New theory of quantum world

[EugeneMorrow]

James S Saint,

As a reminder to other readers, this is a debate about the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) which is a rival to quantum mechanics (qm).

I was not "proving" by referring to the experiment - I was simply giving a clear example of what I mean by the particle changing direction while following the wave.

The mechanism in TEW for the particle following the wave is described in the references I gave. You don't have to read it, but I'm not going to all the work of repeating it here.

The points on the screen or a detector are not in phase together. TEW has never said that. Each point on a detector or screen has it's own elementary wave and acts completely independently of the other points. You need to say a bit more about what you're talking about here.


Calrid,

Bell's Theorem has a different explanation in TEW. The summary is as follows:

1. Neither qm or TEW can explain the results, so it's an area for more research.

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

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

There doesn't seem to be any way for qm and TEW supporters to discuss that experiment with any hope of resolving the different views.

Eugene Morrow

[Calrid]

Oh I know TEW is separate theory and I have read your posts with interest.

This thread is not about rivals to qm per se, just about why it is wrong and why. James is an expert in making claims but a novice in showing why, it's irritating but you get used to it. He is strong on assertions and light on actually showing why.

According to him Special relativity is all wrong qm is all wrong, but every time you try and squeeze a reason why out of him he just claims you could not possibly understand it. Fuck me really but why.

For example I could not possibly understand the algorithms this genius has done, and yet this genius has never bothered to actually explain them. So yes amongst simpletons, he is right, no one can understand this guy because this guy never bothers to explain anything unless it is to claim you are unable to understand it, much like religion.

Hale fucking lujah.

By the way I stopped arguing when I saw your argument had a point, as interpretations go it's no worse than any other.

I am perfectly willing to accept qm is wrong but not because James says so. Will he ever put his money where his mouth is, who knows, but one thing I can be sure of is he will fade into obscurity die and be forgotten. I don't feel good about that because he so could do something about it but he chooses not to. So I attack him because he is indolent, not because he is wrong.

[James S Saint]

I was not "proving" by referring to the experiment - I was simply giving a clear example of what I mean by the particle changing direction while following the wave.

The mechanism in TEW for the particle following the wave is described in the references I gave. You don't have to read it, but I'm not going to all the work of repeating it here.

The points on the screen or a detector are not in phase together. TEW has never said that. Each point on a detector or screen has it's own elementary wave and acts completely independently of the other points. You need to say a bit more about what you're talking about here.

Well okay, but nothing has been said, even in the references that wasn't merely, "it might work like this". Such statements are a bit meaningless without some kind of explanation to backup WHY it might work that way other than merely seeing that something happens and ONE explanation MIGHT be this theory.

As to the waves being in phase, every explanation he has given has assumed that and the entire theory actually depends on them having a predictable phase relation. Without a phase relation, there can be no justification for any particle to follow or even be triggered to follow a particular screen wave from any particular location. The theory depends on the portions of the screen labeled "1,2,3,4, and 5" having a set phase relationship, else the origin of the wave would be irrelevant.

[Fixed Cross]

What is important to point out is that the interactions are all local and deterministic. Unlike qm, the particle just deals with what's happening in it's immediate vicinity, and that's all it needs. For qm, "non-local' effects are required to explain results, whereas TEW has no need of that.

To deal exclusively with direct necessities in local ( actual ) interactions is the first criterium for a philosophically valid scientific theory. All assumptions of objective, omnipresent meta-laws existing a priori to any real particle need to be dismissed very urgently to arrive at some kind of sensible science.

I have figured out in philosophical terms the basic necessity for any existing particle. It does away with the necessity (and likelihood) of any meta-laws or constants. All necessities emerge from within the particle/beings own structure and how this is defined by its interactions and consequently by that which it is interacting with.

This is not to say that there are no real constants, but that these constants are emergent and not a priori, and that they are contingent to a truly local necessity, as explained by value ontology.

Value ontology is the interpretation of "being"/"the world" as composed of beings, subjects. It explains the structure of a subject as a mechanism whereby substance is assimilated in terms dictated by the nature of the subject. This assimilating is done by "valuing", that is, selecting. This selecting requires a standard, a ground value. This ground value is perpetually being set by and as a fundamental mechanism, that sustains itself by restricting its selection of its interactions with the outside to the type that sustains it.

