New theory of quantum world

[EugeneMorrow]

James S Saint,

We are looking at an aspect of the double slit experiment, and comparing quantum mechanics (qm), the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).

You summed up my description of TEW with these criticisms:

P1) Magic Markers
P2) Inexplicable phasing
P3) Magic "follow me" properties
P4) Magic loss of momentum occurrences

On P1, I have to concede that TEW has no explanation yet, so it qualifies as magic. This is the "marker" that all waves from one particular mass have, for example, waves from point D1 on the detector.

On P2, the phasing is quite straight forward. Elementary waves come from point D1 with their own unique marker. On wave travels towards the slits and becomes two waves. Those two waves are in phase with each other - of course - because they are from the same original wave. So they will interfere with each other on the far side of the slits. Is that inexplicable? Point D1 is emitting waves all the time, and the next wave may not be the same phase as the first, but it has a phase of it's own which when split at the slits will interfere with itself. So the waves are doing what waves do and the phasing is typical of waves.

On P3, I have not yet given any details of the particle following the wave, so that's work in progress for me. I can see how the concept of a particle following a wave (in the reverse direction) is something that could be termed magic.

On P4, is the work in progress for me. I will probably have to create my own diagrams, because so far I have not found any of Lewis Little's diagrams I can easily copy, and I don't have access to a scanner easily.

I am surprised you find the behavior of the source as magical. All the elementary waves from the screen or detector have come through the slits and reach the source from a direction that is midway between the slits. Each elementary wave that has a marker can generate it's own particle.

The source receives lots of other elementary waves of course - for example from the walls of the substance that has the slits in it. Those other elementary waves get particles too, but we don't care about those.

To me, the source has a pretty easy job. Depending on intensity an incoming elementary wave gets a particle or not. I don't see that as difficult or magical.

When I asked questions about the qm explanation, you wrote:

All of those are valid questions that QM doesn't answer.

It's a step forward to highlight that qm has unclear points in the explanations. Most people believe that qm has fully explained the double slit and all quantum experiments. Establishing that this is not true is very important, even if no one goes for TEW. Philosophically, we need a new theory for physics, just by looking at the explanations of qm. The predictions of qm are great, but the explanations are no where near as good.

Surprised you wrote;

It should be obvious to anyone that when they are using electrons one at a time, for example, there is no interference pattern at all. The pattern that is seen cannot have anything to do with wave interference. What that means is that all of the speculation concerning interference patterns has nothing to do with what is being seen. It shows a dispersion pattern, not a wave interference pattern.

One thing that qm and TEW would agree on is that the double slit with one electron at a time produces an interference pattern every bit as valid as for photons and other particles.

In what situations do you see a dispersion pattern rather than an interference pattern?

Eugene Morrow

[James S Saint]

On P2, the phasing is quite straight forward. Elementary waves come from point D1 with their own unique marker. On wave travels towards the slits and becomes two waves. Those two waves are in phase with each other - of course - because they are from the same original wave. So they will interfere with each other on the far side of the slits. Is that inexplicable? Point D1 is emitting waves all the time, and the next wave may not be the same phase as the first, but it has a phase of it's own which when split at the slits will interfere with itself. So the waves are doing what waves do and the phasing is typical of waves.

For the phasing to work as the reasoning for particle instigation, the waves must not change the frequency of their peaks. The individual peaks in the waves must be consistently repeated (a fixed wave-length), else phase intensity becomes unpredictable at the particle source. Although it is easily imaginable, there are problems associated with separation from point D1 to point D2 both vertically and horizontally. The proposed wave length would come into play concerning the minimum separation of those points.

Also that wave length should be easily measurable by varying the travel lengths between the paths for the two slits. If they are what is causing the particle production, it shouldn't matter what particle is being used. The exact same pattern size and shape should be seen. As the screen is moved back more, the pattern should alter in its positioning of the peaks, but that should happen for all of the theories involved. This doesn't pose an impossibility, merely an unlikely scenario concerning steady state energy-less elementary waves being produced.

In my theory, there are in fact similar waves being emitted by all particles, but the "waves" are not at all steady state or fixed frequency. They are somewhat random noise (and no magic markers involved). They cannot be used for any kind of predictable instigation of particle production except as a statistical event in that statistically a particle would get produced or inspired within every few units of time depending on the affectance densities involved.

On P4, is the work in progress for me. I will probably have to create my own diagrams, because so far I have not found any of Lewis Little's diagrams I can easily copy, and I don't have access to a scanner easily.

That one is a serious issue. The conservation of momentum is almost as paramount as the conservation of energy. Also it cannot be said that a wave is without energy if it is also said that the wave bends or affects the path of a particle. Such a statement would be metaphysically irrational due to definitions involved. If the wave affects the path of a particle, then the wave does have energy.. period.

In my theory (I hate having to keep calling it a mere theory, but until you or others can see the proof, I guess I have to), the affectance noise/waves are in a state that I refer to as "pre-energy". More technically, they are waves of energy, but they are on a level that is not observable at all and thus a physicist would never see any energy effects. The elementary waves suggest something similar, but the TEW has some serious explaining to do regarding the total energy balance concerns. My theory has all of such things already inherently balanced with full explanations as to how and why a particle can emit waves/noise and yet not lose energy.

I am surprised you find the behavior of the source as magical. All the elementary waves from the screen or detector have come through the slits and reach the source from a direction that is midway between the slits. Each elementary wave that has a marker can generate it's own particle.

I suspect there is confusion there. I'm not sure what you are talking about in that I don't see where I was referring to any magic concerning the source production other than having to have the waves as steady state or constant frequency waves. Although producing a particle that somehow knows to follow one particular magic marker could get pretty magical. It implies that the particle itself is keyed to the wave marker.. not a likely scenario.

It's a step forward to highlight that qm has unclear points in the explanations. Most people believe that qm has fully explained the double slit and all quantum experiments. Establishing that this is not true is very important, even if no one goes for TEW. Philosophically, we need a new theory for physics, just by looking at the explanations of qm. The predictions of qm are great, but the explanations are no where near as good.

I completely agree with that. I have never allowed QM to get off the ground in any discussions I have because it is only at that first grounded stage that QM is actually valid.. the statistical point, which is what they use for prediction. The rest of their speculations are sheer non-sense. But I'm getting more convinced everyday that such is intentional confusion.

One thing that qm and TEW would agree on is that the double slit with one electron at a time produces an interference pattern every bit as valid as for photons and other particles.

For there to be wave interference with one particle at a time, there has to be time shifting games being played, even backwards time. QM can propose such absurdities, but TEW doesn't. The pattern that is seen looks similar to a wave interference pattern but it obviously cannot be actual interference. It is a dispersal pattern, not a wave interference pattern. TEW wins out on that issue.

My theory on that issue involves what happens when particles fly passed an edge of a slit. It gets very complicated, requiring a number of pictorials that I am expecting you to eventually drag out of me. But I really need to know exactly what has been seen as the screen slowly moves back for several wave lengths (and with a variety of particle types) so as to confirm what is merely guess work right now.

In what situations do you see a dispersion pattern rather than an interference pattern?

Any and all patterns generated with one particle at a time has no choice but to be merely a dispersal pattern. There can be no interference with something that isn't even there.

[James S Saint]

The following depicts one of the concerns that I have regarding particle deflection at a material's edge.

Electron Edge Deflection Pattern

Particle Deflection.jpg (71.48 KiB) Viewed 360 times

In that pictorial, 3 potential paths for an electron coming from the source yield a deflection pattern that is dependent upon and the result of where the electron in orbit around the slit material's edge atom/molecule happen to be when encountered. The blue indicates paths associated with the orbiting electron being closer to the lower portion of the atom when the source electron happened by. The red indicates the paths associated with encounters if the orbiting electron happened to be closer to the top of the atom.

Note that there will be a gray void area where source electrons will seldom appear. This is due to the source electron getting temporarily trapped into orbit around the edge atom's nucleus. I would expect an uneven amount of deflection as the source path got closer to the atom such as to leave some particles alone, some sharply deflected, but very few only slightly deflected.

In addition, some source electrons would get deflected upward away from that edge. I'm not sure if the deflection pattern for those would be even or not.

