Little has not ever used the term longitudinal in discussing elementary waves, and I assume that is intentional on his part.

Uncool,

You wrote:

I've already shown several to you. Remember superdeterminism? That's one local interpretation. There are also interpretations that are local, but deny determinism, such as the many-worlds interpretation.

The link you provided has the summary of interpretations of qm, but there was no mention of super-determinism. To me, super-determinism is just a concept, not an actual explanation. As others have said, if super-determinism is true, then it's not worth performing experiments because the outcomes are already determined by the universe, and need not make any sense. So super-determinism is just giving up on physics making sense, which I won't do.

If you look at the link for entanglement on that page, it says:

In quantum entanglement, part of the transfer happens instantaneously. Repeated experiments have verified that this works even when the measurements are performed more quickly than light could travel between the sites of measurement: there is no slower-than-light influence that can pass between the entangled particles. Recent experiments have shown that this transfer occurs at least 10,000 times faster than the speed of light, which does not remove the possibility of it being an instantaneous phenomenon, but only sets a lower limit.

This is what qm claims - entanglement involves communication between the particles faster than light. You are very rare in claiming that this is not necessary.

I talked about qm being non-local (just like the entanglement above) and you wrote:

No, it doesn't, and to claim so would be to severely misunderstand Bell's theorem.

Bell's theorem says that it's impossible to construct a local, deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics under certain
assumptions, including that of counterfactual definiteness. Any of those three can be assumed to be false,

I think that sums up the claims of qm - we need to give up one of the three: locality, determinism or counter factual definiteness. To me that is too much to have to give up one of the three. Philosophically, I judge that all three are valid if a theory is working. In TEW I can have all three, so it wins me. When qm says one of the three must be false, I conclude qm is false purely on the logtical choices it presents.

You wrote:

Superdeterminism. If you deny counterfactual definiteness, then it is possible to get a local, deterministic interpretation of qm.

I have learned from you another reason I prefer TEW - because I want to keep counterfactual definiteness.

Thanks for looking into the Quantum Eraser experiment. There is no rush - I am happy to give you as much time as you want to consider it. I like it that finally we can both see the paper, and both can see the TEW explanation.

Eugene Morrow

**Klaynos** · June 20, 2013

You seem to have a common misconception about entangled particles.

If you take an entangled pair and measure the entangled state of one of them the entanglement is broken. Changing that or the other particle will not affect the other particle. You cannot induce a change at a distance it is about states in superpositions.

uncool · June 20, 2013

Uncool,

You wrote:

The link you provided has the summary of interpretations of qm, but there was no mention of super-determinism.

Superdeterminism is a characteristic of several interpretations; I think that the many-worlds interpretation can be seen as superdeterministic in some sense; in any case, the many-worlds interpretation is local and deterministic as well. I did say that the many-worlds interpretation denied determinism, which was wrong.

To me, super-determinism is just a concept, not an actual explanation. As others have said, if super-determinism is true, then it's not worth performing experiments because the outcomes are already determined by the universe, and need not make any sense. So super-determinism is just giving up on physics making sense, which I won't do.

The same is true under any kind of determinism. So TEW has the same failure - the outcomes are already determined by the universe, and need not make any sense.

If you look at the link for entanglement on that page, it says:

This is what qm claims - entanglement involves communication between the particles faster than light. You are very rare in claiming that this is not necessary.

Again, depends on your definition of communication.

I talked about qm being non-local (just like the entanglement above) and you wrote:

I think that sums up the claims of qm - we need to give up one of the three: locality, determinism or counter factual definiteness. To me that is too much to have to give up one of the three. Philosophically, I judge that all three are valid if a theory is working. In TEW I can have all three, so it wins me. When qm says one of the three must be false, I conclude qm is false purely on the logtical choices it presents.

What would happen if those experiments that you claim differentiate TEW and quantum mechanics agreed with the predictions of quantum mechanics and disagreed with those for TEW? Would you continue to support TEW against the experiments because of your philosophy? Or would you agree that your philosophy was wrong and drop TEW for quantum mechanics?

I again have to ask you to show your interpretation of Bell's experiment. What happens with that setup? How is TEW not a local hidden variable theory?

You wrote:

I have learned from you another reason I prefer TEW - because I want to keep counterfactual definiteness.