Value ontology therefore refers to a logical circularity that is expressed in temporality as a circuitry tending to expand itself by integrating what it encounters while maintaining its integral structure. The theory explains why what exists exists and persists through time, by making it evident that whatever does not have a "self-valuing" (such a mechanism by which a standard is maintained that serves to keep this mechanism operative) can not maintain structural integrity, i.e. can not persist.

I wonder if Elementary Wave Theory may be understood alongside these logical necessities. To attain an answer here we'd need to know what an elementary wave "is". What is its structure/mechanism? Does the theory posit a logically comprehensible ground to such waves, or does it remain entirely phenomenological? In the latter case, are EW's to be seen as fundamental?

[phyllo]

As to the waves being in phase, every explanation he has given has assumed that and the entire theory actually depends on them having a predictable phase relation. Without a phase relation, there can be no justification for any particle to follow or even be triggered to follow a particular screen wave from any particular location. The theory depends on the portions of the screen labeled "1,2,3,4, and 5" having a set phase relationship, else the origin of the wave would be irrelevant.

Isn't this covered by the concept that there are an infinite number of waves at the detector - I read that as suggesting all frequencies and phases are present.

[James S Saint]

As to the waves being in phase, every explanation he has given has assumed that and the entire theory actually depends on them having a predictable phase relation. Without a phase relation, there can be no justification for any particle to follow or even be triggered to follow a particular screen wave from any particular location. The theory depends on the portions of the screen labeled "1,2,3,4, and 5" having a set phase relationship, else the origin of the wave would be irrelevant.

Isn't this covered by the concept that there are an infinite number of waves at the detector - I read that as suggesting all frequencies and phases are present.

If that were the case, there would be no wave at all. A flat fourier analysis and a void are the same thing.
Energy (the ability to do anything at all) becomes apparent only when there is distinction in the sum total (ie. the wave).

Dr Boyd gave a specific explanation displaying the need for constructive phase influence upon the emitter.

I wonder if Elementary Wave Theory may be understood alongside these logical necessities. To attain an answer here we'd need to know what an elementary wave "is". What is its structure/mechanism? Does the theory posit a logically comprehensible ground to such waves, or does it remain entirely phenomenological? In the latter case, are EW's to be seen as fundamental?

Value-ontology is phenomenological. It states that "something like X must be happening in order for a particle to exist". Your theory to that extent is exactly correct. But it offers nothing toward exactly what it is that a particle values. I could fill you in on that, but it isn't MY theory.

[phyllo]

If that were the case, there would be no wave at all. A flat fourier analysis and a void are the same thing.
Energy (the ability to do anything at all) becomes apparent only when there is distinction in the sum total (ie. the wave).

I think they are zero energy waves as well.

[James S Saint]

If that were the case, there would be no wave at all. A flat fourier analysis and a void are the same thing.
Energy (the ability to do anything at all) becomes apparent only when there is distinction in the sum total (ie. the wave).

I think they are zero energy waves as well.

It is a fact that (and I thought at first this is where he was leading) all substances give off a constant "noise" radiation that is somewhat random, which is why it can't be easily detected. But it is seriously noise or random related. Because of it having no set frequency and certainly no phase relation to other portions of the substance (other particles), the proposed constructive wave interference at the emitter could not occur, or not due to those waves.

[EugeneMorrow]

This is such a constructive forum.

Calrid,

You and James seem to have interacted many times before ! I am fine with James because we agree that quantum mechanics (qm) is full of absurdities. It's good that others like you are here to check we aren't going too far !


James S Saint,

My original post gives a quick description of the double slit experiment by talking about one point on the detector called D1. D1 emits an elementary wave, and the geometry of where it is controls how much waves from D1 interfere when they reach the source. Waves from point D2 alongside might interfere slightly more or less. The level of that interference is what triggers the source - the more constructive the interference the more likely that the source sends a particle back along the wave coming in.

So point D1 may get no particles because the D1 elementary waves completely cancel out at the source. Point D152 might get lots of particles, because the D152 elementary waves all add together at the source. Point D304 gets no particles again, because the D304 waves cancel out. In between the points get some number of particles. When you look at the particles arriving at all the point on the detector, you see an interference pattern. It is made up of separate elementary waves for each point on the detector.