What this indicates is that if there is even a single edge, not even a slit, a pattern can still be displayed on the screen showing at least one separate strip that would appear just like any interference pattern, but it has nothing to do with wave interference. So it becomes important to know the distances involved when dealing with multiple edges and slits, regardless of any wave interference concerns.

In addition, different slit material types might display different patterns depending also on what particles are being used. It is easy to conceive that an electron being shot passed an aluminum edge (or any conducting or high valence material) would deflect differently than perhaps glass.

Those are only a few of the "hidden variable" concerns regarding this experiment. Too little information is being given to justify any theory regarding the patterns witnessed.

[EugeneMorrow]

James S Saint,

We are looking at an aspect of the double slit experiment, and comparing quantum mechanics (qm), the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) and your unnamed theory.

We're getting clearer in our communication. Looks like the behavior of the source is not a big issue for you. The main areas you disagree with TEW seem to be:

1. The marker on an elementary wave that comes from a particular mass, so that the wave is unique and will only interfere with waves of the same marker.
2. Why and how particles follow an elementary wave, especially how the particles change direction and conserve momentum and energy.

I cannot answer 1 because neither can Lewis Little. I will finally talk about 2 in this post.

I have created two diagrams for this, so these have not been seen by Lewis Little. I think they are a beginner's guide to what he is saying.

The whole idea of TEW is that particles and waves are separate (unlike qm). The elementary waves happen continuously, and are there like an 'infrastructure" to the universe. Let's look at the "infrastructure" that happens during the double slit experiment.

Let's review the high level TEW picture (and this diagram has been OKed by Lewis Little).

Double slit from the TEW point of view

Fig 02 Double Slit TEW 06.jpg (22.47 KiB) Viewed 349 times

Your question is about Step 4 - when the particle changes direction at the slit and travels towards point D1. To answer that I start with what is happening to elementary waves earlier in the process.

Elementary waves start from point D1 and get to the slit. Here there is a collision with an elementary wave coming out of the nucleus of one of the atoms in the slit. See below:

Elementary waves collide in a slit

ChangeDir_A_Waves_01.gif (6.74 KiB) Viewed 349 times

Notice what happens: the elementary wave from D1 is deflected. The deflection could be in any direction. In some cases, the deflection will mean the waves from D1 travel towards the source of particles, as shown above. The elementary wave from the nucleus of an atom in the slit bounces back on itself. This wave can be called a "photon elementary wave" and we shall see why in a moment.

So there you have some dynamics of elementary waves. They do collide with each other from time to time. This type of collision is common near an atomic nucleus. On page 142 of the TEW book, little writes about a similar situation involving an experiment with electrons, and says:

The photon wave required would necessarily have originated at another charged particle nearby, such as the nucleus in the atom.

This collision of elementary waves is happening continuously, because elementary waves are coming from D1 all the time and also from the nucleus of the atom in the slit material. This is happening between Step 1 and 2 in the TEW diagram before.

Now let's look at Step 4 where the particle coming back is following the elementary wave from D1 and then changes direction.

Particle changes direction at the slit

ChangeDir_B_Particles_01.gif (10.1 KiB) Viewed 349 times

The particle is following the elementary wave from D1 and gets to the "collision point". Here the particle acts like a source of particles. There is an incoming "photon elementary wave". The particle behaves like a source and emits a photon. As you know, any mass can emit a photon, and for TEW any particle emission happens because it was stimulated by an elementary wave. So our traveling particle emits a photon, which then travels to the atomic nucleus in the slit material.

Emitting the photon makes the particle change direction. The particle is now traveling towards point D1.

Yes, there was a change in momentum of the particle. Momentum is conserved by the photon that the particle emitted. Energy is conserved too, when the photon is taken into account. Photons have no mass so there is no problem with conserving mass.

Notice a few things about this. Firstly, the elementary waves are there anyway, even if a particle never bothers to come along. This is what I mean by the elementary waves being an "infrastructure" to the universe.

Secondly, notice how the elementary wave from D1 is not necessarily "forcing" the particle to follow it. All this is necessary is for the particle to emit the right photon at the collision point. If the particle does that, then it ends up following the elementary wave from D1. So the particle can follow the wave by having the right sort of behavior that is the opposite of the wave it is following.

Thirdly, in some cases the particle will absorb a photon, rather than emit one. At these collision points photon are emitted or absorbed by particles to change direction. It's all a matter of the sorts of collisions that elementary waves are having.

Fourthly, why was there an interference pattern on the screen or detector? Because the elementary waves from each point on the detector interfere with themselves on the other side of the slits before getting to the source. The particles then follow these waves back to the screen. You can see how the elementary waves are always there interfering with each other as an "infrastructure". If only one particle at a time comes back, each particle dutifully follows one particular wave and ends back at the screen. Very slowly, one by one, an interference pattern builds up. This is how TEW explains that we get an interference pattern on the screen even when only one particle travels through the device at a time. The elementary waves are always colliding - it's just a matter of how fast the particles come back and "report" on the interference that actually happened at the source.

So finally I have given you a picture of how particles change direction in TEW.

You might notice a similarity between my diagrams above and Feynman diagrams. This is where qm and TEW are very close. In qm, the Feynman diagrams show the paths of particles. TEW totally agrees with those diagrams. For TEW, the diagrams simply show the elementary wave collisions taking place, where the elementary waves are traveling in the reverse direction to the particles.

You gave a diagram of a scattering experiment in your last post. TEW also covers those experiments. For TEW, the elementary waves come from many places and collide with the "target atom" or substance, and head towards the source. The particles coming back travel back to where the elementary waves came from. It ends up being a very similar picture to what I described above.

Let me know what you think about the TEW description.

Eugene Morrow

[James S Saint]

So these "elementary wave photons" have energy? If they have momentum or carry it, they have energy. Where did they get the energy?

And even though atoms and molecules can generate photons, particles cannot unless being annihilated.

In addition, you have now proposed that an incidental elementary photon has deflected the elemental wave over to the source. How did it know where the source was? If it is deflecting them in a dispersed fashion such that coincidentally a few happen to get to the source, the other slit edge would have to coincidentally be doing the same at the same time. Such isn't impossible, but..

If that is the proposed scenario, then look what you get when the particle returns.

The particle, following the elemental wave path, encounters an edge where for some reason, it releases an elemental photon that now has energy and carries momentum. But again, how does the released momentum know where the origin of the wave was such as to give the exact right angle to the particle? If it is assumed, as before, that the angle is more random and just happens to reach the source on occasion, there would be no pattern displayed.

So with this explanation of the change in direction of a particle, several issues arise;

1) Elemental Photons must exist
2) Those photons must at least carry momentum, giving them energy.
3) Those photons must acquire their energy from somewhere, but it cannot be from the particle else the particle collapses entirely.
4) The deflected particle must be given an indication of what angle to deflect such as to reach the EW source without being influenced by other EW sources.
5) EW waves from different edges must simultaneously deflect such as to reach and inspire the source.

And the magic marker is still a serious issue.

[EugeneMorrow]

James S Saint,

We are looking at the double slit experiment, and comparing quantum mechanics (qm) and the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).

In TEW, waves and particles are entirely separate things: waves are waves and particles are particles. I think my explanation needs to highlight that more.

The particle "photon" is the same in qm and TEW. No need to call them "elemental photons" - they're just the usual.

What TEW describes happening at the slit is a collision of two elementary waves. One is coming from point D1 on the detector. The other comes from an atomic nucleus that is in the slit material. They are two elementary waves. I gave a name "photon elementary wave" to the elementary wave coming from the slit material. It's just a way of naming it in contrast to the other elementary wave. They are both elementary waves, and only differ in their "marker" because they originated at different masses.

The sort of collision that happens is likely to happen near an atomic nucleus - Little states this, and it's one of the things that TEW claims happens, like the markers.

You raised some issues:

1) Elemental Photons must exist
2) Those photons must at least carry momentum, giving them energy.
3) Those photons must acquire their energy from somewhere, but it cannot be from the particle else the particle collapses entirely.
4) The deflected particle must be given an indication of what angle to deflect such as to reach the EW source without being influenced by other EW sources.
5) EW waves from different edges must simultaneously deflect such as to reach and inspire the source.

