Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 113
Like Tree6Likes

Thread: Keep the good bit of quantum mechanics

  1. #1 Keep the good bit of quantum mechanics 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30
    The “good bit” of quantum mechanics (qm) is the predictions, right to 11 decimal places at times.

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

    A particle goes from a source (A) to a detector (B). In qm, a wave function goes with the particle.
    Let’s remind ourselves of reciprocity: a radio antenna is equally good as a transmitter and receiver of radio waves. The waves travel equally well going in or out.

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


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

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


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

    The double slit experiment works with the other wave direction. Unfortunately, I cannot post diagrams here (and my one page PDF file is 27K, just over the size allowed on this site). 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 – see the neutron experiment below:


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

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



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

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

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


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

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

    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.


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post
    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.
    That is a petty. Had you stuck with it, you would eventually have come across the facts that momentum conservation is simply a result of Noether's theorem, the Faraday effect is trivially explained by Maxwell's equations, and QM is weird only for those who fail to understand it.
    Quantum objects exhibit both wave and particle characteristics, but cannot be fully explained by either - they are not classical objects from our world of everyday experiences. Just accept that, and everything else falls into place naturally. There is no requirement in nature for the quantum world to work the same as our macro world. It doesn't.

    Btw, how exactly do you define "quantum weirdness"


    Strange and TheObserver like this.
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30
    Marcus,

    When I said quantum mechanics (qm) is too weird for me, I was being honest. I was in first year physics in 1977, so I've had plenty of time to read more since then, and nothing has changed my mind about qm. (My degree was finished in Pure Maths and Computing, and computing has been my career.) For me, reading the new Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) has been the solution I've been looking for, and that's why I'm spreading the word about it.

    You are assuming I think in a classical way and cannot accept the quantum world. In fact, I am very aware that waves are a fundamental part of the world of particles in the quantum world, and TEW is fine with the Schrodinger wave equation. The only difference between qm and TEW is that the wave travels in the opposite direction.

    Look again at the neutron experiment I mentioned in my original post. If you believe qm, then you believe the quantum wave and the particle are going left to right, so the effect must have happened backwards in time. For TEW, the effect happens in normal time, because TEW has the wave going right to left. It shows that TEW has the right wave direction.

    That's a good example of quantum weirdness - when qm claims something happened backwards in time. To me, you have to have a lot more evidence before I will believe that time was reversed. Some other types of quantum weirdness are well known:
    - multiple universes (in the Many Worlds interpretation)
    - Particles being in two places at once
    - The experimenter "knowing" something changes the outcome of experiments
    - Superposition of states for a particle
    - Entanglement

    These are all definitely weird compare to real world experience, and TEW can explain all the experiments without using these concepts.

    As well, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle may seem straight forward, but TEW denies that concept too, deriving the formula from the dynamics of the elementary waves themselves. For TEW, there is no necessary "barrier", even though designing experiments to get around it may be tricky.

    The important thing about TEW is the there is a choice now. In the past, qm said "our maths makes these great predictions, so you have to believe our explanations of reality". Now we have a situation where TEW has the same mathematics and predictions, but has explanations that avoid all the quantum weirdness of qm. So you can choose a different explanation. - we are not forced to accept anything.

    I believe that when the wider world finds out about TEW a lot of people will prefer the TEW explanations. TEW is local and deterministic, and has only one interpretation, unlike qm.

    I'm ready to debate this if you are interested.

    Eugene Morrow
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Marcus, before you get too deep into this. The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) by Dr Lewis E Little, 1996 Physics Essays You might want to have a look at the paper he is referencing.

    Its not as bad as Urod or anything, but it's not that far off.
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,820
    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post
    As well, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle may seem straight forward, but TEW denies that concept too, deriving the formula from the dynamics of the elementary waves themselves.
    If the wavefunctions for position and momentum remain Fourier transforms of one another in TEW, then HUP still applies. Necessarily.

    If position and momentum are not conjugate in TEW, then so many things break that I do not see how TEW could make predictions that are consonant with measurement.
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30
    Forum Freshman,

    The short answer is that calculation for uncertainty applies to the elementary wave itself, not the particle that is following the wave. The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) separates the wave and the particle, unlike quamtum mechanics (qm).

    In qm, they claim that the uncertainty calculation means the particle cannot have a definite position or momentum - there will always be uncertainty. In TEW, we have the same calculation but it does not have the same meaning. The elementary waves are "fuzzy', but the particle always has exact positions and momentums. It's all part of how TEW gives different explanations and meanings for the same calculations, and the quantum weirdness is removed.

    If you read the 1996 paper you'll get the idea. We keep the predictions and mathematics of qm (the good bit) and lose the multiple universes and effects backwards in time (the quantum weirdness). Its all comes from seeing that qm assumes the wave direction is the same as the particle direction, whereas TEW assumes the wave is in the opposite direction. It's challenging an assumption that no one has considered in about 80 years.


    The Observer,

    Thanks for supplying the link to a copy of the 1996 paper. The book in 2009 is longer and better explains things, and your local library may have a copy.


    Eugene Morrow
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,820
    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post
    Forum Freshman,

    The short answer is that calculation for uncertainty applies to the elementary wave itself, not the particle that is following the wave. The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) separates the wave and the particle, unlike quamtum mechanics (qm).

    In qm, they claim that the uncertainty calculation means the particle cannot have a definite position or momentum - there will always be uncertainty. In TEW, we have the same calculation but it does not have the same meaning. The elementary waves are "fuzzy', but the particle always has exact positions and momentums. It's all part of how TEW gives different explanations and meanings for the same calculations, and the quantum weirdness is removed.
    You haven't answered my question. Are position and momentum conjugate in TEW or not? If so, then mathematics gives us an uncertainty relation automatically. It has nothing to do with qm. I recommend looking up "uncertainty relations" in any good text on, say, Fourier transforms.
    Last edited by tk421; March 21st, 2012 at 06:42 PM. Reason: clarification
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30
    Forum Freshman,

    I did answer your question, and I see I need to explain better.

    Lewis Little discussed Uncertainty in both his 1996 paper and the 2009 book by using an example taken from a specific case of the neutron experiment I have pointed out. He made a detailed analysis of the Neutron Interferometer (NI) and quantum mechanics (qm) and the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) describe the results.

    Most importantly, qm describes the neutrons as wave packets. So the delta x and delta p are related to the size of the wave packet. This can be related to the uncertainty in wavelength of the waves.

    Little takes this description of the wave packet in a specific case and derives the famous uncertainty forumla, exactly as for Heisenberg. As usual the same maths applies to qm and TEW, but the meanings are totally diferent.

    For TEW, the wave packet is a group of elementary waves, not the particle, which is entirely separate. Yes, the position and momentum of the wave packet are conjugate. This relationship is for a group of elementary waves, not the particle. The particle is always following only one elementary wave, not a packet, and for TEW the particle always has a precise position and momentum.

    You are very focused on the mathematical relationship, as is all analysis in qm. For TEW, we have the same calculations but we do not attribute the results as enforcing uncertainty on the particle.

    So TEW has the same calculations as the Uncertainty principle but denies there is any enforced uncertainty on the particles (neutrons in this case). TEW is all about new explanation of reality. It's the explanations that separate qm and TEW, not the maths.

    I feel certain I have not convinced you about TEW. I'm only pointing this out so you understand what I mean by "TEW denies the Uncertainty Principle".

    Eugene Morrow
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    I don't think you get it. Any theory that involves fourier transformations automatically comes with the uncertainty principle. You cannot escape this.

    Also, he did NOT derive the uncertainty relation at all. That entire section was flat out mathematically wrong.
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post

    The short answer is that calculation for uncertainty applies to the elementary wave itself, not the particle that is following the wave. The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) separates the wave and the particle, unlike quamtum mechanics (qm).
    Unfortunately that isn't what we observe in the quantum world. Do you have any experimental evidence that particles and waves are distinct, but essentially classical, entities ? What you are doing is attempting to reduce QM to a classical model.

    The elementary waves are "fuzzy', but the particle always has exact positions and momentums.
    Once again, is there any experimental evidence for this.

    It's challenging an assumption that no one has considered in about 80 years.
    Because it isn't compatible with experimental evidence.

    The particle is always following only one elementary wave, not a packet, and for TEW the particle always has a precise position and momentum.
    And yet again - where is the evidence that particles and waves are distinct objects in QM. I say they are not. Do you have evidence to the contrary ?

    we have the same calculations but we do not attribute the results as enforcing uncertainty on the particle.
    Nothing is enforced at all. As TheObserver already rightly pointed out, the HUP emerges naturally from the maths of QM. The entire theory would not be self-consistent without it.
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,820
    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post
    So TEW has the same calculations as the Uncertainty principle but denies there is any enforced uncertainty on the particles (neutrons in this case). TEW is all about new explanation of reality. It's the explanations that separate qm and TEW, not the maths.

    I feel certain I have not convinced you about TEW. I'm only pointing this out so you understand what I mean by "TEW denies the Uncertainty Principle".
    Thanks for the attempted explanation, New Member.

    How does TEW then explain the build-up of an interference pattern when single photons or electrons are sent through a double slit? (For a fun movie of the latter, see Quantum Measurement : Research : Research & Development : Hitachi Global, or google for other similar demonstrations.)
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30
    tk421,

    The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) deals with the double slit experiment in both publications:

    Paper published in Physics Essays in 1996, broadly on pages 100 to 104 as part of the whole description of the theory. See a free copy of that paper here: The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) by Dr Lewis E Little, 1996 Physics Essays

    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. See pages 7-12, and 27-31.

    For a website with an introduction, see Elementary Wave Theory

    The double slit experiment takes a lot of description and diagrams, so I won't do it here. The book has the best diagrams and explanation. The 1996 paper will give a shorter explanation without diagrams unfortunately.


    The Observer,

    The uncertainty calculation applies to the elementary wave, not the particle. Using fourier transforms is fine - it doesn't change the meaning from the TEW point of view. The mathematical derivation is fine, I will get back to you on the other forum about it. I'm just a bit busy with all the forums I'm on (8) to get the explanation together.


    Markus Hanke

    The best choice for experimental evidence is below.

    Remember the difference between quantum mechanics (qm) and TEW. In qm, the quantum wave and the particle are going in the same direction: qm believes they are the same thing. in TEW, the wave goes in the opposite direction - the wave comes first, and the particles follows the wave in the backwards direction.

    The difference is one of assumptions: qm and TEW have the waves in opposite direction. If you can see the evidence that TEW has the right wave direction, then you have to accept that the particle and the wave are separate. Being separate is nothing to do with being classical, it's just a different way the quantum mathematics can work. Both qm and TEW share the same equations like the Schrodinger wave equation, the Dirac equation and so on. It's just the explanation of the wave direction that is the real difference.

    The experiment below clearly shows that qm cannot explain the result, and that TEW has the correct wave direction. I will give you the hard numbers as well, so you can see how much qm has to explain.

    I'm talking about the neutron experiment:

    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.
    The experiment works with neutrons traveling left to right:


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

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


    When the neutrons reach the NI, they somehow know which analyzer crystal is ahead, and change what happens in the NI. How can they know which analyzer crystal is there before they reach it?

    The hard numbers are on page 41 of the paper:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    TABLE VIII. Calculated longitudinal coherence lengths delta x
    of the neutrons in the different analyzer configurations.

    Beam...................................Delta X (Angstrom units)

    Direct C3 (and C2)_______________86.2

    PR analyzer, (111) parallel________ 97.5

    PR analyzer, (111) antiparallel____148

    NP analyzer, (111) antiparallel___3450
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you read the paper, you'll understand these things:

    (a) "Beam" means which way the analyzer crystal is setup.

    (b) "Direct C3 (and C2)" means there is no analyzer crystal.

    (c) "PR" means a Pressed Silicon analyzer crystal. It is low quality.

    (d) "NP" mean a Nearly Perfect silicon analyzer crystal. It is high quality.

    (e) "(111)" refers to the NI. There are three silicon crystals in the NI all in parallel.

    (f) "(111) parallel" means the analyzer crystal in positioned parallel to the NI crystals.


    Take a moment to notice the measurements - using the NP crystal, the coherence length is over 34 times longer than using the PR crystal (parallel). This is a gigantic change. A theory of the quantum world must explain this. Even the orientation of the crystal matters - how can that be?


    The experimenters are qm believers and most of the paper is taken up with how they changed the NI and got different interference patterns. The analyzer crystal does strange things here too, but the experimenters believed they could explain the interference pattern changes. Typical of qm, they use lots of mathematics in their discussion.

    What the experimenters cannot explain is Table VIII - especially the coherence length increasing over 34 times. If you believe the particles and the waves are traveling left to right, then this does not make sense.

    The experimenters say this 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.
    The experimenters finish their paper by writing:

    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 above quotes mean that the experimenters (and qm) don't know why it happens. When qm claims that something was changed after it happened, this describes the result but does not say how or why.

    Note also that the experimenters did not mention any maths in their attempted explanation - because the maths doesn't help them here.

    Claiming a change backwards in time is a weak explanation, but in 1992 there was no alternative to qm, and so no one cared. Now that TEW provides an alternative explanation, qm is exposed to criticism for the first time. Most people are so convinced of qm it's very hard to comprehend a failure of qm.

    For the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) the quantum waves go right to left here, so there is an obvious reason why the analyzer crystal affects the NI.

    You may be having trouble accepting that TEW explains it easily. I have an analogy that might help.

    Imagine you have two magnifying glasses, and you want to know which one is better. There is some snow outside, so you take the first magnifying glass and melt some snow for some period of time. Then you take the other magnifying glass and repeat for the same length of time. Whichever melts more snow is a guide to which is the better magnifying glass.