There is no coordination between all the points. Each one emits it's own elementary waves and may or may not get a particle. Each one just deals with what is happening locally - they don't know and don't care about what is happening at the other points.

Have I answered your question?


Phyllo,

Thanks for joining in - I agree with what you said. I can see how some people (including me) find the huge flux of elementary waves somewhat hard to swallow. I have wracked my brains to think of a simpler way it could work without such a big flux, but the more I think about it the more I have to concede that Lewis Little has good reasons for this claim.

There is the possibility that Little may change TEW in the future (or his successors may change it). On page 150 of the TEW book, Lewis Little says:

In the picture of the universe presented by TEW thus far, elementary waves corresponding to every different kind of particle would have to be everywhere in space at all times. Although there is no valid reason why thsi could not be the case, it seems much more likely, given the available evidence, that the various different waves corresponding to different particles are combinations or compounds of a set of a few waves - a set of the most elementary elementary-waves.

So perhaps there is some "subset" of elementary waves that is underneath all the others. Hopefully, he may live long enough (he's 71) and TEW may get the support from the physics world so that Little can look at this issue.


Fixed Cross,

Thank you for joining - your questions need to be asked about TEW. I will do my best to answer the questions, given the 1996 article and the TEW book. Perhaps Lewis Little will answer them more directly some day.

TEW has a proposition about what the elementary waves actually are, based on the evidence. Yes, TEW believes elementary wave are real, physical entities.

Yes, elementary waves are "fundamental" to the universe. Physics already talks about elementary particles like electrons and photons - meaning that (so far) we cannot break those particles down into anything smaller. TEW proposes that elementary waves are the same thing in terms of waves in the universe.

TEW proposes that elementary waves are a sort of "infrastructure" to the universe. They travel at the speed of light (c) and thanks to Special Relativity all observers measure elementary waves are propagating at that speed. Photons are always traveling at c - we cannot slow them down - and it's the same with elementary waves. This is why elementary waves are not an "aether".

TEW is consistent with Special Relativity, and Lewis Little claims TEW even predicts Special Relativity. This is a big philosophical advantage of TEW - the split between qm and relativity is at least partly closed by TEW. How TEW relates to General Relativity is work not yet completed by Lewis Little.

TEW proposes that elementary waves do what waves do - they sometimes bounce of masses (diffraction), and this is an example of an "elastic" collision. The waves sometimes have "inelastic" collisions with masses. The difference between the elastic and inelastic collisions is the that inelastic collision changes a "marker" or "signature" on the elementary wave. After the inelastic collision, the marker changes to something that is unique to the mass in that collision. The marker identifies that elementary wave. The mechanism for the marker is not currently known, so TEW is not a complete theory in that regard.

Source of particles, like a light globe, respond to incoming elementary waves by sending particles back. Each elementary wave has a unique marker, and gets it's own particle (or not - the source decides if it will respond to each individual incoming wave).

Particles (such as photons) always follow an elementary wave in the reverse direction, so the photon ends up colliding with the mass that put the marker on the wave. For example, in a room with a light globe, elementary waves travel from all parts of the surface of the room to the light globe, with each point in the room having a unique marker. For a good working light globe, each elementary wave gets a photon which travels back to that surface point.

This is a big difference between quantum mechanics (qm) and TEW - in qm the photons appear to be emitted randomly. For TEW it is deterministic: the incoming elementary wave stimulates the photon.

What is the evidence for all this? A good place to start is the neutron experiment we have been discussing at length on this forum. A quick summary is below:

Nuclear reactor -----> Neutron Interferometer (NI) -----> Analyzer crystal -----> Detector
(shows direction of neutrons)

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

The key effect is that a new analyzer crystal changes what is happening in the NI. Specifically, a new analyzer crystal changes the coherence length of the neutrons in the NI. See Table VIII on page 41 for hard numbers on the coherence length for the crystals chosen. The paper is 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 TEW, waves are going right to left so the effect happens in normal time. TEW explains why the analyzer crystal affects the NI and the source - the waves travel in that direction.

Notice how the analyzer crystal changes the elementary waves going left, and we get different particles going back right. In this experiment, TEW believes that the coherence length was set at the source, and this affects the behavior of the NI when the neutrons get there.

