New theory of quantum world

A new book affects the philosophy of science, especially physics.

Physics has unique philosophical challenges caused by quantum mechanics (qm). The predictions of qm can be accurate to 11 decimal places, making it the most successful scientific theory. Unfortunately, qm comes with quantum weirdness - claims of effects backwards in time, multiple universes, particles being in two places at once, and more.

A new book offers a new theory that keeps the predictive success and avoids all the quantum weirdness. The book is written for non-physicists, and touches on the philosophical problems created by qm and the philosophical advantages of the new theory.

The new theory has found a hidden assumption in qm. Consider a particle that goes from a source (A) to a detector (B). In qm, a wave function goes with the particle.

Let’s remind ourselves of reciprocity: a radio antenna is equally good as a transmitter and receiver of radio waves. The waves travel equally well going in or out.

Apply this to the particle. We cannot see the wave function so how does qm know the direction of the wave? The wave direction is the hidden assumption behind qm.

qm: . wave . . ----->
. . . . particle ----->

new theory: . wave . . <<<===
. . . . . . . . . . particle ----->

The new theory has the wave in the opposite direction. The source responds to the incoming waves and sends back a particle, which follow the waves back changing direction as the waves do.

The double slit experiment works with the other wave direction. Unfortunately, I cannot post diagrams here. Waves start from every point on the detector (say D1) and travel in the opposite direction through the slits. The waves from D1 interfere with themselves only at the source. The source sends a particle based on the amount of
interference arriving. The particle follows the wave from D1 (that stimulated it) because the waves from D1 are still arriving continuously. The particle follows the waves back to D1.

Both theories have an explanation for all experiments. Thanks to reciprocity, the new theory has exactly the same mathematics and predictions as qm.

Is there an experiment that separates the two theories? Yes – see the neutron experiment below:

. . Nuclear reactor —> Neutron Interferometer (NI) —> Analyzer crystal —> Detector
. . (shows the direction of the neutrons).

. . Result: . . . . . . . . 2. . changes NI result . . <<<=== . . 1. New crystal

The key effect is that a new analyzer crystal changes what is happening in the interferometer. See H. Kaiser, R. Clothier, S.A. Werner, H. Rauch, H. Wölwitsch, “Coherence and spectral filtering in neutron interferometry”, Physical Review A, Vol 45, number 1, Jan 1992.

In qm, everything goes left to right here so the effect happens backwards in time (quantum weirdness). In the new theory, waves are going right to left so the effect happens in normal time. This is just one example of how the new theory removes the quantum weirdness.

The qm founders did not have this experiment, and never considered the other wave direction. Which wave direction makes sense to you?

The new theory is the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) and there are more benefits than just removing all the quantum weirdness. TEW gives a reason why momentum is conserved for particles. TEW also gives a new understanding of magnetism, especially the Faraday effect. TEW is local and deterministic, so cause and effect are always clear. TEW is already fully consistent with Special Relativity, and even predicts Special Relativity. Work is underway on how TEW works with General Relativity. We get all this from just considering the opposite wave direction.

For more, read “The Theory of Elementary Waves by Dr. Lewis E. Little, 2009, ISBN 978-0-932750-84-6, published by New Classics Library, Georgia, USA. See also elwave.org.

I am an enthusiast of the new theory, and do no benefit from the book in any way. I am someone who studied physics at university and stopped because quantum mechanics was too weird for me. If the new theory had been around, I would have stayed and become a physicist.

Eugene Morrow

This is obviously of great interest to 1] physicists and 2] non-physicists grappling mightily to understand what physicists can tell us about the world we live in. The world – however weird – that is mechanical?

But what about a mind groping to understand the relevance of all this to the lives we live from day to day? How is all this relevant to, say, the mind of a psychologist? a sociologist? an anthrolpologist? an ethicist?

Any recent breakthroughs there?