    Let's look back at the neutron experiment. For TEW, the analyzer crystal is somewhat analogous to a magnifying glass. We change the analyzer crystal and this changes the elementary waves going left. This affects both the NI and the source of neutrons. The neutrons travel left to right, following the elementary waves back. Change the elementary waves means you change the neutrons. Of course the crystal affects the neutrons coming back - in TEW we expect this.

    It's only an analogy. Lewis Little didn't like it when I suggested it to him - we are not melting anything. The point of the analogy is that something must be going from the analyzer crystal to the NI, and that thing is elementary waves.

    The difficult bit is that we can't see the waves. The difference between qm and TEW is the wave direction, and this experiment clearly shows TEW has the right wave direction.

    If you still believe in qm, tell me how the crystal affects the NI. This is a critical issue for any quantum theory.

    Eugene Morrow
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Look, I won't keep pretending, I think that TEW of yours is complete hogwash, both conceptually and mathematically. Here's why :

    1. All forms of retro-causality in QM systems are principally ruled out by the Eberhard theorem
    2. If you allow retarded potentials in the relativistic QFT, the resulting theory is no longer Lorentz invariant. This has been shown by Feynman and Wheeler in the 1940s, who were the real masterminds of this retarded potential theory.
    3. I don't see how a retarded potential could possibly be a solution of the relativistic Dirac equation - can you please show us the maths, since it was nowhere to be found in any of the TEW papers I could find. It was always claimed that this is the case, but nowhere shown.
    4. What if there is no detector present - no exchange of particle / wave takes place ? How do you explain gravitational lensing then ? And what about if the detector is there, but the particle doesn't interact with it, e.g. neutrino ?
    5. No reverse traveling waves or particles have ever been observed or detected.
    6. Since TEW says that the particle is not subject to HUP, it would thus not obey any of the usual QM relations ?

    As for the experiment you have referenced - I believe this explains the observed coherence length effect ( though I am no expert in this particular area ) :

    Conceptual foundations of quantum physics: an overview from modern perspectives - Dipankar Home - Google Books
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Hey, I just came across this :

    enlightenment: Problems with the Theory of Elementary Waves

    Should have googled first before bothering to type a whole paragraph...anyway, this seems to be hitting on the same points as I do.
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30
    Marcus,

    It's fine with me that you think the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) is hogwash. Differences of opinion are what debates are all about.

    I don't have lots of time, so I'll give a short answer now to some of the things you raised, and more later.

    Yes, there are both postive and negative things written about TEW on the net. I will eventually get around to answering the negative stuff. Will leave that for now.

    All the qm claims of proving something are subject to the qm assumption about the wave direction. If the qm wave direction is wrong, then all the stuff about "no other explanations possible" and "no local and deterministic explanation possible" are invalid. Every time you hear a qm proof, it should say "if the qm wave direction is correct then...". TEW assumes the opposite wave direction, so the TEW proofs say "If the TEW wave direction is correct then ...". So the Eberhard theorem only applies if the qm wave direction is correct, and I disgree with that.

    TEW is not retarded potentials, so no case to answer there.

    Gravitational lensing still works. It's covered in the book, but I'll have to check the 1996 article. Elementary waves can change while photons are "in flight" - for example when someone puts a lens cap on a telescope. The elementary wave the a photon follow when they were created may change to something else and then end up in a different place. Just because gravitational lensing may occur over years or even millions of years is not a problem for TEW.

    If a detector only detects photons then it's a photon detector. If it doesn't detect neutrinos, then it's not a neutrino detector, it's just a mass. The word detector implies it detects the particles in question. A mass can still receive particles, we just don't know about it. It's no problem.

    The neutron experiment I outlined before is excellent evidence of elementary waves traveling in the opposite direction to the neutrons.

    The uncertainty calculations apply to the elementary waves, not the particles. TEW and qm has the same maths, but the meanings are different.

    I'll have to find time to look at the link you gave me and get back to you.

    Eugene Morrow
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,820
    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post
    The uncertainty calculations apply to the elementary waves, not the particles. TEW and qm has the same maths, but the meanings are different.
    Thanks for confirming that momentum and position are conjugate. Here's the problem, though: There is then a fundamental uncertainty built into the correspondiing elementary waves (as I've said multiple times before, this uncertainty is not qm-specific; again, look up "uncertainty relations" in any good text on Fourier transforms for a good discussion of why). The TEW formation computes position and momentum from these elementary waves. Given that the latter must obey these uncertainty relations, it would seem logically impossible for the fundamental uncertainties to disappear in the computation of position and momentum.

    We'll later return to the double-slit explanation you provided, to link the discussion more explicitly to that of the HUP.
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    It's fine with me that you think the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) is hogwash. Differences of opinion are what debates are all about.
    Good, I agree.

    All the qm claims of proving something are subject to the qm assumption about the wave direction.
    So is the TEW. And once again, I would argue ( without having done the maths yet, though ) that a backwards traveling wave isn't a valid solution of the Dirac equation, or, in other words, that such a theory is not Lorentz invariant. That would mean really only one wave direction is allowed in the full relativistic formulation.

    TEW is not retarded potentials, so no case to answer there.
    Sorry, by "retarded" I referred to the one traveling in the opposite time direction. Come to think of it the proper term should have probably been "advanced".

    Elementary waves can change while photons are "in flight"
    A completely arbitrary assumption to make TEW work, for which there is no experimental evidence whatsoever.

    The elementary wave the a photon follow when they were created may change to something else and then end up in a different place.
    Yes, and unicorns have hidden wings.

    If a detector only detects photons then it's a photon detector. If it doesn't detect neutrinos, then it's not a neutrino detector, it's just a mass.
    Huh ?!
    Do you know what the detection rate in a neutrino detector is, in terms of a percentage ?

    The neutron experiment I outlined before is excellent evidence of elementary waves traveling in the opposite direction to the neutrons.
    No it isn't. It is only your interpretation of the experiment that makes it look that way.
    Did you read the paragraph I referenced ?

    The uncertainty calculations apply to the elementary waves, not the particles.
    Yeah, that's the problem. We have never seen any particles that don't obey the HUP.

    TEW and qm has the same maths, but the meanings are different.
    No they don't. Standard QM does not predict any waves traveling "backwards", and then particles which don't obey the HUP to travel forwards again ( or the other way around ) ?
    Come to think of it, what are the wave equations for your TEWs ? I don't seem to be able to find them anywhere.

    So the Eberhard theorem only applies if the qm wave direction is correct
    Interesting opinion, but...can you show us why that is supposedly so ?
     

  19. #18  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Are you aware of the fact that the standard Maxwell equations with absorption aren't T-symmetric macroscopically ? It may be possible to find this symmetry locally for a single photon exchange, but if you apply it to a field ( QED ), the T-symmetry no longer applies. You have not yet responded to this point.
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30
    tk421 and Marcus Hanke,

    We are debating a lot of things at the same time. Let's try and sort out one issue at a time.

    Marcus asked for experimental evidence for the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) over the standard quantum mechanics (qm). I provided that in post 12. The central issue is the coherence length of the neutrons. Table VIII shows clearly that the analyzer crystal changes the coherence length that qm believes is set in the Neutron Interferometer (NI). We are facing a dilemma - how does the neutron choose a coherence length in the NI when it doesn't yet know which analyzer crystal is ahead?

    For qm, their explanation is that something happened backwards in time. To me, this is an admission they don't know why or how.

    For TEW, something must be traveling from the analyzer crystal to the NI, and that something is elementary waves. There is a clear cause and effect, all happening in normal time. This experiment clearly shows that TEW has the correct wave direction.

    Does anyone support the qm explanation? If you don't then you are conceding this is the experimental evidence that TEW is a better description of reality than qm.

    I'll get onto debating the other points after I hear your thoughts on this experiment.

    Eugene Morrow
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    The central issue is the coherence length of the neutrons. Table VIII shows clearly that the analyzer crystal changes the coherence length that qm believes is set in the Neutron Interferometer (NI). We are facing a dilemma - how does the neutron choose a coherence length in the NI when it doesn't yet know which analyzer crystal is ahead?
    Allow me to quote from the abstract of the paper you have referenced :

    The coherence length of a neutron wave packet depends on the spectral width of the distribution of wave vectors that make up the packet. The coherent overlap of the wave packets traversing the two beam paths in a perfect-silicon-crystal neutron interferometer (NI) is altered by placing a material with a neutron-nuclear optical potential in one of the beam paths in the NI. If the optical potential is positive, it causes a delay of the wave packet and a loss of fringe visibility. By use of an analyzer crystal, we narrow the spectral distribution after the mixing and interference has occurred in the last crystal slab of the NI. This increases the coherence length and restores some of the fringe visibility.
    Based on this, I do not understand where QM predicts that something is happening backwards in time ? Can you please further elaborate, because I fail to see the conundrum which you seem to think is there. To me everything looks just fine from a QM perspective, so long as you understand that all quantum objects are neither waves nor particles, but have characteristics of both depending on the mode of detection.
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Btw, this thing is conceptually kind of similar to the "Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser" :

    Delayed choice quantum eraser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    We already have a thread going on this issue :

    Controlled delayed quantum erasure - where is the causality?
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    I provided that in post 12.
    You haven't. What you have done is take a standard interferometry experiment and re-interpreted it in your own way. That is not experimental evidence.
    In order to experimentally verify TEW you would need to detect a wave going one way, and then a particle ( which doesn't obey HUP !! ) go the other way; you would then also have to show that these are both aspects of the same interaction.

    The key effect is that a new analyzer crystal changes what is happening in the interferometer.
    I think this is really the crux of the matter. What makes you think that this is actually the case ? Please explain.
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    You should also have read through this very short, but extremely helpful paper :

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.3977v1.pdf

    The solution to all these supposed "retro-causality" QM effects is simply this :

    The (well-known) point stated in the introduction wasto distinguish correlation from causation. The lesson wedraw here is that this very correlation between distantmeasurements does not feel their relative time ordering:it does not distinguish between future and past. This implies backwards correlation but still precludes backwardscausation or any other tension with relativity, effectivelydemystifying the delayed choice experiments.
    It is important to note that arriving at our conclu-sions did not require introducing new physics. We onlyrelied on elementary quantum mechanics: not on novel‘backwards time’ concepts, nor on any particular inter-pretation: we only used the Born rule ‘as is’.
    With this the paradox ( which I think you seem to be seeing the interferometry experiment ) immediately disappears :

    1. All QM objects are subject to wave-particle duality
    2. Whether the wave or the particle characteristics are observed can only be decided at the source or the detector - between those the picture is not determined
    3. Because of this duality and indeterminacy, there is a backwards correlation between what is seen at the detector and the NI, but no backward causation, because the QM objects have both particle and wave characteristics, and obey the HUP
    4. Thus there is no paradox/problem

    Essentially, what I am saying is that there is no problem with retro-causality under QM in the first place - it doesn't exist, and the Eberhard theorem is preserved. A hypothetical speculation such as TEW is therefore not needed.
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30
    Marcus Hanke,

    This is the debate that needs to happen on this thread. You have clearly read the experiment and you are being an advocate of quantum mechanics (qm) in this experiment. What is important is that this debate has never happened before - because there was no rival to qm. Now there is the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) so physics needs to have a debate and be sure they have chosen the right theory. We are also debating the right experiment, because this neutron experiment shows a big difference in explanation between qm and TEW.

    I have to drive 4 hours to another city, meet some friends and drive 4 hours back today, so I will make a quick reply now and a more detailed one tomorrow. You raised quite a few points.

    For anyone else reading this, we are talking about the neutron experiment:

    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 the experiment this happens:

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

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

    The key effect is that a new analyzer crystal changes what is happening in the interferometer.

    Marcus, you asked why I state that qm claims a change backwards in time. The answer is that the experimenters themselves (who believe in qm) are the ones who make this claim. The experimenters say this 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.
    That is a claim of a change backwards in time.

    You even quoted this passage:

    By use of an analyzer crystal, we narrow the spectral distribution after the mixing and interference has occurred in the last crystal slab of the NI. This increases the coherence length and restores some of the fringe visibility.
    Notice how this clearly states that the analyzer crystal changes the coherence length in the NIl. Think about it - the neutrons reach the NI and say to themselves "I know which analyzer crystal is up ahead, so I'll change my coherence length accordingly". How do the neutrons know which analyzer crystal is ahead before they reach it?

    The experimenters finish their paper by writing:

    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.



    To me, the above quotes mean that the experimenters (and qm) don't know why it happens. This is not a mechanism to describe how and why the results with coherence length are obtained - it simply says "the reason is hidden from us".

    In comparison, TEW has a clear explanation. Elementary waves travel from the analyzer crystal to the NI - if we change the crystal we change the elementary waves. That's how the neutrons know which analyzer crystal is ahead.

    So we have two theories - qm saying that something happened backwards in time, and TEW giving a clear cause and effect happening in normal time. The difference between qm and TEW is the wave direction. For qm the wave goes left to right here, and for TEW the wave goes right to left. Clearly TEW has the right wave direction.

    Once you see the wave direction, then you can see the other issues. If the wave is going right to left here, clearly the wave is separate to the particles (neutrons). That's another difference between the two theories: qm believes in wave-particle duality, whereas TEW has the waves and particles being separate.

    Thanks for providing the links and quotes about retro-causality. I haven't read the links yet (or your other ones) - please give me some more time. What I can say is that your quote is very revealing:

    The lesson we draw here is that this very correlation between distant measurements does not feel their relative time ordering:it does not distinguish between future and past.
    Marcus, that is an excellent example of quantum weirdness. Do you really believe that distant measurements do not distinguish between future and past? I cannot believe a statement like that. For qm, this is way of trying to explain the unexplainable. The above quote makes no sense as all, and is the whole reason by TEW is there. TEW avoids such weirdness - time cannot be ignored like that.