This is the evidence that:
1. Elementary waves travel in the opposite direction to the particles (it's the only wave direction that makes sense).
2. Elementary waves stimulate the particles - because when we change the elementary waves we get different particles.
3. Since the wave is in the opposite direction to the particle, then the the particle and the wave are different entities - thus completely contradicting the qm claim of "wave particle duality".

There is more evidence in the 1996 paper and the 2009 book. I am only giving the clearest example, so you can see what is behind the TEW claims.

Eugene Morrow

[James S Saint]

My original post gives a quick description of the double slit experiment by talking about one point on the detector called D1. D1 emits an elementary wave, and the geometry of where it is controls how much waves from D1 interfere when they reach the source. Waves from point D2 alongside might interfere slightly more or less. The level of that interference is what triggers the source - the more constructive the interference the more likely that the source sends a particle back along the wave coming in.

So point D1 may get no particles because the D1 elementary waves completely cancel out at the source. Point D152 might get lots of particles, because the D152 elementary waves all add together at the source. Point D304 gets no particles again, because the D304 waves cancel out. In between the points get some number of particles. When you look at the particles arriving at all the point on the detector, you see an interference pattern. It is made up of separate elementary waves for each point on the detector.

There is no coordination between all the points. Each one emits it's own elementary waves and may or may not get a particle. Each one just deals with what is happening locally - they don't know and don't care about what is happening at the other points.

Have I answered your question?

Yes, but not to your favor. Because there is no phase relationship, there cannot be any "following the wave" going on.
Dr Little seems to have a hint of my "affectance waves" and that seems to be what he is focusing on. But they cannot be causing any particle to flow such a wave. They are very noisy and combine both constructively and destructively, thus unpredictably and unreliably. They cannot guide anything except in the way of a gravity type of affect in a generalized direction. They certainly cannot cause a particle to turn a corner.



Now throughout this whole explanation and his others, they seem to freely ignore the fact that every other surface is also giving off affectance waves that cannot be distinguished from the screen waves. Thus there must be constructive and destructive interference due to the combination of all waves from all points on all surfaces throughout the entire structure. The end result of that is that there cannot be an incentive for any emitted particle to know which wave to follow because that wave doesn't even exist beyond the point of interference anymore. There is no "trail" to follow and certainly no coherent beam.

And he hasn't figured this out since 1996?!? Hmm

[EugeneMorrow]

James S Saint,

We are discussing aspects of the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) as compared to quantum mechanics (qm).

I have no idea what your "affectance waves" are, so I'll leave that alone.

In TEW, you don't accept the explanation of how a particle follows an elementary wave in the reverse direction. Fine, not much we can debate there.

You asked an important question about the double slit experiment. In TEW there are elementary waves comes from all points on the detector, and each of these waves is separate. Why don't all these waves interfere with each other?

In my last post to Fixed Cross, I talked about "inelastic collisions" and a unique "marker" on each wave:

... inelastic collision changes a "marker" or "signature" on the elementary wave. After the inelastic collision, the marker changes to something that is unique to the mass in that collision. The marker identifies that elementary wave. The mechanism for the marker is not currently known, so TEW is not a complete theory in that regard.

This is where the "marker" comes into play. Little describes it best in his 2009 book on page 31. He asks the same question and writes:

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

Like the explanation of how particles follow a wave, it's up to you whether you accept the TEW explanation or not. I accept this because TEW gets rid of all the absurdities in qm that I don't like. Overall, I can cope with an aspect of TEW that still needs to be sorted.

Eugene Morrow

[Fixed Cross]

Thanks for the explanation. I do not understand everything as I have not followed up on all the references and have not read the book. But what I understand is very interesting, for reasons to do with my own questioning into the machinery of the universe. The theory seems to corroborate in a surprisingly literal way the propositions and requirements of value ontology. Therefore it may possibly also rely on these, facing the problem of positing the "medium" whereby waves and particles are connected to each other, which is what James objections seems to be about.

Rather than positing any kind of physical medium, what may (or may have to) suffice, since we are observing the limit of physicality, is a medium that is explicated only in logical terms, that is not understood to be literally manifest. A particle and its complementary elementary wave are, if the theory is accurate, connected to each other in terms of their value with respect to each other. This would be a question of valencies. To understand why this can be fundamental, we have to look deeper than phenomenologically, and understand ourselves, the logical mind, as the primal medium of "what is taking place", even more fundamental than our conception of waves and particles.