Quantum Mechanics is merely about statistics, nothing more. The rest is mere speculative imagination and poor philosophizing by the ignorant. QM offers nothing at all to the field of ontology or epistemology. It is just a game to play on wishful thinkers to keep them occupied with something other than their politicians.

iambiguous,

Of course, the philosophy of science is pretty irrelevant to human considerations like psychology, sociology, anthropology and ethics. It’s a rather elitist and “ivory tower” study.

There is only one area that may be relevant later on. I believe that eventually the new theory (Theory of Elementary Waves = TEW) is going to replace qm. There will be a big “wow” moment, and people will ask “Why did it take so long to see that qm was flawed?”. Then we’ll be discussing things like peer pressure, and how a “rational” area like science can be so influenced by the emotions of the practitioners. Paul Feyerabend and his ideas on “arational” science will suddenly seem obviously true. Until then, it’s just an intellectual debate.

Nothing wrong with a intellectual debate. You’re right that the new theory is mechanical, in contrast to qm. Surely this is hugely important to the Philosophy of Science.

Most of the “hard” sciences are very mechanical. Chemistry is full of recipes for making substances. Lots of real world physics is essentially engineering and provides a useful, mechanical way to build things and solve problems. In physics, relativity is very mechanical. Mathematics prides itself on logic and carefully structure deduction - the ultimate in mechanical. So there are huge vistas of mechanical philosophy in science - except for the quantum world.

In qm, we suddenly have to abandon normal cause and effect, and abandon normal logic and adopt “quantum logic” and all sorts of ideas that are no where else in science. In qm, we have multiple “interpretations” of the same mathematical results, and believers just choose whatever they like. Think about it - do we have multiple physics “interpretations” of why a bridge fell down? The physicists are clearly comfortable with this in qm, but are philosophers? Is it parsimonious to have one rule for most of science and a huge exception for qm?

That’s what this new theory offers - uniting all of physics and thereby all of science in a common mechanical way of explaining things and solving problems. TEW unites the quantum and relativity worlds, as well as uniting physics with all the other sciences. This will allow the philosophy of science to be a lot shorter and sweeter, and avoid the problems of qm living alongside all the rest.

So I see TEW as a big step forward for both physics and philosophy. I guess not many philosophers take an interest in the philosophy of science. Perhaps it was qm that put philosophers off looking at science…

James S Saint,

I think you have summarised qm very well. In qm, one of the favourite “interpretations” is "Shut up and calculate’. What they mean is the mathematics works, so who cares about the explanations? Lots of qm is “proved” by statistics, rather than giving a coherent explanation.

Isn’t it a step forward to have a new theory that not only keeps the mathematics but also provides a clear explanation with no “interpretations”? I agree that qm provides nothing for ontology and epistemology - so why not? It’s part of physics - which describes the physical world around us. Surely the lack of explanations in qm is a big clue that perhaps there is something wrong or missing?

The new theory has the answer: qm has the wave going in the wrong direction. The mathematics still works, because the mathematics works fine in both directions (reciprocity). The explanations do care about the wave direction, which is why qm explanations are so weird.

I think it’s time to highlight the lack of sensible explanations in qm. Up until now, qm could point to the mathematical success in predictions, and shut everyone up. Now they have a competitor, and they need to justify why their explanation is better than the opposition. That debate is where the philosophers will be the umpires. This is going to be great - a chance to show the wider world how relevant philosophy is, at least to science. Some people with PhDs (Doctors of Philosophy) in Science will finally learn some philosophy.

Eugene Morrow

You can post images, use the tags to rap the url of the image. If it’s not in a format the forum accepts you can use free software to change it to one it does, upload it to an image site, also free and then cut and paste the link.

You sound bitter J.

Non sequitur nothing in qm happens backwards in time. In fact such a thing is usually forbidden. I don’t get the assumption here?

Momentum is conserved for particles in any qm theory, not sure why it needs a reason, the maths suffices…? Unless there is an external force that changes the momentum, angular momentum and momentum generally is conserved, if there is an external force then any change can be explained within the system, and all the changes are consistent with an input in energy, with the usual inability to know exactly the previous conditions, known as the uncertainty principle.