Thoughts on 1)
The phrase "elemental photons" are just photons - the well known particles. I think you mean "photon elementary waves". Yes, there are elementary waves for every type of particle. Different particles are associated with different frequencies of elementary waves. TEW claims there are elementary waves of all frequencies and all polarizations out there. The universe has particles of all types zooming around, so TEW claims the elementary waves are there first before the particles comes along.

Thoughts on 2)
Yes, the particles have energy, which qm claims as well. I think you're referring to the idea that elementary waves have zero energy. I can see how this sounds very strange - how do you get something for free? Think of it this way. Both qm and TEW agree that photons travel at the speed of light in a vacuum. They can have high energy (ultra violet) or low energy (infra red). No matter what energy, they always travel at c. Why? No one knows - they just do. In a vacuum, we cannot slow a photon down - we can only change it's energy (or absorb it or change it's direction).

Elementary waves are a bit like that. They always travel at c. When I say "masses emit elementary waves", that is just a lesson 101 version. The book on TEW says that initially too, and later clarifies: in fact elementary waves always exist and are never created or destroyed. What happens is that an elementary waves carry a marker from mass A and sometimes have a collision with mass B which puts a the marker for mass B on the wave. We say "mass B is emitting elementary waves" but in fact the waves were there anyway and mass B simply put it's marker on them as they were passing through.

So the masses do not need to contribute any energy to creating elementary waves. The masses simply leave their marker on elementary waves sometimes. It may be like reflection of light - the surface that does the reflection affects the light that is reflected, but doesn't have to expend any energy to do so. (That's my suggestion, it's not in the TEW book.)

Thoughts on 3)
Where do the photons get their energy from? From the particle. Yes, particles can emit photons. There are Feynman diagrams showing this - it is something qm and TEW agree on. Yes, the particle would lose energy in emitting the photon. As I mentioned in my last post, sometimes particles change direction by absorbing a photon, so it can work both ways.

Thoughts on 4)
This is an important point. The elementary wave from D1 had a collision with the other elementary wave and changed direction towards the source. When the particle is coming back, it emits a photon and ends up traveling towards point D1 - the exact opposite direction change made by the elementary wave. TEW claims this exact matching occurs, and is how the particle "follows" the wave in the opposite direction. This is a claim by TEW, there is no "proof".

The idea that the elementary wave from the nucleus has the same effect on the wave and the particle following the wave is an idea that I am OK with. What appeals to me is that it is very local and deterministic - we only need the wave and the particle to behave in a symmetric way. I like to think of the particle as a "matching twin" of the wave. I can see how you may call this "magic" too.

Yes, there are elementary waves all over the place. The only elementary waves that affect the particle are the ones that collided with the elementary wave that the particle is following. If an particle is going to be affected by an elementary wave, then before that the elementary wave the particle is following must have been affected first. That's a basic TEW claim.

Thoughts on 5)
Yes, elementary waves come from all points of the detector or screen, and they have collisions and reach the source simultaneously. There are two waves with the same marker arriving at the source (one from each slit) and these interfere because they have the same marker. The source potentially responds to waves of each particular marker independently.

I have a personal way of thinking of the interaction between the source and the incoming elementary waves of a single marker (this idea is not in the TEW book). I think of it as a "tug of war" between the two. If the incoming elementary wave is strong enough, it grabs a particle off the source. If not, the source say "bad luck, I'm keeping this one". TEW has not said anything in detail about how it works.

Remember that qm believes that sources send particles at random. For TEW, sources send particles based on stimulation of elementary waves of high enough intensity. That's all that TEW says, there is no further detail on that process.

I can see there are plenty of places you can claim TEW involves "magic". I still claim these things:

A. Any theory at the fundamental level will reach a point where we can't say what's underneath so it's magic.
B. TEW claims to be local and deterministic, whereas qm is proudly non-local. Philosophically, I think that means that the TEW magic is an order of magnitude easier to swallow than the qm magic.

Eugene Morrow

[James S Saint]

I can see there are plenty of places you can claim TEW involves "magic". I still claim these things:

A. Any theory at the fundamental level will reach a point where we can't say what's underneath so it's magic.
B. TEW claims to be local and deterministic, whereas qm is proudly non-local. Philosophically, I think that means that the TEW magic is an order of magnitude easier to swallow than the qm magic.

Eugene Morrow

Actually it is the number of magical concepts required to swallow a theory as well as their potential for affecting other theories. In my theory, no magic is required at all, no axioms, no presumptions, and no alternatives. So I can't entirely agree with (A) although for physicists, that will always be true. What they can't directly see, they have to take on faith.

I grant you complete superiority over any theory that isn't deterministic and local, so (B) is a no-brainer for me. Any theory that violates those principles is simply irrationally naive.. end of story.

But speaking of naivety..
No subatomic particle has or can ever emit a light photon unless it is in the midst of annihilation. That is not merely true in my RM, but in contemporary physics as well. I don't know what you have been reading, but it must either be wrong, or you are interpreting it wrongly.

But also, you seem to freely equivocate light photons with elemental wave photons. Those two entities cannot be the same.

I don't feel that you have really answered any of 2-5 of the last concerns that stemmed from P4 prior, leaving me with the original;
P1) Magic Markers
P2) Inexplicable phasing ; I'll forgo this one due to potential for too many unknown variables concerning it
P3) Magic "follow me" properties
P4) Magic loss of momentum occurrences

You have raised an addition issue of concern involving "collision of EW". Do they collide with each other or pass through each other? I suspect they must have to pass through else nothing could get accomplished at all. But your explanation involves their collisions.

[EugeneMorrow]

James S Saint,

We are looking at the double slit experiment, and comparing quantum mechanics (qm) and the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).

Very surprised you find a particle emitting a photon to be a strange idea. Here is a Feynman diagram of how two electrons repel each other:

Electrons repel each other

img_full_47373.gif (4.07 KiB) Viewed 330 times

Notice how one particle (an electron) sends a photon to another, and this modulates the electro-magnetic force. In qm they call it a "virtual photon" here. In TEW it is a real photon. The above diagram comes from http://tap.iop.org/atoms/particles/536/page_47365.html

TEW claims the particle in the double slit experiment changes direction in the slit area by emitting or absorbing a photon, just like the "virtual photon" in the above diagram.

Absolutely elementary waves can collide - look at any Feynman diagram. The diagrams show particles, and TEW claims the elementary waves travel in the opposite direction and are there first and are colliding as shown.

The elementary waves don't always collide. The particular collision I showed before is an elementary wave colliding with a wave that is close to an atomic nucleus or a charged particle. Little does not yet have a complete description of the circumstances where elementary waves will collide and when they ignore each other. His comment was that the collision we see in the slit is typical near any atomic nucleus and results in the scattering effects that are well known in physics.

Little does not have any more information, because he is the first to think about elementary waves. Should TEW be accepted by physics then more research can happen later. TEW gives a new direction and purpose to research that is quite different to the qm priorities.

So to sum up, TEW claims that the particle follows a wave by emitting or absorbing photons at collision points of elementary waves. It has to be taken on faith - we can't see it and there is no other "proof" other than the coherency of the explanation.

Eugene Morrow

[James S Saint]

The Feynman diagrams call them "virtual photons" because they aren't real. They are merely a visualization of a set amount of energy/momentum to be transferred. In QM everything must be in fixed quanta packets, usually called photons. But the diagram is not saying that there is an actual photon there, but an amount of energy/momentum equivalent to a photon.

Absolutely elementary waves can collide - look at any Feynman diagram.

Elemental Waves have nothing to do with Feynman diagrams concerning particles. If you give up on QM, you give up on Feynman diagrams.

If the EW collide with each other, then how do they propagate passed their point of origin without getting diverted by immediate collision leading to false origin markers?

The elementary waves don't always collide. The particular collision I showed before is an elementary wave colliding with a wave that is close to an atomic nucleus or a charged particle. Little does not yet have a complete description of the circumstances where elementary waves will collide and when they ignore each other. His comment was that the collision we see in the slit is typical near any atomic nucleus and results in the scattering effects that are well known in physics.