What is posited then is the ground of the mind as the ground of the physical universe, without positing one as the ground of the other. We require both at once to be fully sufficiently accurate in our definitions - we need to define the defining at the same time as the defined. It has been a question of finding the right term, something applying in a similar way to both logic and physicality.

Another way of saying this is that we may choose perceive a particle and a wave moving in opposite directions in each others paths, determining each other, but what we may also choose the perceive is the activity of value-projecting by a substance, which is the only way in which it can interact, "be causal", i.e. be observed to exist.

This is all a matter of logically having to breach the hegemony of the notion of physicality at the limit of what can be observed as physical.

Of course this leaves open the question of how this valency-medium can be seen to operate, if we choose to extrapolate it into physical terms - I leave this to you and James, as my thoughts on this are just barely beginning to produce fruit.

James - value ontology, because it is entirely abstract (positing "value" as the constant instead of as the variable) is precisely not phenomenological. What you re asking is that it step out into phenomenology, and this is like asking the sky to produce rain. It will, eventually, but has to accumulate a certain density that makes this step necessary.

[James S Saint]

Dr Boyd specifically pointed out the requirement to have constructive phasing of the waves. Now you add "magic markers" as well.

Between the required phase relation that cannot happen, the need for magic markers, and the ability for a wave to turn a particle around a corner, I would have to say that their TEW is not any better than QM, even though I disagree with QM.

The simple truth is that it is the edges of the slit that is causing the appearance of an interference pattern for particles. Only in polarization of spin do particles interfere with each other unless they have charge (which is why they are using neutrons rather than electrons). Photons can have phase interference regardless of spin. The same experiment will give similar results for each type of particle or wave, yet be doing it for different reasons. But in all cases, it is the edge of the slits that is causing the resultant patterns.

The detailed explanation of this requires that the "hidden variables" be isolated and demonstrated such as to no longer be a part of the confusion. The distance between the slits is where to begin distinguishing particle effects from wave effects. Until then it is merely a side show.

James - value ontology, because it is entirely abstract (positing "value" as the constant instead of as the variable) is precisely not phenomenological. What you re asking is that it step out into phenomenology, and this is like asking the sky to produce rain. It will, eventually, but has to accumulate a certain density that makes this step necessary.

"Value is a constant"???
Constantly existing, yes. But not of a constant value for all things. That wouldn't make any sense.

[Fixed Cross]

Eugene - in even simpler terms: I interpret the theory you present as an explication of reciprocality. This two-way traffic has always been implicit in all logical arguments as the very "medium" whereby logic occurs (the "=" which forms the structure and dynamic). It has however not been present in our understanding of the physical universe. Surely, a cause causes an effect as much as the effect can be traced back, in a study of quantities and qualities, to the cause, but we still do not assume that the effect causes the cause. In order to make our model comprehensive and hermetic, to properly stand aove the logic and see it self-enclosed, we must do this as well. And only then do we see the greater picture of the specific type of causes and effects that do take place and form this particular universe, seemingly out of an endless variety of possibilities. In fact there is only one possibility, this one - this has to do with the type of causes that find an effect in which these causes are affirmed, perpetuated - causes that are able to "self-value", project value, sustain any sort of form.

I honestly can not expect all of this to make sense directly - it requires that one stops taking logic for granted, and observe the inherent mechanism of logic as a particular and "strange", not a universal and self-evident quality. It requires also the abandonment of the assumption that we stand outside of our observations and conceptualizations. Not to confuse this with the idea that our observations "directly" influence the behavior of waves or particles, but that our consciousness prescribes certain conditions to our observations and concepts.

[Fixed Cross]

James - value ontology, because it is entirely abstract (positing "value" as the constant instead of as the variable) is precisely not phenomenological. What you re asking is that it step out into phenomenology, and this is like asking the sky to produce rain. It will, eventually, but has to accumulate a certain density that makes this step necessary.

"Value is a constant"???
Constantly existing, yes. But not of a constant value for all things. That wouldn't make any sense.

I don't mean that "value is constant", indeed that would make everything impossible. Clumsy use of terms on my part. What I mean is that the term "value" acquires a primacy, is not anymore a condition to the existence of the argument/equation. The equation is a modulation of the first equation "to self-value" i.e. "self-holding-standard". Of course this was always the case, but it was never explicated.