Don’t really understand this either, unless you mean forward is somehow different to backwards in time, it isn’t only the evolution of the wave form is reversed if you do that, it doesn’t do anything magical other than reverse all the variables in a mirror image. That says nothing about the two slit experiment at all as far as I can see. There are cases where forward and backwards in time differ, in CP violations which many assume time is violated by also, which of course does not happen in our time system, but would if we were able to reverse time in some way, it’s an assumption but one that is logically valid . But such a thing only applies to a few things that don’t really cover the whole phenomena. Electromagnetism is CPT invariant so it really doesn’t matter to that force.

I’m no expert but I’m afraid I don’t understand what this is trying to say…?

Welcome to the forum Eugene.

Calrid,

Thanks for the welcome !

Thanks for the pointer about graphics. At some stage, I will create some JPG images and post them.

In the neutron experiment, I pointed out that qm claims the effect happens backwards in time. To be precise, if you look at the publication I mentioned (Kaiser et al, 1992) on page 41 they say (italics in the original):

The experimenters finish their paper by writing:

I do not accept the claims and explanations above. To me, the above quotes are a sophisticated way of saying they don’t know why they get the results of the experiment.

It sounds like you are comfortable with things happening backwards in time, when you write:

I just want to point out that very few people, even few qm believers, support the idea of things happening backwards in time. I think many readers will see that qm is exposed here - there is a choice of a new theory where time is always in the forward direction. That is a choice we haven’t had before, and when the news spreads I think qm will be much less popular.

It’s obvious you and I are not going to convince each other on this, so we can leave that point.

You point out that maths suffices for conservation of momentum. In qm, everything is proved by mathematics. Again, I don’t accept that is a “reason”. To me, conservation of momentum is believed because it’s just always happened - like the sun rising each morning. It’s induction - we have simply assumed it’s a law because it’s always there. The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) gives a mechanism involving the elementary waves, which to me is a huge step forward.

Of course it’s not the end of the mystery. For example, we know electricity flows with electrons, but what is an electron? There is always something underneath that we can’t (yet) probe. For TEW, there will always be questions about the elementary waves that are underneath. I just point out that elementary waves are connected to lots of part of physics, and this brings a unity and parsimony that physics needs.

As for my comment about the qm founders, I am pointing out something that is important to the debate. Most qm believers fall back on what the qm founders believed - Neils Bohr and Werner Heisenberg mainly. Bohr and Heisenberg both believed that the quantum wave travels in the same direction as the particle.

TEW uses the neutron experiment by Kaiser et al to make the case that the wave direction is the opposite to what Bohr and Heisenberg believed. It gives readers a reason to think again - if Bohr and Heisenberg had known about that experiment, what wave direction would they have chosen? Perhaps Bohr and Heisenberg made a mistake, because they didn’t have enough evidence. We can make our own decision, and not be slaves to the conclusions of the past.

The wave direction is hugely important. Everything that qm has “proved” is subject to the assumption about the wave direction. All claims of qm should start with "Assuming the wave travels in the same direction as the particle, then … ". That’s what the qm founders and supporters have missed - so much depends on one little assumption. We need a debate to be sure we’ve got that assumption right.

I like your debating style, Calrid - very constructive. I hope others join in the same spirit.

Eugene Morrow

Getting there.

Such is true by definition. Inertia and momentum are defined by the concept of requiring energy and force to cause change. It is actually a philosophical issue, thus physicists typically have no idea why they do it that way.

Don’t forget that Entanglement defeated Uncertainty (although the religious still try to maintain the purity of uncertainty).

Entanglement does not defeat uncertainty. Where do you get this stuff from?

In fact Bell’s-Aspect is at the very heart of the debate over determinism and probability. Entanglement shows us that the outputs must be above a certain range which precludes predictable outcomes from the beginning, any introduction of energy such as measuring the two physically separate systems will disturb the system leading to unpredictable output variables not predictable ones. Ultimately this shows us that no local hidden variable: real model can explain quantum mechanics. For those who don’t understand what this means: local, happening at the source, real, deterministic, a linear equation if you want.