It wouldn't be "another reason"; it would be fleshing out your original reason. Earlier, you thought you only wanted to keep locality and determinism; quantum mechanics doesn't violate the combination of the two, but does violate those plus counterfactual definiteness, so your reason is better stated as wanting to keep the combination. In other words, you still only have the one reason, it's just one that now actually excludes quantum mechanics.

Thanks for looking into the Quantum Eraser experiment. There is no rush - I am happy to give you as much time as you want to consider it. I like it that finally we can both see the paper, and both can see the TEW explanation.

Eugene Morrow

I am mainly looking into the following sentence: "Because pairs of photons are entangled, giving one a diagonal polarization (rotating its plane of vibration 45 degrees) will cause a complementary polarization of its entangled pair member. " This seems very sketchy to me; it is where "instantaneous communication" seems to appear. My very, very rough guess is that when it says "will cause a complementary polarization of its entangled pair member", it means that the useful basis to look at the entangled pair member in is changed. I'll explain more later after I look into it further.

=Uncool-

studiot · June 21, 2013

Am I still not directly answering your questions? I will keep trying.

I need to give more detail in my answers. I had explained that Dr. Little is working on how the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) works wtih general relativity. That will require that an elementary wave will curve under the influence of gravity. That means that between A and B, it will not be a straight line if there is a gravitational field close by. I am certain Dr. Little would not agree that an elementary wave ray is only in one dimension. His work on general relativity is still going on, so this part of TEW is not yet complete.

No you did not directly answer the question, this ‘answer’ avoids the issue.

I’m sure you know that a ‘direct line’ refers to a geodesic in general relativity, not a straight one in the cartesian sense.

So what? It is still the direct line from A to B.

However the above implies that you accept general relativity. Do you also accept special relativity?

Since we are accepting relativity into our model does relativity or TEW have primacy in any conflict of analysis?

You found it necessary to introduce ‘rays’ when pushed about dimensions. Whether they are straight or slightly bent by general relativity is moot.

However the gravitational warping of space in relativity theory is insufficient to create closed loop orbits in an atom that you claimed existed for TEWs to guide electrons around the nucleus. These are most definitely not ‘rays’.

You still have not offered any answer or explanation to my question about these.

Talking of atoms and mass, let us dissect the following response

I think you're making the point about the dimensions of a ray, and the idea that parts of a single ray do not hit B. The understanding I have got from his book and article is that a single elementary waves ray is always smaller than the smallest mass, and must be at least as small as a photon, so even though the ray might curve (and hence be in 3 dimensions) the entire ray will either hit B or not hit B. So either the entire ray hits B and emerges the other side with a new marker, or misses B entirely and something else happens.

Firstly why must the ray either hit or miss B entirely?

Why cannot there be partial coverage/ overlap?

I can play a hosepipe on a wall corner so some of the stream hits the face squarely on and some passes along the face of the sidewall meeting at the corner. The dimensions of the stream are much less than that of the wall.

Secondly since you have eschewed quantum mechanics in your propositions, you are not entitled to use any of the results from it. If you wish to claim there is a ‘smallest mass’ then you must introduce some other theory to account for it.

In an earlier post I raised the issue of granularity. You replied that it was a good point but have not taken it further.

Waves and wave theory are the theories of continuum mechanics, as is relativity.

Quantum mechanics is a theory of granularity.

I have asked you repeatedly not to keep saying, words to the effect ‘because Dr Little says’

It is only legitimate in this forum and thread to state what you think in comment of his words, not offer them as gospel, and that is what I am asking.

Not to play some sort of Simon Says child’s game.

Yet in your last post you divided up my post into four chunks and replied in effect

“This is the policy statement from Little HQ" to each.

I cannot really see the advantage of designating a wave at all. All it provides is a transmission medium for the ‘markers’, which do all the real work.

Every time I want to look at properties inherent in or peculiar to waves you say I can’t do that particular aspect. Waves need an external agent to form rays or guided or focused forms, otherwise they spread into the available space (of whatever dimension). The difficulty with markers is the necessity of instantaneous communication across any distance

This, in my view, presents a great difficulty for your theory. The transmission medium aspect could just as easily be accomplished by a stream or flux of ‘EM = elementary particles’, which has the advantage of not requiring external focusing agents.

Or alternatively why not do away with the wave altogether and just have ‘markers’ flying about?

Edited June 21, 2013 by studiot

Eugene Morrow · June 21, 2013

Kalynos,

You wrote this about entanglement:

If you take an entangled pair and measure the entangled state of one of them the entanglement is broken. Changing that or the other particle will not affect the other particle. You cannot induce a change at a distance it is about states in superpositions.