    I have to get going now. I will return to this fascinating debate again tomorrow, and hope to finally read some of your links.

    Eugene Morrow















    You questioned where qm claims a change backwards in time. It
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post
    Marcus Hanke,

    This is the debate that needs to happen on this thread. You have clearly read the experiment and you are being an advocate of quantum mechanics (qm) in this experiment.
    That is pretty much correct.

    The key effect is that a new analyzer crystal changes what is happening in the interferometer.
    And this bit is where I basically disagree with you. What changes is the measureable outcome at the detector, not what happens in the NI. The detector reading is correlated to what is going on in both NI and crystal, but it is not causally connected in a backwards fashion.
    Remember what I quoted earlier ? We know for certain only what is emitted at the emitter ( wave or particle ), and what is detected at the detector. What happens in between is a superposition of possibility amplitudes; it is the reading at the detector that collapses the wave function and enables us to interpret which "path" the system has taken in between, but there is no backwards causal relationship, because all paths are physically possible with a certain probability, so they are all "real" in a way.

    The thing to keep in mind is that we determine the coherence length after the interference has taken place, far downstream from the interferometer.
    Yes, of course. That is just what I said above. The reading at the detector is what collapses the wave function and enables us to say which path the system took, not the NI or the crystal. Again, they are correlated, but not causally connected in a backwards fashion. It is the distinction between "correlation" and "causal connection" that is the key point here.

    How do the neutrons know which analyzer crystal is ahead before they reach it?
    They don't, that's the point ! The determination about which coherence length results is made not at the NI or the crystal, but at the detector. At the NI and the crystal all possibilities exist simultaneously as the superposition of probability amplitudes. However, at the detector we see only one outcome ( = coherence length ), which is correlated to what happens at the NI and crystal.
    Remember, the important bit once again is where the actual measurement takes place. In this case, that place is the detector. What happens at the NI and crystal can only be expressed in terms of probability functions - all possibilities exist here and are superimposed.

    To me, the above quotes mean that the experimenters (and qm) don't know why it happens
    No, the experimenters know quite well, and are saying so clearly :

    "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"

    which is precisely what I told you above.

    Do you really believe that distant measurements do not distinguish between future and past?
    Yes I do, as I explained above; and again, remember that what the author of this quote refers to is the correlation between the measurements, and not the measurements themselves ( see original quote ). The difference between these two terms is key to understanding that there is no paradox involved here. In terms of mathematics, this corresponds to the fact that in the Feynman Path Integral formulation you can swap the start and end points of the functional integral, without the paths of the system being affected.

    The above quote makes no sense as all
    Well, it does to me.
    I can kind of see where your problem lies, but to me no paradox and no "weirdness" arises in this scenario. I have long since given up trying to picture the path of a QM system as something that is even remotely classical and well determined. I only think of such a system as a collection of all possible paths, and understand that the determination about which path can be used to model the "in-between" bit can only be made at the detector. What happens between the detector and the source is a matter of probabilities, but it isn't determinable in a classical sense until a measurement is made. And since all possible paths are equally valid and probable, there is never any need for retro-causality.
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30
    Markus,

    As usual, we are debating the explanations of quantum mechanics (qm) and the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).

    You are trying to convince me of two things:

    1. There is no backwards in time causality in this experiment.

    2. There is no weirdness in the qm explanation.

    I disagree with both ideas.

    Firstly, the experimenters explicitly state that there is backwards in time causality 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.


    The experimenters are professional physicists and are believers in qm. If they say there is backwards in time causality, then qm is claiming this. You may be personally convinced that the retro-causality didn't happen or is not a problem. I am debating qm and qm has to defend it's claims.

    Secondly, you are convinced there is no weirdness in the qm explanation. I think the reasons you give are just as weird, if not more.

    You used the following in your case:

    What happens in between is a superposition of possibility amplitudes
    At the NI and the crystal all possibilities exist simultaneously as the superposition of probability amplitudes.
    I only think of such a system as a collection of all possible paths
    For this reason, I am guessing this is close to the de-Broglie-Bohm interpretation of qm. I find this weird,because how does the detector know what all the possibilities and probabilities are? This interpretation is a non-local theory - all possibilities in the universe can factor into the outcome. To me, this is just as weird as backwards in time effects.

    Whatever is your position, this experiment is still a big problem for qm.

    The problem of the quantum world is that we only detect particles, but in lots of experiments like this one waves are clearly part of the experiment. In the double slit experiment, and in this experiment, there are interference patterns, even if only one particle is in the experiment at a time. Waves have to be included somehow.

    The way qm solved the problem is to claim that the particle also has a quantum wave, as given by the Schrodinger wave equation. They key assumption is that the wave function travels in the same direction as the particle. So we have "wave packets" or "wave particles".

    The experimenters clearly believe in wave packets. They give a formula and the whole paper discusses how the wave packets are passing through the Neutron Interferometer (NI) and all the things they do to investigate that by varying parts of the NI (bismuth in or out, bismuth thickness, movement of the phase rotator).

    The problems for qm are:

    A. The analyzer crystal, that the neutrons reach after the NI changes the interference in the NI. This is a change backwards in time for qm, and the experimenters acknowledge this.

    B. In their summary, they call into question whether the particle and the wave packets are the same thing, on page 41:

    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.



    That is an earthquake in qm. If the particles are not the wave packets, the whole foundation of qm is in doubt. We have a situation where the particles (neutrons) change into wave packets, traverse the NI and analyzer crystal, and then turn back into particles again at the detector. What controls the change from particles to wave packets and back again? What is the "collapse" of the wave function?

    Even if you accept wave packets, the backwards in time claim is about the wave packets themselves.

    There is another weirdness in qm that I have not discussed yet. When a wave packet reaches the NI, it splits into two pieces. Let's call the pieces Alice and Bob. Alice and Bob recombine later, and that causes the interference. Alice is slowed down by some bismuth, and the experimenters claim that if we slow Alice down enough then Alice "misses" Bob later and they don't interfere, so that is why the interference pattern disappears. The analyzer crystal increases the coherence length of both Alice and Bob (backwards in time) so that they do overlap once more and the interference pattern returns. On page 34, they write:

    In terms of wave packets, we say the analyzer increases the coherence length delta x by narrowing the momentum spread delta p.
    Think about that. Without an analyzer crystal, the coherence length is too short, so Alice misses Bob and there is no interference. We should get the detector getting two half neutrons arriving. We never get that - we only detect full sized neutrons. Why? That is another qm weirdness. It also calls into question the whole foundations of qm.

    This is why the neutron experiment is so important. The qm explanation has huge problems. TEW explains them easily - the wave goes in the opposite direction, which means from the analyzer crystal to the NI - so there is an obviious reason why the crystal affects the NI. With such a clear explanation, the conclusion is tha TEW has the right wave direction.

    Eugene Morrow
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30
    Markus,

    As usual, we are debating the explanations of quantum mechanics (qm) and the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).

    You are trying to convince me of two things:

    1. There is no backwards in time causality in this experiment.

    2. There is no weirdness in the qm explanation.

    I disagree with both ideas.

    Firstly, the experimenters explicitly state that there is backwards in time causality 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.


    The experimenters are professional physicists and are believers in qm. If they say there is backwards in time causality, then qm is claiming this. You may be personally convinced that the retro-causality didn't happen or is not a problem. I am debating qm and qm has to defend it's claims.

    Secondly, you are convinced there is no weirdness in the qm explanation. I think the reasons you give are just as weird, if not more.

    You used the following in your case:

    What happens in between is a superposition of possibility amplitudes
    At the NI and the crystal all possibilities exist simultaneously as the superposition of probability amplitudes.
    I only think of such a system as a collection of all possible paths
    For this reason, I am guessing this is close to the de-Broglie-Bohm interpretation of qm. I find this weird,because how does the detector know what all the possibilities and probabilities are? This interpretation is a non-local theory - all possibilities in the universe can factor into the outcome. To me, this is just as weird as backwards in time effects.

    Whatever is your position, this experiment is still a big problem for qm.

    The problem of the quantum world is that we only detect particles, but in lots of experiments like this one waves are clearly part of the experiment. In the double slit experiment, and in this experiment, there are interference patterns, even if only one particle is in the experiment at a time. Waves have to be included somehow.

    The way qm solved the problem is to claim that the particle also has a quantum wave, as given by the Schrodinger wave equation. They key assumption is that the wave function travels in the same direction as the particle. So we have "wave packets" or "wave particles".

    The experimenters clearly believe in wave packets. They give a formula and the whole paper discusses how the wave packets are passing through the Neutron Interferometer (NI) and all the things they do to investigate that by varying parts of the NI (bismuth in or out, bismuth thickness, movement of the phase rotator).

    The problems for qm are:

    A. The analyzer crystal, that the neutrons reach after the NI changes the interference in the NI. This is a change backwards in time for qm, and the experimenters acknowledge this.

    B. In their summary, they call into question whether the particle and the wave packets are the same thing, on page 41:

    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.



    That is an earthquake in qm. If the particles are not the wave packets, the whole foundation of qm is in doubt. We have a situation where the particles (neutrons) change into wave packets, traverse the NI and analyzer crystal, and then turn back into particles again at the detector. What controls the change from particles to wave packets and back again? What is the "collapse" of the wave function?

    Even if you accept wave packets, the backwards in time claim is about the wave packets themselves.

    There is another weirdness in qm that I have not discussed yet. When a wave packet reaches the NI, it splits into two pieces. Let's call the pieces Alice and Bob. Alice and Bob recombine later, and that causes the interference. Alice is slowed down by some bismuth, and the experimenters claim that if we slow Alice down enough then Alice "misses" Bob later and they don't interfere, so that is why the interference pattern disappears. The analyzer crystal increases the coherence length of both Alice and Bob (backwards in time) so that they do overlap once more and the interference pattern returns. On page 34, they write:

    In terms of wave packets, we say the analyzer increases the coherence length delta x by narrowing the momentum spread delta p.
    Think about that. Without an analyzer crystal, the coherence length is too short, so Alice misses Bob and there is no interference. We should get the detector getting two half neutrons arriving. We never get that - we only detect full sized neutrons. Why? That is another qm weirdness. It also calls into question the whole foundations of qm.

    This is why the neutron experiment is so important. The qm explanation has huge problems. TEW explains them easily - the wave goes in the opposite direction, which means from the analyzer crystal to the NI - so there is an obviious reason why the crystal affects the NI. With such a clear explanation, the conclusion is tha TEW has the right wave direction.

    Eugene Morrow
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    1. There is no backwards in time causality in this experiment.
    Correct.

    2. There is no weirdness in the qm explanation.
    Also correct.

    Firstly, the experimenters explicitly state that there is backwards in time causality on page 41 (italics in the original) :
    No, he does not explicitely state that at all. What he says is only that (quote) "we determine the coherence length after the interference has taken place". It is you yourself who is implying that this is due to retro-causality, not the author of the paper.

    If they say there is backwards in time causality, then qm is claiming this
    They don't, it is only you who is claiming this.

    For this reason, I am guessing this is close to the de-Broglie-Bohm interpretation of qm.
    Feynman path integral formulation, to be precise.

    I find this weird,because how does the detector know what all the possibilities and probabilities are?
    The detector does not "know" anything. The idea is that the measurable outcome at the detector ( or rather : its probability amplitude ) is correlated to all the possible paths the quantum system can take. This correlation does not imply retro-causality. That is the point here.

    Whatever is your position, this experiment is still a big problem for qm.
    Well, maybe for you it is, but not for QM. Like I already explained several times now, there is a backwards correlation between the outcome at the detector, and all possible paths of the system "in-between", but such correlation does not imply retro-causality. Therefore there is no problem.

    In their summary, they call into question whether the particle and the wave packets are the same thing, on page 41:
    No they don't, I think you are still not understanding their ( and my ) line of thought. The crucial sentence in the quote you had given is this one ( and I had pointed that out already in my previous post ) :

    "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. "

    What this means is that what happens at both source and detector is well defined and measureable, but what is going on between the two is merely a superposition of probabilities. And all these possible "in-between" paths are correlated to both source and detector, that's why there is no retro-causality.

    That is an earthquake in qm. If the particles are not the wave packets, the whole foundation of qm is in doubt. We have a situation where the particles (neutrons) change into wave packets, traverse the NI and analyzer crystal, and then turn back into particles again at the detector. What controls the change from particles to wave packets and back again? What is the "collapse" of the wave function?
    Once again, what happens between the source and the detector is not determined in a classical way, it is only a superposition of possible paths. The wave function collapse is merely the act of measurement at the detector. And also - quantum objects exhibit both particle and wave characteristics, but at the same time they are neither. I think you are still stuck in the classical way of thinking that these objects can only be either one or the other, but that is wrong.

    We should get the detector getting two half neutrons arriving.
    Ok, I really don't know how you get from "no interference pattern" to "two half neutrons arriving". Totally beyond me

    This is why the neutron experiment is so important. The qm explanation has huge problems. TEW explains them easily - the wave goes in the opposite direction, which means from the analyzer crystal to the NI - so there is an obviious reason why the crystal affects the NI. With such a clear explanation, the conclusion is tha TEW has the right wave direction.
    In my understanding there are no issues whatsoever with this ( or any other ) QM experiment, so long as we keep in mind that backwards correlation does not imply retro-causality, and the fact that we cannot tell in a classical way what happens between source and detector, except via a superposition of all possible probability paths.
    My impression is that you are missing some of the key points in quantum physics; if you try to understand what I have attempted to explain, then you will see that in actual fact there are no paradoxes in this experiment.