Being fringe is very lonely. Mind you its not as if your career rests on it is it. what some nobodies on the web think is kinda irrelevant.

Ok I think your assuming that because by the nature of quantum mechanics measurements have to inductively assume probability ie Schrödinger Equation, with infinite probabilities, that somehow reverse engineering the equation actually results in backwards motion in time. This is not the case. The only time I’ve seen backwards in time used is either in Sci FI or for antimatter, where it’s used as a figurative explanation not an actual description of anti matters movements, something people often take literally because they lack understanding of the material.

Current theory limits us to making assertions only after the measurement, what happened before is unknown, this does not leave scope to assume time travel except in the usual direction, although it does encourage people to speculate wildly on the nature of which we don’t know, which is healthy up to a point.

If some of the more fringe scientists get their way then we will eventually, presumably by magic (given the testability of current ideas) prove that quantum mechanics is deterministic and none of this will matter, until then speculative ideas about time travel and many worlds will be popular. Because frankly we are grasping at straws in order to prove that comforting classical science is all there is.

Calrid,

I think we agree that time travel is speculative right now.

I mentioned time reversal in my previous post because the experimenters for the neutron experiment (Kaiser et al 1992) claim the key effect of their experiment occurs backwards in time. The experimenters support qm (of course). I am putting this forward to challenge qm supporters - do you agree that is what is happening in this experiment?

I am contrasting that with TEW which only needs normal time to explain the effect. I think the difference is a strong plus for TEW and a big negative for qm. To me, this experiment clearly shows that TEW has a better wave direction than qm.

James S Saint and Calrid,

It’s rather surreal of you two to be discussing the merits of uncertainty versus entanglement. Under TEW, both uncertainty and entanglement do not exist. The Uncertainty Principle is discussed in Chapter 5 and Bell’s Theorem in Chapter 6.

I can only give a quick summary. In TEW, the Uncertainty comes from the fact that the elementary waves we encounter are in a range of frequencies. A particle could be following any one of the elementary waves in that bandwidth, and the range of possibilities derives the Uncertainty equation. However, one particle always follows one elementary wave and has one exact momentum and one exact position at all times, so there is no inherent uncertainty about a particle - we just have to learn how to narrow down the elementary waves to be able to measure it more precisely. How we will do that is something to discover in the future.

Bell’s Theorem is a rare example where a source creates two particles stimulated by two incoming elementary waves. No one - neither qm or TEW - can predict the outcomes at the moment, so it’s an area for more research. In the TEW view, the particles are created with “polarization orientation behavior” already programmed in. Nothing needs to be communicated to the particle when it is “in flight”, so there is no entanglement. For TEW, nothing is currently proved by this experiment.

I doubt you two will be interested in what TEW has to say, because you seem committed to qm ideas (with some slight disagreements). I am only putting this stuff in, so that someone reading knows that TEW has completely different views on all this.

Once again, TEW provides a new choice for observers of the quantum world. We’ve got plenty to debate here.

Eugene Morrow

Links with more details:

elementarywaves.com/

speicher.com/tew1.html

Well they can discuss it all they like and make all kinds of fun fantasy philosophies concerning it. But the simple truth is that Entanglement is a fundamental logical principle, the “Equivalence Equation”.

The whole idea to Entanglement is that if you have 2 truly identical processes (sufficient for the experiment), you can disturb one with a probe in order to gain information without affecting the other. The Uncertainty Principle had proposed that it is impossible to know both the position and also the momentum of an electron, for example. By having entangled pairs, one can be measured and thus reveal the truth about the other without having to probe it. Because they were identical, you end up knowing both aspects of both particles, hence Uncertainty defeated.

The original proof came out of UTA not long ago when they posted fax copies of their original experiment notes online, but merely a few months later, the only thing on the internet was all about UCLA’s version (using a more magic interpretation). The big story became, "Wow, look! By measuring one particle you cause the other to flip around and be it opposite! How does it know to do that?!? Faster than Light information…kewl! "

QM has been riddled with magical propositions and injected interpretations since day one. It is the new-age form of magic and mystery to bemuse the ignorant and totally unphilosophical (most scientists and physicists).