The whole idea of entanglement in quantum mechanics (qm) is that changing entangled particle affects the other - that's why they call it entanglement. Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance" and that remains a good description of the qm explanation.

Uncool is reading an experiment where the experimenters are using this very fact - changing one particle affects the other. The experiment is this one:

S. P. Walborn, M. O. Terra Cunha, S. Padua, C. H. Monken, "Double-slit quantum eraser", Physical Review A, Volume 65, 033818, Feb 2002.

You can download it for free:

[*]Go to http://en.wikipedia....aser_experiment

The link is en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experimentzZ

I'm very aware of what entanglement is and the eraser experiment, you giving a very common and often related misconception. It is still wrong.

studiot · June 22, 2013

OK I have sketched my understanding of what you have told me so far and confirmed.

Elementary wave AB has no beginning and no end.

It passes through A and then through B and then continues on.

Approaching A we have no information to allocate any marker so assume none.

At impact with A the wave acquires an A marker.

This remains until the instant of impact with the forward surface of B. I have labelled this SS.

At this instant the B marker is substituted in the entire wave in section SS.

I have drawn the wave with finite physical size since you have said this is so.

The second two sketches show alternative impacts on B at section SS.

The first section shows full impact so two points, C and D in the impact footprint impact at the same time (since I have drawn a plane surface perpendicular to the wave for convenience).

The second shows the wave striking the surface only partially, with C impacting but D remaining in that section of the wave that hits nothing.

But you have repeatedly stated two things.

At the instant of C's impact the A marker is replaced by the B marker

C and D are a finite distance apart

That leads to the conclusion of instantaneous communication between C and D.

Edited June 22, 2013 by studiot

**imatfaal** · June 23, 2013

Kalynos,

You wrote this about entanglement:

The whole idea of entanglement in quantum mechanics (qm) is that changing entangled particle affects the other - that's why they call it entanglement. Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance" and that remains a good description of the qm explanation.

That's not even wrong. Klaynos is quite correct

Entanglement is about a shared non-classical state of superposition which extends over both particles even though those particles are geographically remote. Measurement (or interaction of any kind) will cause one of the particles to be seen to be in one of two quantum states - the other particle will always be then seen to be in the other of those two quantum states. Changing one particle does not flip the other!

Uncool is reading an experiment where the experimenters are using this very fact - changing one particle affects the other. The experiment is this one:

S. P. Walborn, M. O. Terra Cunha, S. Padua, C. H. Monken, "Double-slit quantum eraser", Physical Review A, Volume 65, 033818, Feb 2002.

...

No - the Quantum Eraser experiment does not demonstrate anything of the sort. It uses the established phenomenon of entanglement to show that "which path" information through a youngs slit type experiment with individual discrete photons will destroy any interference - but the really clever bit is that by using idler photon to show the path taken by the signal (see spontaneous parametric down conversion for how the the photons are entangled) you can measure/delete the "which path" information without screwing around with the signal - and if you delete this info the interference can be identified again.

What is really mindblowing is that if you delay the idler photon by so much that you can chose to measure it after it must have already interfered with itself - you can still destroy/recreate the interference by measuring/deleting the idler photon which does seem to be counter-causality. There is a lot more to it that that - and some funky maths - but it does not use quantum entanglement to flip a particles state at a distance, because nothing does that.

Eugene Morrow · June 24, 2013

Stutiot,

Thank you for going to the trouble to draw a diagram to show that point C on the wave hits B, but point D does not. You are making a point about what happens when part of an elementary wave ray hits a mass and part of it does not. It's a fair enough question.

None of the material on the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) talks about this situation. Dr. Little has definitely not discussed hypothetical points C and D that are side-by-side like that in the same elementary wave. I can only guess at what Dr. Little might say. My guess is that he would say it's a topic for future research. There are issues like this one, and the issue of what the markers are, where we don't know, and only future experiments and more theorising will provide answers. This is the best I can do.

You wrote:

But you have repeatedly stated two thing.

At the instant of C's impact the A marker is replaced by the B marker

C and D are a finite distance apart

That leads to the conclusion of instantaneous communication between C and D.

I do not agree with the conclusion, because TEW does not make any statements about two such points C and D in the same elementary wave.

imatfaal,

You wrote:

Measurement (or interaction of any kind) will cause one of the particles to be seen to be in one of two quantum states - the other particle will always be then seen to be in the other of those two quantum states. Changing one particle does not flip the other!