    The other thing is that you are re-interpreting the author's statements in your own fashion; the author's aren't saying that neutrons are not particles, and they aren't saying that neutrons are not waves. What they are saying is that (quote) "the physical connection between the neutron particle and the wave packet remains hidden", which is what I am trying to explain. We cannot tell what happens "in-between" except via probability amplitudes.
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Just a sidenote on the maths.

    The evolution of the system is described by a Feynman propagator of the form



    wherein S[q] is an action integral of the system, in a set of generalized coordinates q. The initial state at the source is thus connected to the final state at the detector via the sum of the probabilities of all possible paths between the two, like so :



    In essence, the Feynman propagator P contains all physically relevant information that take the system from state <0> to state <1>. Actually evaluating this functional integral for a specific QM system is a whole different kettle of fish, and not at all a trivial task, but it is possible, though not necessarily in a closed analytical form.

    Not sure if this is within your grasp or not, but I thought I post it here for completeness, because the general form of this path integral demonstrates the concept quite beautifully, even if you don't understand all the intricate details of the maths involved.

    Once again, we know all mesureable details of the start and end states <0> and <1>, but the way the system is taken from one state to the other is described as a sum of the probabilities of all possible paths the system can take ( that's the meaning of the integral in the second expression ). We do not know which paths has been selected ( or even the physical details of that paths ) until a measurement of the end state is performed at the detector, which collapses the wave function. What we do know though is that the paths actually taken can only be one that is physically allowed by the Feynman propagator function P - that specifically excludes things like "half neutrons" as you were mentioning before. The probability of such paths is exactly zero, thus they are never detected upon collapse of the wave function.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; March 27th, 2012 at 03:53 AM.
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30
    Markus,

    Your defense of quantum mechanics (qm) is very standard, and shows up the problems qm has always had.

    The basic problem is that qm assumes the wave travels in the same direction as the particles (left to right in this experiment). This means qm cannot explain how the analyzer crystal affects the Neutron Interferometer (NI) in a right to left direction. The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) assumes the wave goes in the opposite direction to the particle. TEW hence explains why the analyzer crystal affects the NI - the quantum wave is traveling between them.

    The error in the qm wave direction has resulted in the famous "quantum weirdness". There are multiple "interpretations" of the same experiments, and believers can simply choose the interpretation that feels most comfortable. No other part of physics is like this - we don't "interpret" why an aircraft engine works - there is only one interpretation. In qm, the interpretations include multiple universes, which is the second most popular interpretation after the Copenhagen interpretation.

    The maths of qm still works, because of reciprocity. A radio antenna works equally well as a receiver and as a transmitter of radio waves - the waves work equally well going in or out. This applies to the wave maths for qm - the equations work equally well if the wave is in the opposite direction (for TEW). So TEW and qm share the same mathematics and successful predictions.

    So qm has a combination of great maths and weird explanations. What does qm do when someone challenges the weirdness?

    Here's the qm strategy:

    1. Claim it's only the maths that counts, and not reality. This is expressed in a popular interpretation called 'Shut up and calculate'. It means forget about explaining anything - just do the maths. While qm had a monopoly on the predictions, this stopped people complaining about the explanations of reality. Now that there is a rival theory with the same mathematical success, this won't work so easily.

    2. Claim that qm has "proved" that a local and deterministic explanation is impossible. Unfortunately, all qm "proofs" are founded on the assumption about wave direction, which we can see is incorrect in this experiment. The "proof" is hence invalid. TEW provides local and deterministic explanations, starting with this experiment. TEW can do that because the wave direction is correct - that's all that was needed to remove the quantum weirdness.

    3. Deny contradictions by denying reality. This means concentrating on measurements taken, and denying that anything else is real or needs to be discussed. In general, qm likes to avoid talking about reality whenever it gets tricky.

    4. Accuse critics of thinking is a "classical" way. This is a way of accusing the critics of not understanding, when the qm explanation may make no sense anyway.

    By using all these strategic, qm has avoided the issue of the quantum weirdness and spent no time trying to fix the weirdness. I believe that qm supporters actually like the weirdness - it makes physics rather "magical".

    In this experiment, the defense of qm has most of the above strategies, which I list by the above numbers:

    1. The experimenters give plenty of maths in their paper, but offer none of it as an explanatiion of why the analyzer crystal affects the NI. They know that the maths doesn't help here.

    You give the equations for the Feynman propagator. Actually Feynman diagrams are fully accepted by TEW: the elementary waves travel in the opposite directions to the particles shown. Some maths of the probabilities simply describes the results - it doesn't pin down the wave direction. The maths does not describe how or why the analyzer crystal affects the NI.

    3. To start with, the experimenters clearly state an effect happening before the cause;

    The thing to keep in mind is that we determine the coherence length after the interference has taken place, far downstream from the interferometer.
    It doesn't matter whether you call it a backwards in time effect or retro-causality - it's the same thing. The coherence length is calculated in Table VIII and the clear cause is changes in the analyzer crystal, yet the coherence length changes before the waves packets reach the crystal. In the above quote, the experimenters are being unusually honest - they are admitting to a problem they cannot explain.

    Your response to this reality is to say:

    It is you yourself who is implying that this is due to retro-causality, not the author of the paper.
    The author of the paper was very clear - it is retro-causality. You are trying to deny reality here (but not the experimenters).

    You made another statement:

    quantum objects exhibit both particle and wave characteristics, but at the same time they are neither.
    This is a standard qm line: trying to have things both ways. The wave packets were proposed by qm to explain the wave behavior of particles. The particle and the wave travel together and that's why we call them "wave packets". The above statement is trying to put up a smokescreen to stop criticism that the wave packet model.

    Wave packets are real for qm - the experimenters spend a lot of the paper talking about them and even give equations for them. It is the wave packets that change coherence length in response to a new analyzer crystal - this is a reality that qm must explain.

    You also claim this;

    Ok, I really don't know how you get from "no interference pattern" to "two half neutrons arriving". Totally beyond me
    It's very simple. The NI takes one neutron wave packet and splits it into two pieces, which we can call Alice and Bob. Alice is delayed, Later they combine Alice and Bob to create interference. If Alice is delayed enough, then there is no interference. Think about that - Bob is in front of Alice and they don't come back together again and interfere. We have two "half packets" leaving the NI. These should get to the detector, which should register two "hafl packets" arriving - two "hafl neutrons". This never happens. This undermines the whole qm model of "wave packets". The claim on one hand that no interference means Alice and Bob don't overlap, but forget that the detector only shows full sized neutrons - Bob and Alice back together. Not seeing that contradiction is qm avoiding reality again.


    4. The experimenters use thie "classical thinking" accusation against their own tools when they say:

    . 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.
    This is the experimenters blaming their tools for not being able to say why the analyzer crystal affects the NI ! What is extrodinary is that the trust the same tools to describe the interference patters, which they claim are successfully explained. So the tools work for interference patterns, but not for the coherence length.


    To me, the defense of qm in the paper on the neutron experiment, and your support for qm shows the failure of qm to explain reality, even though the maths gives good predictions. What you need to remember is that the change to TEW is a very simply one - just consider the opposite wave direction. We keep all the successful predictions, and finally have explanatiions that make sense of what is going on in the equipment.

    Eugene Morrow























    Your interpretation - the Feynman propagator is also an example of this - modelling reality of probability. Both qm and TEW can describe results as probabilities - that's just statistics. Maths does not give a description of reality.
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post
    This applies to the wave maths for qm - the equations work equally well if the wave is in the opposite direction (for TEW). So TEW and qm share the same mathematics and successful predictions.
    This has not actually been shown. To show that all the same maths is reproduced in your theory would be quite the undertaking, there is a lot of results to reproduce. I sincerely doubt that it is possible, because the mathematical systems are actually very fragile with respect to the main postulates.
     

  33. #32  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post
    The basic problem is that qm assumes the wave travels in the same direction as the particles (left to right in this experiment). .
    No, the basic problem is that you do not appear to understand that in QM the "Wave Picture" and the "Particle Picture" aren't separate; they are just two aspects of the very same quantum object. That is why it is called "Wave-Particle Duality".

    This means qm cannot explain how the analyzer crystal affects the Neutron Interferometer (NI) in a right to left direction.
    There is no cause-and-effect relationship from the crystal back to the NI. That's the whole point. There is only a direct correlation between what is measured at the detector ( the point of wave function collapse ), and the path that the system as a whole must therefore have taken. We do not know what happens at the NI or the crystal, until a measurement is performed.

    The error in the qm wave direction has resulted in the famous "quantum weirdness".
    There is no such thing as "quantum weirdness"; this is something that you allege is there, but in fact it isn't.

    There are multiple "interpretations" of the same experiments, and believers can simply choose the interpretation that feels most comfortable. No other part of physics is like this - we don't "interpret" why an aircraft engine works - there is only one interpretation.
    Experimenters choose the interpretations that most closely match and explain experimental observations. It has nothing to do with being comfortable. The fact that there is more than one possible interpretation is because the QM world does not follow the exact same rules as the classical macro-world. Again, this has already been explained in detail.


    The maths of qm still works, because of reciprocity. A radio antenna works equally well as a receiver and as a transmitter of radio waves - the waves work equally well going in or out. This applies to the wave maths for qm - the equations work equally well if the wave is in the opposite direction (for TEW). So TEW and qm share the same mathematics and successful predictions.
    My problem with this is that you haven't showed me the maths. Can you prove to us mathematically that all QM wave equations are time symmetric ? I have a big question mark specifically over the Dirac equation and Gordon-Klein equation; I don't think that advance potentials are compatible with these equations, though I haven't had a chance yet to try the maths. At the end of the day though that is your job anyway, not mine.

    1. Claim it's only the maths that counts, and not reality. This is expressed in a popular interpretation called 'Shut up and calculate'. It means forget about explaining anything - just do the maths. While qm had a monopoly on the predictions, this stopped people complaining about the explanations of reality. Now that there is a rival theory with the same mathematical success, this won't work so easily.

    2. Claim that qm has "proved" that a local and deterministic explanation is impossible. Unfortunately, all qm "proofs" are founded on the assumption about wave direction, which we can see is incorrect in this experiment. The "proof" is hence invalid. TEW provides local and deterministic explanations, starting with this experiment. TEW can do that because the wave direction is correct - that's all that was needed to remove the quantum weirdness.

    3. Deny contradictions by denying reality. This means concentrating on measurements taken, and denying that anything else is real or needs to be discussed. In general, qm likes to avoid talking about reality whenever it gets tricky.

    4. Accuse critics of thinking is a "classical" way. This is a way of accusing the critics of not understanding, when the qm explanation may make no sense anyway.
    Sorry, but publishing this on a Science Forum makes you look like just another one of the MANY crackpots we get here. I have no need to respond to this, I will stick to the science instead.

    Some maths of the probabilities simply describes the results - it doesn't pin down the wave direction. The maths does not describe how or why the analyzer crystal affects the NI.
    That is because the wave direction does not matter. You can swap around the start and end points of the path integral, and the paths themselves remain unaffected. That is what is meant by "this very correlation between distant measurements does not feel their relative time ordering:it does not distinguish between future and past." which we encountered in post 24. Note the term "correlation" - we do not say "causality". Because we are only considering correlations, and the time ordering doesn't matter, your so-called "quantum weirdness", which I take to mean retro-causality, never arises in the first place.

    The author of the paper was very clear - it is retro-causality.
    The authors do not explain this by retro-causality, or "backwards in time" effects or anything like it. That is merely your interpretation. If you deny this, perhaps you can reference the exact place in the paper where the authors say that the outcome of this experiment can only be explained by retro-causality. What they do say in fact is this ( and this was already pointed out to you ) :

    "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"

    This does not imply retro-causality, except maybe in your own personal interpretation.
    Remember that in QM any retro-causality is explicitely ruled out by the Eberhard Theorem. Anyone claiming that the outcome of a QM experiment is due to retro-causality is thus not a proponent of established QM.

    This is a standard qm line: trying to have things both ways.
    Yes, because this is foundation of QM, this is how QM works. It is a petty that you either fail to understand it, or are not prepared to accept it. But again, that would be your own personal choice.

    Wave packets are real for qm
    No one ever denied that. However, QM objects have both wave and particle properties.

    This is the experimenters blaming their tools for not being able to say why the analyzer crystal affects the NI !
    No, this is the experimenters correctly explaining the outcome of the experiment in terms of basic quantum mechanical principles. Again, it is not the authors' fault that you do not understand ( or fail to accept ) those principles.

    To me, the defense of qm in the paper on the neutron experiment, and your support for qm shows the failure of qm to explain reality,
    All I see is an experiment the outcome of which is in perfect agreement with well understood QM principles.
    My impression is ( and I have to be honest here ) that you are trying very hard to introduce problems and paradoxes in this experiment, which are not actually there. My guess would be that's because you simply don't like QM, or you cannot accept that QM works differently than classical physics. You are entitled to your own opinions of course, but you won't be able to convince anyone with even a basic understanding of QM that backwards travelling waves and then forward travelling particles which do not obey the HUP are required to explain this experiment. They aren't. QM explains everything that goes on here perfectly, without the need for retro-causality. You just have to make the effort and understand the principles standing behind it.

    Your defense of quantum mechanics (qm) is very standard, and shows up the problems qm has always had.
    I assume you are referring to the problems which you are interpreting into it; for me, there are no problems.
    Furthermore, I do not need to defend anything, the success of QM in predicting and explaining experimental results in the microscopic domain is self-evident. All I am trying to do is explain the principles in reponse to your misunderstandings on the subject.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; March 28th, 2012 at 05:46 AM.
     