P5) No explanation concerning convenient collisions of elementary waves.

So it seems that you have run out of information at this point concerning those issues P2 - P5.

QM has tried since day one to support the notion that all reality MUST be in quanta form. The notion is ridiculous, but it keeps mathematicians employed. How does Dr Little plan to keep those people employed?

[EugeneMorrow]

James S Saint,

We are looking at the double slit experiment, and comparing quantum mechanics (qm) and the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).

You wrote:

QM has tried since day one to support the notion that all reality MUST be in quanta form. The notion is ridiculous, but it keeps mathematicians employed. How does Dr Little plan to keep those people employed?

I not sure you'll get much sympathy from Lewis Little about mathematicians who want to keep employed on the qm mathematical gravy train !

I gave the example of two electrons repelling each other by a photon traveling between them. In qm there is a "virtual photon" and TEW claims it is a real photon. The two theories are very close here, because they both agree that the electromagnetic force is modulated by photons.

To me, the difference in explanation is a problem for qm. What is a "virtual photon"? How does it differ from a real photon? Why claim a "virtual" photon when a real photon can do the job?

Besides, if all we are arguing about is whether the photon is real or virtual, there's not much in this particular agreement.

The real debate is your next point:

Elemental Waves have nothing to do with Feynman diagrams concerning particles. If you give up on QM, you give up on Feynman diagrams.

Of course TEW can use Feynman diagrams - any theory of the quantum world needs to explain the interactions they describe. Remember, the difference between qm and TEW is the wave direction. For qm, the wave travels in the same direction as the particle (and "is" the particle in many ways). In TEW the wave travels in the opposite direction, and the particle and wave are quite separate entities.

So the task for TEW is to describe how the separate waves and particles fit into the Feynman diagrams. It's really easy - the elementary waves are there first colliding in the opposite direction to the particles. For the electrons, the waves look like this:

Elementary waves collide

Electron_Repulsion_Waves_01.gif (4.33 KiB) Viewed 316 times

In this case we have three elementary waves colliding. Elementary waves A and B are the appropriate frequency for an electron (which has a certain mass). Elementary wave C is for a photon, and it bounces backwards and forwards between the two collision points.

Along come the electrons. In TEW, one of them will emit a photon at the collision point which is then absorbed by the other (TEW doesn't care which emits and which absorbs and leaves open the possibility they both emit and absorb). The electrons end up changing direction and momentum and the photon is there only for a tiny length of time.

Particles follow elementary waves

img_full_47373.gif (4.07 KiB) Viewed 316 times

TEW claims the elementary waves collided first and the particles were all following elementary waves at all times. From the TEW point of view, the Feynman diagrams are simply showing the second half of the story.

All this doesn't prove which theory is better - it is just showing that both qm and TEW have different explanations of the same diagram.

The business of elementary waves colliding is unfinished business of TEW. Little talks about the possibility that there are a finite subset of types of elementary waves for the sub-atomic particles. Clearly, the full set of rules of elementary wave collisions is not yet created.

Philosophically, unfinished theories are OK. Gravity is unfinished business for qm, and in the meantime qm still clocked up lots of predictive success and was adopted by physicists. Unfinished areas of TEW or any theory are to be expected and are part of the overall evaluation of a theory.

To me, TEW has done enough: elementary wave collisions and photons explain how particles follow waves and momentum is conserved. I think P3) and P4) are answered.

Looking at the electrons repelling, what are the issue still unresolved for you?

Eugene Morrow

[phyllo]

In this case we have three elementary waves colliding. Elementary waves A and B are the appropriate frequency for an electron (which has a certain mass). Elementary wave C is for a photon, and it bounces backwards and forwards between the two collision points.

I don't understand any of this. What happened to superposition of waves? How can a wave be bouncing between two other waves? Collisions don't make sense. Especially in the context of an infinite number of elementary waves radiating from every physical particle.

[James S Saint]

Well, I don't think you are catching onto the issue of virtual versus real photons, but we can forget that for now. The issue that you cannot simply forget about is one of the very serious issues within QM that you are proposing that TEW also accepts.

Reality CANNOT actually be quantized for a variety of reasons and despite the wet dreams of the Quantum Magi. Something that classical physics as well as my own theory accepts is that angles MUST be able to be fully variant without restrictions of quantum degrees. What this means is that in the issue of reflections, the angle of reflection MUST exactly compensate for the amount of momentum imparted to the reflecting surface. Thus that amount of momentum cannot be quantized into fixed amounts, "photons".

The reflection angle of a particle cannot simply impart a preset amount of quantized momentum (the photon in question) and then head off in a prescribed quantized direction. This can be simply demonstrated with merely a laser and a common mirror. Use long distances and very slightly adjust the angle of the laser toward the mirror. According to QM, the reflected angle MUST jump from one setting "A" to another setting "B" without ever being in between, else the conservation of momentum will be violated or the transfer of momentum will not be quantized. What that means is that their photon, virtual or not, cannot exist as a photon; a fixed quanta of energy/momentum.

So if TEW agrees with the notion of transferring photons, real or virtual, so as to cause reflection, TEW has the same fatal problem.

To explain again;
If a particle is to meet an edge and reflect away, the direction it reflects must be determined by the amount of momentum it transferred to that edge. But in TEW, that direction is already preset by the angle from the origin source. So according to TEW, the particle must follow the path prescribed by the original source wave and ALSO follow the angle set by the proper amount of momentum transferred. Now how does the particle or photon involved, know exactly how much momentum to transfer before it knows the angle to the source? And even if it does have some magical means to know such a quantity, that quantity will NOT fall into a preset amount of momentum such as to fit into the notion of a photon transfer.

So what you are left with is that for the particle to follow a preset path of reflection, the elemental wave determining that direction has to directly affect how much momentum is being transferred to the edge involved. But if it is affecting momentum, it cannot be said to be without energy. In effect, the elemental wave must communicate to the particle that it is to give only and exactly "X" amount of momentum to the edge so that the particle can continue following the wave back to the source. But how did the wave know from what incidence angle the particle met the edge? The elemental wave could not have the information involved concerning the location of the particle source.

The elemental wave already is required to hold a horrendous amount of information merely to identify itself from all else (probably 2 social security numbers combined) but now you are saying that it must also magically know exactly how much momentum to tell the particle to transfer to each edge that might be encountered along the way and without knowing from which angle that particle was being sourced. That is a horrendous amount of information for something called "elemental" to be carrying.

P6) Elemental waves must know the angle of the source particle collision with each edge prior to its occurrence
P7) The amount of information involved in an "elemental wave" would be astronomical. Are they using DDRAM?

[EugeneMorrow]

Everyone,

We are looking at the double slit experiment, and comparing quantum mechanics (qm) and the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).

Phyllo,

Thanks for joining the discussion. Your points are very important:

What happened to superposition of waves? How can a wave be bouncing between two other waves? Collisions don't make sense. Especially in the context of an infinite number of elementary waves radiating from every physical particle.

I'll address these things below when I address the related points from James.


James S Saint,

In discussing particles following waves, your issues are best summarized in these words:

In effect, the elemental wave must communicate to the particle that it is to give only and exactly "X" amount of momentum to the edge so that the particle can continue following the wave back to the source. But how did the wave know from what incidence angle the particle met the edge?

The points raised by both of you are linked, so I'll answer the together. You are asking such detailed questions, I need to add some more details.

The expression "superposition" of waves is mainly a qm idea, not a TEW idea. In qm, "superposition" really means "we don't know anything until we take a measurement". The act of measurement makes the wave function "collapse". TEW completely rejects that type of explanation.

In TEW, the cases of "superpositiion" are much more straight forward and clear. In TEW, superposition applies only to elementary waves with the same "marker", which means they come from the same mass.

Masses do not really "emit" elementary waves - instead the elementary waves exist already, and they emerge from the mass having a "marker" from the mass that is unique. It's a bit like reflected light being affected by the mirror - the mirror does nothing. Masses do nothing - the elementary waves pass through them and get a "marker" from doing so.