You are denying any communication between the particles. Look closely at the experiment - if Photon P does NOT pass through a polarizer, there is NO interference seen of Photon S, but if Photon P DOES pass through a polarizer there IS interference for Photon S. Why is Photon S affected by what happens to Photon P? Logically, there must have been communication of some sort between the two photons.

You are denying the result of the quanum eraser experiment. The whole name of the experiment is about Photon P "erasing" the "which path" information about Photon S. That is an effect. How could Photon P do it? There must be some communication between the Photon P side of the experiment and the Photon S side of the experiment.

To me, if you don't know why one part of the experiment (Photon P) affects the other part of the experiment (Photon S) then you don't know what is going on in the experiment. I conclude quantum mechanics (qm) does not know what is going on. In qm, they talk about "entanglement" which implies that one partner particle affects the other, but qm does not say how it happens. What is the mechanism for entanglement? None is ever given in qm.

What I like about TEW is that it gives a clear mechanism - elementary waves coming from the detectors. There is a clear reason why we get the results, even when Photon P hits the polarizer after Photon S no longer exists. Everything happens in normal time. I much prefer a theory that can give me a reason why Photon P affects Photon S.

Eugene Morrow

studiot · June 25, 2013

Thank you for going to the trouble to draw a diagram to show that point C on the wave hits B, but point D does not. You are making a point about what happens when part of an elementary wave ray hits a mass and part of it does not. It's a fair enough question.

None of the material on the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) talks about this situation. Dr. Little has definitely not discussed hypothetical points C and D that are side-by-side like that in the same elementary wave. I can only guess at what Dr. Little might say. My guess is that he would say it's a topic for future research. There are issues like this one, and the issue of what the markers are, where we don't know, and only future experiments and more theorising will provide answers. This is the best I can do.

I'm afraid that to stand up your theory must answer this question.

And this was the easy one, I have not yet bowled a googlie and I come from the same county as Botham.

I do not agree with the conclusion, because TEW does not make any statements about two such points C and D in the same elementary wave.

Again ducking the issue.

I asked you back in post #149

Since the wave is 3D is must also pass through points C, D etc. In fact I assume the whole wave must carry the marker away from A?

I have not received a satisfactory answer but that was perhaps because I phrased it badly.

By the whole wave I meant the whole portion of the wave between sections of its journey where the markers change.

So I mean for instance Does the whole of the space occupied by a single 'ray' of your wave between A and B carried the same marker?

I consider the answer to this vital to the discussion.

Eugene Morrow · June 25, 2013

Studiot,

I understand about cricket and googlies - I come from the same nation as Shane Warne (and we're about to lose the Ashes again by an even wider margin). I'm definitely in trouble if I get some Ian Botham deliveries, so I consider myself warned (!)

You are asking about the granularity in the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) - how wide is an elementary wave? Your example is about a ray going from A to B and part of it hitting B and part of it missing.

You wrote:

I have not received a satisfactory answer but that was perhaps because I phrased it badly.

By the whole wave I meant the whole portion of the wave between sections of its journey where the markers change.

So I mean for instance Does the whole of the space occupied by a single 'ray' of your wave between A and B carried the same marker?

My only answer is that the rays going from A to B all carry the marker from A - the same marker. How many rays there are travelling between A and B appears not explicity defined in TEW but since each photon follows a single elementary wave, then between two mases there should be a lot of rays (since we can assume any mass is larger than a photon).

Whether a single ray can partly hit B and partly miss B is an open question as far as I read the TEW material.

I really cannot answer you question any further. You could ask a question to Lewis Little himself if you like by going to the website http://elwave.org/ and selecting Resources, and then posting a comnment which contains your question. I imagine either Lewis Little or another physicists Jeff Boyd will answer your question. I suggest this so that you can get the answer directly from them.

I do not consider the question worthwhile and will not ask it, because any question at such a minute scale will always have some sort of doubt: we just can't see it directly. To me it's like asking what color an electron is - it's seems a rather unimportant question.

You also wrote:

I'm afraid that to stand up your theory must answer this question.

Just a minute - I pointed out to others on this thread that qm claims entanglement but do not say exactly how it works. Why throw out TEW just because there is one question not answered yet? That's a double standard. If qm cannot explain how entanglement works, why don't you throw out qm as well?

Eugene Morrow

studiot · June 26, 2013

Here's a real somerset welcome. It's been a fine day in Taunton.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/23073320

Oh, and I haven't thrown anything out. I keep saying I want to (help you) create a description of elementary waves, using the properties you supply.