  34. #33  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Just as an addendum - I showed the maths only to demonstrate how the principles I explained fit into the underlying formulation of the theory. If you do not understand it or care about it, then please just ignore post 29.
     

  35. #34  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Let me try and explain it again in a condensed form :

    In any quantum mechanical experiment, we know precisely what happens at the source (emitter) and at the detector. The "in-between" bit can be described only in terms of probability amplitudes. The system as a whole ( the total wave function ) is the sum/superposition of the probability amplitudes of all possible paths; each possible path is correlated with a specific measured outcome at the detector. Once a measurement is made at the detector, wave function collapse takes place and a path is selected. This happens due to the backwards correlation between the detector measurement and the possible paths the system can take. Backwards correlation does not imply backwards causality, hence there is no paradox or weirdness. In fact, one can argue that because a specific outcome at the detector is correlated to a specific path taken by the system, forward causality is always preserved. This is in essence what the Eberhard Theorem describes.

    And that is all there really is to it. One does not need to evoke any backwards travelling waves to explain this experiment, since everything is in perfect accordance with the basic, well established principles of quantum mechanics.
     

  36. #35  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post
    There are multiple "interpretations" of the same experiments, and believers can simply choose the interpretation that feels most comfortable. No other part of physics is like this - we don't "interpret" why an aircraft engine works - there is only one interpretation.
    In fact, many parts of physics (and even engineering) are like this.

    You can use the underlying theory of general relativity to come up with different interpretations of cosmology; the most well-known (because it is the most useful) is the "expanding universe" - other interpretations are available.

    You can consider the flow of current in a semiconductor as due to the movement of positively-charged holes or the movement of negatively-charged electrons in the opposite direction.

    You can interpret the relativistic effects on a moving object as an increase in "relativistic mass" or, more usefully, not.

    And so on.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30
    The Observer,

    The reason the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) uses exactly the same mathematics as quantum mechanics (qm) is reciprocity. It has two parts.

    The first part is the principle of reciprocity. As I said in my original post, a radio antenna is equally good as a transmitter and receive of radio waves. The waves work equally well going in or out.

    The second part is the reciprocity theorem which goes a step further. Think of waves between two points A and B. One statement of the reciprocity theorem says that the intensity of a wave going from A to B is exactly the same as the same wave going from B to A no matter what objects are between A and B.

    How does that apply? Think of the double slit experiment. In qm, the waves go from the source of particles through the slits to points on the screen. In TEW, waves go from each point on the screen through the slits to the source. The reciprocity theorem says that the intensity from A to B is the same as the intensity form B to A. That is why TEW uses the same mathematics as qm - reciprocity means the wave mathematics works exactly the same in the reverse direction.

    Notice that this is not a time reversal. This is only a direction reversal. Time still flows as normal. (Markus - this is my answer to your issues about time symmetry.)

    Reciprocity is already a fact in physics and is accepted by all sides of this debate. I think qm has never considered the other wave direction, so reciprocity was never considered either.

    Markus,

    You are I disagree on so much, we need to discuss to heart of where we disagree. To me, the central issue is wave direction.

    There is an assumption in qm about the wave direction - that the wave travels in the same direction as the particle. Think of the qm claim of wave-particle duality: as soon as you say the particle is also a wave you are implying that the wave travels in the same direction as the particle. It's an unconscious assumption by qm - one that needs to be brought out so we can discuss it.

    TEW has an assumption too - that the wave is in the opposite direction. The central difference between qm and TEW is the wave direction.

    In post 32, you said:

    That is because the wave direction does not matter.
    The wave direction does not matter to the maths - see my reply to The Observer just above. I point out that is makes a huge difference to the explanation of reality. In this neutron experiment, the TEW wave direction explains why the analyzer crystal affects the Neutron Interferometer (NI), whereas the qm wave direction gives no explanation of that effect.

    You keep talking about how what is measured at the detector is only a matter of calculating probabilities. How can you calculate probabilities, or even consider probabilities, if you don't know the reason one piece of apparatus affects another piece of apparatus? Finding a reason why the analyzer crystal affects the NI is fundamentally important - even to a probability picture of qm.


    Strange,

    Yes, there can be minor differences in model in electrical effects. I had forgotten that cosmology is as creative as quantum mechanics (qm) - partly because quantum issues affect cosmology, and partly because there is so much that is unknown.

    I still claim that qm is in a class of it's own when it comes to interpretations - multiple universes, effects backwards in time, particles in two places at once, the conscious knowledge of the experimenter changing results, quantum logic and many more. These interpretations could not be more different. It is in stark contrast to the rest of laboratory physics.

    Of course, the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) claims that the interpretations of qm all arise from the assumption about wave direction. When you consider the TEW wave direction, there is only one interpretation, and everything is local and deterministic. To me, that is a big hint that TEW has go it right.

    Eugene Morrow
     

  38. #37  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post
    Notice that this is not a time reversal. This is only a direction reversal. Time still flows as normal. (Markus - this is my answer to your issues about time symmetry.)
    Did you not say before that under TEW a wave travels backwards from the crystal to the NI, so that than a particle can be emitted from the NI again in the opposite direction ? So in other words, in your model, a backward wave is generated at the detector before the measurement is made, right ?

    There is an assumption in qm about the wave direction - that the wave travels in the same direction as the particle.
    In QM, wave and particle are just two aspects of the same object. They are not distinct entities, they cannot travel in different directions, just like the front and rear wheels of a car cannot travel in different directions. Therefore this alleged "assumption" is really meaningless. I think this is the heart of your misunderstanding - there are not particles and waves in QM, there are only particle-waves / wave-particles. They aren't distinct objects.

    the analyzer crystal affects the Neutron Interferometer (NI)
    Not exactly - they are correlated, both to each other and to the detector, but not backwards causally connected. That's the central point here.

    You keep talking about how what is measured at the detector is only a matter of calculating probabilities.
    You are still not getting it. What I am talking about is that what happens at the source and the detector is well defined (=measured), but what happens in between the two is a matter of probabilities. I believe I have made this very clear in my summary in post 34, and so have the authors of the paper in their last sentence, when they say that the physical connection remains hidden.

    How can you calculate probabilities, or even consider probabilities, if you don't know the reason one piece of apparatus affects another piece of apparatus?
    I have explained that several times now. The total probability wave function at the detector is the sum of all possible paths the system can take. Of course you don't know how crystal and NI are correlated until you make a measurement of the system. Only at that point the wave function collapses, and a specific path is selected for the system. Until then, all possible paths are equally probable, and equally physically real. This is much like Schroedinger's Cat - the cat is equally likely to be dead and alive until a measurement is made by opening the box. Does the opening of the box cause the death or lack thereof of the cat ? No, it simply collapses the wave function and selects which path the system has taken. There is no retro-causality, only a correlation to the paths the system can physically take; when we observe the outcome by opening the box, we automatically know what must have happened within the system, but the observation does not cause the outcome, it only selects it from within all possible outcomes. That's wave function collapse.

    I still claim that qm is in a class of it's own when it comes to interpretations
    Guess what ? I completely agree And that's the fun of QM...

    effects backwards in time
    How many times...? There are no backward-in-time effects in QM.

    and everything is local and deterministic. To me, that is a big hint that TEW has go it right.
    You seem to be working off the tacit assumption that everything in the universe must be local and deterministic. I disagree. There is no such requirement. Only because something is counter-intuitive to us humans does not make it any less true. Or put it this way - if you were an electron, the world of QM would make perfect sense to you, and our macro-world would seem exceedingly strange. So what ? It is just a matter of perspective. Both view points are equally valid, and they don't negate each other. To me, QM's basic principles ( if not the nitty gritty details of the maths ) make perfect sense so long as you let go of the misconception that QM objects can be visualized in classical terms. They can't, and they don't need to be.
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30
    Markus,

    At last we are finding a few places where we agree in our debate on quantum mechanics (qm) and the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).

    First agreement, is your comment about me:
    You seem to be working off the tacit assumption that everything in the universe must be local and deterministic.
    Absolutely true. I have never accepted the non-locality of qm, and all the other quantum weirdness.

    I also believe that the non-locality and quantum weirdness are believed simply because there was no alternative to qm for so long. The great predictions seemed to force people to believe whatever qm said.

    Now there is a rival theory - TEW - that has the same mathematics and predictions while being local and deterministic. That's why I called this thread "Keep the good bit of quantum mechanics". We keep all the great predictions and lose the quantum weirdness. Sounds a good deal to me. I think most people haven't heard of TEW or find it hard to believe something could be that good. I think it's only a matter of time before TEW is recognized as replacing qm. I believe all of physics is local and deterministic: TEW provides that, and also unites the quantum world with Special Relativity. Hopefully before long the unity will include General Relativity, this fixing the big split in physics.

    The second agreement is about the different assumptions for qm and TEW. You said:

    In QM, wave and particle are just two aspects of the same object. They are not distinct entities, they cannot travel in different directions, just like the front and rear wheels of a car cannot travel in different directions.
    I agree - qm has the wave going in the same direction as the particle. As soon as you say "wave particle duality" the assumption is there.

    It's not as if the founding fathers of qm sat down and said "let's make an assumption". It was an unconscious assumption, and has stayed in qm ever since, unchallenged.

    Assumptions are fine - TEW assumes the opposite wave direction. So we have two assumptions to compare.

    You and I disagree on almost everything after that. To me, the assumption on wave direction accounts for why we see the rest so differently.

    The experimenters say:

    The thing to keep in mind is that we determine the coherence length after the interference has taken place, far downstream from the interferometer.
    The word "after" gives it away - this is retro-causality. To me the problem is easy to understand. For qm, everything goes left to right, so there is no way the effect could happen right to left. Hence qm cannot say how or why this happens. For TEW the wave goes right to left, so there is a clear reason the effect happens right to left. The different assumptions on wave direction have exposed here - and TEW has the correct wave direction.

    Your defense of qm is all about trying to avoid the issues raised by the experimenters. You deny the quote means retro-causality between the analyzer crystal and the Neutron Interferometer (NI). You say:

    Of course you don't know how crystal and NI are correlated until you make a measurement of the system. Only at that point the wave function collapses, and a specific path is selected for the system.
    You haven't said anything. Of course the measurements are what tell us the result of the experiment.

    The experimenters (who believe in qm) admit the measurements are clear: a new analyzer crystal changes the coherence length and the interference patterns. Why? They can't find a reason, and admit this (in a roundabout way).

    You just say it's a matter of probabilities and wave function collapse. That's not enough of an explanation - you could that for any result of any experiment.

    To defend qm, you need to give a clear reason why the analyzer crystal changes this particular experiment. The longer qm cannot give this reason, the more it is clear TEW is a better theory.

    Eugene Morrow
     

  40. #39  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post
    Absolutely true. I have never accepted the non-locality of qm, and all the other quantum weirdness.
    That is absolutely fine, everyone is entitled to form his/her own beliefs. You must realize, however, that myself and mainstream physics do not share your beliefs. Also, and that might then be hard for you to accept, I do not perceive non-locality to be "weird" in any way - in fact, its logical explanation is the same as in your NI experiment. Two entangled particles, even over large distances, remain correlated from the point of first entanglement to the point of detection. Once again, it is the distinction between correlation and causation that is the key to understanding this phenomenon, and indeed all of QM. There is nothing weird about it at all.

    I also believe that the non-locality and quantum weirdness are believed simply because there was no alternative to qm for so long.
    Again, there is nothing weird about QM, thus there is no need for any alternatives. It is just that QM works off different principles than classical physics does, but that is perfectly fine.

    The word "after" gives it away - this is retro-causality.
    No, it isn't. Of course the coherence length is determined after the fact, because that is where the measurement takes place. The outcome is, however, not due to retro-causality, and at no point do the authors say that it is. That was merely your interpretation of it. The explanation is, as explained, a result of correlation effects.

    Your defense of qm is all about trying to avoid the issues raised by the experimenters.
    Absolutely not. Both the authors and myself have given clear explanations about what happens. The issue is rather that you do not wish to acknowledge those explanations as viable.

    You deny the quote means retro-causality
    Yes, I absolutely do. The explanation is correlation, not retro-causality.

    You haven't said anything.
    Yes, I have said everything that needs to be said to explain the whole of this experiment, and its outcomes.

    Why? They can't find a reason, and admit this (in a roundabout way).
    Wrong, they explain clearly that the physical connection between source and detector ( or between NI and crystal ) remains hidden. It is not knowable, except in terms of probabilities, and until measurement takes place. That is the very foundation of QM. The reason is ( once again ) correlation.

    You just say it's a matter of probabilities and wave function collapse. That's not enough of an explanation - you could that for any result of any experiment.
    You mean that's not enough for you. For me it is, and so it is for all of the rest of mainstream science. It all makes perfect sense so long as you let go of classical notions of waves, particles and causation. QM just doesn't work that way.
    And yes, of course you can do that for any QM experiment, because, as said above, these are the foundation of the quantum world, so every QM setup will adhere to these principles.

    To defend qm, you need to give a clear reason why the analyzer crystal changes this particular experiment.
    Eugene, with all due respect - I have given the reason now on numerous occasions in the last 30 posts. Why do you not acknowledge that ? It is due to correlation between the measured outcome at the detector, and the probabilities of all possible paths of the system. And correlation does not imply causation, which is a very basic principle, not only in QM but also in formal logic.
     