Back to the elementary waves. If the elementary waves have the same "marker" then they can combine together in the normal way waves do. In the double slit experiment, elementary waves from a point D1 pass through the slits and become two wave "pieces'. These "pieces" have the same marker and can add together or cancel each other out in varying degrees. This is a normal wave interference pattern and is what stimulates the source to produce particles.

Elementary waves with different markers often have nothing to do with each other. The elementary waves from different points on the screen in the double slit experiment are like this - they act independently and ignore each other totally.

In limited cases (still to be fully worked out), elementary waves do collide. I'll add an extra detail to this picture.

The momentum of a wave is related to the wavelength by the famous De Broglie formula. This formula is agreed by qm and TEW - it's the explanation that differs. For qm, the wave and the particle are the same thing. In TEW, the momentum of the particle is related to the wavelength of the wave it is following. Notice how both theories use the same formula but have a different picture of what is happening.

Let's look at half of the picture of the electron repulsion I presented before.

Waves for one electron being repelled

Electron_Repulsion_one_wave_01.gif (3.11 KiB) Viewed 301 times

Elementary Wave A will (potentially) carry an electron, and it collides with a Elementary Wave C (which will potentially carry a photon). Let's just look at that collision only, and ignore the second collision for Elementary Wave C to the right. Remember that these elementary waves are happening continuously, even if no particles ever bother to appear.

The bit I want to address is what James focuses on - how the electron changes direction so precisely to conserve momentum and keep following the same wave. How does the wave get the particle to do this?

TEW claims (in principle) that the collision of the waves depends on two factors:
1. The angle between the waves.
2. The wavelengths of the two waves.

Notice how the collision between waves is quite "passive" - they both react at the point of the collision. Neither wave knew it would happen in advance.

An electron comes along to the collision point.

Electron follows Elementary Wave A

Electron_Repulsion_one_particle_01.gif (2.54 KiB) Viewed 301 times

The electron travels in the reverse direction, and at the collision point the electron is stimulated by Elementary Wave C to produce a photon. Why is that photon exactly the right momentum for the electron to change direction to keep following Elementary Wave A? Let's look at the logic, step by step.

For TEW, the momentum of the electron is calculated from the wavelength of Elementary Wave A. The momentum of the photon is calculated from the wavelength of Elementary Wave C.

The logic goes like this:

The wavelength controls the collision of each wave.
The wavelength controls the momentum of each particle that is following that wave.
Hence the wave collision and the momentum change of each particle exactly match, because they both have a common cause - the wavelength.

Notice how this mechanism is very local and passive - the Elementary Waves don't know before the collision what is going to happen. The waves just do their thing. The electron emitted just the right photon to change direction because Elementary Wave C has the right wavelength.

Does that make more sense? The wavelength of elementary waves is the short answer to all your questions.

This bring up another benefit of TEW. We all know about the law of conservation of momentum. What's the reason the law exists? "Because it always happens." There's never been anymore reason than that.

TEW provides a reason why momentum is conserved - the wavelengths are conserved in the collision of the elementary waves, so the overall amount of momentum in particles is conserved too. This picture is one of the reasons that TEW believes that particles are always following elementary waves at all times.

All this is the mechanism for a particle to change direction and keep following an elementary wave. The wave doesn't "force" the particle to follow - the link is the wavelength of the elementary wave.

Eugene Morrow

[James S Saint]

In TEW, the cases of "superpositiion" are much more straight forward and clear. In TEW, superposition applies only to elementary waves with the same "marker", which means they come from the same mass.

Untenable, but given that the elemental wave actually had a magic marker, you have at least answered that question. Not only does the particle know which wave to follow, but the waves know which other waves with which to interact.

Masses do not really "emit" elementary waves - instead the elementary waves exist already, and they emerge from the mass having a "marker" from the mass that is unique. It's a bit like reflected light being affected by the mirror - the mirror does nothing. Masses do nothing - the elementary waves pass through them and get a "marker" from doing so.

Okay

Back to the elementary waves. If the elementary waves have the same "marker" then they can combine together in the normal way waves do. In the double slit experiment, elementary waves from a point D1 pass through the slits and become two wave "pieces'. These "pieces" have the same marker and can add together or cancel each other out in varying degrees. This is a normal wave interference pattern and is what stimulates the source to produce particles.

Okay

Elementary waves with different markers often have nothing to do with each other. The elementary waves from different points on the screen in the double slit experiment are like this - they act independently and ignore each other totally.

In limited cases (still to be fully worked out), elementary waves do collide. I'll add an extra detail to this picture.

emm.. that amounts to additional magic; knowing when to collide and when not to.

The momentum of a wave is related to the wavelength by the famous De Broglie formula. This formula is agreed by qm and TEW - it's the explanation that differs. For qm, the wave and the particle are the same thing. In TEW, the momentum of the particle is related to the wavelength of the wave it is following. Notice how both theories use the same formula but have a different picture of what is happening.

Now you have crossed the line.
You are saying that one elemental wave might give the same type of particle a different amount of momentum such as to meet a different slit setting.

The problem with that is that particles have their own mass and speed and thus their own momentum. How is a wave going to dictate the momentum unless it either alters the particles mass (ain't gunna happen) or alters the particles speed.. easily proven one way or another. Since the wave is supposed to be setting the momentum of the particles, when they strike the screen, their momentum can easily be measured. Each different location should reveal a different momentum. It is highly unlikely that is going to be the real result, but it would help either substantiate or refute TEW.

Elementary Wave A will (potentially) carry an electron, and it collides with a Elementary Wave C (which will potentially carry a photon).

Magically knowing to collide with only C and not D,E,F,G,...Z,A1,A2,...

TEW claims (in principle) that the collision of the waves depends on two factors:
1. The angle between the waves.
2. The wavelengths of the two waves.

Notice how the collision between waves is quite "passive" - they both react at the point of the collision. Neither wave knew it would happen in advance.

An electron comes along to the collision point.

Electron_Repulsion_one_particle_01.gif

The electron travels in the reverse direction, and at the collision point the electron is stimulated by Elementary Wave C to produce a photon.

So sometimes the particle gets stimulated by a wave to follow it and sometimes it is stimulated to produce a photon (more magical distinction/information). Btw, particles still never produce photons, they merely transfer momentum. And my point, seemingly ignored, was that the momentum cannot be in quantized packets. Your next explanation involves that very notion. Thus TEW is not actually agreeing with QM on that matter. TEW cannot accept that there is any photon at that point, virtual or not.

For TEW, the momentum of the electron is calculated from the wavelength of Elementary Wave A. The momentum of the photon is calculated from the wavelength of Elementary Wave C.

Emmm.. that one won't work.
You are saying that at point D1, a wave length is set which somehow knows what momentum to give a particle.
But at the edge collision point, wave C somehow knows what wavelength to have such as to exactly match the required momentum to offset the wavelength and momentum already established concerning the particle.

How does D1 know where the slits are such as to know what wavelength to produce such as to cause the particle to angle off at the right direction (setting the right momentum angle) to meet the slit? It seems there is a sequence of events problem. If you move the slits, does the wavelength of D1 change to match the new requirement so as to give the right momentum to the particle?

The same kind of issue arises with wave C. How does the source for wave C know what wavelength will establish the right momentum transfer unless it already knows the incident angle of the particle that it hasn't yet met?

You have introduced wavelengths as a controlling element and that seems to make the issue even worse.

The wavelength controls the collision of each wave.

That doesn't explain how it knew to collide with wave C's wavelength. What if wave C had the wrong wavelength?

The wavelength controls the momentum of each particle that is following that wave.

The orthogonal momentum for each particle will change depending on the angle that is required by the slits, but the wavelength from source D1 has to be the same regardless of the position of the slits. A single wavelength cannot control all possible angles for all possible slit locations.

Notice how this mechanism is very local and passive - the Elementary Waves don't know before the collision what is going to happen. The waves just do their thing. The electron emitted just the right photon to change direction because Elementary Wave C has the right wavelength.

Until you move the slit.

Does that make more sense? The wavelength of elementary waves is the short answer to all your questions.

I'm afraid it actually makes less sense... sorry. The wavelength explanation seems to be even more untenable.