Creating that description will reveal (is revealing) any self inconsistencies.

I have several more questions.

I don't see the point of the Young's slits. The mechanism of Interference/diffraction generation that happens on other waves is not available to elementary waves because you state that they pass through matter.

Edited June 26, 2013 by studiot

Eugene Morrow · June 26, 2013

This is a day later - some extra thoughts.

Studiot,

I realise I have not made one point clear enough.

When I say "mass" I am meaning electrons, protons and neutrons. These definitely have a unique marker in the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW). So A and B will be one of these.

When you discuss an elementary wave ray partly hitting and partly missing a mass, I am not very interested because the mass is so small. It will be a very impressive experiment if we can demonstrate this for sure, and investigate the results. Your situation will remain unanswered for a long time, I think.

Imatfaal, Uncool,

I have pointed out that quantum mechanics (qm) does not have an explanation for entanglement in the Quantum Eraser experiment. I can give a new perspective on why qm has a problem here.

The foundation of qm is "wave-particle duality". This is the idea that a particle is also a wave - either a "wave packet" or a "wave particle". It is how qm explains the wave behavior of matter, such as the double slit experiment.

As soon as you say wave-particle duality, you are making an assumption: that the wave is traveling in the same direction as the particle. Most qm supporters would say this is self-evident. One catch: we don't ever directly see or directly detect a wave - we only detect particles. The particles might be in a wave-like pattern, but we only ever detect individual particles at our detectors. So wave direction is an assumption.

In entanglement in the quantum eraser experiment, a photon reaches the BBO crystal and splits into two photons that qm claims are entangled. So a single wave-particle becomes two wave-particles: Photon P going to detector P and Photon S going to detector S. Photon P is a wave and a particle, and so is Photon S. They always have polarizations that are orthogonal, and the sum of the wavelengths totals the wavelength of the photon coming into the BBO crystal.

In qm they talk about a "super-position of states", which means a wave-particle can have many possible states, such as polarizations. If we put a polarizer in the path of Photon P, then if we detect Photon P the other side then we know the polarization. Immediately, we know that Photon S has the orthogonal polarization. This works for different polarizer settings for Photon P.

How does Photon S know the polarizer setting in front of Photon P? There must be some communication going on between the polarizer setting for Photon P across to Photon S. In qm, there is no reason given for this communication - they just say "entanglement" and that's it.

I want to put a new perspective on why qm has a problem explaining how this happens. Focus on the wave direction in qm - the wave travels along with the particle. That means when Photon P and Photon S leave the BBO crystal, they are no longer connected. A wave and a particle head towards detector P and a separate wave and particle head towards detector S.

Let's do something really bizarre - let's consider what happens if the wave is traveling in the opposite direction. I know you will say "Huh?" and shake your head. Just take a deep breath and see what happens.

The idea in TEW is that a wave goes from A to B first and if B provides a particle then the particle goes backwards from B to A. I've been discussing this with Studiot. That's the essential heart of TEW: a particle is following a wave backwards. Let's apply that to this sitaution.

For TEW, there are elementary waves leaving everything in all directions at all times. The ones we are interested in are the elementary waves that will get Photon P and Photon S returning along them. These elementary waves start from detector P and detector S and head towards the BBO crystal.

From the TEW point of view, the BBO crystal takes two elementary waves that have orthogonal polarizations, and then combines them into one elementary wave. This combined wave reaches the laser. You can see the elementary waves in the diagram below.

The laser sends back a photon in response to the incoming combined elementary wave. At the BBO crystal, the one photon splits into two - the reverse of of the elementary waves that came into the BBO crystal. So now we have Photon P going to detector P and Photon S going to detector S.

What is important is that Photon P already knows what polarization it is going to have as soon as it is created. In TEW, the polarization of a photon is an attribute of the elementary wave that it is following. The same for Photon S. Photon P and Photon S have orthogonal polarizations, because the BBO decided to combine to elementary waves with orthogonal polarizations.

In the TEW picture, if we place a polarizer in front of Photon P then this changes the elementary wave that travels to the BBO crystal. The BBO crystal selects an appropriate partner elementary wave and it all happens. Photon P and Photon S have orthogonal polarizations at all times thanks to the BBO crystal.

Can you see now how entanglement is a local and deterministic process in TEW - the elementary waves are the connection between Photon P and Photon S. The secret to TEW is that the quantum wave goes in the opposite direction.