  41. #40  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Eugene, instead of me having to repeat myself over and over again with the same explanations about correlation and causation, I would like to ask you now to give the wave equation for your "backwards" traveling wave, so that we can determine better what actually goes on in your model. I shall be happy to check then whether the solutions to your equation are actually compatible with the rest of quantum mechanics, specifically the Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations.

    Also, you should perhaps have a read here - this explains why backwards correlation does not imply retro-causality, which is really the core of your misunderstandings about QM :

    Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30
    Markus,

    I am going away for the weekend. Will return to this debate again on Monday.

    Eugene Morrow
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    England
    Posts
    187
    Although I don't believe in fundamental waves. I can see where Markus is missing Eugene's point. It is the linking of wave/ particle duality. They needn't be linked for the results of a Quantum Experiment to have them interfere with one another. Like Eugene says, they can travel in different directions. They can be two different entities. Markus is just repeating wave / particle duality as a set of words used by Quantum Physics. There is nothing to prove that the Photon is the wave. In my theory it isn't the wave either, but my theory is not about fundamental waves. So I can see Eugene's point, but I can't agree with fundamental waves.

    Just as a side note: In my theory spacetime is the wave, and the photon is the particle. Not important.
     

  44. #43  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton View Post
    Although I don't believe in fundamental waves. I can see where Markus is missing Eugene's point. It is the linking of wave/ particle duality. They needn't be linked for the results of a Quantum Experiment to have them interfere with one another. Like Eugene says, they can travel in different directions. They can be two different entities. Markus is just repeating wave / particle duality as a set of words used by Quantum Physics. There is nothing to prove that the Photon is the wave. In my theory it isn't the wave either, but my theory is not about fundamental waves. So I can see Eugene's point, but I can't agree with fundamental waves.

    Just as a side note: In my theory spacetime is the wave, and the photon is the particle. Not important.
    I can see perfectly well Eugene's point about particles and waves being separate entities - it is just that I do not agree with that assertion. The fact remains that QM makes predictions which are experimentally very well verified, and since wave-particle duality is a fundamental building block of that model, one cannot just dispose of it and still expect the model to remain intact.
    Besides, there are practical applications and consequences of that duality, like for example neutron diffraction.
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    The wave travelling backwards makes no sense. That would mean that when I looked at a photon coming from a galaxy 8 billion light years away, then the wave of that photon left my eye 8 billion years ago!!

    And you complain that QM makes silly backwards in time claims.
     

  46. #45  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    The wave travelling backwards makes no sense. That would mean that when I looked at a photon coming from a galaxy 8 billion light years away, then the wave of that photon left my eye 8 billion years ago!!

    And you complain that QM makes silly backwards in time claims.
    I would tend to agree.
    What irks me most at the moment is that I cannot find an actual wave equation for these "elementary waves" in any of the online articles about this topic. Actually, come to think of it, there is very little maths at all, even in Little's original publication, just a lot of assertion with little or no proof.
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30
    Pincho Paxton,

    Thanks for joining the debate. Always useful to add another viewpoint.


    Markus,

    The wave equation for the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) is the same as for quantum mechanics (qm) - the Schrodinger wave equation. The difference between TEW and qm is the direction of wave. Thanks to reciprocity, the wave in the opposite direction does the same job - we get the same predictions for qm and TEW. So all the experiments that appear to "prove" qm also "prove" TEW.

    The only way to separte the two theories is with an experiment where there is a clear choice between qm and TEW. That's why I have made the neutron experiment such a focus - it does have starkly different explanations between the two theories. For qm, the key effect happens backwards in time, and for TEW it happens in normal time. This is clear evidence that the TEW wave direction is correct.

    You have mentioned many times that results simply have to be "correlated", rather than any discussion of causality. You have only delayed the question: how does qm explain why a different analyzer crystal is "correlated" to a different coherence length in the neutron interferometer?


    The Observer,

    Great question, and Lewis Little answers this in the book on TEW.

    Let's start with a simple example. You are taking a photograph of the sun. Elementary waves travel from the camera to the sun, and photons travel backwards towards the camera. One particular photon starts it's eight minute journey to the camera. During that eight minutes you decide that you've done enough photographs, and put the lens cap on the camera. So the photon that was following the elementary wave from the camera is now following a different elementary wave from the lens cap, and that's where it arrives.

    This is the concept that the elementary wave that a particle is following may change while the particle is "in flight". For TEW, that's no problem - the particle simply follows the new elementary waves that replace the previous ones.

    This applies to photons coming from 8 billion light years away. Think of the elementary waves as "traffic cops" that organize the incoming photons. The incoming photons are a sort of random "source" of photons that will still follow elementary waves directed at them. So we can still see light from galaxies billions of light years away. We are sort of "grabbing" photons that were heading our way anyway.


    Eugene Morrow
     

  48. #47  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    That's pure hogwash. The photon continues it's merry way until it hits the lenscap, and deposits it's energy there instead of on the detector, where it can be electronically registered. Instead, it goes to heat the lens cap a minescule amout.
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30
    MeteorWayne,

    Which bit are you calling hogwash? I was explaining how the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) accounts for an interference pattern in light coming from 8 billions light years away. It's consistent with the rest of TEW.

    Eugene Morrow
     

  50. #49  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post
    The wave equation for the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) is the same as for quantum mechanics (qm) - the Schrodinger wave equation.
    Time dependent or time independent ? How many dimensions ? What Hamiltonian do you use to express your elementary waves ?
    You need to be more specific than this, there are many different forms of this equation. Regardless of which form you use, I can already tell you though that the bit about relativity in your TEW is pure nonsense, because the Schroedinger Equation is not Lorentz invariant.

    The difference between TEW and qm is the direction of wave
    Generally speaking ( again, I await your details of which form of the SE you propose to use ) the solutions are superpositions of plane waves, like so :



    So how do you turn these around into a "backwards" direction ? Please show us how exactly this is done in terms of maths, since Mr Little unfortunately failed to do so in his original paper. I will then check if the resulting waves are still solutions to the SE.

    Thanks to reciprocity, the wave in the opposite direction does the same job
    We will check this right here on this thread once I receive your answer to the previous question above.

    For qm, the key effect happens backwards in time
    For the thousand-th time, no it does not.

    how does qm explain why a different analyzer crystal is "correlated" to a different coherence length in the neutron interferometer?
    Again for the thousand-th time : because all possible paths through both crystal and NI and equally probable. The system as a whole is the superposition of all possible outcomes, and the measurement at the detector simply selects a specific one. Thus causality is always preserved.
    How else am I going to explain it to you ? Your thinking is still stuck in trying to visualize this in a classical way, but this is no longer possible when dealing with quantum systems. My problem is that you refuse to even consider the possibility that QM is not classical.

    Elementary waves travel from the camera to the sun, and photons travel backwards towards the camera.
    So this of course means that the elementary waves travel from the camera towards the sun before the photon is received at the camera, right ? This is the third time now I am asking this question, and you have yet to answer it.
    Also, according to your earlier statements, the photons are then not subject to the uncertainty principle, right ?
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30
    Markus,

    The Schrodinger wave equation works in the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) exactly the same way as for quantum mechanics (qm). There is no time reversal. The only difference is the direction. Consider a particle going from A to B.

    For qm, the quantum wave (Schrodinger wave equation) goes from A to B. For TEW the same equation goes from B to A in normal time. Use any of the forms of the Schrodinger equation. Lorentz transformations are unaffected.

    You have not given a reason why the analyzer crystal is "correlated" to a change in coherence length in the Neutron Interferometer (NI). That is understandable - qm does not provide a reason. The TEW claim is that the wave direction in qm is wrong, which causes the problem in explaining this experiment.

    You have clearly shown the central part of your argument in this quote;

    Your thinking is still stuck in trying to visualize this in a classical way
    The only problem with this argument is that the experimenters (who believe in qm) try to visualize the wave packets changing coherence length, just like I do. The experimenters discuss how the wave packets split inside the NI and then recombine to produce interference. They discuss how the coherence length affects this. For example, on page 32 of the paper, they discuss the contrast of the interference pattern:

    If the two packets are displaced by a distance greater than the coherence length, then the contrast disappears.
    Does this quote mean the experimenters are also thinking in a classical way? If you accuse me, you are accusing the experimenter and qm as well.

    The experimenters spend most of the paper describing how they change things in the NI to investigate the changes in interference, and how the analyzer crystal changes the NI, even though the neutrons reach the analyzer crystal after they are in the NI. If the experimenters are concerned with this, then qm is concerned with this, and saying the measurements are "correlated" does not solve the riddle.

    The experimenters did the right thing - they describe the measurements and attempt to model what is happening to individual wave packets in the NI and the analyzer crystal. Something must be traveling between the analyzer crystal and the NI to account for the key effect. That something is elementary waves, and it shows that TEW has the correct wave direction.

    Eugene Morrow
     

  52. #51  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post
    The Schrodinger wave equation works in the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) exactly the same way as for quantum mechanics (qm). There is no time reversal. The only difference is the direction.
    It is all good and well to claim that it works in exactly the same way when you reverse directions. However, I would like to be formally shown that this is actually the case - so please show me the wave function of your backwards wave, so that I can check whether it is a solution to the SE or not.

    Another thing - you are aware that the SE does not actually describe physical wave packets, are you ? The solutions to the SE are probability amplitudes. They are used to describe the energy states or the evolution of quantum mechanical systems.

    Does this quote mean the experimenters are also thinking in a classical way?
    Not at all, because they state quite clearly that the physical connection between source and detector remains hidden, thus the system isn't classical.

    The experimenters spend most of the paper describing how they change things in the NI to investigate the changes in interference, and how the analyzer crystal changes the NI, even though the neutrons reach the analyzer crystal after they are in the NI. If the experimenters are concerned with this, then qm is concerned with this, and saying the measurements are "correlated" does not solve the riddle.
    The experimenters do not express any concern, again that is just your own interpretation. They perform the experiment, describe the results, and then give a clear explanation as to how the experiment can be explained. That explanation however is in quantum mechanical terms, and not a classical explanation. I do understand that is where your problem lies, because you do not consider QM to be correct. Therefore you reject the explanation, but that is not the experimenters' fault.

    Something must be traveling between the analyzer crystal and the NI to account for the key effect. That something is elementary waves, and it shows that TEW has the correct wave direction.
    Again, that is just your own interpretation. I do not agree, and neither do the experimenters. There is no such thing as elementary waves. Or, to be more precise, there is no need for such a thing as an elementary wave.

    You spent a lot of time questioning established QM, instead of showing us the facts of TEW. 50 Posts in, and I still have not seen any maths from you - just saying that the maths are the same as QM is not good enough, because clearly it can't be the same. There are no elementary waves in QM, only probability amplitudes. This thread has stagnated, unless you can

    1. give the exact form of Schroedinger's equation which you propose describes elementary waves, and
    2. show us the wave function of an elementary wave, and
    3. explain how an elementary wave can be physically real, yet carry no energy, or any physical dimension

    If the maths add up, then I will be more than happy to consider your model. Otherwise we really have nothing but a bunch of unsupported claims, statements, and misunderstandings.
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Thats also my biggest concern. Morrow, you keep claiming that you can reproduce all of the same mathematics, I don't accept this on your word, tiny little changes in your basic postulates will generally produce radically different results, I am sure that your theory is no exception.
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30
    Markus and The Observer,

    Everyone can go to the 1996 paper here: The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) by Dr Lewis E Little, 1996 Physics Essays

    In the middle of Section 3 "Outline of the Theory" Little is discussing how the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) differs from quantum mechanics (qm0. For qm, the wave travels in the same direction as the particle, so these are called "forward waves". For TEW, the wave is in the opposite direction, so these are called "reverse waves" which of course are elementary waves. At this point of the discussion, Little writes:

    We thus immediately have a theory that will account - locally and deterministically - for all single-particle experiments in which the apparatus through which the particle moves is static. (In dynamic systems the reverse waves will change before the particle arrives.) This includes the vast majority of quantum experiments.

    And this has been achieved with virtually no change to the mathematics and, in particular, with no additional variables, "hidden" or otherwise. The cross section for any process is determined by the reverse wave matrix elements, which are equal to the forward-wave matrix elements but for a possible phase factor. All that is necessary to make perfect sense out of the current mathematics is simply to reverse the direction of the waves.
    Later in the same section, Little writes about cavity emission experiments. Little concludes that the qm idea of an "available state" is a real reverse wave that physically exists. Little then writes about the mathematics and says:

    Mathematically, again, this is identical to the current theory. The matrix element for the emission is identical. All that we have done is to say that the exponential factor in the matrix element corresponding to the emitted photon wave (in current theory) is instead the available state, reverse wave which stimulates the emission. We have simply changed the physical interpretation of the same mathematical expression. But now the causality of the process makes sense. The "weirdness" has been eliminated, but with no change in mathematics.
    More mathematics of elementary waves is outlined in Sections 7, 8 and 9,which includes how TEW works with special relativity and Feynman diagrams. Of course, you have to read the whole paper to understand TEW.

    The most important part is reciprocity - as I've talked about before. The typical example is a radio antenna working equally well as a receiver as a transmitter of radio waves. The same maths works for the wave - only the direction of the wave changes. That's the same way TEW has the same maths and qm.

    What you two are missing is the choice that is now available. In qm, the discussion is mostly about maths, and discussions of causality and what is happening are downplayed, because of the interpretations available. Now there is a choice of TEW - where the maths is the same and discussions of causality and what is happening are the foundation. Instead of a theory based on maths we have a theory based on physically understanding the processes first. We keep the "good bit" of the maths and finally get a chance to talk about what is happening in reality.