[EugeneMorrow]

James S Saint,

We are looking at the double slit experiment, and comparing quantum mechanics (qm) and the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).

It's great you are so picky and like to question so many things. The downside for me is that I need to reproduce a large fraction of the book on TEW to answer the questions.

I am working on getting the ideas and quotes together. I will write more on this later.

Eugene Morrow

[EugeneMorrow]

James S Saint,

I'll give you quick preview of my future posts.

In qm, the particle and the wave are the same thing, so mass and momentum are both regarded as properties of the particle.

In TEW the mass and momentum of a particle are properties of the elementary wave that the particle is following. This is an example of how qm and TEW agree on values and calculations, but have entirely different explanations of what the numbers mean in the real world. I have to get a lot of things together to present a complete picture of the TEW description here.

Eugene Morrow

[James S Saint]

Emm.. you are going to have to completely redefine what the words "mass" and "momentum" mean in order to make sense of that one, I'm afraid.

An energy-less entity cannot have either mass or momentum unless you redefine the words.

[EugeneMorrow]

James S Saint,

We are looking at the double slit experiment and also at electrons repelling each other, and comparing quantum mechanics (qm) and the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).

There's lots to talk about, and I'll try to be concise and more clear. You wrote:

An energy-less entity cannot have either mass or momentum unless you redefine the words.

The bit about "zero energy" waves is mainly a Lesson 101 type of comment, not a definition. The zero energy means we don't have to do anything to create elementary waves - they are there, and masses simply leave their "marker" on the elementary waves going through that mass.

TEW claims that mass, momentum and energy are measured from the particles and are actually determined by the wavelength or frequency of the elementary wave that the particle is following. It's one of those holistic claims of TEW - based on too many experiments and discussions to post here. Let's just leave that as a claim of TEW.

About particles changing direction, you wrote:

You are saying that one elemental wave might give the same type of particle a different amount of momentum such as to meet a different slit setting.

One thing I have not described well is the huge flux if elementary waves going through all points of the universe at all times. There are elementary waves of all frequencies and all polarizations, and each combination is a different wave (TEW does not give any granularity). TEW is not yet sure if it's infinite, but whatever the flux is it's really big.

Lewis Little makes a note on this in his 1996 paper on page 105, when he talks about elementary waves as "reverse waves":

It may seem far fetched to postulate the existence of such a complete set of waves, moving in all directions, with all frequencies, corresponding to all kinds of particles. However, this picture is not substantially different from the usual classical picture of a lighted room. Electromagnetic waves of all frequencies - albeit with amplitudes that vary with frequency - and moving in all directions, fill the room. This is, in essence, the picture I propose for the reverse waves.

If a particle has a different mass or momentum, then it is following a different elementary wave. There are plenty of elementary waves available.

Talking about electrons emitting photons, you wrote:

So sometimes the particle gets stimulated by a wave to follow it and sometimes it is stimulated to produce a photon (more magical distinction/information).

In TEW, particles are always following an elementary wave, period. This is another of those holistic claims.

All masses can emit photons - it's how masses lose heat. An electron is just another mass. In TEW, all emissions of photons are in response to incoming elementary waves.

For an electron following an elementary wave, it normally follows that wave and ignores all others. Only at the collision point does an incoming elementary wave stimulate the electron to emit or absorb a photon. TEW claims the wavelength of the colliding wave results in the right photon so that the electron keeps on following the original elementary wave.

You caught me by surprise on this one, James, - I thought emitting or absorbing photons would be a very uncontroversial part of TEW.

Also talking about change of direction, your wrote:

If you move the slits, does the wavelength of D1 change to match the new requirement so as to give the right momentum to the particle?

Point D1 on the detector in the double slit experiment has a huge number of elementary waves coming out. Some of them collide in the wrong way and miss the source of particles. We ignore them. Only the elementary waves that happen to collide in the right way get to the source (as long as they don't get cancelled out by waves of the same marker from the other slit). So the waves that get a particle have just the right collisions. If we move the slits, it's a different set of waves that have the right collisions. It's all rather passive.

What if wave C had the wrong wavelength?

Then that collision is one of the waves that does not get a particle. Only some waves will meet the right Wave C.

A single wavelength cannot control all possible angles for all possible slit locations.

Very true. That's why we need such a huge flux of elementary waves to provide enough options for particles.

If we move the slits, it's a different set of elementary waves that have the right collisions and get particles. The source, slits and detector never know in advance - the geometry just rewards some waves.

How am I doing making a bit more sense than before?

Eugene Morrow

[James S Saint]

The bit about "zero energy" waves is mainly a Lesson 101 type of comment, not a definition. The zero energy means we don't have to do anything to create elementary waves - they are there, and masses simply leave their "marker" on the elementary waves going through that mass.

It's rather poor form to alter a property originally introduced in lesson 101.
So now we are talking about waves that DO have energy but apparently never lose that energy.
That is a very different issue.

TEW claims that mass, momentum and energy are measured from the particles and are actually determined by the wavelength or frequency of the elementary wave that the particle is following. It's one of those holistic claims of TEW - based on too many experiments and discussions to post here. Let's just leave that as a claim of TEW.

I can tell you that simply isn't going to work. The momentum dynamics of particles is very well understood and pretty simple. The amount of momentum exchanged during collisions is dependent upon the angles of collision as well as size and velocity of each particle involved. The proposal that this exchange is being remote controlled by the preset wavelength of an elementary wave is inconceivable. The angle, velocity, and size of the particles involved cannot all be determined by a single preset property at a distance of something else. Multiple collisions would be very complex leading to entirely different momentum magnitudes and velocities yet the preset wavelength values would remain the same throughout.

You are saying that one elemental wave might give the same type of particle a different amount of momentum such as to meet a different slit setting.

One thing I have not described well is the huge flux if elementary waves going through all points of the universe at all times. There are elementary waves of all frequencies and all polarizations, and each combination is a different wave (TEW does not give any granularity). TEW is not yet sure if it's infinite, but whatever the flux is it's really big.

And yet never collide until it is convenient.
I can accept the notion of having nearly an infinite number of waves involved.
I cannot accept that they ignore each other until it is convenient to do otherwise.

If a particle has a different mass or momentum, then it is following a different elementary wave. There are plenty of elementary waves available.

Well there is the problem. The particle changes its orthogonal momentum at the slit edge, yet is following the same wave... ?? What happened to "the wavelength determines the momentum"?

And in addition, that same wave gave a different momentum to a different particle that changes its momentum in a different angle at the other slit. By merely moving the slit, that same wave gives a totally different set of values to particles such as to cause them to follow the right path. A single wavelength property simply cannot control the variety of concerns involved.

And if you propose that for each slit angle, there is a different wavelength, then the constructive collision of them at the particle source cannot happen.

And if you propose that the momentum is merely a function of the wavelength, how is it that the momentum changes yet it is still the same wavelength?

And if waves are coming through each point-mass at all directions, how do they know what wavelength to provide for the right slit angle?

All masses can emit photons - it's how masses lose heat. An electron is just another mass.

Well, I am going to tell you once more that statement is simply false. NO particle emits photons, ever. Atom combinations can emit photons, never single particles. No one in contemporary physics has ever claimed that they do and neither do I. It simply cannot happen. The "virtual photon" (ie. "pretend photon") in Feynman diagrams isn't claiming that any actual photon is emitted, merely a photon's worth of energy/momentum is exchanged.

If you want to say that wave C causes the particle to give up its momentum to the edge, that would be a different issue to discuss. I will not accept that any particle creates a photon at any time. That is paramount to saying that baseballs create bats which cause them to change direction but only when near home plate. The equations would be the same.

For an electron following an elementary wave, it normally follows that wave and ignores all others.

So how did it ever decide to follow that one? It was already following another.

Only at the collision point does an incoming elementary wave stimulate the electron to emit or absorb a photon. TEW claims the wavelength of the colliding wave results in the right photon so that the electron keeps on following the original elementary wave.

As stated above, completely unacceptable.

I thought emitting or absorbing photons would be a very uncontroversial part of TEW.

Frankly, I'm surprised that anyone would think that a particle could produce a photon.