[EugeneMorrow]

Fixed Cross and James S Saint,

I am going away for the weekend, so I'll return to this discussion again on Monday. Thanks for your posts.

Eugene Morrow

[EugeneMorrow]

Fixed Cross,

You are bringing in a lot of abstract ideas, and I think it's much too soon. My original post is a book review of a new theory (the Theory of Elementary Waves or TEW) as compared to the current theory (quantum mechanics or qm).

My book review noted how qm and TEW use the same mathematics and the same predictions, so separating the two theories is very difficult. I presented a neutron experiment where the two theories have starkly different explanations, and this provides ample grounds for debate.

As for the value ontology approach, I think you need to read the book on TEW before you will be able to make any concrete judgements on how value ontology views TEW. A few points to note:

(a) Lewis Little specifically states that elementary waves are not a wave in a medium, and there is no "aether". Since it's fundamental, there may be no way this can be proved in any convincing way for now.

(b) Elementary waves are always there, regardless of whether there is a particle following them. Think of a light globe. When we turn it off, the elementary waves from the surfaces of the room are still arriving at the light globe, but the globe is not producing any photons. The source decides whether it will send a particle - the elementary waves are there anyway.

(c) Particles always follow elementary waves, so the particle is very much influenced by the waves. Notice that this is "waves" and not "wave" because they are traveling in different directions. The particle is always following the same group of elementary waves coming from some place, but the particle is constantly meeting new members of that group.

(d) I don't agree with you introducing "valency" - this seems inappropriate. The elementary waves don't care if a particle is coming back - they're still going to do what elementary waves do. The particle cares about the waves, because they are following. I know James is concerned about how a particle can follow a wave around a corner (such as a particle going through one of the slits and ending up somewhere on the screen). I just think James has not read the 2009 book which explains it very clearly, and I am not going to reproduce the passages of the book here - too much work.

(e) I can see the relevance of value ontology - I believe that value ontology will very much prefer TEW to qm, once the debating process is finished. Who knows when that will be - probably years away. Until then, the first step is for TEW to be on people's radar screens, so they know there is something to debate about, hence this thread.


James S Saint,

You'll have to be more specific about the context where Dr. Boyd was talking about constructive phasing of waves. He may have been talking about waves with the same "marker", which do interfere with each other and hence the phase can mean constructive or destructive encounters. Thanks for looking at elwave.org - the site has videos showing Lewis Little himself, so you can get ideas direct from him.

There are no "hidden variables" for TEW, and I think qm agrees there are none either. Both theories agree that the slits are the basic cause of interference in the double slit experiment. The difference between qm and TEW is the usual difference in wave direction.

For qm, the wave travels in the same direction at the particle, so the interference happens between the slits and the screen (detector). For TEW, the waves are going in the opposite direction so the interference happens between the slits and the source (and the particles travels backwards to the screen and forms a sort of "silhouette" of the interference pattern there.

Both qm and TEW agree that the distance between the slits will change the interference. Varying that still doesn't give a clue about the choice of wave direction. As usual, it's the neutron experiment that gives a clear choice of wave direction.

Eugene Morrow

[Calrid]

Eugene there's little chance they will read that book unless it's freely available in PDF format, if it is of course I would appreciate a link.

Your book review is all very well but I doubt it really gets to the point like the original prose does. Now I'm not saying that is a bad thing, but it does make discussion very hard.

[EugeneMorrow]

Calrid,

True - I think most people won't read the book until they have more information, but I'm unlikely to give enough information in this debate ! Oh well, the debate is still worth having, even if people simply discover why they prefer quantum mechanics (qm) to any other theory. Looking at those reasons is very relevant to this thread.

Eugene Morrow

[James S Saint]

There are no "hidden variables" for TEW, and I think qm agrees there are none either. Both theories agree that the slits are the basic cause of interference in the double slit experiment. The difference between qm and TEW is the usual difference in wave direction.

Ignoring the hidden variables is why both theories cannot make sense of the data.
I didn't say "the slits". I said the EDGES of the slits.
The particles are interacting with the edges such as to cause a dispersion pattern. The photon waves and electron fields are also, but in a different manner. The particles do not actually interference with each other, the photons waves do. Thus you get the same pattern, but for different reasons.