In qm, the wave direction causes all sorts of problems explaining this. There must be communication between Photon P and Photon S, called "entanglement", but there is no mechanism why it happens. There is "super-position of states" until we measure things. There is "non-locality" which is a more general way of describing entanglement. There are also the multiple "interpretations" of qm which allow for multiple universes, and even particles traveling backwards in time. This shows the lengths that qm has to go to in order to explain experiments like this.

All of these qm explanations are not necessary in TEW. The wave direction makes TEW much simpler than qm. The wave diretion of TEW may see really strange at first, but after a while it is qm that looks strange in comparison.

Eugene Morrow

Studiot,

I've just seen your reply.

Nice to have a Somerset welcome - I'm still pessimistic for the results at the end of the tour.

Good point about elementary waves going through masses. To explain the Youngs double slit experiment, I will have to talk about the markers, and how they move around. You can see the idea in the diagram I posted above - the markers start from the detectors and combine in some way at the BBO, and then reach the laser. That is all showing what markers are doing.

I will discuss that more in my next post.

Eugene Morrow

studiot · June 26, 2013

Good point about elementary waves going through masses. To explain the Youngs double slit experiment, I will have to talk about the markers, and how they move around. You can see the idea in the diagram I posted above - the markers start from the detectors and combine in some way at the BBO, and then reach the laser. That is all showing what markers are doing.

You have done this before, but markers don't explain interference of waves, and your diagram (I forget which post) showed elementary waves in a typical classic pattern with a spherical wave source in the slits. Note not a ray as you have since been describing them. This classic pattern can only arise if the walls between the slits block the incoming waves. It cannot arise if the waves can pass through the walls.

Edited June 26, 2013 by studiot

Eugene Morrow · June 27, 2013

Studiot,

It is very impressive how carefully you are checking what I am saying about the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW). You wrote:

You have done this before, but markers don't explain interference of waves, and your diagram (I forget which post) showed elementary waves in a typical classic pattern with a spherical wave source in the slits. Note not a ray as you have since been describing them. This classic pattern can only arise if the walls between the slits block the incoming waves. It cannot arise if the waves can pass through the walls.

It is exactly right that sometimes I talk about individual rays of elementary waves, and these can pass through masses. It is also exactly right that I have shown waves appearing to act like spherical waves. You are questioning how interference happens, and that is a totally sensible question.

The answer to all this is that the markers are "carried" by the underlying elementary waves, and the markers behave a bit differently to the wave itself. I will clear this up before giving my description of the Youngs double slit experiment.

Yes, an elementary wave itself can go through a mass and gets a new marker. So the old marker is replaced by a new marker. For example, an elementary wave can go through the walls of the slit material and get a new marker and reach the source directly. They will stimulate a particle coming back, which crashes into the walls of the slit material. We're not very interested in those particles, because they don't reach the detector.

I also covered how elementary waves can have collisions near an atomic nucleus, where the marker on one wave jumps across to a different wave. Let's look at that again. There is an elementary wave ray coming from point D1 on the detector. It reaches the slit area where it passes close to some masses in the walls of the slit:

So we have an elementary wave going from D1 to Z. It is carryinig the marker from D1. There is an elementary wave for a photon coming out of point W1 in one of the slit walls and it's going towards X1. These two elementary waves decide to have a collision.

The result is that marker D1 is now traveling towards the Source S from the collision point. Whatever marker was traveling along that path has been replaced by marker D1. The marker has started to spread out - just like a spherical wave you mentioned before.

The TEW book doesn't explicitly say what marker travels between the collision point and Z - I think it's still D1. I think the marker W1 is still going to X1, but that marker W1 is definitely also reflecting back from the collision to W1. These are of less interest, because we only care about what arrives back at the detector.

It is markers that form interference patterns. So when two markers that are the same meet each other then the markers form the interference pattern. The underlying elementary wave carriers are still there. Interference happens with the markers arriving at the source, and this can stimulate a particle coming back when there is constructive interference.

The markers are important because when a particle is following an elementary wave, the particle behaves like the markers, and so can be strictly said to be following the markers back. So the particle coming from the source changes direction just like marker D1 did in the diagram above. Since the particle then gets detected at point D1, it is part of the double slit results. Markers are what really count in elementary waves.

So often when we TEW (and I ) talk about elementary waves having collisions and changing direction, we are really meaning what the markers are doing.