[EugeneMorrow]

James S Saint,

We are looking at the double slit experiment and also at electrons repelling each other, and comparing quantum mechanics (qm) and the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).

The TEW claim that the mass, momentum and energy of particle relate to the frequency and wavelength of the elementary is too complex for me to outline here - it's something where you have to read the book.

Collisions are even more complex than I have given so far. Collisions of elementary waves can be "elastic" or "inelastic" where the wavelengths can change for an inelastic collision. In the double slit experiment, the collisions in the slit area are elastic - I am certain of that. My understanding is that the repelling of two electrons is also an elastic collision. It is possible that the collision could be either type, depending on the situation, so it may be more complex than I am presenting. Anyone reading the book can decide if I am giving a reasonable summary.

And if you propose that the momentum is merely a function of the wavelength, how is it that the momentum changes yet it is still the same wavelength?

The direction of the wave and the particle changes, so the momentum has changed. My understanding for the electrons is that the speed is still the same, so the wavelength-momentum relationship is still the same after the collision.

On particles following waves, you wrote:

So how did it ever decide to follow that one?

An particle always starts be following the elementary wave that created it. It will keep following that wave until an "inelastic" collision occurs, or the wave it is following is replaced. The wave being replaced happens, for example, when a photon of light from the sun is traveling towards you camera. During the 8 minutes from the sun, you put the lens cap on, so the photon hits the lens cap instead of the camera detector. This is a case when the elementary wave from the camera detector is replaced by the lens cap elementary wave. The photon continues on following a new wave.

We'll have to agree to disagree on particles emitting photons. I can't think of a way we can debate it constructively.

I am an enthusiastic supporter of TEW, and I hope I am representing the theory correctly. I see no problem if I am not - lots of people believe in qm, but I am sure very few could solve the Schrodinger wave equation accurately. What convinces me of TEW is the local and deterministic nature - whatever is happening in the collisions of elementary waves, it is something that waves do when they encounter each other, as distinct from qm where non-locality is a required feature.

One of the big advantages to the TEW claim that particles are always following waves is that the double slit experiment is so easy to explain when one particle is going through. For qm, one particle has to be a wave and a a spread out wave has to suddenly collapse into one point. For TEW, the elementary waves (lots) are always there, doing the interference at the source as usual. If the source sends one particle, then one lonely particle follows one wave back to the detector and an interference pattern slowly builds one particle at a time. There is no issue caused by a single particle coming back.

The "markers" that you call magic are definitely a big issue, because without them elementary waves would interfere long before they reached the slits and be meaningless. I agree we have one big issue for TEW identified. The questions about collisions of elementary waves are to me a minor issue to clarify.

Eugene Morrow

[James S Saint]

The direction of the wave and the particle changes, so the momentum has changed. My understanding for the electrons is that the speed is still the same, so the wavelength-momentum relationship is still the same after the collision.

Momentum is a vector. It has direction, not merely speed. And that direction of momentum vector is what must be conserved. A wavelength cannot do that because the direction must change (through imparting the momentum to something else), but the EW wavelength cannot change.

TEW can claim that the EW wavelength is responsible for the speed, but not the vector. Classical physics doesn't have that problem in that the vectors are all compensated properly by the particle being responsible for the momentum and exchanging it via interactions. The only difference between classical and QM physics is that QM proposes that only finite quanta of momentum can be exchanged (which is easily proven to be untrue, but still..).

On the momentum issue, although QM is incorrect, TEW wavelength theory is impossible.

An particle always starts be following the elementary wave that created it.

Wait. Now EWs are "creating" particles?!? Emm.. another issue.

TEW can talk about creating photons via additional inspiration triggering a photon generator, but electrons?? No way.
Creating an electron is no easy task and requires considerable energy, far more than any proposed EW could have.
And then what about protons? Their energy content is like 1000 times that of the electron.

It is one thing to propose that all particles are always already following an invisible wave. It is a seriously different thing to propose that those waves are actually creating particles. And since they cannot be creating the particles and the particles are already following a wave, there needs to be a reason for them to change from one wave to another.

It will keep following that wave until an "inelastic" collision occurs, or the wave it is following is replaced. The wave being replaced happens, for example, when a photon of light from the sun is traveling towards you camera. During the 8 minutes from the sun, you put the lens cap on, so the photon hits the lens cap instead of the camera detector. This is a case when the elementary wave from the camera detector is replaced by the lens cap elementary wave. The photon continues on following a new wave.

How does it choose which wave to follow if its guide wave disappears??
If you slightly move the EW source to the left a fraction, does the particle reach the new location?
Can you lead the particle in circles by having the EW source (the screen) spinning around and around very quickly?

I suspect that it would be easy to prove that a particle will end up on the same geometric location, even if the screen is moved to the right or left a little. During that process, the TEW is going to have a continuity problem to explain.

I am an enthusiastic supporter of TEW

Yes, I noticed.

What convinces me of TEW is the local and deterministic nature - whatever is happening in the collisions of elementary waves, it is something that waves do when they encounter each other, as distinct from qm where non-locality is a required feature.

Examining the actual "deterministic quality of the TEW is all I have really been doing. Every event must have a proper cause, else it is "MAGIC".

One of the big advantages to the TEW claim that particles are always following waves is that the double slit experiment is so easy to explain when one particle is going through.

It is also easy to explain that the baseball flies out of the stadium because it produced a bat at just the right moment over home plate.
The deterministic reasoning has to be coherent and consistent, else you really have nothing. You can propose an invisible something that is a bit magical, but only a very small bit. But that something can't be breaking demonstrable relationship laws (like the momentum vector issue).

So okay,
1) you can see that the magic marker is an issue.
2) You should be able to see that the momentum vector is also an issue (the orthogonal components must be conserved in totem).
3) Creating particles is out of the question.
4) Particles creating actual photons is out of the question.
5) "Follow me" phenomena is a little magical on top of the invisible wave concept.

To me, 1 and 5 are the issues of "a little magical", but not necessarily impossible (although highly improbable).
But 2, 3, and 4 are simply unacceptable and are equivalent to QM's "backwards time" issue as far as believability.

Because 2-4 come up trying to defend the "changing direction" issue, to sum it up;
1) Magic Markers
2) Magic "Follow Me" properties
3) Magic missing momentum

That is still a little too much magic.

Note that I don't mention that the idea of invisible waves is an issue of magic even though to most people it would be. I don't have an issue with invisible waves, because I happen to know that such waves are not only possible but are absolutely certain. But as I stated before, they are along the lines of noise more than what we would call waves. They have no specific frequency properties or magic markers as far as I can tell.

[EugeneMorrow]

James S Saint,

Thanks for the detailed list of issues - as usual I have lots of work to do.

I am busy today, so I won't be able to give a lot of details. I have some quick responses:

(a) Of course velocity has direction as well as speed. I assumed it was obvious that the direction (reversed) of the elementary waves is the direction of the particle. The equation for momentum and wavelength assumes that direction.

(b) When I said that a particle follows the elementary wave that created it, I means the usual description where the elementary wave stimulates a source that produces a particle which follows the elementary wave that stimulated the source. Surely I was giving a summary of the TEW description, not introducing a new idea here.

I have to do a lot more discussing of the issues yet, so I'll have to leave that for tomorrow. I don't think the list of issues is as long as you have prepared - I think there are common issues mixed up in there. But I'll have to do some more work to make that clear.

Eugene Morrow

[James S Saint]

Realize that every particle is ALREADY created and thus, according to TEW already following an EW. Thus for the particle to begin following one from the screen source, it must give up the one that it necessarily must already be following.

[EugeneMorrow]

James S Saint,

We are looking at the double slit experiment and also at electrons repelling each other, and comparing quantum mechanics (qm) and the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).

You have patiently raised lots of points in the last few days, and I am going to try and cover them all in this post.

Yes, it was poor form to have a lesson 101 statement in my posts. I have learned to be more careful in debating.

You summarized the issues as follows:
1) you can see that the magic marker is an issue.
2) You should be able to see that the momentum vector is also an issue (the orthogonal components must be conserved in totem).
3) Creating particles is out of the question.
4) Particles creating actual photons is out of the question.
5) "Follow me" phenomena is a little magical on top of the invisible wave concept.