The idea that particles behave like waves, cannot be asserted from the double-slit experiment.

And ALL waves travel through a medium, else they are not "waves", but perhaps "wavy entities" (a serious stretch).

[Fixed Cross]

Eugene - You are right of course. I am (as value ontology prescribes) very eager to apply my own modeling to whatever appears to sustain it. As I am no physicist, and understanding all the terminology and apparatuses will be an enormous amount of work for me, I will indeed probably not read the book unless I have a bit more ground to do so. But what I've read is intriguing. One seemingly simple question - what is the difference between the elementary waves themselves and a hypothesized aether? Is it that an aether can not have properties?

It is interesting to know that you can live with the idea of valencies so far. I hope that at one point someone can point out in scientific terms such a thing as a 'medium of valencies', as a 'grid of physicality'.
That said,

The simple truth is that it is the edges of the slit that is causing the appearance of an interference pattern for particles. Only in polarization of spin do particles interfere with each other unless they have charge (which is why they are using neutrons rather than electrons). Photons can have phase interference regardless of spin. The same experiment will give similar results for each type of particle or wave, yet be doing it for different reasons. But in all cases, it is the edge of the slits that is causing the resultant patterns.

Going by intuitions formed in the 'normal world', this makes a lot of sense.

[Calrid]

Calrid,

True - I think most people won't read the book until they have more information, but I'm unlikely to give enough information in this debate ! Oh well, the debate is still worth having, even if people simply discover why they prefer quantum mechanics (qm) to any other theory. Looking at those reasons is very relevant to this thread.

Eugene Morrow

People prefer QM because it works, it has the most number of Nobel prizes, the most funding, the most career paths, the most practical applications and of course most importantly makes the most money for the industries of the world: PCs and super conductor technologies being two shining examples of potential profit, and it isn't as full of untestable predictions as some of the more philosophical waffle like string voodoo.

TEW simply needs to distinguish itself from QM in such a way as to prove beyond doubt they are separate theories and that TEW models reality better. No easy task.

[James S Saint]

Something else to note is "of what is the make of these things they are calling elemental waves?" If they lack energy then they are not made of contemporary EM substance. So what are they waves of? If they are not waves "of anything", then they are entities (not really waves) that are proposed to have no energy association.

Trying to substantiate that there exists a physical entity that exists yet has no energy association could be a greater problem than trying to justify their role in the slit experiment. That would be a very difficult task because if they are effecting an interference, then by definition, they have energy. And of course, if they have energy, then one must justify how they transmit from the screen without taking energy from it.

[EugeneMorrow]

James S Saint,

Lewis Little named them "elementary waves" because they are the limit of our knowledge. They are like electrons - we can't see them and cannot break them down into anything smaller, but we all agree they exist.

The elementary waves are "zero energy" because their interaction with the rest of the world is actually fairly small. The elementary waves have collisions with mass, and interfere with each other like waves do. Elementary waves stimulate particles from sources, but it's the source that has the final say on the matter. Particles follow elementary waves, but it may not be a direct relationship - if the elementary wave turns left and the particle coming back turns right then the particle is still following the wave, but the wave and the particle may have turned for their own reasons - it does not strictly have to be the wave guiding the particle.

Otherwise the elementary waves not contributing much to the world. We see and detect particles - and the energy of the particles is a separate issue. For example, a neutron can have a huge range of speeds, and it is not the waves that control that.

Hence you can see how Little and Boyd describe elementary waves as "zero" energy. It is right and proper to question this, because elementary waves are not nothing - there is flux of some sort and they do things that waves do, and somehow it seems rather inappropriate to say there is no energy involved. This is unfortunately speculation at the "elementary" level of the quantum world, and we can only hold our own views on this.

Yes, you say elementary waves are "wave entities", because Little claims they are not waves in a medium.

You and I differ on our views about the double slit experiment. I think it is rather pointless to debate them much more, because both sides can claim their explanation is adequate, so there is no obvious way to settle the matter.


Fixed Cross,

I'm very happy you're taking an interest. The Philosophy of Science is a rather niche field because either the maths scares off the philosophers or the philosophy scares off the physicists. I think qm has also be so baffling that is has scared off both sides.

I recommend the book on TEW. Little claims it is written for non-physicists, although I have to admit you need to concentrate when reading. I guess concentration should be a piece of cake for a philosopher.