It is very impressive that you are picking up on the subtleties of elementary waves.

Eugene Morrow

studiot · June 27, 2013

The markers are important because when a particle is following an elementary wave, the particle behaves like the markers, and so can be strictly said to be following the markers back. So the particle coming from the source changes direction just like marker D1 did in the diagram above. Since the particle then gets detected at point D1, it is part of the double slit results. Markers are what really count in elementary waves.

So often when we TEW (and I ) talk about elementary waves having collisions and changing direction, we are really meaning what the markers are doing.

Gosh wasn't that what I said in post#160?

What did you reply to that at the time?

‘markers’, which do all the real work.

So to recap on the rules of the game so far.

When a travelling elementary wave encounters a particle it gains a marker, specific to that particle.

The TEW extends indefinitely in both directions and when it encounters another particle.

Other particles travel (are guided) along the same trajectory as the TEW.

So why does the marker not change to that of the other particles?

Eugene Morrow · June 29, 2013

Studiot,

Why not ditch waves and only talk about markers? Dr. Little will have to have the final answer on that one - there are potentially a lot of reasons. I will have a guess. If you read the book, there are lots of things that are properties of the markers, as we have seen. There are also other things that are properties of the elementary waves that carries the marker. So we need both.

Your summary is:

When a travelling elementary wave encounters a particle it gains a marker, specific to that particle.

The TEW extends indefinitely in both directions and when it encounters another particle.

Other particles travel (are guided) along the same trajectory as the TEW.

So why does the marker not change to that of the other particles?

I would have said when an elementary wave goes through a mass it gains a marker unique to that mass, and the mass can be a electron, photon or neutron, or even an entire nucleus. A particle follows that marker in the reverse direction. The marker may reach a collision point and jump across to a new elementary wave carrier.

Yes, elementary waves extend infinitey in both directions.

Let's look at an elementary wave coming out of mass A heading towards point B. Point B is a source of particles - let's say an electron gun in this case. An electron E1 comes out of B and is following the elementary wave marker back to mass A. So between A and the E1 we have marker A, which E1 is following.

What about the marker the other side - between E1 and B? In that part of the elementary wave the marker is now E1. So E1 is following the marker A from mass A and E1 is also providing it's own marker to the wave the passes through towards B.

I think we have enough now to talk about Young's Double Slit experiment. I will cover both the points of view: quantum mechanics (qm) and TEW. Your questions are good ones - I think you will see a lot more of what TEW claims in this experiment.

I will cover the Copenhagen interpretation of the double slit experiment which is the most popular qm interpretation. The idea starts with "wave-particle duality", whereby we think of a particle like a photon or electron as both a wave and a particle. We can call the photon or electron as a "wave-particle" or a "wave packet", and professional physicists talk about "matter waves" for electrons and other masses.

As I pointed out before, this assumes that the quantum wave goes in the same direction as the particle does - an assumption that TEW wants to highlight and challenge.

The critical part of the double slit experiment is one particle goes through the apparatus at a time, and the pattern on the detector or screen builds up slowly to show an interference pattern. When Einstein gave a convincing case that light was actually particles, and we found a single photon can do all this, Physics said "Huh? How can one particle at a time produce an interference pattern?".

In the Copenhagen interpretation of qm, the single wave-particle is spreading and so it goes through both slits. On the other side of the slits it interferes with itself, hence the interference pattern:

There are problems with this description. We only ever detect a particle, so somehow the particle switches between a wave and a particle - what controls this? After the slits, there is interference in a wide area because the waves are spreading, so how is a point on the detector selected? In qm, they talk of "wave function collapse", which describes the result, but how does it work? There is a lot of maths, but no picture of what is happening in realtiy.

There are two particularly difficult problems for qm - let's call then Mass-Energy issue and the Trajectory issue.

The Mass-Energy issue is about accounting for the mass and energy of the particle. If a wave-particle goes through both slits, then we should detect half sized particles if we put a detector in the slits. However, when we do this we only ever detect full sized particles. As well, the waves after the slits are spreading out - why don't we lose mass and energy at the edges? We only ever detect full sized particles - meaning something spread out in a wave suddenly becomes one point. It does not make sense: qm has a tricky tiome accounting for mass and energy between the particle starting the source and arriving at the detector or screen.

The Trajectory issue is about moving the detector. Let's look at the two waves after the slits heading towards the detector. Every particle that goes through the slits ends up on the detector somewhere, so the two waves somehow come together every time. If we move the detector a bit closer, all the waves should now miss each other.