1) you can see that the magic marker is an issue.
============================================
I totally agree the "marker" on an elementary wave is an issue. This has several dimensions. Firstly, how does each mass impart a unique "marker" on an elementary wave. Secondly, how does one wave know that it can interfere only with another wave that has the same marker? Thirdly, sometimes a wave collides with a wave with a different marker - why does it collide and not interfere? So this one issue could be thought of as three.


2) You should be able to see that the momentum vector is also an issue (the orthogonal components must be conserved in totem).
=================================================================================================

Of course the momentum vector is an issue. The De Broglie equation that is shared between qm and TEW also includes the vector concept.

You have raised a number of points about momentum. In TEW, the elementary wave collide first, and a particle comes along later in the opposite direction and either emits or absorbs a photon at a collision point to that the particle keeps following the same wave. You have highlighted concerns about how the momentum is conserved, both between colliding waves and the particle that follows a wave.

I have thought about the issues and decided I am probably not representing TEW correctly enough here. I said before that the wavelength of an elementary wave does not change after a collision point, but thinking logically it may. I have not been able to re-read enough in the 1996 paper or the TEW book to pin this down, so I will stick to the principle that the wavelength of the elementary waves is the common factor in the collision of the waves and the particle still following the same wave after the collision point. As for a more detailed description, I'll have to concede I don't have enough understanding to explain it any better than that for now. If I re-read and work it out, I'll say something then. Obviously, Lewis Little or Jeff Boyd (his cousin who is another physicist) could give a definitive answer on this.

You mentioned about momentum and quantization, and said:

momentum cannot be in quantized packets

It seems somewhat ironic that a supporter of qm is objecting to something being quantized - the whole theme of qm.

TEW claims that a particle change direction by emitting or absorbing a photon, so in that sense I guess TEW claims that momentum is quantized. However, since TEW uses the same De Broglie forumla for relating a wavelength to momentum, you could argue TEW does not quantize momentum. So I'm very neutral on whether TEW is really saying momentum if quantized. I think Lewis Little himself will have to answer that one.


3) Creating particles is out of the question.
=======================================

I think I have confused the business of creating particles by switching between talking about the double slit experiment and then talking about electron repulsion.

Lots of things create particles - like electron guns and light globes. TEW claims that all source emit particles in response to incoming elementary waves. Way back in my original post, I talked about the neutron experiment. We changed an analyzer crystal, and this changed the interference in the experiment. If you look at that experiment, it is clear evidence that when we changed the elementary waves going into the source, this change the neutrons coming out and the interference of the neutrons. TEW claims that experiment shows that a source responds to different elementary waves by producing different particles.

The TEW mechanism is that incoming elementary wave reaches the source and the more intense the incoming elementary wave the more likely a particle is emitted following that wave. This is the sense in which the "elementary wave created the particle" - the source actually created it in response to the elementary wave, so you can think of the incoming elementary wave as the cause.

Somehow I have not communicated this well You wrote:

Thus for the particle to begin following one from the screen source, it must give up the one that it necessarily must already be following.

In the double slit experiment, the particle was created at the source because of the stimulation of incoming Elementary Wave from point D1 on the detector or screen. So the particle is following Elementary Wave D1. That wave started at D1, had a collision in one of the slits and reached the source (probably combining constructively with other D1 waves as it arrived).

So the particle always follows Elementary Wave D1, until it finally reaches the detector. I am puzzled why you said "give up that one it necessarily must already be following".

I am wondering if the issue is that a particle is following Elementary Wave D1, which has a collision in the slits. For TEW, the particle emits a photon because it was stimulated by the slit elementary wave, and then the particle keeps following Elementary Wave D1. Is that what you mean?

The answer is that TEW allows for this in the journey of a particle following a wave. It's part of all this collision dynamics, that is clearly incomplete (and unconvincing to some readers).


4) Particles creating actual photons is out of the question.
====================================================

You wrote:

Atom combinations can emit photons

An atom combination could be a molecule of hydrogen, with only two protons and two electrons. It strongly implies that two protons in a molecule can emit or absorb photons. Metallic hydrogen (near zero Kelvin) can clearly be able to emit photons to cool and absorb photons to heat, so that could be taken as proof that individual protons can do it. That strongly implies that perhaps one proton can emit and absorb photons.

Also in the electron repulsion, qm at least allows for a virtual photon to be emitted and absorbed by electrons.

It is such a stretch that an electron could emit or absorb a photon? I acknowledge qm is firmly against the idea - I am simply saying that qm and TEW are not far apart on this point.


5) "Follow me" phenomena is a little magical on top of the invisible wave concept.
=========================================================================

I think this is a summary of the issues we've had above.


My own summary of the issues with TEW is this:

A. The "marker" that makes the waves coming out of a mass unique. TEW agrees the marker is unknown.
B. Elementary waves only interfere with waves of the same marker.
C. Elementary waves sometimes collide with waves of different markers. These can be "elastic" or "inelastic" collisions.
D. My own knowledge of momentum during elementary wave collisions is insufficient for now to give a properly quantitative description and hence nail down why the particle follows the same wave after an "elastic" collision.
E. TEW claims that particles emit photons to change direction. For qm, these are either "virtual photons" or this is unacceptable. For qm, this is possible for groups of atoms, but not individual particles.

How is this summary to you?

Eugene Morrow

[James S Saint]

I said before that the wavelength of an elementary wave does not change after a collision point, but thinking logically it may.

It can't because it is being set and sent by point D1.

It seems somewhat ironic that a supporter of qm is objecting to something being quantized - the whole theme of qm.

Are you confusing me with a supporter of QM?!?!
I think the Quantum Magi are a gang of flakes.

Lots of things create particles - like electron guns and light globes.

Emm.. no. The particle "sources" merely provide the particles. The source is not creating them. The particles are already there and merely released. The issue becomes one of why the particle, already following an EW, chose to change which EW to follow such as to proceed to the screen. If it does this at the source, then why isn't it doing it elsewhere throughout the volume. It seems that particles would have a somewhat random motion and thus show no pattern of any type on the screen.

An atom combination could be a molecule of hydrogen, with only two protons and two electrons. It strongly implies that two protons in a molecule can emit or absorb photons. Metallic hydrogen (near zero Kelvin) can clearly be able to emit photons to cool and absorb photons to heat, so that could be taken as proof that individual protons can do it. That strongly implies that perhaps one proton can emit and absorb photons.

First, that would be a Helium atom, not hydrogen. But a photon is created by the energy that is between the particles, not from the particles themselves. A single particle cannot produce anything but its own mass and/or charge field. For anything like a photon to be produced, that field must encounter an opposing field and the speed of their field interaction is what creates the photon and parcels the momentum.

Also in the electron repulsion, qm at least allows for a virtual photon to be emitted and absorbed by electrons.

An electron, or any particle, does not change its energy. The energy is between two particles. The QM theory is that the energy must be in quantum steps rather than infinitely variable as classic physics would have it. Classic physics is right.

It is such a stretch that an electron could emit or absorb a photon?

No. It is not "a stretch". It is totally impossible.

My own summary of the issues with TEW is this:

A. The "marker" that makes the waves coming out of a mass unique. TEW agrees the marker is unknown. [and a HUGE amount of information]
B. Elementary waves only interfere with waves of the same marker.
C. Elementary waves sometimes collide with waves of different markers. These can be "elastic" or "inelastic" collisions.
D. My own knowledge of momentum during elementary wave collisions is insufficient for now to give a properly quantitative description and hence nail down why the particle follows the same wave after an "elastic" collision.
E. TEW claims that particles emit photons to change direction. For qm, these are either "virtual photons" or this is unacceptable. For qm, this is possible for groups of atoms, but not individual particles. [such amounts of momentum cannot be quantized by either QM or TEW]

How is this summary to you?

Eugene Morrow

F. The instigation for a particle to change from its source EW to the screen EW is an issue. (particles are NOT created by the source, merely provided.)
G. Particles follow waves for no known good reason ("magic").

I think that would about do it. Some of those issues cannot be resolved.
Still feel comfortable with it?