    Markus, you keep denying that there is any "quantum weirdness". One of the interpretations of qm is the transactional interpretation which claims particles going backwards in time to link up causality. Whether you believe in this interpretation or not, qm claims all interpretations are equally valid, and this is part of qm. In fact, believers in the transactional interpretation would probably use this neutron experiment as proof that their interpretation is the best. The transactional interpretation is plain weird - there is no getting around it, no matter how many supporters it has. The Many Worlds interpretation (with multiple universes) is possibly more weird.

    TEW has only one interpretation - where cause and effect work in normal time, while keeping all the predictions. It's a huge step forward from the multiple interpretations of qm.

    Eugene Morrow
     

  55. #54  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    In the middle of Section 3 "Outline of the Theory" Little is discussing how the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) differs from quantum mechanics (qm0. For qm, the wave travels in the same direction as the particle, so these are called "forward waves". For TEW, the wave is in the opposite direction, so these are called "reverse waves" which of course are elementary waves.
    Little does not give any maths whatsoever in his paper for the wave function, or for the wave equation. Neither does he show that backwards waves actually are compatible with the normal QM equations. He only asserts that without formal proof, which is really useless.
    That is why I asked you to show us the maths.

    More mathematics of elementary waves is outlined in Sections 7, 8 and 9,which includes how TEW works with special relativity and Feynman diagrams. Of course, you have to read the whole paper to understand TEW.
    Once again, no maths are given for the wave equations, or indeed for the wave functions themselves. You came onto this board to represent TEW, so I am asking you again to show us the appropriate maths.

    What you two are missing is the choice that is now available.
    And what you seem to be missing is the fact that without the appropriate mathematical formulation TEW is not a workable model at all.

    One of the interpretations of qm is the transactional interpretation which claims particles going backwards in time to link up causality.
    Firstly, TI is not one of the universally accepted interpretations of QM. It is a model proposed by a Prof John Cramer, but there are major question marks over its physical viability. Moreover, his model makes specific predictions which could have been verified in a "Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser" experiment - these experiments were to date not successful, casting further doubt over TI.
    The only widely accepted interpretations of quantum mechanics thus far are the Copenhagen interpretation and the many worlds model.
    Btw, even TI did not claim particles going backwards in time.

    The transactional interpretation is plain weird - there is no getting around it, no matter how many supporters it has.
    That's why it's not widely accepted, see above.
     

  56. #55  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Eugene, I am asking you again for the following :

    1. Show us the wave equations which yield elementary waves as solutions
    2. Show us which version of the Schroedinger Equation you propose is compatible with elementary waves
    3. Give us the wave functions themselves so that I can check whether they are valid solutions of (2) above. I already know of course what the outcome here will be, but I give you the benefit of the doubt, if you can show us the proper maths.

    I would like to see just these three very basic elements of your theory which you so passionately advocate, plain maths, no excuses or further stalling. We'll take this discussion from there, then.
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30
    Markus,

    You are being very faithful to the quantum mechanics (qm) point of view, including the idea that maths solves everything.

    I've already shown how the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) uses the same maths as qm - the only difference is the wave direction, where TEW has the opposite wave direction to qm.

    The qm total reliance on maths is a huge weakness, because qm cannot explain the key effect of the neutron experiment. The maths cannot answer why the analyzer crystal changes the coherence length of the neutron wave packets in the Neutron Interferometer (NI). If you want to talk "correlations", then qm cannot explain why the analyzer crystal is correlated to the change in the coherence length. if you want to talk "probabilities" then qm cannot explain why the effect happens with a 100% probability.

    TEW can explain the experiment because elementary waves travel from the analyzer crystal to the NI. The experiment proves that TEW has the correct wave direction. Listing lots of equations cannot cover the failure of the qm wave direction.

    The implications of what the experimenters say are even more far reaching. The whole point of modeling particles like neutrons with wave packets is to explain why a particle has wave-like behavior. That is a foundation of qm - the idea of "wave particle duality'. Yet the experimenters realize that this is in doubt when they conclude:

    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.
    This quote shows:

    1. The experimenters (and qm) claim that the key effect happens backwards in time, because they use the words "after the fact".

    2. The experimenters imply the wave packets and the neutrons may be different things. TEW agrees - because TEW believes the waves travel in the opposite direction, so clearly the neutrons and the waves are different entities.


    So this experiment shows that qm has the wrong wave direction and qm cannot hide in lots of maths.

    It's time for you to accept that maths is not the answer to everything in physics. This is an experiment that qm cannot explain and TEW can explain it. It is clear evidence the problem is the qm wave direction, not the mathematics.

    Eugene Morrow
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Math certainly isn't everything in physics Morrow, but without it, you have nothing.
    Strange and Markus Hanke like this.
     

  59. #58  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    You are being very faithful to the quantum mechanics (qm) point of view, including the idea that maths solves everything.
    Please answer my questions in post 55. If you don't, then we have nothing further to discuss here, because it would mean that you really have nothing to show for it apart from conjecture, wild speculations and misunderstandings.
    I don't want to solve anything, all I want is to see is your model in standard mathematical language.
    You are of course free to post the same textual statements over and over again, but don't expect others to engage with you then; I need to see your maths now, so that we can move forward and have a meaningful discussion.

    It's time for you to accept that maths is not the answer to everything in physics.
    I'm sorry but this statement just makes you look like another one of all those crackpots we get here on a daily basis; we are not here to discuss the role of mathematics in physical theories. If that's what you want to do you can open a new thread, it has no place here.
    Just answer my questions, I am not asking for anything unreasonable or extraordinary, all I want to see is the basic mathematical formalism of the model you propose. Is that unreasonable ? I think not.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; April 5th, 2012 at 08:05 AM.
     

  60. #59  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post
    It's time for you to accept that maths is not the answer to everything in physics. This is an experiment that qm cannot explain and TEW can explain it.
    TEW can only explain it if the mathematics of TEW demonstrate the result.
    If the mathematics of TEW are the same as QM, then QM can also explain it.
    If the mathematics are the same, it is the same theory.

    QED. Or is that another theory...
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  61. #60  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    EDIT : Never mind. Just answer the questions from post 55.
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30
    Markus, The Observer and Strange,

    There is no point for me to go to a quantum mechanics (qm) textbook are reproduce all the equations, and it's too much work. The same equations apply to the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW). There's your answer.

    This is a really important disagreement. For qm, everything comes down to maths, and describing the physical reality is secondary. TEW points out the hidden assumption behind qm: the wave direction. All the claims of qm are subject to that assumption. None of the maths ties down the wave direction - it works equally well with the wave going in the opposite direction, as proved by reciprocity. Reciprocity applies to any system with a wave, and TEW simply applies it to all quantum experiments.

    So TEW is a different theory - because the wave direction is different, and yet TEW shares the same maths and predictions. It's that simple. The wave direction is the difference between the explanations of qm and TEW. The neutron experiment shows that TEW has a better explanation.

    Markus, you keep asking for equations. What are you going to do with them? It won't explain the key effect of the neutron experiment. It won't help decide whether qm or TEW is a better theory.

    The Observer is right to say how useful maths is - of course we can't have physics without it. Reciprocity shows that sometimes there is symmetry and the maths won't tell you which of the symmetrical choices is the right one. That's when physicists have to look at reality and decide.

    Strange, if you believe the two theories are the same, why not accept TEW? You could read the 1996 paper or the 2009 book and feel comfortable that it's the same theory as qm. Just another point of view to add to the richness of the quantum world.

    Eugene Morrow
     

  63. #62  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post
    There is no point for me to go to a quantum mechanics (qm) textbook are reproduce all the equations, and it's too much work.
    No one asked you to re-produce anything from a QM textbook. What I asked you for was the basic formalism for your own TEW, which you so vigorously defend. Not unreasonable, if you asked me, but I am not surprised that you nonetheless failed to do so.

    None of the maths ties down the wave direction - it works equally well with the wave going in the opposite direction,
    I hate to disappoint you, but you are wrong. It works only for some of the QM wave equations, but not for all of them. Specifically, it does not work for the Schroedinger Equation. I could give the formal proof in terms of maths, but I know you wouldn't understand it anyway, so I won't bother on this beautiful Easter weekend. Suffice it to say that you can't turn around the wave direction in the SE, and since you clearly state that the SE is the equation describing your TEW, it would appear that your model has just been proven wrong. Furthermore, the SE is not Lorentz invariant, and thus it is not possible to incorporate any relativistic effects, contrary to your own claims.

    So TEW is a different theory - because the wave direction is different, and yet TEW shares the same maths and predictions.
    This statement is not only false, but really doesn't make sense in the first place. Also, are you not saying further down that TEW is the same as QM ??

    Markus, you keep asking for equations. What are you going to do with them?
    Show you via the maths that you are wrong, and TEW is not a viable, or even physically possible, model because it is not compatible with the maths of QM.

    Reciprocity shows that sometimes there is symmetry and the maths won't tell you which of the symmetrical choices is the right one.
    Reciprocity applies only to the Maxwell equations of electrodynamics, but not to the Schroedinger Equation. That is why your TEW is fundamentally flawed.

    if you believe the two theories are the same, why not accept TEW?
    See above. The basic problem with TEW are :

    1. No mathematical formalism
    2. Not internally consistent
    3. Does not incorporate Relativity
    4. There is no observational evidence that "elementary waves" exist

    ...plus a number of other objections which I haven't even brought up yet in this discussion.

    You could read the 1996 paper or the 2009 book and feel comfortable that it's the same theory as qm.
    I have read Mr Little's "paper". It's just a poorly worded string of claims and unsupported hypothesis, without any maths or evidence to back it up. Very disappointing, and certainly not surprising that TEW is being ignored by mainstream physics. And it is not the same as QM. If it was the same, then by Occam's razor we would still go with QM, because QM does not require some ghostly "elementary wave" for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
     

  64. #63  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    So are you or are you not going to answer my questions from post 55 ? You still keep stalling on this.
     

  65. #64  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post
    Strange, if you believe the two theories are the same, why not accept TEW?
    They are obviously not the same. You assert that they use the same math and yet are unable to prove this. Without any such proof, I have no choice but to reject it as empty speculation.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    On the other hand it might be more convenient if we just forgot about the whole evidence and proof things and just decided to assume that this theory did in fact reproduce the same mathematics. Much easier to just say it than to justify it.
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30
    Markus,

    I mentioned the 1996 paper: http://elementarywaves.com/TEW96paper.html which describes the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) and how it differs from quantum mechanics (qm).

    You said:

    I have read Mr Little's "paper". It's just a poorly worded string of claims and unsupported hypothesis, without any maths or evidence to back it up.
    It seems you have not read the 1996 paper very closely. No maths? No evidence to support the hypotheses?

    The paper gives 17 numbered equations. Equations 1 to 5 are in Section 5 on the Uncertainty Principle. Equations 6 and 7 are in Section 7 on Relativistic transformation of the waves. Equations 8 to 16 are in Section 9 on Feynman Diagrams II quantitative correspondence. Equation 17 is in Section 12 on detailed qualitative description of atomic emission. There are many more un-numbered equations inside the text itself.

    The evidence given to support the TEW claims is extensive, including the following:
    1. Problems with the qm explanation of the double slit experiment
    2. Problems with the qm explanation of experiments on emission of photons by an excited atom in a resonant cavity.
    3. Problems with the qm explanation of Bell's theorem and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) types of experiments, including the Aspect variation.
    4. The assumption of wave direction in qm and wave particle duality.
    5. Reciprocity and how this applies to any system with a wave.
    6. Problems with qm "measurement theory".
    7. Fixing qm does not need any new variables, "hidden" or not.
    8. Problems with qm explanation of Schrodinger's Cat paradox and how TEW resolves the paradox.
    9. TEW wave assumption, and how the wave and the particle are entirely separate and travel in opposite directions.
    10. Benefits of a local and deterministic explanation provided by TEW for all experiments and the problems with so many qm interpretations.
    11. The neutron experiment I outlined in my original post - problems with the qm explanation and the benefits of the TEW explanation.
    12. Deriving the Uncertainty equation using maths that applies to the elementary wave, not the particle.
    13. How TEW explains the constancy of the speed of light (c) to all observers.
    14. How the constancy of speed c leads to Lorentz transformations.
    15. How elementary waves explain the Lorentzian nature of space-time.
    16. How TEW is compatible with Special Relativity and even predicts Special Relativity.
    17. How Feynman diagrams describe both elementary waves and particles.
    18. How elementary waves reproduce Klein-Gorgon propagators, which means it mathematically matches qm.
    19. How Hamilton-Jacobi formulations represent the short wavelength limit of the Schrodinger wave equation and how this supports TEW.
    20. How TEW explains quantum statistics without any "non-locality".
    21. How TEW is mathematically equivalent to qm for atomic emission of photosn.
    22. How TEW explains irreversibility of quantum statistical processes.
    23. How TEW explains the Pauli exclusion principle.

    The list of evidence is not complete. If you want to debate any of the evidence, cite something from the paper.


    The Observer,

    You can just assume the maths is the same and debate something else if Markus and I are too boring.


    Strange,

    TEW explains all quantum experiments using the same maths and a different wave direction. You have to read the paper or the book to see how this works - there is no shorter "proof" available.


    Eugene Morrow
     

  68. #67  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post
    It seems you have not read the 1996 paper very closely. No maths? No evidence to support the hypotheses?
    The critical piece of information which defines the theory is the wave equation for the elementary waves, and its solutions, the wave functions, as I had already indicated in post 55. None of this is given in the "paper".
    So no, no maths, at least not the maths which is required to define the theory.