What's the difference between elementary waves and an aether? An aether provides a privileged frame of reference - that frame where the aether is not moving. Elementary waves have no such frame of reference, because they are traveling at the speed of light (c). Thanks to Special Relativity, all observers agree on the speed of photons and hence elementary waves. This is the reason that Little argues that elementary waves are not a wave in a medium.

Calrid,

People prefer QM because it works, it has the most number of Nobel prizes, the most funding, the most career paths, the most practical applications and of course most importantly makes the most money for the industries of the world: PCs and super conductor technologies being two shining examples of potential profit, and it isn't as full of untestable predictions as some of the more philosophical waffle like string voodoo.

TEW simply needs to distinguish itself from QM in such a way as to prove beyond doubt they are separate theories and that TEW models reality better. No easy task.

It's good that you posted this, because I thought I had covered all these points.

"QM works". TEW claims it works just as well, because TEW uses the same mathematics and has the same predictive success. TEW also explains all quantum experiments (and in most cases there seems no obvious way to decide whether the qm or TEW explanation is better).

"QM has the most number of Nobel prizes, the most funding, the most career paths". That's because qm has been around since the 1920s, and is accepted as the crown of physics at present. TEW was first published in a paper in 1996 and in a full book in 2009. I am simply trying to start a much needed debate on which theory is better. I sincerely believe that TEW is much better and will one day replace qm. I'm crossing fingers it happens in just a few years.

"QM has the most practical applications and of course most importantly makes the most money for the industries of the world: PCs and super conductor technologies being two shining examples of potential profit". TEW has the same predictions, to the same stuff works for TEW. I guarantee your atoms will not fall apart if you change your support from qm to TEW.

"QM isn't as full of untestable predictions as some of the more philosophical waffle like string voodoo.". Agreed - string theory can prove almost anything, and so it's value seems to be keeping a lot of mathematicians amused.

"TEW simply needs to distinguish itself from QM in such a way as to prove beyond doubt they are separate theories and that TEW models reality better. No easy task."

I thought I had done that with the neutron experiment. This experiment shows a stark difference between the explanations given by qm and TEW. The key effect is that the analyzer crystal changes the neutron coherence length in the Neutron Interferometer (NI). The only problem is that the neutrons reach the NI first and say "I know what analyzer crystal is ahead, so I'll change my coherence length to suit that". How can the neutrons know which analyzer crystal is ahead before they reach it?

So qm explains the key effect by saying it happened backwards in time. For TEW there is a simple logic: something must be traveling from the analyzer crystal to the NI. The something is elementary waves. The wave direction in TEW easily explains the result - in fact we'd expect it.

There you are - a clear choice between qm and TEW. This experiment shows clearly that TEW has the right wave direction. There are other experiments in the 1996 paper and the 2009 book that also indicate that TEW is a better theory - the neutron experiment is the easiest to see.

To me, the results of the neutron experiment indicate that TEW is a better theory.

How does it look to you?

Eugene Morrow

[James S Saint]

James S Saint,

Lewis Little named them "elementary waves" because they are the limit of our knowledge. They are like electrons - we can't see them and cannot break them down into anything smaller, but we all agree they exist.

Obviously I and many would disagree on his definition of "we" in those statements.

The elementary waves are "zero energy" because their interaction with the rest of the world is actually fairly small. The elementary waves have collisions with mass, and interfere with each other like waves do. Elementary waves stimulate particles from sources, but it's the source that has the final say on the matter. Particles follow elementary waves, but it may not be a direct relationship - if the elementary wave turns left and the particle coming back turns right then the particle is still following the wave, but the wave and the particle may have turned for their own reasons - it does not strictly have to be the wave guiding the particle.

All of that disqualifies the notion of "zero energy".
If you can affect the momentum of a particle, you have energy (by definition).


This is what you get when you allow physicists to venture into metaphysical conjecture, which is why Einstein specifically pointed out that the obligation of the physicist is to merely and only report on what he personally witnesses, not the reality of any proposed theory behind what he has witnessed.

Physicists make really poor metaphysicists or philosophers. The TEW is the result of philosophical venture, not physical witnessing.

So yeah, I'm afraid I have to not accept the notion of TEW on several grounds. Sorry.