That isn’t going to happen because a particle is not following “one wave”. A particle is a gathering of “noise” with a fundamental average and mean frequency. Two particles of identical type could be distinguished by a Fourier analysis of each. Now if you want to go discover how to do THAT, then you might get somewhere.

That’s not what entanglement suggests, no relativistic principles are violated by entanglement, because the classical and quantum parts of the experiment when both taken into account as they must be, (in this case someone perceiving the results etc) do not violate light speed. There is no FTL information and there certainly has never been any proof in any experiment where c is violated. Which is why this whole ftl deally that happened recently is such a big deal, because that actually does seem to be doing that, at least at face value.

How do you relate this then to the interactions of self-conscious minds? If mind is mechanical it would seem to matter not at all that we speculate about it in exchanges like this. Not matter in the way it would not matter to one domino toppling over onto another domino relative only to how the laws of physics set the toppling into motion in the first place.

Mindful matter [to me] is always the hardest nut to crack here.

James S Saint

You are giving quantum mechanics (qm) explanations for entanglement and uncertainty.

Behind all qm claims is an assumption about the wave direction - that the wave is traveling in the same direction as the particle. The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) has a different assumption - that the wave is traveling in the opposite direction to the particle. Hence qm and TEW have very different explanations.

So the way to resolve this debate is to look at which assumption is better. TEW falls back on the neutron experiment I mentioned in my original post - it shows that TEW has the right wave direction.

If we’re not discussing the assumptions about wave direction, we do not have a way to compare the qm and TEW explanations.

Calrid,

As I mentioned, TEW is different from both your views and James S Saint, so I’ll stand back from your debate.

iambiguous,

Whether you believe in qm or TEW, many people have suggested that the quantum world may be behind consciousness. You’re right it’s the hardest nut to crack. I don’t have a firm opinion either way on this one.

Eugene Morrow

Eugene, I apologize for not having read through your OP. I was merely commenting on the, not merely “wierdness” of QM, but the entire absurdity of it. But having read through your presentation of the TEW, I have to say that I am having trouble following it. And why can’t you display diagrams? If you can create them on your PC, you can display them here. I have many times.

When it comes to the TEW, you would be a far greater expert than I. But having said that, realize that I have already proven exactly why particles do all that they do from the ground floor up. I have a UFT that explains literally everything about particle physics and have privately proven it. My point is that any “theory” you are proposing or supporting is likely to be of only mild curiosity to me. ALL of the questions have already been answered concerning the reality of particle physics, including where they all come from to begin with.

The TEW assumption that there is an infinite number of waves of all frequencies(but zero energy) emanating from every point is as weird as qm.

Yes. There cannot be an infinite number of anything within a finite amount of space, certainly not within an infinitesimal point of space. And anything less that infinite would instantly cause the energy effect in that it would have the potential to affect something (whereas an random infinite Fourier wave function can have no affect upon anything).

True but an infinite amount of possibilities does have some merit even if some degrees of freedom are impossible. The conjugates tend to rule out the impossible at least in field theory.

Fourier waves like renormalisation that came before it are an attempt to contain the beast to mathematics we can utilise in actual real world situations. I’m not strong on tensors but it basically uses those matrices that can reflect an actual potential in adjuncts, which I believe and may be wrong are contingent. I seriously need to learn more.

Long story short though, possibilities have to be in eigenstates that reflect the equations possible outcomes. But then such outcomes are so complex, that I tend to lose the plot around there. Like I say I need to study more.

It’s kinda like Xenos paradox if you accept an infinite number of things in a finite space, hence such a solution is not able to be integrated. You end up logically dismissing such paradoxes in the basic rules of integration with infinite possible states but only in a series that can be if not definitively integrated, showed as a series of infinite steps within a limit. Or to put it in line with the analogy, the ball eventually stops bouncing and the arrow eventually will hit the turtle within limits which will reflect the actual situation as a sort of half life that eventually equals nothing or no x at t.