Yet if we move the detector closer we will get all the particles hitting it, so their trajectories must have changed. How do the particles know that the detector has moved? It's a bit spookly, like Photon S somehow knows that Photon P has hit a polarizer in the Quantum Eraser experiment. It is also like the Neutron Interference experiment I looked at before with Uncool - how did the neutrons know what analzyer crystal is ahead?

Note that if we move the detector too close, we don't get any interference pattern at all. if the separation of the slits is "d" then the detector has to stay at least 1000d away from the slits. As long as the detector is at least this far from the slits, we get an interference pattern no matter how we move the detector around. Somehow the particles know where the detector is going to be.

So we have two big issues for qm (at least) and they are both very challenging - there doesn't seem to be any obvious answer to either of them.

Let's look at the TEW view of this experiment.

In TEW, the elementary waves are going in the opposite direction. We are very interested in markers that leave each point on the detector, because particles will later come back here and form the results.

Let's look at markers leaving point D1 on the detector. The elementary waves carry the markers to both sltis. Collisions there mean some of the markers end up heading towards the source. When the same markers (D1) encounter each other, the interfere. So we get an interference pattern at the source.

If there is constructive interference, then a particle gets stimulated at the source. That is a critical part of TEW - the source does not send particles randomly. Instead, the source sends particle in response to incoming elementary waves. Let's assume D1 has constructive inteference there and a particle begins the return journey following marker D1.

The particle only follows one of the incoming D1 markers, so the particle only goes through one slit. In the slits area, the particle has the opposite change of direction to the marker, and ends up traveling towards D1.

So point D1 gets a particle. Point D5 may get less particles, because there is less constructive interference at the source. Point D10 get no paricles at all because the D10 markers had destructive interference at the source. Point D15 gets a few, and Point D20 gets a lot. I am just inventing points here, to give you the idea of how the pattern is formed at the detector. Each point is completely indepedent of the others.

Why are the points independent? Because they have different markers. The markers from D1 completely ignore the markers from D5, D10 and so on. This is the critical bit for TEW - the markers are the reason why all the points don't interfere with each other - if they did, there would be complete chaos and nothing achieved.

Of course the markers are a big issue for TEW - we don't know what they are. Why believe in them?

Because the TEW description is now a local and deterministic one. Marker D1 meets another marker D1, so they interfere. That's a very local phenomenon. The source produces particles in response to incoming elementary waves (markers). The markers change diretion at the slits as do the particles in response to other elementary waves from the slit walls - again a local effect. This is a huge difference to qm, which claims non-locality.

As well, the two issues for qm are solved. The Mass-Energy of the particle goes through one slit and is always the same throughout the entire journey. Of course the trajectory of the particle changes when we move the detector - something travels from the detector to the particle: elementary waves. The Trajectory issue is easily explained by TEW.

So we are left with a choice of theories. I can challenge qm on the Mass-Energy issue and the Trajectory issue. You can challenge TEW on the markers, and you can challenge other things too. I much prefer TEW. Most people choose qm, probably now knowing they have a choice.

What do you think?

Eugene Morrow

Kramer · June 29, 2013

What will happen if we put instead of a flat detector, one wave form - half circle detector? Sure, after have calculated the wave length
we'll have only black or white but not waves display. Am i wrong?

Kramer · July 1, 2013

Mr. Eugen

My suggestion was in support of your idea that if change position of detector.....etc..Only my idea is not for one point but for all point of detector giving him an adequate configuration..
Sorry if i attracted from your dispute with mr. Popcorn.
I too don't believe in "weirdness of quantum", but i am not sure about the wave of particle disconected with particle. I think that particle, let it be a mass particle or a photon, posses field which don't go further than 3.48181868*10^7 cm for unity charge.
Again if you see my interference a nuisance, disregard it.

.

sheever · July 1, 2013

problem is if you take only one part of particle out to observe you ll miss the whole point.you have to see the whole function as one unit.

Popcorn Sutton

good post,even if i dont understand i do understand haha.

time travel is exist and always existed you also experience it many times you just not be able to explain physicaly as your perception can not define.I do work on this subject

I am telling you guys all this scientist and math PHD ll be very busy shortly to define new physical forces were never been studied.watch!

need some contact to collaborate and do experiments...

Edited July 1, 2013 by sheever

Sign In

Keep the good bit of quantum mechanics

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

D H

The Observer

Posted Images

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Important Information