Keep the good bit of quantum mechanics

  • The Physics Web Log forum behaves exactly like the regular forums except posts are sorted in reverse chronological order and also the originator of the blog is the only person who can post entries.
  • Prospective graduate students, current graduate students, post docs, professors, and even physics graduates working in industry encouraged to start a blog.

EugeneMorrowTEW
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:46 am

Keep the good bit of quantum mechanics

Postby EugeneMorrowTEW » Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:44 am

The “good bit” of quantum mechanics (qm) is the predictions, right to 11 decimal places at times.

Unfortunately the “good bit” comes with quantum weirdness – claims of multiple universes, effects backwards in time, and more. How do we keep the “good bit” with no weirdness? A new theory.

Consider a particle going from a source to a detector. In qm, a wave function goes with the particle.

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

Apply this to the particle. We cannot see the wave function so how does qm know the direction of the wave? The direction is a hidden assumption behind qm. It’s time to challenge that assumption.

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


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

The double slit experiment works with the other wave direction. Later, I will post diagrams. For now, just a short summary. Waves start from every point on the detector (say D1) and travel in the opposite direction through the slits. The waves from D1 interfere with themselves only at the source. The source sends a particle based on the amount of interference arriving. The particle follows the wave from D1 (that stimulated it) because the waves from D1 are still arriving continuously. The particle follows the waves back to D1. This gives exactly the same result as qm.

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

Is there an experiment that separates the two theories? Yes – see the neutron experiment below, where neutrons always go to the right:


Nuclear reactor...----->..Neutron Interferometer (NI)..----->..Analyzer crystal..----->..Detector

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



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

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

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


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

For more, read “The Theory of Elementary Waves by Dr. Lewis E. Little, 2009, ISBN 978-0-932750-84-6, published by New Classics Library, Georgia, USA. On Amazon: The Theory of Elementary Waves (isbn=0932750842)

For more web info on TEW, see http://www.elwave.org.

I am an enthusiast of the new theory, and do not benefit from the book in any way. I am someone who studied physics at university and stopped because quantum mechanics was too weird for me. If the new theory had been around, I would have stayed and become a physicist.

EugeneMorrowTEW
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:46 am

Re: Keep the good bit of quantum mechanics

Postby EugeneMorrowTEW » Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:50 pm

My post is below. To reply, go to "Blog comments" above the "Blogs" area. Look for "Keep the good bit of quantum mechanics comments". You can reply there. :)

EugeneMorrowTEW
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:46 am

Re: Keep the good bit of quantum mechanics

Postby EugeneMorrowTEW » Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:55 pm

The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) was first published in Physics Essays in 1996.

A copy of that paper is here: http://elementarywaves.com/TEW96paper.html

I still recommend the 2009 book as a much easier read and gives more information.

Eugene Morrow

EugeneMorrowTEW
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:46 am

Re: Keep the good bit of quantum mechanics

Postby EugeneMorrowTEW » Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:25 pm

One of the best ways to learn TEW is by examples. The link below is to a document about the Quantum Eraser experiment. The document gives both the qm and TEW explanations, giving an example of how the two theories have completely different explanations for the same experimental result.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/99753535

Eugene Morrow

EugeneMorrowTEW
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:46 am

Re: Keep the good bit of quantum mechanics

Postby EugeneMorrowTEW » Sat May 25, 2013 11:00 pm

Everyone,

At last we have progress - two experiments are proposed to split quantum mechanics (qm) and the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW), and at least one of the proposed experiment has a physicist interested in performing it.

The two proposed experiments are mentioned at the end of a paper just published, see:

Boyd, Jeffrey H., "Re-thinking a delayed choice quantum eraser experiment: a simple baseball model," Physics Essays, March 2013, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 100-109, (doi: 10.4006/0836-1398-26.1.100). This re-thinks Y.-H. Kim, R. Yu, S. P. Kulik, Y. H. Shih, and M. O. Scully, Phys. Rev. Lett. 8, 1 (2000).

This paper can be downloaded from:
Physics Essays website

One of the two proposed experiments is a variation on the double slit experiment.

This is a double slit experiment with one electron produced at a time, with a pause between each. The idea is that each time an electron is generated at the source a powerful laser shuts ONE of the slits at the same picosecond the electron is produced. Once the electron has reached the screen (or not), the slits are opened again before the next electron is produced.

For qm, the prediction is that there should NOT be an interference pattern, because the electron can only go through one slit during it's flight.

For TEW, the prediction is that we will STILL get an interference pattern. For TEW, the elementary waves have already gone through the slits and interfered at the source by the time the electron is created and a slit closed. This means any electron that goes through the one open slit will still arrive in an interference pattern at the screen. What matters is that just before the electron is created both slits are open, and so both slits allow elementary waves to get to the source.

A physicist Diotr Kolenderski in Poland is interested in performing the experiment, because it would contradict qm if the results agree with TEW.

The other proposed experiment is a variation on Y.-H. Kim, R. Yu, S. P. Kulik, Y. H. Shih, and M. O. Scully, Phys. Rev. Lett. 8, 1 (2000). See Boyd 2013 for details of the second proposed experiment.

This is very exciting - finally a chance to separate two theories (qm and TEW) that until now have had the same predictions for all experiments.

Eugene Morrow

EugeneMorrowTEW
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:46 am

Re: Keep the good bit of quantum mechanics

Postby EugeneMorrowTEW » Tue May 28, 2013 7:13 pm

Everyone,

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

Eugene Morrow




Return to “Physics Web Logs (Blogs)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest