This is about a new book. The “good bit” of quantum mechanics (qm) is the predictions, which can be accurate to 11 decimal places.
Unfortunately the “good bit” comes with quantum weirdness – claims of multiple universes, effects backwards in time, and particles in two places at once. How can we keep the “good bit” without the weirdness? The answer is a new theory.
Consider a particle that goes from A to B, for example from a source to a detector. In qm, the particle also has a wave function so the particles are “wave particles” or “wave packets”.
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 going from A to B. We cannot see the wave function so how does qm know the direction of the wave? The direction of the wave is a hidden assumption behind all the claims of 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: from B to A first. The source responds to the incoming waves and sends back a particle, like a faint “echo”. The particles follow the waves back changing direction as the waves do.
The double slit experiment works with the other wave direction. Unfortunately, I cannot post diagrams here, so I can only give a quick description. Waves start from every point on the detector (say D1) and travel in the opposite direction through the slits. The waves from D1 interfere with themselves only at the source. The source sends a particle based on the amount of interference arriving. The particle follows the wave from D1 (that stimulated it) because the waves from D1 are still arriving continuously. The particle follows the waves back to D1.
Both theories have an explanation for all experiments. Thanks to reciprocity, the new theory has exactly the same mathematics and predictions as qm, so we keep the good bit.
Is there an experiment that separates the two theories? Yes – this experiment sends neutrons to an interferometer, an analyzer crystal and then a detector.
Experiment: (neutrons always go left to right)
Nuclear reactor -----> Neutron Interferometer (NI) -----> Analyzer crystal -----> Detector
Result:....................... 2. ... changes NI result...... <===.... 1. Change here ...
For qm, this is backwards in time !
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 (which is 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?
There are other benefits to the new theory other than removing all the quantum weirdness.
(1) The new theory provides a reason (mechanism) why momentum is conserved.
(2) The new theory provides a new understanding of magnetism, and explains the Faraday effect especially well.
(3) The new theory is local and deterministic, making cause and effect clear all the time.
(4) The new theory is already in agreement with special relativity, and the author is working on general relativity. This means that a "Grand Unified" theory will not be necessary.
For more, read “The Theory of Elementary Waves by Dr. Lewis E. Little, 2009, ISBN 978-0-932750-84-6, published by New Classics Library, Georgia, USA. See also elwave.org.
I am an enthusiast of the new theory, and do no benefit from the book in any way. I am someone who studied physics at university and stopped because quantum mechanics was too weird for me. If the new theory had been around, I would have stayed and become a physicist.
There is a one page PDF version of this post available that has diagrams. Let me know if you want a copy. Eugene Morrow.
The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) was first published in Physics Essays in 1996.
A copy of that paper is here: 1996 paper on elementary waves
I still recommend the 2009 book as a much easier read and gives more information.
Eugene Morrow
A copy of that paper is here: 1996 paper on elementary waves
I still recommend the 2009 book as a much easier read and gives more information.
Eugene Morrow
Read the stuff, rather good fringe material ..... how does this supposed GUT deal with Wheeler's delayed choice experiment?
Lady Elizabeth,
Not sure why you call in fringe material. Let me know why.
The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) was first published in Physics Essays in 1996. If it was really fringe, Physics Essays would not have published it.
The full book was published 2009. Again, the publisher was very unlikely to have published if it was fringe. This really is a new physics theory.
TEW has unified the quantum world with Special Relativity only. Lewis Little is working on General Relativity.
Yes, TEW deals with the Innsbruck Experiment, which tests Bell's Theorem. It is dealt with in the 2009 book. A summary of the TEW view is as follows:
1. No theory, either quantum mechanics (qm) or TEW can predict the results, so it's an area of future research.
2. For TEW, this is a rare case where there are two elementary waves coming from opposite direction hitting a source and hence two particles created going backwards along the waves that created them. The source "programs" the particles in the "polarizer orientation behavior" as they are created, so the particles already know what to do. Nothing needs to be communicated to the particles while they are "in flight" so there is no entanglement. We do not know how the source "programs' the particles, so this is where the research is needed.
3. For TEW, the experiment currently proves nothing. Since there is "instantaneous communication" necessary, there is no entanglement and so there is nothing particularly important about the result.
So TEW is not very interested in the Innsbruck experiment.
The important part of TEW is the description of an experiment that qm cannot explain - the neutron experiment (Kaiser et al, 1992). There is such strong support for qm that it is hard to comprehend that qm cannot explain something.
Have a look at the neutron experiment I outline again.
Eugene Morrow
Not sure why you call in fringe material. Let me know why.
The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) was first published in Physics Essays in 1996. If it was really fringe, Physics Essays would not have published it.
The full book was published 2009. Again, the publisher was very unlikely to have published if it was fringe. This really is a new physics theory.
TEW has unified the quantum world with Special Relativity only. Lewis Little is working on General Relativity.
Yes, TEW deals with the Innsbruck Experiment, which tests Bell's Theorem. It is dealt with in the 2009 book. A summary of the TEW view is as follows:
1. No theory, either quantum mechanics (qm) or TEW can predict the results, so it's an area of future research.
2. For TEW, this is a rare case where there are two elementary waves coming from opposite direction hitting a source and hence two particles created going backwards along the waves that created them. The source "programs" the particles in the "polarizer orientation behavior" as they are created, so the particles already know what to do. Nothing needs to be communicated to the particles while they are "in flight" so there is no entanglement. We do not know how the source "programs' the particles, so this is where the research is needed.
3. For TEW, the experiment currently proves nothing. Since there is "instantaneous communication" necessary, there is no entanglement and so there is nothing particularly important about the result.
So TEW is not very interested in the Innsbruck experiment.
The important part of TEW is the description of an experiment that qm cannot explain - the neutron experiment (Kaiser et al, 1992). There is such strong support for qm that it is hard to comprehend that qm cannot explain something.
Have a look at the neutron experiment I outline again.
Eugene Morrow
Lady Elizabeth,
You may have picked up my typing error.
In point 3. the second sentence needs a "NO" as follows:
Since there is NO "instantaneous communication" necessary, there is no entanglement and so there is nothing particularly important about the result.
Excuse me for the confusion.
Eugene Morrow
You may have picked up my typing error.
In point 3. the second sentence needs a "NO" as follows:
Since there is NO "instantaneous communication" necessary, there is no entanglement and so there is nothing particularly important about the result.
Excuse me for the confusion.
Eugene Morrow
QUOTE (EugeneMorrowTEW+Mar 24 2012, 06:17 AM)
Lady Elizabeth,
You may have picked up my typing error.
In point 3. the second sentence needs a "NO" as follows:
Since there is NO "instantaneous communication" necessary, there is no entanglement and so there is nothing particularly important about the result.
Excuse me for the confusion.
Eugene Morrow
You may have picked up my typing error.
In point 3. the second sentence needs a "NO" as follows:
Since there is NO "instantaneous communication" necessary, there is no entanglement and so there is nothing particularly important about the result.
Excuse me for the confusion.
Eugene Morrow
Lady Elizabeth,
I admire the audacious ideas of the Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM).
My guess is that UWM is a refinement of quantum mechanics (qm) so that it becomes relativistic. Is that true?
If so, does that mean you are a qm supporter? This might be partial support of some sort.
Eugene Morrow
I admire the audacious ideas of the Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM).
My guess is that UWM is a refinement of quantum mechanics (qm) so that it becomes relativistic. Is that true?
If so, does that mean you are a qm supporter? This might be partial support of some sort.
Eugene Morrow
Lady Elizabeth,
You mentioned Wheeler's delayed choice experiment. So far I have not seen the explanation given by the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW). If I see one, I will let you know.
Eugene Morrow
You mentioned Wheeler's delayed choice experiment. So far I have not seen the explanation given by the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW). If I see one, I will let you know.
Eugene Morrow
QUOTE (EugeneMorrowTEW+Mar 26 2012, 12:35 AM)
Lady Elizabeth,
I admire the audacious ideas of the Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM).
My guess is that UWM is a refinement of quantum mechanics (qm) so that it becomes relativistic. Is that true?
If so, does that mean you are a qm supporter? This might be partial support of some sort.
Eugene Morrow
Yeah, if you going to have an idea, make it an audacious one.
The UWM stuff was something I pulled out of my a$$ to unify QM and GR ... and as crank material goes, I'm rather proud of it.
QM supporter?, well sure (it works brilliantly), but grieviously disappoints on a 'nuts and bolts' level. That's why I shelved probability for a physical actuality scerario (courtesy of the all-knowing sphincter).
I admire the audacious ideas of the Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM).
My guess is that UWM is a refinement of quantum mechanics (qm) so that it becomes relativistic. Is that true?
If so, does that mean you are a qm supporter? This might be partial support of some sort.
Eugene Morrow
Yeah, if you going to have an idea, make it an audacious one.
The UWM stuff was something I pulled out of my a$$ to unify QM and GR ... and as crank material goes, I'm rather proud of it.
QM supporter?, well sure (it works brilliantly), but grieviously disappoints on a 'nuts and bolts' level. That's why I shelved probability for a physical actuality scerario (courtesy of the all-knowing sphincter).
Lady Elizabeth,
The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) has the same mathematical success as qm, and I find TEW is very satisfying at the nuts and bolts level because there is a clear cause and effect all the time.
Which aspects of TEW are not appealing to you?
Eugene Morrow
QUOTE
QM supporter?, well sure (it works brilliantly), but grieviously disappoints on a 'nuts and bolts' level
The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) has the same mathematical success as qm, and I find TEW is very satisfying at the nuts and bolts level because there is a clear cause and effect all the time.
Which aspects of TEW are not appealing to you?
Eugene Morrow
QUOTE (EugeneMorrowTEW+Apr 2 2012, 08:48 PM)
Lady Elizabeth,
The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) has the same mathematical success as qm, and I find TEW is very satisfying at the nuts and bolts level because there is a clear cause and effect all the time.
Which aspects of TEW are not appealing to you?
Eugene Morrow
Everything;- when you've created a crazilly audacious crank supposition such as I .... you tend to ignore all other stuff and endeavor to beat it down with a shitty stick.
The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) has the same mathematical success as qm, and I find TEW is very satisfying at the nuts and bolts level because there is a clear cause and effect all the time.
Which aspects of TEW are not appealing to you?
Eugene Morrow
Everything;- when you've created a crazilly audacious crank supposition such as I .... you tend to ignore all other stuff and endeavor to beat it down with a shitty stick.
Lady Elizabeth,
Which stuff an I ignoring?
Eugene Morrow
Which stuff an I ignoring?
Eugene Morrow
QUOTE (EugeneMorrowTEW+Apr 6 2012, 08:26 PM)
Lady Elizabeth,
Which stuff an I ignoring?
Eugene Morrow
No, it's me and my shitty stick are the ignoring ones.
Keep sharp ...... pip, pip!
Which stuff an I ignoring?
Eugene Morrow
No, it's me and my shitty stick are the ignoring ones.
Keep sharp ...... pip, pip!
Lady Elizabeth,
Now I understand.
I am gong to ask a question about your Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) which is relevant to the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) that I support.
I outlined a neutron interference experiment in my original post. The experiment sends neutrons to an interferometer, an analyzer crystal and then a detector, so the neutrons always go left to 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 (which is quantum weirdness).
From the TEW point of view, something must be traveling between the analyzer crystal to the NI. That something is elementary waves. Elementary waves are the same quantum wave as qm just going in the opposite physical direction still in normal time. Elementary waves use the same maths as qm - Schrodinger wave equation and so on. So TEW has the same maths and same predictions as qm, just a different wave direction.
TEW can easily explain this experiment - the elementary waves are the reason that the analyzer crystal affects the NI (in normal time). This is just one example of how TEW removes the quantum weirdness. This is what TEW is all about - we keep the good bit (the maths and their successful predictions) and take away the weirdness of the explanations of qm.
You have extended qm by the UWM. Looking at UWM, what is the reason that the analyzer crystal affects the NI?
Eugene Morrow
Now I understand.
I am gong to ask a question about your Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) which is relevant to the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) that I support.
I outlined a neutron interference experiment in my original post. The experiment sends neutrons to an interferometer, an analyzer crystal and then a detector, so the neutrons always go left to 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 (which is quantum weirdness).
From the TEW point of view, something must be traveling between the analyzer crystal to the NI. That something is elementary waves. Elementary waves are the same quantum wave as qm just going in the opposite physical direction still in normal time. Elementary waves use the same maths as qm - Schrodinger wave equation and so on. So TEW has the same maths and same predictions as qm, just a different wave direction.
TEW can easily explain this experiment - the elementary waves are the reason that the analyzer crystal affects the NI (in normal time). This is just one example of how TEW removes the quantum weirdness. This is what TEW is all about - we keep the good bit (the maths and their successful predictions) and take away the weirdness of the explanations of qm.
You have extended qm by the UWM. Looking at UWM, what is the reason that the analyzer crystal affects the NI?
Eugene Morrow
Seems logical to me, since UWM exhibits anterior/exterior wave propagation about a Schwarzchild distance 'boundary' ... what Little suggests;- is that these anterior waves pass back from the detector, re-imported/cycled back to their respective singularity state.
IMHO, Little is definitely on the right path ('scuse the pun) but comprehensively lacks the relativiso-wave propagative 'engine' that I've postulated.
Because of this, my made up stuff is infinitely superior, given that it unifies everything from a photon to the universe.
In addition, actually predicts why the cosmic expansion rate is increasing.
IMHO, Little is definitely on the right path ('scuse the pun) but comprehensively lacks the relativiso-wave propagative 'engine' that I've postulated.
Because of this, my made up stuff is infinitely superior, given that it unifies everything from a photon to the universe.
In addition, actually predicts why the cosmic expansion rate is increasing.
Whoops, sorry, meant;- "exterior wave propagation transits from the detector, cycling back to singularity state".
Lady Elizabeth,
It sounds like the Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) has waves going in both directions. Have I understood correctly?
How does a Schwartzchild distance boundary apply? Schwartzchild distances are very small - not sure how this could apply to a wave traveling between the analyzer crystal and the Neutron Interferometer.
Eugene Morrow
It sounds like the Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) has waves going in both directions. Have I understood correctly?
How does a Schwartzchild distance boundary apply? Schwartzchild distances are very small - not sure how this could apply to a wave traveling between the analyzer crystal and the Neutron Interferometer.
Eugene Morrow
QUOTE (Euge+)
It sounds like the Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) has waves going in both directions. Have I understood correctly?
Yup, anterior condensation beneath the Schwarzchild envelope creates the outriding aspect and visa versa.
This recursive duality is quite simply a physical manifestation of complex number computation regarding Lorentz Transform values (negative square number jobs) beneath an event horizon (black hole), or with regards to a photon, merely Schwarzchild distance .... this is the crux of my so called self perpetuating mechanism.
It may be easier for you to imagine it as a 720° loop in time.
QUOTE (Euge+)
Schwartzchild distances are very small - not sure how this could apply to a wave traveling between the analyzer crystal and the Neutron
Beacuse I was refering to wave propagation above and beyond the Sr.
Edit:- what I've stated above is only part of my overall conceptualization (read- not strictly true).
i.e;- it gets a shade more complex with charge propagation (involves off shell hyperspace), but hopefully you now have some small glimmer of what I'm suggesting.
Beacuse I was refering to wave propagation above and beyond the Sr.
Edit:- what I've stated above is only part of my overall conceptualization (read- not strictly true).
i.e;- it gets a shade more complex with charge propagation (involves off shell hyperspace), but hopefully you now have some small glimmer of what I'm suggesting.
Lady Elizabeth,
We are discussing the Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) which is your new theory, as compared to quantum mechanics (qm) and the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW). TEW is the theory I mentioned in my original post and was developed by Lewis Little. All three theories cover the quantum world, which underpins all of physics.
What fascinates me is that you have developed a new theory that involves waves going in both directions. The quantum wave in qm goes in the same direction as the particle (as implied by wave-particle duality) and the same quantum wave in TEW goes in the opposite direction to the particle as indicated by the neutron experiment in my original post.
The point in common between UWM and TEW is a wave in the opposite direction. TEW claims that is the key to fixing the problems in qm. Hence I can say I like the reverse wave part of UWM in principle. Any new theory that suggests a wave in the opposite direction to qm is a step forward from the TEW point of view.
When will you be ready to publish anything on UWM? When might you start a thread on in this forum on UWM?
Eugene Morrow
We are discussing the Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) which is your new theory, as compared to quantum mechanics (qm) and the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW). TEW is the theory I mentioned in my original post and was developed by Lewis Little. All three theories cover the quantum world, which underpins all of physics.
What fascinates me is that you have developed a new theory that involves waves going in both directions. The quantum wave in qm goes in the same direction as the particle (as implied by wave-particle duality) and the same quantum wave in TEW goes in the opposite direction to the particle as indicated by the neutron experiment in my original post.
The point in common between UWM and TEW is a wave in the opposite direction. TEW claims that is the key to fixing the problems in qm. Hence I can say I like the reverse wave part of UWM in principle. Any new theory that suggests a wave in the opposite direction to qm is a step forward from the TEW point of view.
When will you be ready to publish anything on UWM? When might you start a thread on in this forum on UWM?
Eugene Morrow
QUOTE (EugeneMorrowTEW+Apr 9 2012, 08:56 PM)
Lady Elizabeth,
We are discussing the Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) which is your new theory, as compared to quantum mechanics (qm) and the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW). TEW is the theory I mentioned in my original post and was developed by Lewis Little. All three theories cover the quantum world, which underpins all of physics.
What fascinates me is that you have developed a new theory that involves waves going in both directions. The quantum wave in qm goes in the same direction as the particle (as implied by wave-particle duality) and the same quantum wave in TEW goes in the opposite direction to the particle as indicated by the neutron experiment in my original post.
The point in common between UWM and TEW is a wave in the opposite direction. TEW claims that is the key to fixing the problems in qm. Hence I can say I like the reverse wave part of UWM in principle. Any new theory that suggests a wave in the opposite direction to qm is a step forward from the TEW point of view.
When will you be ready to publish anything on UWM? When might you start a thread on in this forum on UWM?
Eugene Morrow
Sorry, I'm just a crank .... no-one's gonna seriously publish my mental meanderings.
ps;- that's why I spam the pooh.
We are discussing the Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) which is your new theory, as compared to quantum mechanics (qm) and the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW). TEW is the theory I mentioned in my original post and was developed by Lewis Little. All three theories cover the quantum world, which underpins all of physics.
What fascinates me is that you have developed a new theory that involves waves going in both directions. The quantum wave in qm goes in the same direction as the particle (as implied by wave-particle duality) and the same quantum wave in TEW goes in the opposite direction to the particle as indicated by the neutron experiment in my original post.
The point in common between UWM and TEW is a wave in the opposite direction. TEW claims that is the key to fixing the problems in qm. Hence I can say I like the reverse wave part of UWM in principle. Any new theory that suggests a wave in the opposite direction to qm is a step forward from the TEW point of view.
When will you be ready to publish anything on UWM? When might you start a thread on in this forum on UWM?
Eugene Morrow
Sorry, I'm just a crank .... no-one's gonna seriously publish my mental meanderings.
ps;- that's why I spam the pooh.
Lady Elizabeth,
Let's see if there is anymore common ground between your theory of Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) and the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) developed by Lewis Little, as compared to quantum mechanics (qm).
in the neutron experiment I have been talking about, TEW claims to explain the key effect of the experiment with simple cause and effect, because elementary waves travel from the analyzer crystal to the Neutron Interferometer (NI). For qm, this effect must be backwards in time.
For UWM, do both waves travel at the same time? Is the forwards wave before or after the reverse wave? I just want to get a simple physical picture.
Eugene Morrow
Let's see if there is anymore common ground between your theory of Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) and the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) developed by Lewis Little, as compared to quantum mechanics (qm).
in the neutron experiment I have been talking about, TEW claims to explain the key effect of the experiment with simple cause and effect, because elementary waves travel from the analyzer crystal to the Neutron Interferometer (NI). For qm, this effect must be backwards in time.
For UWM, do both waves travel at the same time? Is the forwards wave before or after the reverse wave? I just want to get a simple physical picture.
Eugene Morrow
QUOTE (EugeneMorrowTEW+Apr 10 2012, 11:20 PM)
For UWM, do both waves travel at the same time?
Yes, they're twin aspects of one process (didn't I already clearly explain this?
)
Yes, they're twin aspects of one process (didn't I already clearly explain this?
)
Let's make this real simple (time for a crude analogy).
Paint 2 marks on the tyre wall of a bicycle wheel 180° apart ... when spun, as one mark arcs forwards, the other moves backwards and visa versa, ad nauseam
Paint 2 marks on the tyre wall of a bicycle wheel 180° apart ... when spun, as one mark arcs forwards, the other moves backwards and visa versa, ad nauseam
Lady Elizabeth,
We are discussing your theory of Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) and the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) developed by Lewis Little, as compared to quantum mechanics (qm).
I like your analogy to a bicycle wheel. Both UWM and TEW have a wave in the reverse direction, which allows a local and deterministic picture of quantum physics to emerge. I now think of your UWM as having combined features of qm and TEW, at least at a concept stage.
Your theory is a worthwhile contribution. From the TEW point of view, any discussion that starts physics considering waves other than the qm waves is worthwhile, because it challenges the deep seated assumption in qm of the wave going in the same direction as the particle.
Roughly how close are you to completing work on UWM and publishing? Are you one year away, or five? I just want to get an idea of how long we will have to wait to have a new alternative to discuss.
Eugene Morrow
We are discussing your theory of Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) and the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) developed by Lewis Little, as compared to quantum mechanics (qm).
I like your analogy to a bicycle wheel. Both UWM and TEW have a wave in the reverse direction, which allows a local and deterministic picture of quantum physics to emerge. I now think of your UWM as having combined features of qm and TEW, at least at a concept stage.
Your theory is a worthwhile contribution. From the TEW point of view, any discussion that starts physics considering waves other than the qm waves is worthwhile, because it challenges the deep seated assumption in qm of the wave going in the same direction as the particle.
Roughly how close are you to completing work on UWM and publishing? Are you one year away, or five? I just want to get an idea of how long we will have to wait to have a new alternative to discuss.
Eugene Morrow
QUOTE (EugeneMorrowTEW+Apr 11 2012, 09:02 PM)
Roughly how close are you to completing work on UWM and publishing? Are you one year away, or five? I just want to get an idea of how long we will have to wait to have a new alternative to discuss.
Eugene Morrow
Oh, it's over 20 years away .... in my past!
As for vanity crank publishing;- thoughts of competing with pathetic tossers such as John Duffield really makes my flesh creep.
Thanks for the 'thumbs up.
When I've a shade more time (Fairly stressful job w/2 young kids), will assemble a fully-loaded UWM theory on a blog page.
Until then, feel I've already dumped sufficient food 4 thought in cyber space.... if in any way my brand of crank becomes of common interest, then obviously I'll get up off my arse and do a proper job.
Eugene Morrow
Oh, it's over 20 years away .... in my past!
As for vanity crank publishing;- thoughts of competing with pathetic tossers such as John Duffield really makes my flesh creep.
Thanks for the 'thumbs up.
When I've a shade more time (Fairly stressful job w/2 young kids), will assemble a fully-loaded UWM theory on a blog page.
Until then, feel I've already dumped sufficient food 4 thought in cyber space.... if in any way my brand of crank becomes of common interest, then obviously I'll get up off my arse and do a proper job.
Lady Elizabeth,
Understand about time - I'm flat out and I'm only a supporter of the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW), not the developer. You have a way bigger job to do.
Thanks for the food for thought in cyber space. I won't ask any more questions on your theory.
I do have one last question on quantum mechanics (qm). What areas of qm are you critical of (if any)?
Eugene Morrow
Understand about time - I'm flat out and I'm only a supporter of the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW), not the developer. You have a way bigger job to do.
Thanks for the food for thought in cyber space. I won't ask any more questions on your theory.
I do have one last question on quantum mechanics (qm). What areas of qm are you critical of (if any)?
Eugene Morrow
QUOTE (EugeneMorrowTEW+Apr 12 2012, 11:45 PM)
I do have one last question on quantum mechanics (qm). What areas of qm are you critical of (if any)?
We're both aware QM's a brilliant model, and works a real treat; nevertheless, I believe it incomplete, and in many ways totally wrong when it comes to interpretation.
Exhibit A;- Quantum Interconnectivity?
Weirdness really has no place in science. This affect IMHO results from hidden variables such as extra-dimensional geometry.
i.e;- In far higher spatial dimensions, our universe is incredibly small. A wave envelope occupying this space might therefore connect (from our perspective), simultaneously, many distant parts of the universe.
In a nutshell;- QM needs a few 'beauticians'.
We're both aware QM's a brilliant model, and works a real treat; nevertheless, I believe it incomplete, and in many ways totally wrong when it comes to interpretation.
Exhibit A;- Quantum Interconnectivity?
Weirdness really has no place in science. This affect IMHO results from hidden variables such as extra-dimensional geometry.
i.e;- In far higher spatial dimensions, our universe is incredibly small. A wave envelope occupying this space might therefore connect (from our perspective), simultaneously, many distant parts of the universe.
In a nutshell;- QM needs a few 'beauticians'.
Lady Elizabeth,
I totally agree that the quantum mechanics (qm) idea of interconnection (or non-locality) is a sign that qm has a problem that needs to be fixed.
The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) claims it knows what the problem is - the wave direction. When qm says "Wave particle duality" there is immediately an assumption that the wave is traveling in the same direction as the particle. This can be called the "Forward wave hypothesis". This needs to be added to all claims made by qm. For example: "Assuming the Forward wave hypothesis, then we have proved that no local and deterministic description of quantum phenomena is possible".
TEW claims that assumption is what causes qm to claim quantum interconnection, and all the other weirdness, such as the many interpretations.
TEW has an assumption too: that the wave travels in the opposite direction to the particle. This can be called the "Reciprocal wave hypothesis" after the principle of Reciprocity. There's more to it, but for now let's just concentrate on challenging the qm assumption of wave direction. Why believe the TEW assumption? The neutron experiment I talked about before, and other experiments too which are outlined in the TEW book.
You mentioned that qm needs a few beauticians. I think TEW claims to be that, because:
1. TEW keeps the same maths and the same predictive success as qm, due to the Reciprocity theorem.
2. TEW just changes the assumption on wave direction - there are no "hidden variables". Like qm, there still is the same quantum wave.
3. TEW throws away all the quantum weirdness and provides a local and deterministic theory.
I think that's a pretty quick and easy beauty treatment - no new maths to have to develop. Of course, there's a lot more to TEW to fully explain it.
How does this sound to you? Is this a good deal?
Eugene Morrow
I totally agree that the quantum mechanics (qm) idea of interconnection (or non-locality) is a sign that qm has a problem that needs to be fixed.
The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) claims it knows what the problem is - the wave direction. When qm says "Wave particle duality" there is immediately an assumption that the wave is traveling in the same direction as the particle. This can be called the "Forward wave hypothesis". This needs to be added to all claims made by qm. For example: "Assuming the Forward wave hypothesis, then we have proved that no local and deterministic description of quantum phenomena is possible".
TEW claims that assumption is what causes qm to claim quantum interconnection, and all the other weirdness, such as the many interpretations.
TEW has an assumption too: that the wave travels in the opposite direction to the particle. This can be called the "Reciprocal wave hypothesis" after the principle of Reciprocity. There's more to it, but for now let's just concentrate on challenging the qm assumption of wave direction. Why believe the TEW assumption? The neutron experiment I talked about before, and other experiments too which are outlined in the TEW book.
You mentioned that qm needs a few beauticians. I think TEW claims to be that, because:
1. TEW keeps the same maths and the same predictive success as qm, due to the Reciprocity theorem.
2. TEW just changes the assumption on wave direction - there are no "hidden variables". Like qm, there still is the same quantum wave.
3. TEW throws away all the quantum weirdness and provides a local and deterministic theory.
I think that's a pretty quick and easy beauty treatment - no new maths to have to develop. Of course, there's a lot more to TEW to fully explain it.
How does this sound to you? Is this a good deal?
Eugene Morrow
QUOTE (EugeneMorrowTEW+Apr 13 2012, 09:11 PM)
How does this sound to you? Is this a good deal?
Yup, definitely a stab in the right direction.
For now I'll leave you with this:
When extreme high energy particle collisions spawn cascade offspring ..... might all these 'decay' elements be part of a dimensionally collapsing wave envelope?
Enough crank for now.
Yup, definitely a stab in the right direction.
For now I'll leave you with this:
When extreme high energy particle collisions spawn cascade offspring ..... might all these 'decay' elements be part of a dimensionally collapsing wave envelope?
Enough crank for now.
Lady Elizabeth,
I am trying to put forward the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) as a rival theory to quantum mechanics (qm). Thanks for the supportive sentiment in your last post.
You left me with an idea to ponder:
Not sure what you mean by "dimensionally collapsing" here. Are you a believer in string theory with a great many dimensions? Alternatively, do you mean that the area of decay elements is shrinking in size after the initial collision?
TEW sticks with the usual four dimensions we are all familiar with - three of space and one of time, and does not accept the extra dimensions posited by string theory.
TEW claims that all such particle collisions are a sign that elementary waves are already colliding. All particles follow elementary waves in the reverse direction, and magnetism is also modulated by elementary waves that carry photons. Hence a large number of cascade offspring indicates a large number of elementary waves all colliding.
In the book on TEW, Lewis Little sticks to more simple particle collisions, and more complex particle interactions can be seen as combinations of the simpler ones.
Is this an area where we can compare qm and TEW?
Eugene Morrow
I am trying to put forward the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) as a rival theory to quantum mechanics (qm). Thanks for the supportive sentiment in your last post.
You left me with an idea to ponder:
QUOTE
When extreme high energy particle collisions spawn cascade offspring ..... might all these 'decay' elements be part of a dimensionally collapsing wave envelope?
Not sure what you mean by "dimensionally collapsing" here. Are you a believer in string theory with a great many dimensions? Alternatively, do you mean that the area of decay elements is shrinking in size after the initial collision?
TEW sticks with the usual four dimensions we are all familiar with - three of space and one of time, and does not accept the extra dimensions posited by string theory.
TEW claims that all such particle collisions are a sign that elementary waves are already colliding. All particles follow elementary waves in the reverse direction, and magnetism is also modulated by elementary waves that carry photons. Hence a large number of cascade offspring indicates a large number of elementary waves all colliding.
In the book on TEW, Lewis Little sticks to more simple particle collisions, and more complex particle interactions can be seen as combinations of the simpler ones.
Is this an area where we can compare qm and TEW?
Eugene Morrow
QUOTE (Euge+)
Not sure what you mean by "dimensionally collapsing" here. Are you a believer in string theory with a great many dimensions? Alternatively, do you mean that the area of decay elements is shrinking in size after the initial collision?
I propose;- all particles are actually wavicles, producing singularities within their intrinsic cycles.
Singularities can be point, circle, sphere, hypersphere etc
i.e photons ultimately condense to point singularities. An electron positron pair, a circle (ring singularity).
I believe an electron positron pair arising from gamma photon decay represnts a shift up the heirachy, from point to ring.
A photons wave state propagates within the confines of a sphere, whilst the electro-positronic, a hypertorus. This allows not only expansion and contraction, but movement around.
Imagine my bicycle wheel again ;- if a ring system resides, integrated (embedded) on the wavefront surface of our universe. The aforementioned circumnavigating wave aspect, transits both up through this surface, around, and plumments back down through again, in a recursive hyperspatial loop. Naturally, these two nodes we term electron and positron, two apparently separate particles formed from 1 source. I suggest, it's this directional propagation within the hypertorus (with respect to the surface wavefront of our universe) that manifests as charge.
Sorry, back to the point;- "dimensional collapse"?
Can be seen during electron positron annihilation, whereby a hypersphere bound wave ensemble collapses to a sphere.
Hope everything's a tad clearer now.
I propose;- all particles are actually wavicles, producing singularities within their intrinsic cycles.
Singularities can be point, circle, sphere, hypersphere etc
i.e photons ultimately condense to point singularities. An electron positron pair, a circle (ring singularity).
I believe an electron positron pair arising from gamma photon decay represnts a shift up the heirachy, from point to ring.
A photons wave state propagates within the confines of a sphere, whilst the electro-positronic, a hypertorus. This allows not only expansion and contraction, but movement around.
Imagine my bicycle wheel again
;- if a ring system resides, integrated (embedded) on the wavefront surface of our universe. The aforementioned circumnavigating wave aspect, transits both up through this surface, around, and plumments back down through again, in a recursive hyperspatial loop. Naturally, these two nodes we term electron and positron, two apparently separate particles formed from 1 source. I suggest, it's this directional propagation within the hypertorus (with respect to the surface wavefront of our universe) that manifests as charge.Sorry, back to the point;- "dimensional collapse"?
Can be seen during electron positron annihilation, whereby a hypersphere bound wave ensemble collapses to a sphere.
Hope everything's a tad clearer now.
..... just in case you're wondering;-
"During e+/e- annihilation. If photons are posited to be carried as integrated wavicles on an electro-positronic hyperspatial wave aspect .... what the hell are they integrated into after the ring/point interconversion?".
Answer;-
Electron/positron annihilation occurs between 2 separate ring systems. An electron from one, positron from the other ...... when they 'meet', it's analogous to placing 2 bar magnets together;- 4 poles (in total) become just 2!; therefore, decay photon actually rides within this newly constructed hypertorus envelope
"During e+/e- annihilation. If photons are posited to be carried as integrated wavicles on an electro-positronic hyperspatial wave aspect .... what the hell are they integrated into after the ring/point interconversion?".
Answer;-
Electron/positron annihilation occurs between 2 separate ring systems. An electron from one, positron from the other ...... when they 'meet', it's analogous to placing 2 bar magnets together;- 4 poles (in total) become just 2!; therefore, decay photon actually rides within this newly constructed hypertorus envelope
..... just in case you're wondering;-
"if all electrons have counterpart positrons, where in blooming hell are they all?"
Answer;-
Suppose, in the early universe (just a few seconds after the 'Big Bang'), equal quantities of both electrons and positrons were produced. But the universe was expanding so fast, some actually separated beyond c! ..... and this really is key;-
Imagine two such electrons e1 & e2, undergoing superluminal divorce; however, this may of not been the case for their corresponding positrons in relation to their electron 'twins' (p1 & p2).
eg;- e1 & p2, e2 & p1 may well be relatively local.
If an electron/positron pair are just mere points within a timespace hoop (one in which wave facet transition propagates from electron to positron) - could it be, that from the frame of the electrons - positrons appear to be electrons?, brought about by means of flow inversion, created via superluminal departure of their electron component? - This type of mechanism might hold true for all particles created within this early period of our universe!
Hence, half of all matter may merely be anti-matter 'in disguise'.
"if all electrons have counterpart positrons, where in blooming hell are they all?"
Answer;-
Suppose, in the early universe (just a few seconds after the 'Big Bang'), equal quantities of both electrons and positrons were produced. But the universe was expanding so fast, some actually separated beyond c! ..... and this really is key;-
Imagine two such electrons e1 & e2, undergoing superluminal divorce; however, this may of not been the case for their corresponding positrons in relation to their electron 'twins' (p1 & p2).
eg;- e1 & p2, e2 & p1 may well be relatively local.
If an electron/positron pair are just mere points within a timespace hoop (one in which wave facet transition propagates from electron to positron) - could it be, that from the frame of the electrons - positrons appear to be electrons?, brought about by means of flow inversion, created via superluminal departure of their electron component? - This type of mechanism might hold true for all particles created within this early period of our universe!
Hence, half of all matter may merely be anti-matter 'in disguise'.
Lady Elizabeth,
We are discussing your theory: Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) as compared to quantum mechanics (qm) and the new rival Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
Now I understand a bit better what you mean by "dimensional collapse". I also realize that UWM is even more audacious than I thought - UWM is attempting to describe what elementary particles are and where charge comes from.
I prefer what UWM is saying on particle structure when compared to string theory, for example. I'm not so keen on half of all matter may merely be anti-matter 'in disguise'. I'd rather Earth did not meet an asteroid of anti-matter in it's travels - would not good for general health and well being.
Question: is UWM a local and deterministic theory? if so, how do you know? We all know that qm claims "non-locality" as a feature. TEW is local and deterministic for the whole quantum world using the same maths and predictions as qm.
Eugene Morrow
We are discussing your theory: Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) as compared to quantum mechanics (qm) and the new rival Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
Now I understand a bit better what you mean by "dimensional collapse". I also realize that UWM is even more audacious than I thought - UWM is attempting to describe what elementary particles are and where charge comes from.
I prefer what UWM is saying on particle structure when compared to string theory, for example. I'm not so keen on half of all matter may merely be anti-matter 'in disguise'. I'd rather Earth did not meet an asteroid of anti-matter in it's travels - would not good for general health and well being.
Question: is UWM a local and deterministic theory? if so, how do you know? We all know that qm claims "non-locality" as a feature. TEW is local and deterministic for the whole quantum world using the same maths and predictions as qm.
Eugene Morrow
Dear Lady Elizabeth
Please continue with your awesomeness.
Please continue with your awesomeness.
QUOTE (EugeneMorrowTEW+Apr 15 2012, 11:14 PM)
Question: is UWM a local and deterministic theory? if so, how do you know? We all know that qm claims "non-locality" as a feature. TEW is local and deterministic for the whole quantum world using the same maths and predictions as qm.
Eugene Morrow
Eugene,
Everywhere's local in far higher geometry.
Eugene Morrow
Eugene,
Everywhere's local in far higher geometry.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Apr 15 2012, 11:25 PM)
Dear Lady Elizabeth
Please continue with your awesomeness.
Yeah, gonna get Physorg to cover my 'groundbreaking theories'.
Please continue with your awesomeness.
Yeah, gonna get Physorg to cover my 'groundbreaking theories'.
Lady Elizabeth,
We are discussing your theory: Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) as compared to quantum mechanics (qm) and the new rival Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
You wrote:
This sounds a lot like the quantum interconnectedness (or non-locality) to me. I thought we had agreed that quantum interconnectedness was a problem for qm.
TEW avoids the need for quantum interconnectedness by a different wave direction. The interactions of all entities - particles and waves is all local and deterministic, which is a big hint that TEW is a better explanation than qm.
Does UWM use extra dimensions like string theory? We need a bit more on what "far higher geometry" is - (more awesomeness?)
Eugene Morrow
We are discussing your theory: Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) as compared to quantum mechanics (qm) and the new rival Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
You wrote:
QUOTE
Everywhere's local in far higher geometry.
This sounds a lot like the quantum interconnectedness (or non-locality) to me. I thought we had agreed that quantum interconnectedness was a problem for qm.
TEW avoids the need for quantum interconnectedness by a different wave direction. The interactions of all entities - particles and waves is all local and deterministic, which is a big hint that TEW is a better explanation than qm.
Does UWM use extra dimensions like string theory? We need a bit more on what "far higher geometry" is - (more awesomeness?)
Eugene Morrow
QUOTE (EugeneMorrowTEW+Apr 16 2012, 09:11 PM)
Lady Elizabeth,
We are discussing your theory: Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) as compared to quantum mechanics (qm) and the new rival Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
You wrote:
This sounds a lot like the quantum interconnectedness (or non-locality) to me. I thought we had agreed that quantum interconnectedness was a problem for qm.
TEW avoids the need for quantum interconnectedness by a different wave direction. The interactions of all entities - particles and waves is all local and deterministic, which is a big hint that TEW is a better explanation than qm.
Does UWM use extra dimensions like string theory? We need a bit more on what "far higher geometry" is - (more awesomeness?)
Eugene Morrow
Before I spout more crank assumptions of the awesome variety, please address the following:
An electron and positron resulting from a gamma photon decay source are allowed to separate unobstructed (without absorption or annihilation), eventually residing a few thousand parsecs from each other.
UWM/QM;- both will still exhibit interconnectivity.... how does TEW explain (without particles following waves) why, @ over this vast distance, instant communication exists?
We are discussing your theory: Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) as compared to quantum mechanics (qm) and the new rival Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
You wrote:
This sounds a lot like the quantum interconnectedness (or non-locality) to me. I thought we had agreed that quantum interconnectedness was a problem for qm.
TEW avoids the need for quantum interconnectedness by a different wave direction. The interactions of all entities - particles and waves is all local and deterministic, which is a big hint that TEW is a better explanation than qm.
Does UWM use extra dimensions like string theory? We need a bit more on what "far higher geometry" is - (more awesomeness?)
Eugene Morrow
Before I spout more crank assumptions of the awesome variety,
please address the following:An electron and positron resulting from a gamma photon decay source are allowed to separate unobstructed (without absorption or annihilation), eventually residing a few thousand parsecs from each other.
UWM/QM;- both will still exhibit interconnectivity.... how does TEW explain (without particles following waves) why, @ over this vast distance, instant communication exists?
QUOTE (Lady Elizabeth+Apr 15 2012, 11:29 PM)
Everywhere's local in far higher geometry.
Sounds like you found the missing t dimension... lol
Sounds like you found the missing t dimension... lol
Lady Elizabeth,
We are discussing your theory: Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) as compared to quantum mechanics (qm) and the new rival Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
You presented this situation:
I have not read a TEW description of this particular result. It seems very similar to the Innsbruck experiment that tests Bells' Theorem. The TEW explanation is in Chapter 6 of the TEW book, pages 63 to 71. A summary is below.
A. Neither qm or TEW can predict the results of the Innsbruck experiment, so it's an area for more research.
B. 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 orientation on their journey. Nothing needs to be transmitted to the particles while they are "in flight", so there is no entanglement.
C. For TEW, Bell's Theorem and the Innsbruck experiment prove nothing.
So for TEW, there is no communication needed between the particles, so there is no need to claim non-locality.
Yes, TEW claims that particles are always following elementary waves. In the Innsbruck experiment, the detectors send out elementary waves to the incoming particles. If the detector change orientation for example, this changes the elementary waves, which will affect the particles. Bell's Theorem assumes that this cannot occur, so TEW claims there is a fundamental flaw in applying Bell's Theorem. That is one of the reasons that TEW claims Bell's Theorem proves nothing.
Now I understand that UWM and qm share the claim of non-locality in this case. There are different areas where the three theories share some aspects and not others.
Is the UWM explanation of the electron/positron the same as for qm?
Eugene Morrow
We are discussing your theory: Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) as compared to quantum mechanics (qm) and the new rival Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
You presented this situation:
QUOTE
An electron and positron resulting from a gamma photon decay source are allowed to separate unobstructed (without absorption or annihilation), eventually residing a few thousand parsecs from each other.
I have not read a TEW description of this particular result. It seems very similar to the Innsbruck experiment that tests Bells' Theorem. The TEW explanation is in Chapter 6 of the TEW book, pages 63 to 71. A summary is below.
A. Neither qm or TEW can predict the results of the Innsbruck experiment, so it's an area for more research.
B. 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 orientation on their journey. Nothing needs to be transmitted to the particles while they are "in flight", so there is no entanglement.
C. For TEW, Bell's Theorem and the Innsbruck experiment prove nothing.
So for TEW, there is no communication needed between the particles, so there is no need to claim non-locality.
Yes, TEW claims that particles are always following elementary waves. In the Innsbruck experiment, the detectors send out elementary waves to the incoming particles. If the detector change orientation for example, this changes the elementary waves, which will affect the particles. Bell's Theorem assumes that this cannot occur, so TEW claims there is a fundamental flaw in applying Bell's Theorem. That is one of the reasons that TEW claims Bell's Theorem proves nothing.
Now I understand that UWM and qm share the claim of non-locality in this case. There are different areas where the three theories share some aspects and not others.
Is the UWM explanation of the electron/positron the same as for qm?
Eugene Morrow
QUOTE (Euge'+)
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 orientation on their journey.
That sounds more head-smashingly insane than QM.
That sounds more head-smashingly insane than QM.
QUOTE (Euge'+)
Is the UWM explanation of the electron/positron the same as for qm?
Not in the slightest .... and here's why;- some grand 10 star crank (as promised):
UWM predicts this little device:
Hyperspatial Transceiver.
I wondered; if electrons and positrons resulting from gamma photon decays could somehow be separated and extracted into magnetic storage (@cryo' temp's, pre-evacuated of anything likely to cause annihilation- with great emphasis regarding the positrons) we'd have the basis for a transceiver combo, as each electron, positron pair are produced from one hyperspatial ring system. Therefore, move the confinement devices a few thousand miles apart, or whatever distance you choose fit, and induce modulation to either electrons or positrons via their containment coils.
If, say the electrons were made to undergo modulation, then surely the positrons would too (simultaneously, irrespective of distance), this action would create a small but measurable counter-affect via their containment field windings ... this response then amplified to reproduce the original signal/info'.
The really excellent thing about this combo, is;- not only could you share 'real-time' communication with a friend on the other side of the galaxy, but your conversation would be pretty damned secure.
p.s;- thought this type of rationale could be further employed in the sphere of computer processing.
Not in the slightest .... and here's why;- some grand 10 star crank (as promised):
UWM predicts this little device:
Hyperspatial Transceiver.
I wondered; if electrons and positrons resulting from gamma photon decays could somehow be separated and extracted into magnetic storage (@cryo' temp's, pre-evacuated of anything likely to cause annihilation- with great emphasis regarding the positrons) we'd have the basis for a transceiver combo, as each electron, positron pair are produced from one hyperspatial ring system. Therefore, move the confinement devices a few thousand miles apart, or whatever distance you choose fit, and induce modulation to either electrons or positrons via their containment coils.
If, say the electrons were made to undergo modulation, then surely the positrons would too (simultaneously, irrespective of distance), this action would create a small but measurable counter-affect via their containment field windings ... this response then amplified to reproduce the original signal/info'.
The really excellent thing about this combo, is;- not only could you share 'real-time' communication with a friend on the other side of the galaxy, but your conversation would be pretty damned secure.
p.s;- thought this type of rationale could be further employed in the sphere of computer processing.
Lady Elizabeth,
We are discussing your theory: Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) as compared to quantum mechanics (qm) and the new rival Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
I can see the logic you used for a Hyperspatial Transceiver - if the electron/positron pair really are entangled, then affecting one will affect the other instantaneously at any distance, and so you have the communication device happening - perhaps in Morse Code first and better models later.
TEW definitely does not go for entanglement. In order for me to give a more details account, I need to get hold of a more detailed description of the TEW explanation for entanglement in the Innsbruck experiment that Lewis Little wrote. If I find it, I will pass it on.
For now, we'll just have to accept we disagree on this one.
Something to think about: if TEW can explain the effects in Bell's Theorem and the Innsbruck experiment without entanglement, isn't it preferable to choose such an explanation, given that entanglement is such an ambitious effect to explain?
After all, if entanglement does exist, what is the mechanism? Most quantum effects are modulated by particles - for example photons for electro-magnetic forces. Is there a particle that modulates entanglement? Perhaps a tachyon that travels backwards in time? It's easy to say entanglement happens, but much harder to say how.
Eugene Morrow
We are discussing your theory: Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) as compared to quantum mechanics (qm) and the new rival Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
I can see the logic you used for a Hyperspatial Transceiver - if the electron/positron pair really are entangled, then affecting one will affect the other instantaneously at any distance, and so you have the communication device happening - perhaps in Morse Code first and better models later.
TEW definitely does not go for entanglement. In order for me to give a more details account, I need to get hold of a more detailed description of the TEW explanation for entanglement in the Innsbruck experiment that Lewis Little wrote. If I find it, I will pass it on.
For now, we'll just have to accept we disagree on this one.
Something to think about: if TEW can explain the effects in Bell's Theorem and the Innsbruck experiment without entanglement, isn't it preferable to choose such an explanation, given that entanglement is such an ambitious effect to explain?
After all, if entanglement does exist, what is the mechanism? Most quantum effects are modulated by particles - for example photons for electro-magnetic forces. Is there a particle that modulates entanglement? Perhaps a tachyon that travels backwards in time? It's easy to say entanglement happens, but much harder to say how.
Eugene Morrow
QUOTE (EugeneMorrowTEW+Apr 19 2012, 01:46 AM)
After all, if entanglement does exist, what is the mechanism?
Thought I'd already made this ultra clear.
From my stance;- weirdo entanglement is actually an illusion created via wave propagation operating in higher dimensions. Even Little suggests photons are carried by an electrons wave-state.
2 photons 'bound' into this in-transit surface, operate as one entity, no?
Puzzlement derives from natural cognitive paradigms, where higher dimensionality cannot be believed; therefore, does not play part.
Proof of these extra dimensions IMHO will be the defining element of 21st century physics, in which greater understanding will materialize.
Thought I'd already made this ultra clear.
From my stance;- weirdo entanglement is actually an illusion created via wave propagation operating in higher dimensions. Even Little suggests photons are carried by an electrons wave-state.
2 photons 'bound' into this in-transit surface, operate as one entity, no?
Puzzlement derives from natural cognitive paradigms, where higher dimensionality cannot be believed; therefore, does not play part.
Proof of these extra dimensions IMHO will be the defining element of 21st century physics, in which greater understanding will materialize.
Lady Elizabeth,
We are discussing your theory: Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) as compared to quantum mechanics (qm) and the new rival Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
Now I understand how UWM explains entanglement - by waves in other dimensions. I am assuming the 180 degrees waves (the bicycle waves) operate in these extra dimensions, which provides a connection.
UWM is a step ahead of qm, which provides no clear mechanism for entanglement. The Transactional interpretation could claim there are particles going backwards in time that connect the two entangled particles, but that is only me speculating. The Copenhagen interpretation has no mechanism and that is the most popular interpretation. Not sure how the second most popular interpretation - the Many Worlds - would account for entanglement. As usual, qm simply says "it just happens" and doesn't say how.
As I've said before, TEW does not accept entanglement exists or that extra dimensions exist, and explains the results of entanglement using elementary waves which are local and deterministic. The experiments are so complex I do not yet have a simple summary to make this clear yet. I hope to have one later.
The key ideas to think about is that entanglement claims assume that the detectors do not affect the pair of particles. In TEW, the detectors directly affect the particles, because elementary waves travel from the detectors to the particles. TEW claims that the TEW wave direction accounts for the effects without needing any communication between the particles. As usual, TEW is all about considering a different direction for the wave.
This discussion happened just as I was asking whether UWM has extra dimensions like string theory. You then said:
Then you started the discussion about the electron/positron pair. I think we've answered both questions ! Am I right in guessing that UWM has extra dimensions like string theory does? If so, how many? Is this connected to gravity?
Eugene Morrow
We are discussing your theory: Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) as compared to quantum mechanics (qm) and the new rival Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
Now I understand how UWM explains entanglement - by waves in other dimensions. I am assuming the 180 degrees waves (the bicycle waves) operate in these extra dimensions, which provides a connection.
UWM is a step ahead of qm, which provides no clear mechanism for entanglement. The Transactional interpretation could claim there are particles going backwards in time that connect the two entangled particles, but that is only me speculating. The Copenhagen interpretation has no mechanism and that is the most popular interpretation. Not sure how the second most popular interpretation - the Many Worlds - would account for entanglement. As usual, qm simply says "it just happens" and doesn't say how.
As I've said before, TEW does not accept entanglement exists or that extra dimensions exist, and explains the results of entanglement using elementary waves which are local and deterministic. The experiments are so complex I do not yet have a simple summary to make this clear yet. I hope to have one later.
The key ideas to think about is that entanglement claims assume that the detectors do not affect the pair of particles. In TEW, the detectors directly affect the particles, because elementary waves travel from the detectors to the particles. TEW claims that the TEW wave direction accounts for the effects without needing any communication between the particles. As usual, TEW is all about considering a different direction for the wave.
This discussion happened just as I was asking whether UWM has extra dimensions like string theory. You then said:
QUOTE
Before I spout more crank assumptions of the awesome variety,
Then you started the discussion about the electron/positron pair. I think we've answered both questions ! Am I right in guessing that UWM has extra dimensions like string theory does? If so, how many? Is this connected to gravity?
Eugene Morrow
QUOTE (EugeneMorrowTEW+Apr 22 2012, 10:52 PM)
Am I right in guessing that UWM has extra dimensions like string theory does? If so, how many? Is this connected to gravity?
Eugene Morrow
I really haven't a clue to an absolute, definitive number of dimensions. String theories suggest 10/11, and possess the math's to back up their claim. That's good enough for me.
Here's my lean on Gravity;-
If energy resides across wavefront dualities, @ any point on these multi-dimensional in-transit surfaces, interactiion with other wavicle 'species' is possible.
Wavestate based upon ring singularity (electro-positronic) and beyond, intrinsically interface with each other, sometimes resulting in particle creation, but always undergo mutual energy exchange to equilibria, merely a wavefront to wavefront inductive affair we label "gravity". This naturally creates morphic variability, as parts of the condensing 'import' wavefront reach their Schwarzchild distance before others - the affect simply relocates the singularity spatially (being a purely harmonic buffering reaction to allow singularity formation) ..... as a direct consequence, the particle/mass is seen to accelerate towards the greatest source of inductance.
Eugene Morrow
I really haven't a clue to an absolute, definitive number of dimensions. String theories suggest 10/11, and possess the math's to back up their claim. That's good enough for me.
Here's my lean on Gravity;-
If energy resides across wavefront dualities, @ any point on these multi-dimensional in-transit surfaces, interactiion with other wavicle 'species' is possible.
Wavestate based upon ring singularity (electro-positronic) and beyond, intrinsically interface with each other, sometimes resulting in particle creation, but always undergo mutual energy exchange to equilibria, merely a wavefront to wavefront inductive affair we label "gravity". This naturally creates morphic variability, as parts of the condensing 'import' wavefront reach their Schwarzchild distance before others - the affect simply relocates the singularity spatially (being a purely harmonic buffering reaction to allow singularity formation) ..... as a direct consequence, the particle/mass is seen to accelerate towards the greatest source of inductance.
Lady Elizabeth,
We are discussing your theory: Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) as compared to quantum mechanics (qm) and the new rival Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
I think I am getting an idea how the three theories compare.
The qm explanations are non-local and full of weirdness in the usual 4 dimensions. The big split in physics today is that qm and gravity are not compatible.
TEW is local and deterministic in the usual 4 dimensions using the same maths as qm, differing only in wave direction and explanations. TEW is "in principle" compatible with gravity and general relativity, with Lewis Little still working on the details.
For UWM, there are extra dimensions, which allow the two-way wave communication between entities and which makes all interactions local and deterministic in these higher dimensions. UWM also has an explanation for gravity.
Is the UWM treatment of gravity complete? If so, does that mean UWM is complete Grand Unified Theory?
Eugene Morrow
We are discussing your theory: Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) as compared to quantum mechanics (qm) and the new rival Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
I think I am getting an idea how the three theories compare.
The qm explanations are non-local and full of weirdness in the usual 4 dimensions. The big split in physics today is that qm and gravity are not compatible.
TEW is local and deterministic in the usual 4 dimensions using the same maths as qm, differing only in wave direction and explanations. TEW is "in principle" compatible with gravity and general relativity, with Lewis Little still working on the details.
For UWM, there are extra dimensions, which allow the two-way wave communication between entities and which makes all interactions local and deterministic in these higher dimensions. UWM also has an explanation for gravity.
Is the UWM treatment of gravity complete? If so, does that mean UWM is complete Grand Unified Theory?
Eugene Morrow
QUOTE (EugeneMorrowTEW+Apr 23 2012, 09:14 PM)
does that mean UWM is complete Grand Unified Theory?
I suppose so.
I suppose so.
Lady Elizabeth,
We are discussing your theory: Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) as compared to quantum mechanics (qm) and the new rival Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
One of the interesting things about this debate is that I started this thread to talk about Lewis Little's new theory TEW that rivals qm. The main conversation I have is with you - a person with your own new theory.
The bit in common is the search for a new theory. This is an important point, because there are plenty of people who believe qm has no weirdness at all and has no need to be fixed. If any of you are out there reading this, feel free to join in.
Lewis Little's motivation was clearly to find a local and deterministic theory of the quantum world. The bits of qm that are a problem are the non-locality and the multiple interpretations with their individual weirdness.
Little claims that Neils Bohr, one of the founding fathers of qm, used cause and effect when it was convenient and denied cause and effect when it was too hard. To Little, the qm founders ignored evidence that qm was defying logic, and started to question the logic instead of questioning qm.
For Lewis Little, qm focuses entirely on the maths and has not thought about reality enough to understand what the maths is saying. In TEW, the maths of qm is retained - it is the explanations that are so different.
What has been your motivation to developing a new theory? At what point in your study of physics did you decide a new theory was needed?
Eugene Morrow
We are discussing your theory: Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) as compared to quantum mechanics (qm) and the new rival Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
One of the interesting things about this debate is that I started this thread to talk about Lewis Little's new theory TEW that rivals qm. The main conversation I have is with you - a person with your own new theory.
The bit in common is the search for a new theory. This is an important point, because there are plenty of people who believe qm has no weirdness at all and has no need to be fixed. If any of you are out there reading this, feel free to join in.
Lewis Little's motivation was clearly to find a local and deterministic theory of the quantum world. The bits of qm that are a problem are the non-locality and the multiple interpretations with their individual weirdness.
Little claims that Neils Bohr, one of the founding fathers of qm, used cause and effect when it was convenient and denied cause and effect when it was too hard. To Little, the qm founders ignored evidence that qm was defying logic, and started to question the logic instead of questioning qm.
For Lewis Little, qm focuses entirely on the maths and has not thought about reality enough to understand what the maths is saying. In TEW, the maths of qm is retained - it is the explanations that are so different.
What has been your motivation to developing a new theory? At what point in your study of physics did you decide a new theory was needed?
Eugene Morrow
QUOTE (EugeneMorrowTEW+Apr 24 2012, 10:56 PM)
Little claims that Neils Bohr, one of the founding fathers of qm, used cause and effect when it was convenient and denied cause and effect when it was too hard. To Little, the qm founders ignored evidence that qm was defying logic, and started to question the logic instead of questioning qm.
For Lewis Little, qm focuses entirely on the maths and has not thought about reality enough to understand what the maths is saying. In TEW, the maths of qm is retained - it is the explanations that are so different.
What has been your motivation to developing a new theory? At what point in your study of physics did you decide a new theory was needed?
Eugene Morrow
Euge'
Yeah, I totally agree with Little;- weirdness is just another word for ignorance, no matter how beautifully the math's correlates with actuality. For me, the most fundermental aspect of any concept, is a bonafide logical model .... only then, dare to back it up with maths. A good model will undeniably infer so much more than a mere equation that satisfies a physical phenomenon.
I could spend several life-times studying aspects of string theories, and understand sweet Felicity Arkwright about what's really occuring (rancid excuse for being a math retard)
We know QM/String Theories have the math utterly spot on ..... but I feel my crank faeces may open up new avenues.
I've already suggested an instantaneous type communication device, and I've other crank treasures like my most 'rocking' mass/energy interconvetor.
Motivation? ... like all cranks, I want world-wide recognition for being a smartass, when I've not toiled @ math's, not bothered to thoroughly reasearch anything in particular, and aboundingly significant;- have a stupendous hatred of authority .... yup, an ignorant rebel am I.
For Lewis Little, qm focuses entirely on the maths and has not thought about reality enough to understand what the maths is saying. In TEW, the maths of qm is retained - it is the explanations that are so different.
What has been your motivation to developing a new theory? At what point in your study of physics did you decide a new theory was needed?
Eugene Morrow
Euge'
Yeah, I totally agree with Little;- weirdness is just another word for ignorance, no matter how beautifully the math's correlates with actuality. For me, the most fundermental aspect of any concept, is a bonafide logical model .... only then, dare to back it up with maths. A good model will undeniably infer so much more than a mere equation that satisfies a physical phenomenon.
I could spend several life-times studying aspects of string theories, and understand sweet Felicity Arkwright about what's really occuring (rancid excuse for being a math retard)
We know QM/String Theories have the math utterly spot on ..... but I feel my crank faeces may open up new avenues.
I've already suggested an instantaneous type communication device, and I've other crank treasures like my most 'rocking' mass/energy interconvetor.
Motivation? ... like all cranks, I want world-wide recognition for being a smartass, when I've not toiled @ math's, not bothered to thoroughly reasearch anything in particular, and aboundingly significant;- have a stupendous hatred of authority .... yup, an ignorant rebel am I.
Lady Elizabeth,
We are discussing your theory: Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) as compared to quantum mechanics (qm) and the new rival Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
Being an ignorant rebel sounds very normal and well adjusted to me.
This is a rare chance to discuss alternatives to qm, because most people in physics are convinced that the predictive success means the explanations of qm are unable to be questioned.
I have found i cannot post diagrams to this particular forum. It's a pity, because so many things in physics need a diagram to see them. The famous double slit experiment is something I'd love to discuss here, but I can't post the diagrams I need to make it clear what I mean. So we're a bit limited in what we can cover.
In your conversations with other people who have studied physics, how common is it that people express any reservations about the explanations of qm? If they do, what sort of things do they talk about?
Eugene Morrow
We are discussing your theory: Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) as compared to quantum mechanics (qm) and the new rival Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
Being an ignorant rebel sounds very normal and well adjusted to me.
This is a rare chance to discuss alternatives to qm, because most people in physics are convinced that the predictive success means the explanations of qm are unable to be questioned.
I have found i cannot post diagrams to this particular forum. It's a pity, because so many things in physics need a diagram to see them. The famous double slit experiment is something I'd love to discuss here, but I can't post the diagrams I need to make it clear what I mean. So we're a bit limited in what we can cover.
In your conversations with other people who have studied physics, how common is it that people express any reservations about the explanations of qm? If they do, what sort of things do they talk about?
Eugene Morrow
QUOTE (EugeneMorrowTEW+Apr 25 2012, 10:50 PM)
In your conversations with other people who have studied physics, how common is it that people express any reservations about the explanations of qm? If they do, what sort of things do they talk about?
Can't really comment. The only dialogue I experience occurs here on these forums.
Nevertheless, 99.9% of posters are 110% idiots;- so obviously their opinions don't matter. Of the 0.1% remaining, most are content with QM, perhaps because they've a deep understanding of its math beauty, and if it supplies the right results time & time again, why bother the fix something so wonderful?
And there's us, somewhere in the middle.
Can't really comment. The only dialogue I experience occurs here on these forums.
Nevertheless, 99.9% of posters are 110% idiots;- so obviously their opinions don't matter. Of the 0.1% remaining, most are content with QM, perhaps because they've a deep understanding of its math beauty, and if it supplies the right results time & time again, why bother the fix something so wonderful?
And there's us, somewhere in the middle.
Lady Elizabeth,
We are discussing your theory: Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) as compared to quantum mechanics (qm) and the new rival Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
My motivation for this thread is to make people aware that there is a new theory to consider - TEW. I may not convince anyone to switch to TEW - I am happy to simply to make people aware of a choice.
The strength of TEW is that it uses the same maths and predictions as qm, so the only difference is the explanations where TEW makes things local and deterministic. So we keep the successful predictions of qm. The problem is that qm claims that a local and deterministic explanation is impossible.
As I've pointed out, qm has an assumption about wave direction. The central idea of qm is wave-particle duality, and as soon as you say that you have assumed the wave travels in the same direction as the particle. TEW makes a different assumption: that the wave travels in the opposite direction. There's more to it, but that's the central idea.
If two theories have different assumptions, then they cannot prove anything about each other. So the qm "proof" that a local and deterministic theory is impossible simply does not apply to TEW. All assumptions should be stated for all proofs, so the qm proof should read "Assuming the wave travels in the same direction as the particle, then a local and deterministic explanation is impossible". TEW would agree with that, and say "Assuming the wave travels in the opposite direction as the particle, then it's possible".
It's a difficult message to get across to qm supporters. Also, qm people are convinced the experiments support only qm, whereas from the TEW point of view the experiments equally well support TEW.
The supporters of qm seem very entrenched and certain there is no need for them to even consider another theory, even with all the weirdness of qm. Getting them to even bother to look at a new theory is tricky.
You will have the same issue if, one day, you try to publish UWM. My guess is that you are offering a unity with gravity, and perhaps to offer a local and deterministic explanation thanks to extra dimensions. Have you given any thought to how you would try to convince qm supporters to switch to UWM?
Eugene Morrow
We are discussing your theory: Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) as compared to quantum mechanics (qm) and the new rival Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
My motivation for this thread is to make people aware that there is a new theory to consider - TEW. I may not convince anyone to switch to TEW - I am happy to simply to make people aware of a choice.
The strength of TEW is that it uses the same maths and predictions as qm, so the only difference is the explanations where TEW makes things local and deterministic. So we keep the successful predictions of qm. The problem is that qm claims that a local and deterministic explanation is impossible.
As I've pointed out, qm has an assumption about wave direction. The central idea of qm is wave-particle duality, and as soon as you say that you have assumed the wave travels in the same direction as the particle. TEW makes a different assumption: that the wave travels in the opposite direction. There's more to it, but that's the central idea.
If two theories have different assumptions, then they cannot prove anything about each other. So the qm "proof" that a local and deterministic theory is impossible simply does not apply to TEW. All assumptions should be stated for all proofs, so the qm proof should read "Assuming the wave travels in the same direction as the particle, then a local and deterministic explanation is impossible". TEW would agree with that, and say "Assuming the wave travels in the opposite direction as the particle, then it's possible".
It's a difficult message to get across to qm supporters. Also, qm people are convinced the experiments support only qm, whereas from the TEW point of view the experiments equally well support TEW.
The supporters of qm seem very entrenched and certain there is no need for them to even consider another theory, even with all the weirdness of qm. Getting them to even bother to look at a new theory is tricky.
You will have the same issue if, one day, you try to publish UWM. My guess is that you are offering a unity with gravity, and perhaps to offer a local and deterministic explanation thanks to extra dimensions. Have you given any thought to how you would try to convince qm supporters to switch to UWM?
Eugene Morrow
QUOTE (EugeneMorrowTEW+Apr 30 2012, 12:30 AM)
Have you given any thought to how you would try to convince qm supporters to switch to UWM?
Yeah, I quite favour Spanish Inquisition methology;-
Simply gather all QM supporters together in some filthy torture pit, and systematically convert via rack, boot, thumb-screws, judas chair etc, until they decry Bohr and Heisenberg.
....... alternatively, if all I've supposed is indeed correct (regarding the spacetime analogue nature of 'particles' and intrinsic underlying mechanisms); eventually, they will succeed;- given that ideas, like life, evolve in a survival of the fittest manner.
No way am I publishing vanity press/spouting-off on u-tube w/slide show @ some horrendous pseudo-science symposium .... I'm just not that kinda crank.
Yeah, I quite favour Spanish Inquisition methology;-
Simply gather all QM supporters together in some filthy torture pit, and systematically convert via rack, boot, thumb-screws, judas chair etc, until they decry Bohr and Heisenberg.
....... alternatively, if all I've supposed is indeed correct (regarding the spacetime analogue nature of 'particles' and intrinsic underlying mechanisms); eventually, they will succeed;- given that ideas, like life, evolve in a survival of the fittest manner.
No way am I publishing vanity press/spouting-off on u-tube w/slide show @ some horrendous pseudo-science symposium .... I'm just not that kinda crank.
Lady Elizabeth,
We are discussing your theory: Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) as compared to quantum mechanics (qm) and the new rival Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
You have audacity again - just torture qm supporters until they submit. Sounds kinda fun.
I like the optimism that eventually rational ideas will succeed. I also believe that eventually physics will wake up from the qm "trip" they've been on.
Schrodingers cat is a proof that qm is reductio ad absurdum, and yet physicists show no signs of being uncomfortable with it. My hope is that one day students stop nodding their heads and complain that a cat can't be both alive and dead at the same time, and realise that qm is not giving explanations that are worth believing.
The idea that you "have" to believe qm is based on the idea that there is no alternative. There is at least TEW and UWM to choose from. Lucky for Lewis Little, Physics Essays published his paper in 1996, and his book was published in 2009. That is really good going, because normally the physics establishment edits all publications to ensure no serious rival to qm is put forward. You will encounter the same problem even if you do have UWM written up ready to go.
It's a pity that physics has forgotten to consider new ideas. To me, it's a sign of insecurity - if you really believe in qm, then you wouldn't be afraid of a new theory because you'd be confident that qm is obviously superior. The tight grip that qm keeps on publications is a sign of underlying anxiety to me.
TEW is not yet complete, because the treatment of gravity is still "in principle" support only and not fully covered. For qm, gravity has never been completed. So all theories have their problem bits. My argument is that a choice is always good, and physics desperately needs to have TEW and UWM debated along side qm (and any other theories that are out there).
I have a rather obscure question. A philosopher looked at TEW and argued that TEW "quantizes" momentum, because TEW claims particles change momentum when they emit or absorb a photon. In qm, particles like an electron change orbitals in an atom by using a photon, and in TEW this is generalized to particles in free space changing direction in the same way. Photons are always emitted and absorbed because of an elementary wave, which is there before the photon comes into existence.
I am not sure if the developer of TEW (Lewis Little) agrees or intended to quantize momentum. My guess is that he would agree that TEW does, and have no problem with it.
Let's consider a concrete example. Two electrons repel each other. In TEW, one or the other or both emits a photon that travels to the electron and causes the change in momentum of both. The photons travel along elementary waves. For qm, the photon is "virtual", so they claim the packet of energy is infinitely divisible and is not quantized. For TEW, the electrons exchange a real photon, so this is an argument the philosopher used to say momentum is "quantized".
In UWM, is momentum quantized in this way?
Eugene Morrow
We are discussing your theory: Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) as compared to quantum mechanics (qm) and the new rival Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
You have audacity again - just torture qm supporters until they submit. Sounds kinda fun.
I like the optimism that eventually rational ideas will succeed. I also believe that eventually physics will wake up from the qm "trip" they've been on.
Schrodingers cat is a proof that qm is reductio ad absurdum, and yet physicists show no signs of being uncomfortable with it. My hope is that one day students stop nodding their heads and complain that a cat can't be both alive and dead at the same time, and realise that qm is not giving explanations that are worth believing.
The idea that you "have" to believe qm is based on the idea that there is no alternative. There is at least TEW and UWM to choose from. Lucky for Lewis Little, Physics Essays published his paper in 1996, and his book was published in 2009. That is really good going, because normally the physics establishment edits all publications to ensure no serious rival to qm is put forward. You will encounter the same problem even if you do have UWM written up ready to go.
It's a pity that physics has forgotten to consider new ideas. To me, it's a sign of insecurity - if you really believe in qm, then you wouldn't be afraid of a new theory because you'd be confident that qm is obviously superior. The tight grip that qm keeps on publications is a sign of underlying anxiety to me.
TEW is not yet complete, because the treatment of gravity is still "in principle" support only and not fully covered. For qm, gravity has never been completed. So all theories have their problem bits. My argument is that a choice is always good, and physics desperately needs to have TEW and UWM debated along side qm (and any other theories that are out there).
I have a rather obscure question. A philosopher looked at TEW and argued that TEW "quantizes" momentum, because TEW claims particles change momentum when they emit or absorb a photon. In qm, particles like an electron change orbitals in an atom by using a photon, and in TEW this is generalized to particles in free space changing direction in the same way. Photons are always emitted and absorbed because of an elementary wave, which is there before the photon comes into existence.
I am not sure if the developer of TEW (Lewis Little) agrees or intended to quantize momentum. My guess is that he would agree that TEW does, and have no problem with it.
Let's consider a concrete example. Two electrons repel each other. In TEW, one or the other or both emits a photon that travels to the electron and causes the change in momentum of both. The photons travel along elementary waves. For qm, the photon is "virtual", so they claim the packet of energy is infinitely divisible and is not quantized. For TEW, the electrons exchange a real photon, so this is an argument the philosopher used to say momentum is "quantized".
In UWM, is momentum quantized in this way?
Eugene Morrow
QUOTE (EugeneMorrowTEW+May 1 2012, 09:13 PM)
In UWM, is momentum quantized in this way?
Yup, in UWM, photons are offspring wavicle condensates formed on outriding 'export' wavestate surfaces of charged 'species', which can integrate into wavestate surfaces of other like particles.
2 questions for you;-
1.How does TEW rationalize electron tunnelling?
1.How does TEW rationalize virtual particles without additional dimensions?
Edit;- (bonus question)
3. How does TEW define neutrinos?
Yup, in UWM, photons are offspring wavicle condensates formed on outriding 'export' wavestate surfaces of charged 'species', which can integrate into wavestate surfaces of other like particles.
2 questions for you;-
1.How does TEW rationalize electron tunnelling?
1.How does TEW rationalize virtual particles without additional dimensions?
Edit;- (bonus question)
3. How does TEW define neutrinos?
Lady Elizabeth,
We are discussing your theory: Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) as compared to quantum mechanics (qm) and the new rival Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
You asked me three questions.
1. How does TEW rationalize electron tunnelling?
2. How does TEW rationalize virtual particles without additional dimensions?
3. How does TEW define neutrinos?
Question 1 - electron tunneling
I cannot give you an immediate answer. I will have to look at the 1996 paper and the 2009 book to see if Lewis Little discusses tunneling, and electron tunneling in particular. I think he does mention it, but only in a paragraph or two as side issue to something else, so I don't think he's given a lot of detail.
Question 2 - virtual particles
TEW denies there are any virtual particles at all.
There is one specific case that comes to mind. It shows a rather quirky side of qm.
When an electron interacts with a nucleus, we all know that electrons can change orbitals. When an electron decays from a higher orbit to a lower orbit it emits a photon. So when an electron is interacting with a positive charge it can emit a photon.
When two electrons repel each other, qm claims that a "virtual photon" travels between them to achieve the repulsive effect. To me this is a bit weird - why does an electron produce a virtual photon this time? And what is a virtual photon anyway? TEW says the photon is real, not virtual, in this interaction.
Give me an example of experiments involving other virtual particles, and I'll see if TEW has a description of that experiment.
Question 3 - neutrinos
No, there is no definition of any particular particle in TEW.
TEW talks about particles following elementary waves, and how this explains quantum phenomena, rather than defining individual particles.
The 1996 paper has a discussion of particles and anti-particles and how TEW sees the dynamics of them. That is the closest Lewis Little gets to discussing specific particles.
Very happy to keep debating specific examples you want to bring up. I'll do my best to give a TEW point of view.
I am comfortable if you want to display some features of UWM. My bottom line is that I want debate in physics about the problems of qm explanations and the need for new ones. To me, any new theory is an ally - we need to shake up the complacency that qm "works" so it doesn't need to be looked at.
I am going away tonight (Friday) for the whole weekend, and I will be away from internet access, so unfortunately, I will not be able to reply until Monday.
Eugene Morrow
We are discussing your theory: Universal Wave Mechanism (UWM) as compared to quantum mechanics (qm) and the new rival Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
You asked me three questions.
1. How does TEW rationalize electron tunnelling?
2. How does TEW rationalize virtual particles without additional dimensions?
3. How does TEW define neutrinos?
Question 1 - electron tunneling
I cannot give you an immediate answer. I will have to look at the 1996 paper and the 2009 book to see if Lewis Little discusses tunneling, and electron tunneling in particular. I think he does mention it, but only in a paragraph or two as side issue to something else, so I don't think he's given a lot of detail.
Question 2 - virtual particles
TEW denies there are any virtual particles at all.
There is one specific case that comes to mind. It shows a rather quirky side of qm.
When an electron interacts with a nucleus, we all know that electrons can change orbitals. When an electron decays from a higher orbit to a lower orbit it emits a photon. So when an electron is interacting with a positive charge it can emit a photon.
When two electrons repel each other, qm claims that a "virtual photon" travels between them to achieve the repulsive effect. To me this is a bit weird - why does an electron produce a virtual photon this time? And what is a virtual photon anyway? TEW says the photon is real, not virtual, in this interaction.
Give me an example of experiments involving other virtual particles, and I'll see if TEW has a description of that experiment.
Question 3 - neutrinos
No, there is no definition of any particular particle in TEW.
TEW talks about particles following elementary waves, and how this explains quantum phenomena, rather than defining individual particles.
The 1996 paper has a discussion of particles and anti-particles and how TEW sees the dynamics of them. That is the closest Lewis Little gets to discussing specific particles.
Very happy to keep debating specific examples you want to bring up. I'll do my best to give a TEW point of view.
I am comfortable if you want to display some features of UWM. My bottom line is that I want debate in physics about the problems of qm explanations and the need for new ones. To me, any new theory is an ally - we need to shake up the complacency that qm "works" so it doesn't need to be looked at.
I am going away tonight (Friday) for the whole weekend, and I will be away from internet access, so unfortunately, I will not be able to reply until Monday.
Eugene Morrow
QUOTE (EugeneMorrowTEW+May 3 2012, 09:05 PM)
You asked me three questions.
Question 1 - electron tunneling
I cannot give you an immediate answer. I will have to look at the 1996 paper and the 2009 book to see if Lewis Little discusses tunneling, and electron tunneling in particular. I think he does mention it, but only in a paragraph or two as side issue to something else, so I don't think he's given a lot of detail.
Question 2 - virtual particles
TEW denies there are any virtual particles at all.
There is one specific case that comes to mind. It shows a rather quirky side of qm.
When an electron interacts with a nucleus, we all know that electrons can change orbitals. When an electron decays from a higher orbit to a lower orbit it emits a photon. So when an electron is interacting with a positive charge it can emit a photon.
Give me an example of experiments involving other virtual particles, and I'll see if TEW has a description of that experiment.
Question 3 - neutrinos
No, there is no definition of any particular particle in TEW.
TEW talks about particles following elementary waves, and how this explains quantum phenomena, rather than defining individual particles.
The 1996 paper has a discussion of particles and anti-particles and how TEW sees the dynamics of them. That is the closest Lewis Little gets to discussing specific particles.
Particle 'tunnelling' is a great example of QM's magnificence, predicted by its uncertainty concept.
Surely, if Little really wanted to take on QM, he'd need to address this? (naturally UWM has a way better interpretation).
With regards to my 2nd question;- look up the Casimir Effect.
Finally, neutrinos?
UWM suggests;- a photon is nothing more than a wave duality operating about a Schwarzchild distance. A recursive cycle, in which point singularity and maximum expansion (spherical) occur simultaneously ..... what if;- wave propagation was to be constrained to only 1 dimension? ... not as with the photon (point/sphere), instead (point/line)?
I predict neutrinos possess linear 'wave' propagation;-
1st Order: Electron neutrino > singularity/line
2nd Order: Muon neutrino > singularity/2 lines @ 90°
3rd Order: Tau neutrino > singularity/3 lines @ 90°
The Tau (if imaged via UWM) would have a wave envelope encompassing a 3D coss-like totality, with point singularity @ centre.
Think of a point possessing 6 arms, all operating @ 90° to each other.
Very similar to ring singularity systems, in whiich intrinsic wave propagation manifests as what we term "Quarks".
Question 1 - electron tunneling
I cannot give you an immediate answer. I will have to look at the 1996 paper and the 2009 book to see if Lewis Little discusses tunneling, and electron tunneling in particular. I think he does mention it, but only in a paragraph or two as side issue to something else, so I don't think he's given a lot of detail.
Question 2 - virtual particles
TEW denies there are any virtual particles at all.
There is one specific case that comes to mind. It shows a rather quirky side of qm.
When an electron interacts with a nucleus, we all know that electrons can change orbitals. When an electron decays from a higher orbit to a lower orbit it emits a photon. So when an electron is interacting with a positive charge it can emit a photon.
Give me an example of experiments involving other virtual particles, and I'll see if TEW has a description of that experiment.
Question 3 - neutrinos
No, there is no definition of any particular particle in TEW.
TEW talks about particles following elementary waves, and how this explains quantum phenomena, rather than defining individual particles.
The 1996 paper has a discussion of particles and anti-particles and how TEW sees the dynamics of them. That is the closest Lewis Little gets to discussing specific particles.
Particle 'tunnelling' is a great example of QM's magnificence, predicted by its uncertainty concept.
Surely, if Little really wanted to take on QM, he'd need to address this? (naturally UWM has a way better interpretation).
With regards to my 2nd question;- look up the Casimir Effect.
Finally, neutrinos?
UWM suggests;- a photon is nothing more than a wave duality operating about a Schwarzchild distance. A recursive cycle, in which point singularity and maximum expansion (spherical) occur simultaneously ..... what if;- wave propagation was to be constrained to only 1 dimension? ... not as with the photon (point/sphere), instead (point/line)?
I predict neutrinos possess linear 'wave' propagation;-
1st Order: Electron neutrino > singularity/line
2nd Order: Muon neutrino > singularity/2 lines @ 90°
3rd Order: Tau neutrino > singularity/3 lines @ 90°
The Tau (if imaged via UWM) would have a wave envelope encompassing a 3D coss-like totality, with point singularity @ centre.
Think of a point possessing 6 arms, all operating @ 90° to each other.
Very similar to ring singularity systems, in whiich intrinsic wave propagation manifests as what we term "Quarks".
Eugene, where would i purchase these publications from? ie electronically where are they available.
QUOTE (Adam Ledger+May 6 2012, 09:46 PM)
Eugene, where would i purchase these publications from? ie electronically where are they available.
You can't. They don't really exist. Eugene has been spamming his theory across many physics discussion boards, and he always get's his math shot down.
Then he just moves to somewhere else.
What you see is what you get, and it's not much.
BTW, Lady Elizabeth will pull your leg completely off. He's already dismembered Gene.
You can't. They don't really exist. Eugene has been spamming his theory across many physics discussion boards, and he always get's his math shot down.
Then he just moves to somewhere else.
What you see is what you get, and it's not much.
BTW, Lady Elizabeth will pull your leg completely off. He's already dismembered Gene.
QUOTE (Adam Ledger+May 7 2012, 02:46 AM)
Eugene, where would i purchase these publications from? ie electronically where are they available.
"adore my crap". Lady Elizabeth
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Universal-Wa...189752077725697
Other links are on page 1.
"adore my crap". Lady Elizabeth
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Universal-Wa...189752077725697
Other links are on page 1.
So is Lady Elizabeth's works really a step towards bridging quantum mechanics and relativity? i have been thinking about this quite alot and im looking for others that share a common goal. But it needs to be on a mathematical basis of course otherwise its just blog.
Adam Ledger,
The 2009 book is “The Theory of Elementary Waves by Dr. Lewis E. Little, 2009, ISBN 978-0-932750-84-6, published by New Classics Library, Georgia, USA. You can purchase at www.newclassicslibrary.com.
There is a paper: "The Theory of Elementary Waves", author Lewis E. Little, Physics Essays, Volume 9, Number 1, 1996. The text of the 1996 article but not the diagrams is reproduced at : http://elementarywaves.com/TEW96paper.html. It is obviously frustrating to not have the diagrams so this link is of limited use - either go to the real Physics Essays article, or to the book (which I think is better).
If you buy the book or get hold of a copy, let me know what you think (positive or negative).
AlexG,
It's about time a qm supporter turned up ! The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) is published both in a physics journal and as a book, as I detailed to Adam above. Everyone is free to accept or reject TEW - it's rather odd you're denying it exists.
It's true no one can be sure Lady Elizabeth's theory UWM (Universal Wave Mechanism) actually exists - it's up to her. I certainly don't mind her participation.
Since you reject TEW, say why. Is a new theory not possible? Is qm perfect as it is? What's your take on quantum weirdness?
Robittybob1
Your link didn't work for me. Are you a qm supporter? Are you criticizing Lady Elizabeth as well as me? Let us know where you stand.
Lady Elizabeth,
Look like there have been a few others looking at our posts, and there is some healthy skepticism.
Thanks for your post. I still haven't had a chance to lookup any TEW writing on quantum tunneling. I'll see if TEW has a view on the Casimir effect as well. I can't comment on your definitions of neutrinos - you'll need to publish all of your theory some day.
Looks like I'll have at least one qm supporter, and that's a priority for me to spend time on. We can get back to your stuff if it goes quiet again.
Eugene Morrow
The 2009 book is “The Theory of Elementary Waves by Dr. Lewis E. Little, 2009, ISBN 978-0-932750-84-6, published by New Classics Library, Georgia, USA. You can purchase at www.newclassicslibrary.com.
There is a paper: "The Theory of Elementary Waves", author Lewis E. Little, Physics Essays, Volume 9, Number 1, 1996. The text of the 1996 article but not the diagrams is reproduced at : http://elementarywaves.com/TEW96paper.html. It is obviously frustrating to not have the diagrams so this link is of limited use - either go to the real Physics Essays article, or to the book (which I think is better).
If you buy the book or get hold of a copy, let me know what you think (positive or negative).
AlexG,
It's about time a qm supporter turned up ! The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) is published both in a physics journal and as a book, as I detailed to Adam above. Everyone is free to accept or reject TEW - it's rather odd you're denying it exists.
It's true no one can be sure Lady Elizabeth's theory UWM (Universal Wave Mechanism) actually exists - it's up to her. I certainly don't mind her participation.
Since you reject TEW, say why. Is a new theory not possible? Is qm perfect as it is? What's your take on quantum weirdness?
Robittybob1
Your link didn't work for me. Are you a qm supporter? Are you criticizing Lady Elizabeth as well as me? Let us know where you stand.
Lady Elizabeth,
Look like there have been a few others looking at our posts, and there is some healthy skepticism.
Thanks for your post. I still haven't had a chance to lookup any TEW writing on quantum tunneling. I'll see if TEW has a view on the Casimir effect as well. I can't comment on your definitions of neutrinos - you'll need to publish all of your theory some day.
Looks like I'll have at least one qm supporter, and that's a priority for me to spend time on. We can get back to your stuff if it goes quiet again.
Eugene Morrow
i will buy the text by little, however im not concerned with diagrams they can be misleading. how much of the content is mathematically based.
Adam,
The book Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) has very little maths. One of the key messages is that TEW uses the same maths and has the same predictions as quantum mechanics (qm).
How can that be? There are two parts: firstly reciprocity. An example is a radio antenna - the performance is the same as a transmitter and as a receiver of radio waves - the same wave goes in or out equally well.
The second part takes that a step further in the Reciprocity theorem. The theorem talks about two points A and B. One statement of the theorem says that intensity of a wave going from A to B is exactly the same as the identical wave going from B to A, no matter what objects are in between A and B.
The objects in between could be a double slit for example. Why is this relevant?
In quantum mechanics, as soon as you says "wave particle duality" you have assumed that the wave travels in the same direction as the particle. In TEW there is the opposite assumption - that the wave travels in the opposite direction to the particle.
So in the qm view of the double slit, the wave goes from A to B, from the source to the screen. In TEW the same wave goes from the screen to the source of particles. The incoming wave stimulates a particle which follows that wave back to where it started from - the screen. Thanks to the Reciprocity theorem, both qm and TEW have exactly the same wave mathematics and predictions for the same experiment. Thanks to the Reciprocity theorem, we cannot distinguish between qm and TEW just on the probabilities of the arrival of a particle at the screen - they are the same calculation.
So what's the point of TEW? The explanations for TEW are local and deterministic. For qm, we have all the quantum weirdness - non-locality, effects backwards in time, and so on. The two theories are mathematically identical, but the explanations are very different.
The book about TEW mainly concentrates on how things can work with the wave traveling in the opposite direction to qm. The Reciprocity theorem means we don't have to do lots of maths - we already have maths that works really well. We just find new explanations for experiments. TEW is about talking about and making sense of reality.
TEW hence explains why qm has great predictions, but the explanations are so weird. The problem with qm is the assumption about the wave direction. When it's right, suddenly the quantum world has cause and effect just like the macro world. That's why I like TEW so much.
Hope you read the book and let me know what you think. There is also some information at www.elwave.org.
Eugene Morrow
The book Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) has very little maths. One of the key messages is that TEW uses the same maths and has the same predictions as quantum mechanics (qm).
How can that be? There are two parts: firstly reciprocity. An example is a radio antenna - the performance is the same as a transmitter and as a receiver of radio waves - the same wave goes in or out equally well.
The second part takes that a step further in the Reciprocity theorem. The theorem talks about two points A and B. One statement of the theorem says that intensity of a wave going from A to B is exactly the same as the identical wave going from B to A, no matter what objects are in between A and B.
The objects in between could be a double slit for example. Why is this relevant?
In quantum mechanics, as soon as you says "wave particle duality" you have assumed that the wave travels in the same direction as the particle. In TEW there is the opposite assumption - that the wave travels in the opposite direction to the particle.
So in the qm view of the double slit, the wave goes from A to B, from the source to the screen. In TEW the same wave goes from the screen to the source of particles. The incoming wave stimulates a particle which follows that wave back to where it started from - the screen. Thanks to the Reciprocity theorem, both qm and TEW have exactly the same wave mathematics and predictions for the same experiment. Thanks to the Reciprocity theorem, we cannot distinguish between qm and TEW just on the probabilities of the arrival of a particle at the screen - they are the same calculation.
So what's the point of TEW? The explanations for TEW are local and deterministic. For qm, we have all the quantum weirdness - non-locality, effects backwards in time, and so on. The two theories are mathematically identical, but the explanations are very different.
The book about TEW mainly concentrates on how things can work with the wave traveling in the opposite direction to qm. The Reciprocity theorem means we don't have to do lots of maths - we already have maths that works really well. We just find new explanations for experiments. TEW is about talking about and making sense of reality.
TEW hence explains why qm has great predictions, but the explanations are so weird. The problem with qm is the assumption about the wave direction. When it's right, suddenly the quantum world has cause and effect just like the macro world. That's why I like TEW so much.
Hope you read the book and let me know what you think. There is also some information at www.elwave.org.
Eugene Morrow
@EugeneMorrowTEW,
Doesn't a completely general prediction of anything and everything at the receiver end become remarkably similar to "no prediction"? -C2.
Doesn't a completely general prediction of anything and everything at the receiver end become remarkably similar to "no prediction"? -C2.
QUOTE (EugeneMorrowTEW+May 7 2012, 07:07 AM)
Adam,
The book Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) has very little maths. One of the key messages is that TEW uses the same maths and has the same predictions as quantum mechanics (qm).
How can that be? There are two parts: firstly reciprocity. An example is a radio antenna - the performance is the same as a transmitter and as a receiver of radio waves - the same wave goes in or out equally well.
The second part takes that a step further in the Reciprocity theorem. The theorem talks about two points A and B. One statement of the theorem says that intensity of a wave going from A to B is exactly the same as the identical wave going from B to A, no matter what objects are in between A and B.
The objects in between could be a double slit for example. Why is this relevant?
In quantum mechanics, as soon as you says "wave particle duality" you have assumed that the wave travels in the same direction as the particle. In TEW there is the opposite assumption - that the wave travels in the opposite direction to the particle.
So in the qm view of the double slit, the wave goes from A to B, from the source to the screen. In TEW the same wave goes from the screen to the source of particles. The incoming wave stimulates a particle which follows that wave back to where it started from - the screen. Thanks to the Reciprocity theorem, both qm and TEW have exactly the same wave mathematics and predictions for the same experiment. Thanks to the Reciprocity theorem, we cannot distinguish between qm and TEW just on the probabilities of the arrival of a particle at the screen - they are the same calculation.
So what's the point of TEW? The explanations for TEW are local and deterministic. For qm, we have all the quantum weirdness - non-locality, effects backwards in time, and so on. The two theories are mathematically identical, but the explanations are very different.
The book about TEW mainly concentrates on how things can work with the wave traveling in the opposite direction to qm. The Reciprocity theorem means we don't have to do lots of maths - we already have maths that works really well. We just find new explanations for experiments. TEW is about talking about and making sense of reality.
TEW hence explains why qm has great predictions, but the explanations are so weird. The problem with qm is the assumption about the wave direction. When it's right, suddenly the quantum world has cause and effect just like the macro world. That's why I like TEW so much.
Hope you read the book and let me know what you think. There is also some information at www.elwave.org.
Eugene Morrow
I'm not wasting my time reading another 'Interpretation' of QM. If this Interpretation is deterministic then it's just like many other interpretations. Apparently you think TEW predicts our universe isn't quantum in nature? You can't replace a quantum theory with an interpretation of itself. 'whatever' contrivance the author has created to explain quantum interactions in a deterministic way will have to be shown to be real natural phenomena if he thinks it is.
The book Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) has very little maths. One of the key messages is that TEW uses the same maths and has the same predictions as quantum mechanics (qm).
How can that be? There are two parts: firstly reciprocity. An example is a radio antenna - the performance is the same as a transmitter and as a receiver of radio waves - the same wave goes in or out equally well.
The second part takes that a step further in the Reciprocity theorem. The theorem talks about two points A and B. One statement of the theorem says that intensity of a wave going from A to B is exactly the same as the identical wave going from B to A, no matter what objects are in between A and B.
The objects in between could be a double slit for example. Why is this relevant?
In quantum mechanics, as soon as you says "wave particle duality" you have assumed that the wave travels in the same direction as the particle. In TEW there is the opposite assumption - that the wave travels in the opposite direction to the particle.
So in the qm view of the double slit, the wave goes from A to B, from the source to the screen. In TEW the same wave goes from the screen to the source of particles. The incoming wave stimulates a particle which follows that wave back to where it started from - the screen. Thanks to the Reciprocity theorem, both qm and TEW have exactly the same wave mathematics and predictions for the same experiment. Thanks to the Reciprocity theorem, we cannot distinguish between qm and TEW just on the probabilities of the arrival of a particle at the screen - they are the same calculation.
So what's the point of TEW? The explanations for TEW are local and deterministic. For qm, we have all the quantum weirdness - non-locality, effects backwards in time, and so on. The two theories are mathematically identical, but the explanations are very different.
The book about TEW mainly concentrates on how things can work with the wave traveling in the opposite direction to qm. The Reciprocity theorem means we don't have to do lots of maths - we already have maths that works really well. We just find new explanations for experiments. TEW is about talking about and making sense of reality.
TEW hence explains why qm has great predictions, but the explanations are so weird. The problem with qm is the assumption about the wave direction. When it's right, suddenly the quantum world has cause and effect just like the macro world. That's why I like TEW so much.
Hope you read the book and let me know what you think. There is also some information at www.elwave.org.
Eugene Morrow
I'm not wasting my time reading another 'Interpretation' of QM. If this Interpretation is deterministic then it's just like many other interpretations. Apparently you think TEW predicts our universe isn't quantum in nature?
You can't replace a quantum theory with an interpretation of itself. 'whatever' contrivance the author has created to explain quantum interactions in a deterministic way will have to be shown to be real natural phenomena if he thinks it is.
Ok i retract that statement regarding the purchase of the material. I can't see why we would develop a whole new theory that does not advance our predictive capacity?
And I thought that distinction in waves and particles was in that a particle is a singular point in space-time of constant fundamental quantities.
A wave is something which can be generated by time and distance varying two orthogonal fields in a periodic fashion. I think this property really has a depth to why wave and particle behaviors are at such poles apart, I'm not sure that you ought to be envisaging a point mass moving in a perfect a Asin(x) wave.
And I thought that distinction in waves and particles was in that a particle is a singular point in space-time of constant fundamental quantities.
A wave is something which can be generated by time and distance varying two orthogonal fields in a periodic fashion. I think this property really has a depth to why wave and particle behaviors are at such poles apart, I'm not sure that you ought to be envisaging a point mass moving in a perfect a Asin(x) wave.
I'm neutral in this discussion. I was just trying to give you a link.
QUOTE (AlexG+May 7 2012, 04:49 AM)
You can't. They don't really exist. Eugene has been spamming his theory across many physics discussion boards, and he always get's his math shot down.
Then he just moves to somewhere else.
What you see is what you get, and it's not much.
BTW, Lady Elizabeth will pull your leg completely off. He's already dismembered Gene.
Perhaps I'll call my next incarnation "The Butcher"
Then he just moves to somewhere else.
What you see is what you get, and it's not much.
BTW, Lady Elizabeth will pull your leg completely off. He's already dismembered Gene.
Perhaps I'll call my next incarnation "The Butcher"
QUOTE (Adam Ledger+May 7 2012, 05:55 AM)
So is Lady Elizabeth's works really a step towards bridging quantum mechanics and relativity? i have been thinking about this quite alot and im looking for others that share a common goal. But it needs to be on a mathematical basis of course otherwise its just blog.
Sorry, it's only ever likely to be a blog;- this crank can't handle anything remotely more complex than basic addition (parameters 1 - 10 ..... damn my limited finger complement).
So, have you a crazy all encompassing supposition? ... would be mighty interested to know.
Edit;- (confession) I only give Robittybob such a hard time, 'cause of his digital superiority (1-12).
Sorry, it's only ever likely to be a blog;- this crank can't handle anything remotely more complex than basic addition (parameters 1 - 10 ..... damn my limited finger complement).
So, have you a crazy all encompassing supposition? ... would be mighty interested to know.
Edit;- (confession) I only give Robittybob such a hard time, 'cause of his digital superiority (1-12).
QUOTE (Adam Ledger+May 7 2012, 09:44 AM)
Ok i retract that statement regarding the purchase of the material. I can't see why we would develop a whole new theory that does not advance our predictive capacity?
And I thought that distinction in waves and particles was in that a particle is a singular point in space-time of constant fundamental quantities.
A wave is something which can be generated by time and distance varying two orthogonal fields in a periodic fashion. I think this property really has a depth to why wave and particle behaviors are at such poles apart, I'm not sure that you ought to be envisaging a point mass moving in a perfect a Asin(x) wave.
Sorry Adam, I wasn't trying to influence what you read.
And I thought that distinction in waves and particles was in that a particle is a singular point in space-time of constant fundamental quantities.
A wave is something which can be generated by time and distance varying two orthogonal fields in a periodic fashion. I think this property really has a depth to why wave and particle behaviors are at such poles apart, I'm not sure that you ought to be envisaging a point mass moving in a perfect a Asin(x) wave.
Sorry Adam, I wasn't trying to influence what you read.
This is like a party - and that's great.
We are discussing quantum mechanics (qm) and a new rival theory: the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
Lady Elizabeth,
If you're pulling my leg, then you've been very gentle about it and perhaps too subtle. Most people in physics know the gravity-qm split is a problem that needs to be fixed, and so thinking about a new theory is not that radical. Using extra dimensions is the latest craze in String Theory, so it makes sense that someone would suggest what you have.
Secretly, I think about every second physicist and physics student has their own new theory in their head, and are keeping quiet because it's so much work to finish. It shows that despite the outward certainty, even in jokes we can see that physics knows that qm needs to be fixed.
Robittybob1
If you can pull legs about new theories too, it sounds like fun. Let's have another one to throw around.
Adam,
Why do we need a new theory that makes the same predictions? Ever had any passing thoughts about the weirdness of qm? Think of the interpretations - multiple universes, effects backwards in time, non-locality and all the effects like entanglement, knowledge in the mind of the experimenter changing the results of the experiment, "quantum logic" and more. Schrodingers Cat is a proof that something is wrong with the explanations of qm, and yet physics just ignores it, or even brags about it.
If we could keep the great predictions of qm, and get rid of all the weirdness, doesn't that sound like a good deal? That's why I called this "Keep the good bit" because that's what TEW does.
Brucep,
Good question - is TEW just another interpretation of qm? No, for the reasons I gave Adam in my last post.
In qm, there is an assumption that has been missed all these years: the wave direction. We can't see the quantum wave, and qm assumes that the wave travels in the same direction as the particle (and "is" the particle). All the qm interpretations share that assumption.
TEW has an assumption too - that the wave travels in the opposite direction to the particle. There are actually zillions of waves, because the particle is always meeting new waves head on. The waves are elementary waves, and they are physically real just like particles are real, only we can't see the waves, which is why the quantum world has been so hard to understand.
Neils Bohr and Werner Heisenberg never challenged the assumption of the wave direction. That's what TEW does - makes physics think of something that was missed. You can still choose the qm assumption - what matters is that you become aware of that choice you are making.
So TEW is not just another interpretation. TEW is a separate theory, and that's why TEW can be local and deterministic when qm is not. Of course TEW still has things in quanta - photons of light, and electrons in set orbitals with Pauli exclusion and
so on. TEW keeps the maths and the quantum nature - TEW just explains it all with cause and effect the same as the macro world.
If you want to, you can think of TEW as just another interpretation of qm. Makes TEW sound welcome in the zoo of quantum interpretations.
Confused1,
TEW makes the same predictions as qm. Not quite sure why you are saying "no prediction". TEW makes the same predictions because it uses the same mathematics as qm in almost every case. The reason for the same maths is the Reciprocity theorem that I explained to Adam in my last post.
Eugene Morrow
We are discussing quantum mechanics (qm) and a new rival theory: the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
Lady Elizabeth,
If you're pulling my leg, then you've been very gentle about it and perhaps too subtle. Most people in physics know the gravity-qm split is a problem that needs to be fixed, and so thinking about a new theory is not that radical. Using extra dimensions is the latest craze in String Theory, so it makes sense that someone would suggest what you have.
Secretly, I think about every second physicist and physics student has their own new theory in their head, and are keeping quiet because it's so much work to finish. It shows that despite the outward certainty, even in jokes we can see that physics knows that qm needs to be fixed.
Robittybob1
If you can pull legs about new theories too, it sounds like fun. Let's have another one to throw around.
Adam,
Why do we need a new theory that makes the same predictions? Ever had any passing thoughts about the weirdness of qm? Think of the interpretations - multiple universes, effects backwards in time, non-locality and all the effects like entanglement, knowledge in the mind of the experimenter changing the results of the experiment, "quantum logic" and more. Schrodingers Cat is a proof that something is wrong with the explanations of qm, and yet physics just ignores it, or even brags about it.
If we could keep the great predictions of qm, and get rid of all the weirdness, doesn't that sound like a good deal? That's why I called this "Keep the good bit" because that's what TEW does.
Brucep,
Good question - is TEW just another interpretation of qm? No, for the reasons I gave Adam in my last post.
In qm, there is an assumption that has been missed all these years: the wave direction. We can't see the quantum wave, and qm assumes that the wave travels in the same direction as the particle (and "is" the particle). All the qm interpretations share that assumption.
TEW has an assumption too - that the wave travels in the opposite direction to the particle. There are actually zillions of waves, because the particle is always meeting new waves head on. The waves are elementary waves, and they are physically real just like particles are real, only we can't see the waves, which is why the quantum world has been so hard to understand.
Neils Bohr and Werner Heisenberg never challenged the assumption of the wave direction. That's what TEW does - makes physics think of something that was missed. You can still choose the qm assumption - what matters is that you become aware of that choice you are making.
So TEW is not just another interpretation. TEW is a separate theory, and that's why TEW can be local and deterministic when qm is not. Of course TEW still has things in quanta - photons of light, and electrons in set orbitals with Pauli exclusion and
so on. TEW keeps the maths and the quantum nature - TEW just explains it all with cause and effect the same as the macro world.
If you want to, you can think of TEW as just another interpretation of qm. Makes TEW sound welcome in the zoo of quantum interpretations.
Confused1,
TEW makes the same predictions as qm. Not quite sure why you are saying "no prediction". TEW makes the same predictions because it uses the same mathematics as qm in almost every case. The reason for the same maths is the Reciprocity theorem that I explained to Adam in my last post.
Eugene Morrow
QUOTE (EugeneMorrowTEW+May 7 2012, 09:18 PM)
This is like a party - and that's great.
We are discussing quantum mechanics (qm) and a new rival theory: the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
Lady Elizabeth,
If you're pulling my leg, then you've been very gentle about it and perhaps too subtle. Most people in physics know the gravity-qm split is a problem that needs to be fixed, and so thinking about a new theory is not that radical. Using extra dimensions is the latest craze in String Theory, so it makes sense that someone would suggest what you have.
Secretly, I think about every second physicist and physics student has their own new theory in their head, and are keeping quiet because it's so much work to finish. It shows that despite the outward certainty, even in jokes we can see that physics knows that qm needs to be fixed.
Robittybob1
If you can pull legs about new theories too, it sounds like fun. Let's have another one to throw around.
Adam,
Why do we need a new theory that makes the same predictions? Ever had any passing thoughts about the weirdness of qm? Think of the interpretations - multiple universes, effects backwards in time, non-locality and all the effects like entanglement, knowledge in the mind of the experimenter changing the results of the experiment, "quantum logic" and more. Schrodingers Cat is a proof that something is wrong with the explanations of qm, and yet physics just ignores it, or even brags about it.
If we could keep the great predictions of qm, and get rid of all the weirdness, doesn't that sound like a good deal? That's why I called this "Keep the good bit" because that's what TEW does.
Brucep,
Good question - is TEW just another interpretation of qm? No, for the reasons I gave Adam in my last post.
In qm, there is an assumption that has been missed all these years: the wave direction. We can't see the quantum wave, and qm assumes that the wave travels in the same direction as the particle (and "is" the particle). All the qm interpretations share that assumption.
TEW has an assumption too - that the wave travels in the opposite direction to the particle. There are actually zillions of waves, because the particle is always meeting new waves head on. The waves are elementary waves, and they are physically real just like particles are real, only we can't see the waves, which is why the quantum world has been so hard to understand.
Neils Bohr and Werner Heisenberg never challenged the assumption of the wave direction. That's what TEW does - makes physics think of something that was missed. You can still choose the qm assumption - what matters is that you become aware of that choice you are making.
So TEW is not just another interpretation. TEW is a separate theory, and that's why TEW can be local and deterministic when qm is not. Of course TEW still has things in quanta - photons of light, and electrons in set orbitals with Pauli exclusion and
so on. TEW keeps the maths and the quantum nature - TEW just explains it all with cause and effect the same as the macro world.
If you want to, you can think of TEW as just another interpretation of qm. Makes TEW sound welcome in the zoo of quantum interpretations.
Confused1,
TEW makes the same predictions as qm. Not quite sure why you are saying "no prediction". TEW makes the same predictions because it uses the same mathematics as qm in almost every case. The reason for the same maths is the Reciprocity theorem that I explained to Adam in my last post.
Eugene Morrow
If it makes the same predictions as QM [which I doubt since you seem to think it predicts the universe is deterministic in the quantum domain], has something like the rep. theorem leading to deterministic explanations for QM, it's an interpretation by definition. Personally I doubt it's even an interpretation but I'm not going to read it to find out. Lets start with QM doesn't predict this universe is deterministic in the quantum domain. So your claim that it makes the same predictions as QM is wrong. If it's an interpretation then that doesn't matter. I doubt you know much about the interpretations. Try reading John J. Cramer's 'Transactional Interpretation of QM'. Anybody interested in this stuff we can link to three brilliant posts by Mr_Homm. His interpretation is brilliant though he doesn't claim it's an interpretation. Really instructive.
http://mist.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html
We are discussing quantum mechanics (qm) and a new rival theory: the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
Lady Elizabeth,
If you're pulling my leg, then you've been very gentle about it and perhaps too subtle. Most people in physics know the gravity-qm split is a problem that needs to be fixed, and so thinking about a new theory is not that radical. Using extra dimensions is the latest craze in String Theory, so it makes sense that someone would suggest what you have.
Secretly, I think about every second physicist and physics student has their own new theory in their head, and are keeping quiet because it's so much work to finish. It shows that despite the outward certainty, even in jokes we can see that physics knows that qm needs to be fixed.
Robittybob1
If you can pull legs about new theories too, it sounds like fun. Let's have another one to throw around.
Adam,
Why do we need a new theory that makes the same predictions? Ever had any passing thoughts about the weirdness of qm? Think of the interpretations - multiple universes, effects backwards in time, non-locality and all the effects like entanglement, knowledge in the mind of the experimenter changing the results of the experiment, "quantum logic" and more. Schrodingers Cat is a proof that something is wrong with the explanations of qm, and yet physics just ignores it, or even brags about it.
If we could keep the great predictions of qm, and get rid of all the weirdness, doesn't that sound like a good deal? That's why I called this "Keep the good bit" because that's what TEW does.
Brucep,
Good question - is TEW just another interpretation of qm? No, for the reasons I gave Adam in my last post.
In qm, there is an assumption that has been missed all these years: the wave direction. We can't see the quantum wave, and qm assumes that the wave travels in the same direction as the particle (and "is" the particle). All the qm interpretations share that assumption.
TEW has an assumption too - that the wave travels in the opposite direction to the particle. There are actually zillions of waves, because the particle is always meeting new waves head on. The waves are elementary waves, and they are physically real just like particles are real, only we can't see the waves, which is why the quantum world has been so hard to understand.
Neils Bohr and Werner Heisenberg never challenged the assumption of the wave direction. That's what TEW does - makes physics think of something that was missed. You can still choose the qm assumption - what matters is that you become aware of that choice you are making.
So TEW is not just another interpretation. TEW is a separate theory, and that's why TEW can be local and deterministic when qm is not. Of course TEW still has things in quanta - photons of light, and electrons in set orbitals with Pauli exclusion and
so on. TEW keeps the maths and the quantum nature - TEW just explains it all with cause and effect the same as the macro world.
If you want to, you can think of TEW as just another interpretation of qm. Makes TEW sound welcome in the zoo of quantum interpretations.
Confused1,
TEW makes the same predictions as qm. Not quite sure why you are saying "no prediction". TEW makes the same predictions because it uses the same mathematics as qm in almost every case. The reason for the same maths is the Reciprocity theorem that I explained to Adam in my last post.
Eugene Morrow
If it makes the same predictions as QM [which I doubt since you seem to think it predicts the universe is deterministic in the quantum domain], has something like the rep. theorem leading to deterministic explanations for QM, it's an interpretation by definition. Personally I doubt it's even an interpretation but I'm not going to read it to find out. Lets start with QM doesn't predict this universe is deterministic in the quantum domain. So your claim that it makes the same predictions as QM is wrong. If it's an interpretation then that doesn't matter. I doubt you know much about the interpretations. Try reading John J. Cramer's 'Transactional Interpretation of QM'. Anybody interested in this stuff we can link to three brilliant posts by Mr_Homm. His interpretation is brilliant though he doesn't claim it's an interpretation. Really instructive.
http://mist.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html
QUOTE (EugeneMorrowTEW+May 7 2012, 09:18 PM)
Lady Elizabeth,
If you're pulling my leg, then you've been very gentle about it and perhaps too subtle.
Yeah, really not like me at all ...... must be getting old.
I was once, a wide-eyed youngster amazed @ uba-natural aspects of QM/Relativity.
Unfortunately @ that time, I was comprehensively involved with strong beer, metal bands and crazily inappropriate substances ... so, like, this sub-interest never actually went anywhere.
Then around 25 years ago, I decided to learn a little actual physics (minimal). Thereafter, met a couple of special girls and now have 5 beautiful kids (@ least*
*so, no-one's perfect.
When finally, during ancient age, I'd re-discovered my lust for science (and secured a great position in toilet engineering);- happened to come across a huge tsunami-army of ill-educated delusional filth (every one an utterly sadfuckingly patthetic waste) ... it was only then, I decided to create the ultimate crank (a taste of their own medicine).
Oddly, all the doolally stuff, ripped furiously from my botty sphincter (UWM, ultimately designed to out-crank-the-crank), now actually now seems cool?
Weird!
If you're pulling my leg, then you've been very gentle about it and perhaps too subtle.
Yeah, really not like me at all ...... must be getting old.
I was once, a wide-eyed youngster amazed @ uba-natural aspects of QM/Relativity.
Unfortunately @ that time, I was comprehensively involved with strong beer, metal bands and crazily inappropriate substances ... so, like, this sub-interest never actually went anywhere.
Then around 25 years ago, I decided to learn a little actual physics (minimal). Thereafter, met a couple of special girls and now have 5 beautiful kids (@ least*
*so, no-one's perfect.
When finally, during ancient age, I'd re-discovered my lust for science (and secured a great position in toilet engineering);- happened to come across a huge tsunami-army of ill-educated delusional filth (every one an utterly sadfuckingly patthetic waste) ... it was only then, I decided to create the ultimate crank (a taste of their own medicine).
Oddly, all the doolally stuff, ripped furiously from my botty sphincter (UWM, ultimately designed to out-crank-the-crank), now actually now seems cool?
Weird!
QUOTE (brucep+May 7 2012, 10:05 PM)
If it makes the same predictions as QM [which I doubt since you seem to think it predicts the universe is deterministic in the quantum domain], has something like the rep. theorem leading to deterministic explanations for QM, it's an interpretation by definition. Personally I doubt it's even an interpretation but I'm not going to read it to find out. Lets start with QM doesn't predict this universe is deterministic in the quantum domain. So your claim that it makes the same predictions as QM is wrong. If it's an interpretation then that doesn't matter. I doubt you know much about the interpretations. Try reading John J. Cramer's 'Transactional Interpretation of QM'. Anybody interested in this stuff we can link to three brilliant posts by Mr_Homm. His interpretation is brilliant though he doesn't claim it's an interpretation. Really instructive.
http://mist.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html
Wrong post.
http://mist.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html
Wrong post.
Eugene
Your answer to Adam is rambling bullshit nonsense. You're just another physics illiterate with an irrelevant world view. You're probably the author.
Your answer to Adam is rambling bullshit nonsense. You're just another physics illiterate with an irrelevant world view. You're probably the author.
Everyone - we are comparing quantum mechanics (qm) with the new Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
Brucep,
Your last point is perhaps what all of you are saying. You wrote:
My answer to Adam was summarizing qm: great predictions and explanations that involve a lot of weirdness. Physics textbooks say much the same thing. I then claimed that TEW keeps the predictions and loses the weirdness.
Are you saying it is impossible to lose the weirdness? Most people in physics believe that "qm has proved that a local and deterministic explanations is impossible".
There is a catch in the logic. All theories are subject to their assumptions. If theory A assumes A and theory B assumes B, then they can't prove anything about each other. All they can do is state their assumptions and their proofs.
In qm, as soon as you say "wave particle duality", you are assuming that the wave travels in the same direction as the particle. TEW has an assumption too: that the wave travels in the opposite direction.
So the two theories can only state their assumptions and their results. For example, qm can state "Assuming the wave travels in the same direction as the particle, a local and deterministic explanations is impossible". TEW would agree with that statement, and reply: "Assuming the wave travels in the opposite direction, it's possible".
You can still choose qm and reject TEW - it's just that the qm "proof" does not apply to TEW, so the choice will depend on other issues. You clearly think that TEW is nonsense and a new theory is impossible. I think you're just rejecting the idea of a new theory out of hand.
Me being the author is a silly idea - see:
(1) A paper by Lewis Littie: see "The Theory of Elementary Waves", author Lewis E. Little, Physics Essays, Volume 9, Number 1, 1996.
(2) The book “The Theory of Elementary Waves by Dr. Lewis E. Little, 2009, ISBN 978-0-932750-84-6, published by New Classics Library, Georgia, USA. You can purchase at www.newclassicslibrary.com.
You also wrote:
My answer to Adam was summarizing qm: great predictions and explanations that involve a lot of weirdness. Physics textbooks say much the same thing. I then claimed that TEW keeps the predictions and loses the weirdness.
Are you saying it is impossible to lose the weirdness? Most people in physics believe that "qm has proved that a local and deterministic explanations is impossible".
There is a catch in the logic. All theories are subject to their assumptions. If theory A assumes A and theory B assumes B, then they can't prove anything about each other. All they can do is state their assumptions and their proofs.
In qm, as soon as you say "wave particle duality", you are assuming that the wave travels in the same direction as the particle. TEW has an assumption too: that the wave travels in the opposite direction.
So the two theories can only state their assumptions and their results. For example, qm can state "Assuming the wave travels in the same direction as the particle, a local and deterministic explanations is impossible". TEW would agree with that statement, and reply: "Assuming the wave travels in the opposite direction, it's possible".
You can still choose qm and reject TEW - it's just that the qm "proof" does not apply to TEW, so the choice will depend on other issues. You clearly think that TEW is nonsense and a new theory is impossible. I think you're just rejecting the idea of a new theory out of hand.
Me being the author is a silly idea - see:
(1) A paper by Lewis Littie: see "The Theory of Elementary Waves", author Lewis E. Little, Physics Essays, Volume 9, Number 1, 1996.
(2) The book “The Theory of Elementary Waves by Dr. Lewis E. Little, 2009, ISBN 978-0-932750-84-6, published by New Classics Library, Georgia, USA. You can purchase at www.newclassicslibrary.com.
You also wrote:
If it makes the same predictions as QM [which I doubt since you seem to think it predicts the universe is deterministic in the quantum domain], has something like the rep. theorem leading to deterministic explanations for QM, it's an interpretation by definition.
The point I made about assumptions above applies here too. All qm interpretations share the same assumption about the wave direction. TEW has the opposite assumption to all qm interpretations. That's why TEW is so different.
Lady Elizabeth,
Always good fun to let out some crank now and again.
The five kids sounds like a handful - no wonder physics seems an easy problem to solve in your spare time
The thing that is most hilarious about you pulling my leg is that I think the String Theory people are effectively doing the same thing. They have claimed a few extra dimensions just to get around a few problems and thrown so much maths at the problem that they have snowed everyone, including themselves. They could prove anything with their maths and so it proves nothing. They're having a heap of fun, and it's really impressive maths.
Underneath both UWM and String Theory is an urge to fix qm. That's what is important in all this.
Everyone,
One issue you have all picked up on is the TEW claims to make the same predictions as qm. You are collectively saying that either it's just another interpretation, or it's irrelevant or impossible.
Let me put a radical idea past you. There is a precedent in science for this happening.
Think of Copernicus publishing his book in 1543 on the earth and planets revolving around the sun, instead of everything revolving around the earth. Up until that time, people used the Ptolemaic explanation which used cycles, epicycles, deferents and equants to explain the strange motions of the planets.
The point is that both theories made the same predictions - the only difference was the explanations. It's happening again with qm and TEW.
The Copernicus idea would have seemed nonsense to many people in 1543, and lead to religious persecution later. Today, TEW probably seems just as bizarre and impossible and infuriating.
What are you afraid of? All that TEW is offering is a new way of looking at the experiments you already know. I guarantee that your atoms will not fall apart if you think about TEW.
Eugene Morrow
Brucep,
Your last point is perhaps what all of you are saying. You wrote:
QUOTE
Your answer to Adam is rambling bullshit nonsense. You're just another physics illiterate with an irrelevant world view. You're probably the author.
My answer to Adam was summarizing qm: great predictions and explanations that involve a lot of weirdness. Physics textbooks say much the same thing. I then claimed that TEW keeps the predictions and loses the weirdness.
Are you saying it is impossible to lose the weirdness? Most people in physics believe that "qm has proved that a local and deterministic explanations is impossible".
There is a catch in the logic. All theories are subject to their assumptions. If theory A assumes A and theory B assumes B, then they can't prove anything about each other. All they can do is state their assumptions and their proofs.
In qm, as soon as you say "wave particle duality", you are assuming that the wave travels in the same direction as the particle. TEW has an assumption too: that the wave travels in the opposite direction.
So the two theories can only state their assumptions and their results. For example, qm can state "Assuming the wave travels in the same direction as the particle, a local and deterministic explanations is impossible". TEW would agree with that statement, and reply: "Assuming the wave travels in the opposite direction, it's possible".
You can still choose qm and reject TEW - it's just that the qm "proof" does not apply to TEW, so the choice will depend on other issues. You clearly think that TEW is nonsense and a new theory is impossible. I think you're just rejecting the idea of a new theory out of hand.
Me being the author is a silly idea - see:
(1) A paper by Lewis Littie: see "The Theory of Elementary Waves", author Lewis E. Little, Physics Essays, Volume 9, Number 1, 1996.
(2) The book “The Theory of Elementary Waves by Dr. Lewis E. Little, 2009, ISBN 978-0-932750-84-6, published by New Classics Library, Georgia, USA. You can purchase at www.newclassicslibrary.com.
You also wrote:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your answer to Adam is rambling bullshit nonsense. You're just another physics illiterate with an irrelevant world view. You're probably the author. |
My answer to Adam was summarizing qm: great predictions and explanations that involve a lot of weirdness. Physics textbooks say much the same thing. I then claimed that TEW keeps the predictions and loses the weirdness.
Are you saying it is impossible to lose the weirdness? Most people in physics believe that "qm has proved that a local and deterministic explanations is impossible".
There is a catch in the logic. All theories are subject to their assumptions. If theory A assumes A and theory B assumes B, then they can't prove anything about each other. All they can do is state their assumptions and their proofs.
In qm, as soon as you say "wave particle duality", you are assuming that the wave travels in the same direction as the particle. TEW has an assumption too: that the wave travels in the opposite direction.
So the two theories can only state their assumptions and their results. For example, qm can state "Assuming the wave travels in the same direction as the particle, a local and deterministic explanations is impossible". TEW would agree with that statement, and reply: "Assuming the wave travels in the opposite direction, it's possible".
You can still choose qm and reject TEW - it's just that the qm "proof" does not apply to TEW, so the choice will depend on other issues. You clearly think that TEW is nonsense and a new theory is impossible. I think you're just rejecting the idea of a new theory out of hand.
Me being the author is a silly idea - see:
(1) A paper by Lewis Littie: see "The Theory of Elementary Waves", author Lewis E. Little, Physics Essays, Volume 9, Number 1, 1996.
(2) The book “The Theory of Elementary Waves by Dr. Lewis E. Little, 2009, ISBN 978-0-932750-84-6, published by New Classics Library, Georgia, USA. You can purchase at www.newclassicslibrary.com.
You also wrote:
If it makes the same predictions as QM [which I doubt since you seem to think it predicts the universe is deterministic in the quantum domain], has something like the rep. theorem leading to deterministic explanations for QM, it's an interpretation by definition.
The point I made about assumptions above applies here too. All qm interpretations share the same assumption about the wave direction. TEW has the opposite assumption to all qm interpretations. That's why TEW is so different.
Lady Elizabeth,
Always good fun to let out some crank now and again.
The five kids sounds like a handful - no wonder physics seems an easy problem to solve in your spare time
The thing that is most hilarious about you pulling my leg is that I think the String Theory people are effectively doing the same thing. They have claimed a few extra dimensions just to get around a few problems and thrown so much maths at the problem that they have snowed everyone, including themselves. They could prove anything with their maths and so it proves nothing. They're having a heap of fun, and it's really impressive maths.
Underneath both UWM and String Theory is an urge to fix qm. That's what is important in all this.
Everyone,
One issue you have all picked up on is the TEW claims to make the same predictions as qm. You are collectively saying that either it's just another interpretation, or it's irrelevant or impossible.
Let me put a radical idea past you. There is a precedent in science for this happening.
Think of Copernicus publishing his book in 1543 on the earth and planets revolving around the sun, instead of everything revolving around the earth. Up until that time, people used the Ptolemaic explanation which used cycles, epicycles, deferents and equants to explain the strange motions of the planets.
The point is that both theories made the same predictions - the only difference was the explanations. It's happening again with qm and TEW.
The Copernicus idea would have seemed nonsense to many people in 1543, and lead to religious persecution later. Today, TEW probably seems just as bizarre and impossible and infuriating.
What are you afraid of? All that TEW is offering is a new way of looking at the experiments you already know. I guarantee that your atoms will not fall apart if you think about TEW.
Eugene Morrow
Look. Noone i know in science and also respect ignores the anomalies that are present or implied within qm, nor that of any theory for that matter.
But let's simplify things for you. If the theory uses the same mathematical foundation as quantum mechanics, it IS quantum mechanics with an alternative explanation/interpretation. I see the interpretation is clearly different, and if you think it solves the paradox of scrodingers cat, well, LOL.
But let's simplify things for you. If the theory uses the same mathematical foundation as quantum mechanics, it IS quantum mechanics with an alternative explanation/interpretation. I see the interpretation is clearly different, and if you think it solves the paradox of scrodingers cat, well, LOL.
Adam,
We are discussing quantum mechanics (qm) and the new Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
What you are saying is that qm IS the mathematics, so if TEW has the same maths then it's the same theory. In a way that's right, and so TEW can be viewed as a minor change from qm.
The difference is only in the assumptions about wave direction, and that's the surprise for physics - no one was thinking about wave direction as an issue.
qm: .......wave ----->.............. TEW: ....wave <===
.......... particle ----->..........................particle ----->
Why does TEW think the wave goes in the opposite direction? I mentioned the experiment in my original post, and I'll reproduce it here to make it easy.
This experiment sends neutrons to an interferometer, an analyzer crystal and then a detector. The neutrons always go left to right.
Nuclear reactor -----> Neutron Interferometer (NI) -----> Analyzer crystal -----> Detector
Result:.................... 2. changes NI result...... <===.... 1. Change here ...
For qm, this is backwards in time !
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 TEW, waves are going right to left so the effect happens in normal time.
This experiment is telling you that TEW has the right wave direction. Notice how the TEW wave direction takes away the weirdness.
The qm founders did not have this experiment, and never considered the other wave direction. TEW claims this is the Copernicus moment - the new way of looking at the quantum world.
As for Schrodingers Cat, qm claims "superposition of states" where a system takes on all values until a measurement is taken. That means qm claims the cat is both alive and dead at the same time. Schrodinger meant to highlight that something is clearly wrong with qm.
TEW claims that the need for superposition comes from the wave direction assumption. In TEW, there is no need for superposition of states. The cat is definitely either alive or dead - we just don't know until we open the box. The cat is never "both alive and dead" at the same time.
All these issues come from the wave direction. For around 80 years, qm has been convinced about the wave direction. TEW is all about challenging that assumption.
Eugene Morrow
We are discussing quantum mechanics (qm) and the new Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
What you are saying is that qm IS the mathematics, so if TEW has the same maths then it's the same theory. In a way that's right, and so TEW can be viewed as a minor change from qm.
The difference is only in the assumptions about wave direction, and that's the surprise for physics - no one was thinking about wave direction as an issue.
qm: .......wave ----->.............. TEW: ....wave <===
.......... particle ----->..........................particle ----->
Why does TEW think the wave goes in the opposite direction? I mentioned the experiment in my original post, and I'll reproduce it here to make it easy.
This experiment sends neutrons to an interferometer, an analyzer crystal and then a detector. The neutrons always go left to right.
Nuclear reactor -----> Neutron Interferometer (NI) -----> Analyzer crystal -----> Detector
Result:.................... 2. changes NI result...... <===.... 1. Change here ...
For qm, this is backwards in time !
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 TEW, waves are going right to left so the effect happens in normal time.
This experiment is telling you that TEW has the right wave direction. Notice how the TEW wave direction takes away the weirdness.
The qm founders did not have this experiment, and never considered the other wave direction. TEW claims this is the Copernicus moment - the new way of looking at the quantum world.
As for Schrodingers Cat, qm claims "superposition of states" where a system takes on all values until a measurement is taken. That means qm claims the cat is both alive and dead at the same time. Schrodinger meant to highlight that something is clearly wrong with qm.
TEW claims that the need for superposition comes from the wave direction assumption. In TEW, there is no need for superposition of states. The cat is definitely either alive or dead - we just don't know until we open the box. The cat is never "both alive and dead" at the same time.
All these issues come from the wave direction. For around 80 years, qm has been convinced about the wave direction. TEW is all about challenging that assumption.
Eugene Morrow
@EugeneMorrowTEW,
Imagine a nicely set up double slit experiment - it probably makes little difference which end you analyse it from (not thought about it much). Now add in a few stray photons reaching the detector from sunlight which has entered through the lab window and been scattered by various surfaces before arriving at the detector. The 'stray' photons left the Sun about 8 minutes before they were detected so to work out (not just) the probability of detection of a photon but the actual detection you'd need knowledge of events (on the Sun) which are effectively unknowable. In the forward direction you're working with probabilities that vary as the photon reaches each obstacle .. need I say more? In fairness the distributed 'probability of detection' seems tomagically fall to zero throughout (potentially) most of the Universe once a photon is actually detected - so there is more to this than I understand. However, for the present I remain a fan of starting at the source and working outwards not vice-versa.
-C2.
Imagine a nicely set up double slit experiment - it probably makes little difference which end you analyse it from (not thought about it much). Now add in a few stray photons reaching the detector from sunlight which has entered through the lab window and been scattered by various surfaces before arriving at the detector. The 'stray' photons left the Sun about 8 minutes before they were detected so to work out (not just) the probability of detection of a photon but the actual detection you'd need knowledge of events (on the Sun) which are effectively unknowable. In the forward direction you're working with probabilities that vary as the photon reaches each obstacle .. need I say more? In fairness the distributed 'probability of detection' seems to
-C2.
QUOTE (EugeneMorrowTEW+May 9 2012, 08:53 PM)
Adam,
We are discussing quantum mechanics (qm) and the new Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
What you are saying is that qm IS the mathematics, so if TEW has the same maths then it's the same theory. In a way that's right, and so TEW can be viewed as a minor change from qm.
The difference is only in the assumptions about wave direction, and that's the surprise for physics - no one was thinking about wave direction as an issue.
qm: .......wave ----->.............. TEW: ....wave <===
.......... particle ----->..........................particle ----->
Why does TEW think the wave goes in the opposite direction? I mentioned the experiment in my original post, and I'll reproduce it here to make it easy.
This experiment sends neutrons to an interferometer, an analyzer crystal and then a detector. The neutrons always go left to right.
Nuclear reactor -----> Neutron Interferometer (NI) -----> Analyzer crystal -----> Detector
Result:.................... 2. changes NI result...... <===.... 1. Change here ...
For qm, this is backwards in time !
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 TEW, waves are going right to left so the effect happens in normal time.
This experiment is telling you that TEW has the right wave direction. Notice how the TEW wave direction takes away the weirdness.
The qm founders did not have this experiment, and never considered the other wave direction. TEW claims this is the Copernicus moment - the new way of looking at the quantum world.
As for Schrodingers Cat, qm claims "superposition of states" where a system takes on all values until a measurement is taken. That means qm claims the cat is both alive and dead at the same time. Schrodinger meant to highlight that something is clearly wrong with qm.
TEW claims that the need for superposition comes from the wave direction assumption. In TEW, there is no need for superposition of states. The cat is definitely either alive or dead - we just don't know until we open the box. The cat is never "both alive and dead" at the same time.
All these issues come from the wave direction. For around 80 years, qm has been convinced about the wave direction. TEW is all about challenging that assumption.
Eugene Morrow
You dumb a$$. QM doesn't predict the cat is alive and dead at the same time. Neutron interferometer experiments don't support your wave direction assumption. If they did we would have known about it 20 years ago. Every crackpot has a list of experiments 'they think' supports their pet theory.
We are discussing quantum mechanics (qm) and the new Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
What you are saying is that qm IS the mathematics, so if TEW has the same maths then it's the same theory. In a way that's right, and so TEW can be viewed as a minor change from qm.
The difference is only in the assumptions about wave direction, and that's the surprise for physics - no one was thinking about wave direction as an issue.
qm: .......wave ----->.............. TEW: ....wave <===
.......... particle ----->..........................particle ----->
Why does TEW think the wave goes in the opposite direction? I mentioned the experiment in my original post, and I'll reproduce it here to make it easy.
This experiment sends neutrons to an interferometer, an analyzer crystal and then a detector. The neutrons always go left to right.
Nuclear reactor -----> Neutron Interferometer (NI) -----> Analyzer crystal -----> Detector
Result:.................... 2. changes NI result...... <===.... 1. Change here ...
For qm, this is backwards in time !
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 TEW, waves are going right to left so the effect happens in normal time.
This experiment is telling you that TEW has the right wave direction. Notice how the TEW wave direction takes away the weirdness.
The qm founders did not have this experiment, and never considered the other wave direction. TEW claims this is the Copernicus moment - the new way of looking at the quantum world.
As for Schrodingers Cat, qm claims "superposition of states" where a system takes on all values until a measurement is taken. That means qm claims the cat is both alive and dead at the same time. Schrodinger meant to highlight that something is clearly wrong with qm.
TEW claims that the need for superposition comes from the wave direction assumption. In TEW, there is no need for superposition of states. The cat is definitely either alive or dead - we just don't know until we open the box. The cat is never "both alive and dead" at the same time.
All these issues come from the wave direction. For around 80 years, qm has been convinced about the wave direction. TEW is all about challenging that assumption.
Eugene Morrow
You dumb a$$. QM doesn't predict the cat is alive and dead at the same time.
Neutron interferometer experiments don't support your wave direction assumption. If they did we would have known about it 20 years ago. Every crackpot has a list of experiments 'they think' supports their pet theory.
Everyone,
We are discussing quantum mechanics (qm) and the new Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
In particular we're talking about this neutron experiment:
Brucep,
Yes, according to qm, Schrodingers cat is both alive and dead at the same time. This is a superposition of states, and this exists until we take a measurement - which means we open the box. Schrodingers Cat is clear evidence that "superposition of states" is a suspect idea.
When the neutron experiment was published 20 years ago, it was regarded merely as a curiosity. Why? Because there was no other theory to compare qm with. The only explanation that qm can come up with is that the analyzer crystal affects the Neutron Interferometer (NI) backwards in time. If you don't go for the Transactional interpretation, qm cannot explain the result.
The experimenters were open about what the experiment showed. They wrote on page 41 (italics in the original):
Brucep,
Yes, according to qm, Schrodingers cat is both alive and dead at the same time. This is a superposition of states, and this exists until we take a measurement - which means we open the box. Schrodingers Cat is clear evidence that "superposition of states" is a suspect idea.
When the neutron experiment was published 20 years ago, it was regarded merely as a curiosity. Why? Because there was no other theory to compare qm with. The only explanation that qm can come up with is that the analyzer crystal affects the Neutron Interferometer (NI) backwards in time. If you don't go for the Transactional interpretation, qm cannot explain the result.
The experimenters were open about what the experiment showed. They wrote on page 41 (italics in the original):
The thing to keep in mind is that we determine the coherence length after the interference has taken place, far downstream from the interferometer.
What do you say when you can't explain why this happens? The experimenters finish their paper by writing:
That is an admission that qm cannot explain what is happening.
TEW has a new way of looking at the result. TEW says that something must be going from the analyzer crystal to the NI to cause the effect. That something is elementary waves. The quantum wave is traveling in the opposite direction to what we thought. Everything happens in normal time. Cause and effect are obvious, and in TEW the result is as expected - change the elementary waves and you change the particles coming back.
That is why I am debating here - qm has a serious rival. I have shown you an experiment that puts into doubt the idea that qm can explain everything. It's worth a lot of thought.
Confused1,
Yours is a good point. The central idea of TEW is that elementary waves comes first, coming out of a mass. The waves reach a source of particles and stimulate a particle. The particle follows the wave the stimulated it back to the mass that emitted the elementary wave.
If you are photographing the sun through a telescope, then the above is happening. The photons start their 8 minute journey to the telescope. During that 8 minutes, you decide to finish work and put the lens cap on the telescope. What happens? The elementary wave that the photon was following has changed, so the photon follows the new wave, and hits the lens cap instead.
I think this is the point you are raising - the elementary waves travel at the speed of light, but many particles are slower and this brings into question the connection between the two. When an elementary wave changes while the particle is "in flight" then the particle follows the new wave that has replaced it. Think of elementary waves are like traffic cops directing traffic - the photons coming in are re-directed to new destinations. From the point of view of the new elementary waves from the lens cap, the traveling photons are simply another random source of particles and so they get re-organized.
That is the TEW explanation why we can get interference patterns from stars millions of light years away - we don't have to wait for photons to make the entire journey.
Eugene Morrow
But a theory's merits is not the logic. It's the theory's ability to make accurate predictions and provide accurate and complete explanations.
No matter how appealing the logic of a theory might be, if it doesn't accurately predict and describe the physical universe, it's not valid.
We are discussing quantum mechanics (qm) and the new Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
In particular we're talking about this neutron experiment:
QUOTE
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.
Brucep,
Yes, according to qm, Schrodingers cat is both alive and dead at the same time. This is a superposition of states, and this exists until we take a measurement - which means we open the box. Schrodingers Cat is clear evidence that "superposition of states" is a suspect idea.
When the neutron experiment was published 20 years ago, it was regarded merely as a curiosity. Why? Because there was no other theory to compare qm with. The only explanation that qm can come up with is that the analyzer crystal affects the Neutron Interferometer (NI) backwards in time. If you don't go for the Transactional interpretation, qm cannot explain the result.
The experimenters were open about what the experiment showed. They wrote on page 41 (italics in the original):
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
Brucep,
Yes, according to qm, Schrodingers cat is both alive and dead at the same time. This is a superposition of states, and this exists until we take a measurement - which means we open the box. Schrodingers Cat is clear evidence that "superposition of states" is a suspect idea.
When the neutron experiment was published 20 years ago, it was regarded merely as a curiosity. Why? Because there was no other theory to compare qm with. The only explanation that qm can come up with is that the analyzer crystal affects the Neutron Interferometer (NI) backwards in time. If you don't go for the Transactional interpretation, qm cannot explain the result.
The experimenters were open about what the experiment showed. They wrote on page 41 (italics in the original):
The thing to keep in mind is that we determine the coherence length after the interference has taken place, far downstream from the interferometer.
What do you say when you can't explain why this happens? The experimenters finish their paper by writing:
QUOTE
If the wave packets “were” the neutron particle, we could not vary their physical extent, at will, after the fact, as we have apparently done in this experiment.
The conclusion to be drawn is a familiar one in quantum mechanics: matter waves are not particles, and we have no right to think of them as such, even in a semi-classical way. The neutron wave-packet formalism is merely the mathematical description of Wheeler’s quantum-mechanical “great smoky dragon” . We know the neutron is a particle when emitted, and again when it is detected, but between these two times, the physical connection between the neutron particle and the wave packet remains hidden, no matter how diligently we try to analyze the quantum questions with our classical tools.
The conclusion to be drawn is a familiar one in quantum mechanics: matter waves are not particles, and we have no right to think of them as such, even in a semi-classical way. The neutron wave-packet formalism is merely the mathematical description of Wheeler’s quantum-mechanical “great smoky dragon” . We know the neutron is a particle when emitted, and again when it is detected, but between these two times, the physical connection between the neutron particle and the wave packet remains hidden, no matter how diligently we try to analyze the quantum questions with our classical tools.
That is an admission that qm cannot explain what is happening.
TEW has a new way of looking at the result. TEW says that something must be going from the analyzer crystal to the NI to cause the effect. That something is elementary waves. The quantum wave is traveling in the opposite direction to what we thought. Everything happens in normal time. Cause and effect are obvious, and in TEW the result is as expected - change the elementary waves and you change the particles coming back.
That is why I am debating here - qm has a serious rival. I have shown you an experiment that puts into doubt the idea that qm can explain everything. It's worth a lot of thought.
Confused1,
Yours is a good point. The central idea of TEW is that elementary waves comes first, coming out of a mass. The waves reach a source of particles and stimulate a particle. The particle follows the wave the stimulated it back to the mass that emitted the elementary wave.
If you are photographing the sun through a telescope, then the above is happening. The photons start their 8 minute journey to the telescope. During that 8 minutes, you decide to finish work and put the lens cap on the telescope. What happens? The elementary wave that the photon was following has changed, so the photon follows the new wave, and hits the lens cap instead.
I think this is the point you are raising - the elementary waves travel at the speed of light, but many particles are slower and this brings into question the connection between the two. When an elementary wave changes while the particle is "in flight" then the particle follows the new wave that has replaced it. Think of elementary waves are like traffic cops directing traffic - the photons coming in are re-directed to new destinations. From the point of view of the new elementary waves from the lens cap, the traveling photons are simply another random source of particles and so they get re-organized.
That is the TEW explanation why we can get interference patterns from stars millions of light years away - we don't have to wait for photons to make the entire journey.
Eugene Morrow
Brucenp, by no means have you done so. My decision to reject this rubbish is simple. If two theories are equal in their predictive capacity and mathematic foundation, then in their most raw unbias state, are identical to one another.
Therefore I think this Eugene fellow might have found himself in a similar situation to my cat, when she believes her tail is a snake and attempts to capture it.
Therefore I think this Eugene fellow might have found himself in a similar situation to my cat, when she believes her tail is a snake and attempts to capture it.
QUOTE (EugeneMorrowTEW+May 10 2012, 11:06 PM)
Everyone,
We are discussing quantum mechanics (qm) and the new Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
In particular we're talking about this neutron experiment:
Brucep,
Yes, according to qm, Schrodingers cat is both alive and dead at the same time. This is a superposition of states, and this exists until we take a measurement - which means we open the box. Schrodingers Cat is clear evidence that "superposition of states" is a suspect idea.
When the neutron experiment was published 20 years ago, it was regarded merely as a curiosity. Why? Because there was no other theory to compare qm with. The only explanation that qm can come up with is that the analyzer crystal affects the Neutron Interferometer (NI) backwards in time. If you don't go for the Transactional interpretation, qm cannot explain the result.
The experimenters were open about what the experiment showed. They wrote on page 41 (italics in the original):
What do you say when you can't explain why this happens? The experimenters finish their paper by writing:
That is an admission that qm cannot explain what is happening.
TEW has a new way of looking at the result. TEW says that something must be going from the analyzer crystal to the NI to cause the effect. That something is elementary waves. The quantum wave is traveling in the opposite direction to what we thought. Everything happens in normal time. Cause and effect are obvious, and in TEW the result is as expected - change the elementary waves and you change the particles coming back.
That is why I am debating here - qm has a serious rival. I have shown you an experiment that puts into doubt the idea that qm can explain everything. It's worth a lot of thought.
Confused1,
Yours is a good point. The central idea of TEW is that elementary waves comes first, coming out of a mass. The waves reach a source of particles and stimulate a particle. The particle follows the wave the stimulated it back to the mass that emitted the elementary wave.
If you are photographing the sun through a telescope, then the above is happening. The photons start their 8 minute journey to the telescope. During that 8 minutes, you decide to finish work and put the lens cap on the telescope. What happens? The elementary wave that the photon was following has changed, so the photon follows the new wave, and hits the lens cap instead.
I think this is the point you are raising - the elementary waves travel at the speed of light, but many particles are slower and this brings into question the connection between the two. When an elementary wave changes while the particle is "in flight" then the particle follows the new wave that has replaced it. Think of elementary waves are like traffic cops directing traffic - the photons coming in are re-directed to new destinations. From the point of view of the new elementary waves from the lens cap, the traveling photons are simply another random source of particles and so they get re-organized.
That is the TEW explanation why we can get interference patterns from stars millions of light years away - we don't have to wait for photons to make the entire journey.
Eugene Morrow
The cat isn't both alive and dead at the same time. Common sense [ever hear of it] has to be taken into account. Even in quantum mechanics.
The observation doesn't cause the event to occur it just confirms which event occurred out of a set of all possible events. For instance Schrodinger's thought experiment. There is a probability that the cat is dead and a probability that the cat is alive while the box is closed. When we open the box we discover which state the cat is in. At this point the set of all possible events is reduced to one event. What we observed.
So you lied when you said according to QM...blah, blah ,blah. You don't know what QM says so you should put a cork in it. What's with it with you? I read a couple of lines in your post and have to reprimand you for lying about physics you don't understand.
We are discussing quantum mechanics (qm) and the new Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
In particular we're talking about this neutron experiment:
Brucep,
Yes, according to qm, Schrodingers cat is both alive and dead at the same time. This is a superposition of states, and this exists until we take a measurement - which means we open the box. Schrodingers Cat is clear evidence that "superposition of states" is a suspect idea.
When the neutron experiment was published 20 years ago, it was regarded merely as a curiosity. Why? Because there was no other theory to compare qm with. The only explanation that qm can come up with is that the analyzer crystal affects the Neutron Interferometer (NI) backwards in time. If you don't go for the Transactional interpretation, qm cannot explain the result.
The experimenters were open about what the experiment showed. They wrote on page 41 (italics in the original):
What do you say when you can't explain why this happens? The experimenters finish their paper by writing:
That is an admission that qm cannot explain what is happening.
TEW has a new way of looking at the result. TEW says that something must be going from the analyzer crystal to the NI to cause the effect. That something is elementary waves. The quantum wave is traveling in the opposite direction to what we thought. Everything happens in normal time. Cause and effect are obvious, and in TEW the result is as expected - change the elementary waves and you change the particles coming back.
That is why I am debating here - qm has a serious rival. I have shown you an experiment that puts into doubt the idea that qm can explain everything. It's worth a lot of thought.
Confused1,
Yours is a good point. The central idea of TEW is that elementary waves comes first, coming out of a mass. The waves reach a source of particles and stimulate a particle. The particle follows the wave the stimulated it back to the mass that emitted the elementary wave.
If you are photographing the sun through a telescope, then the above is happening. The photons start their 8 minute journey to the telescope. During that 8 minutes, you decide to finish work and put the lens cap on the telescope. What happens? The elementary wave that the photon was following has changed, so the photon follows the new wave, and hits the lens cap instead.
I think this is the point you are raising - the elementary waves travel at the speed of light, but many particles are slower and this brings into question the connection between the two. When an elementary wave changes while the particle is "in flight" then the particle follows the new wave that has replaced it. Think of elementary waves are like traffic cops directing traffic - the photons coming in are re-directed to new destinations. From the point of view of the new elementary waves from the lens cap, the traveling photons are simply another random source of particles and so they get re-organized.
That is the TEW explanation why we can get interference patterns from stars millions of light years away - we don't have to wait for photons to make the entire journey.
Eugene Morrow
The cat isn't both alive and dead at the same time. Common sense [ever hear of it] has to be taken into account. Even in quantum mechanics.
The observation doesn't cause the event to occur it just confirms which event occurred out of a set of all possible events. For instance Schrodinger's thought experiment. There is a probability that the cat is dead and a probability that the cat is alive while the box is closed. When we open the box we discover which state the cat is in. At this point the set of all possible events is reduced to one event. What we observed.
So you lied when you said according to QM...blah, blah ,blah. You don't know what QM says so you should put a cork in it. What's with it with you? I read a couple of lines in your post and have to reprimand you for lying about physics you don't understand.
QUOTE (EugeneMorrowTEW+May 8 2012, 11:33 PM)
Everyone - we are comparing quantum mechanics (qm) with the new Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
Brucep,
Your last point is perhaps what all of you are saying. You wrote:
My answer to Adam was summarizing qm: great predictions and explanations that involve a lot of weirdness. Physics textbooks say much the same thing. I then claimed that TEW keeps the predictions and loses the weirdness.
Are you saying it is impossible to lose the weirdness? Most people in physics believe that "qm has proved that a local and deterministic explanations is impossible".
There is a catch in the logic. All theories are subject to their assumptions. If theory A assumes A and theory B assumes B, then they can't prove anything about each other. All they can do is state their assumptions and their proofs.
In qm, as soon as you say "wave particle duality", you are assuming that the wave travels in the same direction as the particle. TEW has an assumption too: that the wave travels in the opposite direction.
So the two theories can only state their assumptions and their results. For example, qm can state "Assuming the wave travels in the same direction as the particle, a local and deterministic explanations is impossible". TEW would agree with that statement, and reply: "Assuming the wave travels in the opposite direction, it's possible".
You can still choose qm and reject TEW - it's just that the qm "proof" does not apply to TEW, so the choice will depend on other issues. You clearly think that TEW is nonsense and a new theory is impossible. I think you're just rejecting the idea of a new theory out of hand.
Me being the author is a silly idea - see:
(1) A paper by Lewis Littie: see "The Theory of Elementary Waves", author Lewis E. Little, Physics Essays, Volume 9, Number 1, 1996.
(2) The book “The Theory of Elementary Waves by Dr. Lewis E. Little, 2009, ISBN 978-0-932750-84-6, published by New Classics Library, Georgia, USA. You can purchase at www.newclassicslibrary.com.
You also wrote:
The point I made about assumptions above applies here too. All qm interpretations share the same assumption about the wave direction. TEW has the opposite assumption to all qm interpretations. That's why TEW is so different.
Lady Elizabeth,
Always good fun to let out some crank now and again.
The five kids sounds like a handful - no wonder physics seems an easy problem to solve in your spare time
The thing that is most hilarious about you pulling my leg is that I think the String Theory people are effectively doing the same thing. They have claimed a few extra dimensions just to get around a few problems and thrown so much maths at the problem that they have snowed everyone, including themselves. They could prove anything with their maths and so it proves nothing. They're having a heap of fun, and it's really impressive maths.
Underneath both UWM and String Theory is an urge to fix qm. That's what is important in all this.
Everyone,
One issue you have all picked up on is the TEW claims to make the same predictions as qm. You are collectively saying that either it's just another interpretation, or it's irrelevant or impossible.
Let me put a radical idea past you. There is a precedent in science for this happening.
Think of Copernicus publishing his book in 1543 on the earth and planets revolving around the sun, instead of everything revolving around the earth. Up until that time, people used the Ptolemaic explanation which used cycles, epicycles, deferents and equants to explain the strange motions of the planets.
The point is that both theories made the same predictions - the only difference was the explanations. It's happening again with qm and TEW.
The Copernicus idea would have seemed nonsense to many people in 1543, and lead to religious persecution later. Today, TEW probably seems just as bizarre and impossible and infuriating.
What are you afraid of? All that TEW is offering is a new way of looking at the experiments you already know. I guarantee that your atoms will not fall apart if you think about TEW.
Eugene Morrow
Physics Essays is a dumpster journal with a Impact Factor of .039. They publish bullshit for cranks.
Brucep,
Your last point is perhaps what all of you are saying. You wrote:
My answer to Adam was summarizing qm: great predictions and explanations that involve a lot of weirdness. Physics textbooks say much the same thing. I then claimed that TEW keeps the predictions and loses the weirdness.
Are you saying it is impossible to lose the weirdness? Most people in physics believe that "qm has proved that a local and deterministic explanations is impossible".
There is a catch in the logic. All theories are subject to their assumptions. If theory A assumes A and theory B assumes B, then they can't prove anything about each other. All they can do is state their assumptions and their proofs.
In qm, as soon as you say "wave particle duality", you are assuming that the wave travels in the same direction as the particle. TEW has an assumption too: that the wave travels in the opposite direction.
So the two theories can only state their assumptions and their results. For example, qm can state "Assuming the wave travels in the same direction as the particle, a local and deterministic explanations is impossible". TEW would agree with that statement, and reply: "Assuming the wave travels in the opposite direction, it's possible".
You can still choose qm and reject TEW - it's just that the qm "proof" does not apply to TEW, so the choice will depend on other issues. You clearly think that TEW is nonsense and a new theory is impossible. I think you're just rejecting the idea of a new theory out of hand.
Me being the author is a silly idea - see:
(1) A paper by Lewis Littie: see "The Theory of Elementary Waves", author Lewis E. Little, Physics Essays, Volume 9, Number 1, 1996.
(2) The book “The Theory of Elementary Waves by Dr. Lewis E. Little, 2009, ISBN 978-0-932750-84-6, published by New Classics Library, Georgia, USA. You can purchase at www.newclassicslibrary.com.
You also wrote:
The point I made about assumptions above applies here too. All qm interpretations share the same assumption about the wave direction. TEW has the opposite assumption to all qm interpretations. That's why TEW is so different.
Lady Elizabeth,
Always good fun to let out some crank now and again.
The five kids sounds like a handful - no wonder physics seems an easy problem to solve in your spare time
The thing that is most hilarious about you pulling my leg is that I think the String Theory people are effectively doing the same thing. They have claimed a few extra dimensions just to get around a few problems and thrown so much maths at the problem that they have snowed everyone, including themselves. They could prove anything with their maths and so it proves nothing. They're having a heap of fun, and it's really impressive maths.
Underneath both UWM and String Theory is an urge to fix qm. That's what is important in all this.
Everyone,
One issue you have all picked up on is the TEW claims to make the same predictions as qm. You are collectively saying that either it's just another interpretation, or it's irrelevant or impossible.
Let me put a radical idea past you. There is a precedent in science for this happening.
Think of Copernicus publishing his book in 1543 on the earth and planets revolving around the sun, instead of everything revolving around the earth. Up until that time, people used the Ptolemaic explanation which used cycles, epicycles, deferents and equants to explain the strange motions of the planets.
The point is that both theories made the same predictions - the only difference was the explanations. It's happening again with qm and TEW.
The Copernicus idea would have seemed nonsense to many people in 1543, and lead to religious persecution later. Today, TEW probably seems just as bizarre and impossible and infuriating.
What are you afraid of? All that TEW is offering is a new way of looking at the experiments you already know. I guarantee that your atoms will not fall apart if you think about TEW.
Eugene Morrow
Physics Essays is a dumpster journal with a Impact Factor of .039. They publish bullshit for cranks.
Everyone,
We are discussing quantum mechanics (qm) and the new Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
Adam,
If you consider qm and TEW are identical to each other, why do you call TEW rubbish? You could think of it as just another interpretation. There are already over 10 interpretations of qm - what' s the problem with another?
Brucep,
You can reject a physics journal if you like. I prefer to judge a theory on it's merits - the logic.
You are rejecting TEW, but you have not given any alternative explanation for the neutron experiment. Do you believe something happened backwards in time?
In qm, lots of things are supposed to happen backwards in time, such as the "delayed erasure" in the Quantum Eraser experiment, see:
Quantum Eraser on Wikipedia
TEW can explain that experiment with no entanglement and nothing happening backwards in time.
Eugene Morrow
We are discussing quantum mechanics (qm) and the new Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
Adam,
If you consider qm and TEW are identical to each other, why do you call TEW rubbish? You could think of it as just another interpretation. There are already over 10 interpretations of qm - what' s the problem with another?
Brucep,
You can reject a physics journal if you like. I prefer to judge a theory on it's merits - the logic.
You are rejecting TEW, but you have not given any alternative explanation for the neutron experiment. Do you believe something happened backwards in time?
In qm, lots of things are supposed to happen backwards in time, such as the "delayed erasure" in the Quantum Eraser experiment, see:
Quantum Eraser on Wikipedia
TEW can explain that experiment with no entanglement and nothing happening backwards in time.
Eugene Morrow
QUOTE
I prefer to judge a theory on it's merits - the logic.
But a theory's merits is not the logic. It's the theory's ability to make accurate predictions and provide accurate and complete explanations.
No matter how appealing the logic of a theory might be, if it doesn't accurately predict and describe the physical universe, it's not valid.
Eugene, the problem with another interpretation of QM is that we arn't moving forward in any valid way by accepting it. Go back to studying the history of theoretical progress. Look at the massive steps taken by certain individuals to expand our understanding, and then this simple equation:
PROGRESS OF TEW - PROGRESS OF QM = 0
I have spent the last 11 years formulating new ideas and interpretations, trying different mathematical models to describe the behavior of phenomena. Do you know why i dont publish? Because to date, i havent been able to make predictions that go beyond the capacity of the currently accepted model.
Therefore, despite me having the personal bias of hours of effort, all i have accomplished is a large amount of crank.... and i will not waste the time of the scientific community with it until it becomes more than that. I expect the author of TEW to have the same humility in regard to his endevours... he isnt special no matter how special he feels ... there are many of us trying to push the envelope.
PROGRESS OF TEW - PROGRESS OF QM = 0
I have spent the last 11 years formulating new ideas and interpretations, trying different mathematical models to describe the behavior of phenomena. Do you know why i dont publish? Because to date, i havent been able to make predictions that go beyond the capacity of the currently accepted model.
Therefore, despite me having the personal bias of hours of effort, all i have accomplished is a large amount of crank.... and i will not waste the time of the scientific community with it until it becomes more than that. I expect the author of TEW to have the same humility in regard to his endevours... he isnt special no matter how special he feels ... there are many of us trying to push the envelope.
QUOTE (EugeneMorrowTEW+Jul 4 2012, 08:21 PM)
Everyone,
We are discussing quantum mechanics (qm) and the new Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
Adam,
If you consider qm and TEW are identical to each other, why do you call TEW rubbish? You could think of it as just another interpretation. There are already over 10 interpretations of qm - what' s the problem with another?
Brucep,
You can reject a physics journal if you like. I prefer to judge a theory on it's merits - the logic.
You are rejecting TEW, but you have not given any alternative explanation for the neutron experiment. Do you believe something happened backwards in time?
In qm, lots of things are supposed to happen backwards in time, such as the "delayed erasure" in the Quantum Eraser experiment, see:
Quantum Eraser on Wikipedia
TEW can explain that experiment with no entanglement and nothing happening backwards in time.
Eugene Morrow
I judge it as round filed. According to you it predicts the universe is a deterministic universe rather than a quantum universe. I judge it as round filed. It's not part of the literature if it was published in a crank journal. There's absolutely no reference to TEW in the literature. Sixteen years with no mention in the literature. Zero discussion. Except for crank comments in public science forums.
You said it's a deterministic [classical] theory. You didn't say it was an interpretation of a quantum theory. It is rubbish because you don't even know what it is and it doesn't even get 'a mention' in the literature. That means theoretical quantum physicists and experimental quantum physicists don't bother to discuss it much less use it.
We are discussing quantum mechanics (qm) and the new Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
Adam,
If you consider qm and TEW are identical to each other, why do you call TEW rubbish? You could think of it as just another interpretation. There are already over 10 interpretations of qm - what' s the problem with another?
Brucep,
You can reject a physics journal if you like. I prefer to judge a theory on it's merits - the logic.
You are rejecting TEW, but you have not given any alternative explanation for the neutron experiment. Do you believe something happened backwards in time?
In qm, lots of things are supposed to happen backwards in time, such as the "delayed erasure" in the Quantum Eraser experiment, see:
Quantum Eraser on Wikipedia
TEW can explain that experiment with no entanglement and nothing happening backwards in time.
Eugene Morrow
I judge it as round filed. According to you it predicts the universe is a deterministic universe rather than a quantum universe. I judge it as round filed. It's not part of the literature if it was published in a crank journal. There's absolutely no reference to TEW in the literature. Sixteen years with no mention in the literature. Zero discussion. Except for crank comments in public science forums.
You said it's a deterministic [classical] theory. You didn't say it was an interpretation of a quantum theory. It is rubbish because you don't even know what it is and it doesn't even get 'a mention' in the literature. That means theoretical quantum physicists and experimental quantum physicists don't bother to discuss it much less use it.
Everyone,
We are discussing quantum mechanics (qm) and the new Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
AlexG, Adam, Brucep,
TEW has the same predictions and the same results as qm. The big difference is that TEW is local and deterministic - at last everything makes sense without "non-locality", effects backwards in time and so on. Just making the quantum world local and deterministic is a huge step forward, and makes TEW as big a breakthrough as when qm replaced classical physics.
You can get snobbish about journals if you like. The reason there is so little discussion about TEW is that qm supporters believe that a local and deterministic picture is impossible. So they don't bother to even read new ideas.
You guys seem to have closed minds too. I've told you there is a new theory and you don't even want to find out anything about it. Why? If you really believe it is not possible to have a new theory, then you should be able to look at the details of a new theory and point out where it is wrong.
Are you scared of a new idea? You seem to be trying to silence something you don't know anything about.
Eugene Morrow
We are discussing quantum mechanics (qm) and the new Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
AlexG, Adam, Brucep,
TEW has the same predictions and the same results as qm. The big difference is that TEW is local and deterministic - at last everything makes sense without "non-locality", effects backwards in time and so on. Just making the quantum world local and deterministic is a huge step forward, and makes TEW as big a breakthrough as when qm replaced classical physics.
You can get snobbish about journals if you like. The reason there is so little discussion about TEW is that qm supporters believe that a local and deterministic picture is impossible. So they don't bother to even read new ideas.
You guys seem to have closed minds too. I've told you there is a new theory and you don't even want to find out anything about it. Why? If you really believe it is not possible to have a new theory, then you should be able to look at the details of a new theory and point out where it is wrong.
Are you scared of a new idea? You seem to be trying to silence something you don't know anything about.
Eugene Morrow
I saw this maybe ten years ago, yes... the backward and forward waves do work.
Entertainly but maybe not connected, I analyzed a finite wave packet of light, and allowed myself the luxury of riding along with it. In the frame, there are Fourier components equally forward and backward !!! ¡¡¡ ??? ¿¿¿
Entertainly but maybe not connected, I analyzed a finite wave packet of light, and allowed myself the luxury of riding along with it. In the frame, there are Fourier components equally forward and backward !!! ¡¡¡ ??? ¿¿¿
Indeed I derived a mathematic statement of the Fourier decomposition of my Gaussian packet. This is the generalized Dirac delta function, in the limit of small envelope.
It may be (I shall reread my stuff) that with less and less inhomogeneous envelope, the Fourier spectrum becomes more singular, i.e., the plane-wave solution of E&M.
can you explain how you arrived at the dirac delta i just find it to be curious result.
Eugeune,
I'm not closed minded to new ideas, im closed minded to claiming to have a localised and deterministic solution of what is in it's essence, the same mathematical approach. You cannot make the solution deterministic by changing the interpretation, i think you need to think more about what the word means.
I'm not closed minded to new ideas, im closed minded to claiming to have a localised and deterministic solution of what is in it's essence, the same mathematical approach. You cannot make the solution deterministic by changing the interpretation, i think you need to think more about what the word means.
Yes, it was sweet. This happened because I assume a wave packet with a Gaussian falloff from an implied inhomogeneous field. Working with magnetic vector potential, I declared: Atrans = EXP[(-i)k(x-ct)]EXP[-ar^2].
The first EXP is the usual homogeneous oscillation, and the second is the assumed falloff of the packet. Parameter 'a' is the inverse scale of the falloff. I let it be "much smaller" than 'k', since this linearizes and separates the envelope for easy (hah) analysis. When I finally learned how to execute the Fourier transform, well gee whiz, Gaussians in space produce Gaussians in k-space. Since we are 'riding along' with the packet it decomposes jinto two peaks centered at +/-k. the width (like a 'Q') depends on a/k, and if you take the limit of no falloff, you are back to the infinite plane wave, see? . . . . Yesterday I should have said, "..in the limit of more extended envelope...", one falling off more and more slowly.
The first EXP is the usual homogeneous oscillation, and the second is the assumed falloff of the packet. Parameter 'a' is the inverse scale of the falloff. I let it be "much smaller" than 'k', since this linearizes and separates the envelope for easy (hah) analysis. When I finally learned how to execute the Fourier transform, well gee whiz, Gaussians in space produce Gaussians in k-space. Since we are 'riding along' with the packet it decomposes jinto two peaks centered at +/-k. the width (like a 'Q') depends on a/k, and if you take the limit of no falloff, you are back to the infinite plane wave, see? . . . . Yesterday I should have said, "..in the limit of more extended envelope...", one falling off more and more slowly.
Back on your topic, might we be free to declare negative frequencies, omegas, rather than identifying the - sign with time?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.