    The evidence given to support the TEW claims is extensive, including the following:
    1-3,6-8,11 : Criticism against one theory is not evidence for another theory. Besides, each one of these criticisms in wholly unfounded, as already explained by myself and others in the course of this thread.
    4,9. Assumptions are not evidence
    5. Reciprocity does not apply to any system of waves. Just plain wrong !
    10. Benefits = evidence ?? I think not.
    12. No derivation here, just unsupported claims
    13. This is already well understood - it's simply due to vacuum permittivity and permeability
    14. Basic algebra - this connection has been known since 1905 - nothing to do with elementary waves
    15. They don't, the SE is not even Lorentz invariant !
    16. It doesn't. Again, the SE is not Lorentz invariant !
    17. Of course, this has been known since 1948. Again, nothing to do with TEW
    18. No derivation given, this is purely an unsupported claim !
    19. HEJ is simply a theorem in the mathematics of variational calculus - nothing to do with TEW
    20-23. All these are already well explained by QM

    So again, absolutely no evidence whatsoever. If you postulate the existence of an entity such as "elementary waves", then you need to be prepared to give repeatable, verifiable evidence that such waves actually exist, i.e. some way to directly detect such waves. You have not provided such evidence, and neither has Little in his paper. There is not even any indirect evidence either, since all the phenomena mentioned are perfectly explainable in terms of QM, whether you acknowledge that fact or not.

    So what do you really have ?

    1. Mathematical formalism - no
    2. Direct evidence for existence of EW - no
    3. Indirect evidence for existence of EW - no
    4. Unique, testable prediction of the theory - no

    To me you and Mr Little have nothing at all apart from a bunch of nonsense claims without any support. Ever wondered why his paper has been completely ignored by the scientific community for 16 years ? Well, the above answers it fairly well.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; April 7th, 2012 at 06:35 AM.
     

  69. #68  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    So where are the answers to my questions in post 55 ? Again you have failed to provide the maths for the TEW which I asked you for. Very disappointing.
     

  70. #69  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Since you don't want to give any maths, perhaps then I should do it for you. In post 50 you say that the basic wave equation for EW is the Schroedinger Equation, and you say

    The Schrodinger wave equation works in the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) exactly the same way as for quantum mechanics (qm). There is no time reversal. The only difference is the direction.
    So let's have a look at this. For simplicity I will use the free SE of the form



    which has a superposition of plain waves as solutions :



    Now we turn around the direction of these waves



    When you insert this back into the SE, all the exponential terms cancel out and you are left with nonsense. The same happens when you reverse not the direction, but the time; again you get just nothing. Neither of these are valid solutions to the original differential equation.

    So now I have shown that waves with an inverse direction/time are not solutions to the SE, quite contrary to your repeated claims. Explain please ?
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; April 7th, 2012 at 12:37 PM.
    TheObserver likes this.
     

  71. #70  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post
    You can just assume the maths is the same
    No he can't. Little said himself in his paper that

    Because the waves are not waves in a medium, they do not propagate according to the usual dynamics of waves. In fact, as will be described more fully later, the description of their propagation is much simpler than that of the usual waves.
    It is therefore obvious that we can not use the usual maths. A "later description" is hinted at, but then never given.
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30
    As usual, qm = quantum mechanics and TEW = Theory of Elementary Waves.

    Everyone,

    I have been reminded that the equations and diagrams do not display in the link to the 1996 paper on TEW here: http://elementarywaves.com/TEW96paper.html . The link is to a copy of the paper, not the actual publication. I have been looking at the actual 1996 paper from Physics Essays so I can see them. I am going to chase this up with Lewis Little - perhaps he knows who hosts that site and can get the graphics back again.


    Markus,

    The evidence Little gives for the TEW works as follows:

    1. When comparing two theories the assumptions of both theories are vital evidence. If one assumption results in problems and the second does not, then the second assumption is favored. The qm assumption on wave direction is that the wave goes in the same direction as the particle. This results, for example, in the diverse and weird interpretations of qm. The Many Worlds interpretation is perhaps the most weird. TEW assumes the wave is in the opposite direction as the particle and this results in TEW having one interpretation. This comparison of assumptions is strong evidence in favor of TEW.

    2. Little describes problems with qm and solves them with TEW. Since a new theory keeps the successes of the old theory and removes the problems in the old theory, then the new theory is a worthwhile step forward. Hence pointing out problems in one theory is part of the logical argument and is evidence.

    3. Yes, Reciprocity applies to any system with a wave. This is already part of physics.

    4. The benefits of TEW extend beyond clearing up problems in qm. TEW unites special relativity and the quantum world. In the 1996 paper, Little also points at that in principle TEW also unites the general relativity with the quantum world, although the full description and quantitative treatment is yet to be worked out. These benefits are definitely evidence that TEW is a better theory than qm.

    5. It is necessary that TEW shows that the different assumption of wave direction sill accounts for the known quantum results, hence TEW keeps the successes of qm. It does, and this is evidence that TEW is as broad as qm.

    6. How TEW works with special relativity and Lorentz transformations is covered in Sections 6 and 7 of the 1996 paper, and most of it is in the text that you can see. These two sections are very strong evidence in favor of TEW.

    7. Elementary waves are not a wave in a medium, as Little explains. Little claims the description of elementary waves is simpler than the description of a wave in a medium, although you can judge this for yourself.

    8. Little claims that TEW uses the same maths as qm, and demonstrates this in many places in the 1996 paper.

    Overall the evidence is overwhelming, and that is why I can only give such a brief overview. If you want to debate specific points, we'll have to debate them one at a time. I will ask that someone gets the equations and diagrams displaying as soon as possible.

    Eugene Morrow
     

  73. #72  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post
    If one assumption results in problems and the second does not, then the second assumption is favored.
    You see here's my problem - you allege that QM results in problems, whereas in actual fact it does not. There are no issues with QM, only those that you yourself interpret into them. And that's certainly not evidence, not against QM and not in favour of TEW.

    Little describes problems with qm and solves them with TEW.
    What he did is the same as what you are doing ( or is it the other way around ? ) - he alleges problems with interpretation whereas there aren't really any problems.

    Yes, Reciprocity applies to any system with a wave. This is already part of physics.
    No you are wrong, and I have proven otherwise in post 69. It seems you haven't even read that post.

    TEW unites special relativity and the quantum world.
    No it doesn't, because the Schroedinger Equation ( which is the equation you propose to use ) is not Lorentz invariant. Little makes the same mistake in his paper.

    It is necessary that TEW shows that the different assumption of wave direction sill accounts for the known quantum results, hence TEW keeps the successes of qm.
    Unfortunately it doesn't, as shown in post 69.

    How TEW works with special relativity and Lorentz transformations is covered in Sections 6 and 7 of the 1996 paper, and most of it is in the text that you can see. These two sections are very strong evidence in favor of TEW.
    I am not sure how many times I need to say it : the Schroedinger Equation is not Lorentz invariant. It does not incorporate any relativistic effects. Little himself does not give any maths in support for his assertion.

    Elementary waves are not a wave in a medium, as Little explains. Little claims the description of elementary waves is simpler than the description of a wave in a medium, although you can judge this for yourself.
    I really wish I could judge this for myself, but unfortunately since there are no maths anywhere to be found, I can't.

    Little claims that TEW uses the same maths as qm, and demonstrates this in many places in the 1996 paper.
    He demonstrates nothing of the sort. I, on the other hand, haven given you formal proof in post 69 that this is not possible.

    Overall the evidence is overwhelming
    Underwhelming, more like.

    I will ask that someone gets the equations
    Yes please. Refer to post 55 for specifics.
     

  74. #73  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    How come you are completely ignoring post 69 ? This disproves the very foundation of your TEW, i.e. backwards travelling waves, and them being in accordance with the usual rules of QM.

    Explain please ?
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30
    Markus,

    You have not read the text about Special Relativity in Section 6 in the 1996 paper on The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) by Dr Lewis E Little, 1996 Physics Essays Pity the diagrams do not display, but the text is still worth reading.

    Lorentz transformations apply to the particles, not the waves. In quantum mechanics (qm), the particle and the wave are the same thing. In TEW the wave and the particle are separate, as shown by the neutron experiment.

    The problem for qm is describing the particle with the Schrodinger wave equation which is not Lorentz invariant.Your post #69 proves that qm will never be relativistic.

    TEW does not describe the particle with the wave equation, which frees TEW to be relativistic.

    This is just one example of how TEW fixes problems with qm. You make the same mistake as qm - start with the Schrodinger wave equation and think all else follows. TEW knows when a wave equation is relevant and when it's not.

    Eugene Morrow
     

  76. #75  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post
    Lorentz transformations apply to the particles, not the waves. In quantum mechanics (qm), the particle and the wave are the same thing. In TEW the wave and the particle are separate, as shown by the neutron experiment.
    Lorentz invariance is a property of space-time. Anything within that spacetime is subject to it, be it particles or waves or what have you. A statement like the above that these transformation apply only to waves but not to particles is completely meaningless. Besides, I have read the paper and this is not what Little says.

    The problem for qm is describing the particle with the Schrodinger wave equation which is not Lorentz invariant.
    Do not start twisting words around ! I never proposed to describe any of it with the Schroedinger Equation. It was you who proposed to use this equation to describe your TEW, in post 46. I for my part have made it very clear to you ( see post 51 ) that the SE does not describe physical entities as such, it describes probability amplitudes for quantum mechanical systems, rather than the specific properties of the constituents of such a system. I have also made it clear all along that this equation is not Lorentz invariant, yet you propose to use it to derive relativity ? QM has a fully relativistic description in the form of the Klein-Gordon, Dirac, Weyl, Maxwell, Proca and Rarita-Schwinger equations.

    Your post #69 proves that qm will never be relativistic.
    You are incorrect. QM is relativistic, but you need to use the correct equations, not the Schroedinger Equation. You would of course know that if you had any expertise in the subject matter.
    Besides, the proof in post 69 has nothing to do with Lorentz invariance, it has to do only with the fact that waves with reversed directions aren't solutions to the SE, contrary to your claims.

    TEW does not describe the particle with the wave equation, which frees TEW to be relativistic.
    I know that you propose to describe your elementary waves ( not particles ) via the Schroedinger Equation, and then derive relativity from that. You said that in post 49. However, this is impossible for the reasons already outlined to you.

    You make the same mistake as qm - start with the Schrodinger wave equation and think all else follows.
    It was you who first brought up the SE in post 49, not me. I understand which maths to use in which scenario, you apparently don't. Specifically, I understand that the SE is not used to describe physical waves, that is very basic. I would have expected you to know that also, since you mentioned in the OP that you had been studying physics.
    All I did here was follow your own claims - you claimed the EW are described by the SE, so I took your word for it and did the maths for you, since you are obviously unable to do so yourself.

    TEW knows when a wave equation is relevant and when it's not.
    Ludicrous. Just an embarrassing excuse for not being able to produce something as simple as a wave equation for your proposed waves.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; April 9th, 2012 at 03:26 AM.
     

  77. #76  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Let's just summarize where we stand here now :

    1. You proposed to use the Schroedinger Equation to describe EWs. You say the wave direction of EWs is reversed, as compared to "normal" waves. I have done the maths for you, and shown that such a wave is not a solution to the SE.
    2. Following this I have asked you to provide a wave equation for your EWs which actually works. Thus far you have failed to do so. I am still awaiting your reply to post 55.
    3. You claimed that the experiment mentioned in the OP can only be explained via retro-causality in standard QM. I have shown and explained to you in post 29 that this isn't the case, and no retrocausality is involved anywhere in QM. Furthermore, the formalism in that post fully explains the experiment.
    4. You claim that TEW can explain relativity, but since you are basing your model on the Schroeding Equation as per your own claim on post 49, this is obviously impossible.
    5. You have not provided any evidence, direct or indirect, that such a thing as an "elementary wave" actually exists. All you have given is an experiment which you interpret in your own way, and where you refuse to accept that QM fully explains it without any need for retrocausality.
    6. Furthermore, you claim in post 8 that (quote) "for TEW the particle always has a precise position and momentum" which is in complete contradiction to experiment. Once again, no maths are given for such a particle - what are its equations of motion ? How do you explain that no particle has ever been observed which didn't obey the HUP ? Are you aware that such a particle would violate Benedicks's theorem ?

    My main problem at the moment is that you still haven't explained the fact that your alleged "reverse waves" are not valid solutions to the Schroedinger Equation, despite the fact that this is the maths you yourself propose should be used in TEW ( see post 49 ). You also have not explained how the SE should yield special relativity, despite it not being Lorentz invariant.
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30
    Markus,

    We are discussing quantum mechanics (qm) and the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).

    The Schrodinger wave equation gives the square root of the probability, so it needs to be squared to give the actual probability. That equation squared describes the same probabilities for qm and TEW because of the Reciprocity Theorem. Lewis Little demonstrates this applies for example in the double slit experiment, so that the wave direction in TEW reproduces exactly the same results as qm. This is the sense that the Schrodinger wave equation can be used to describe elementary waves. Neither me or Lewis Little describe elementary waves as superpositions of plane waves - only qm does that.

    The neutron experiment is clear evidence for elementary waves and shows clearly that TEW has the correct wave direction. The wave direction is the main difference between the qm and TEW quantum waves. Since TEW has the waves and particles going in opposite directions, then clearly the waves and the particles are separate entities.

    Lewis Little does not give an equation for the elementary wave flux themselves - he only gives a description of the flux and shows how it produces the same qm effects and probabilities.

    The Feynman path propagators do not explain the neutron experiment, as you claimed in post 29. Feynman path propagators are probability amplitudes, which you acknowledged as follows:

    The initial state at the source is thus connected to the final state at the detector via the sum of the probabilities of all possible paths between the two.
    In the neutron experiment, this includes the probability of the coherence length of the neutron wave packets in the Neutron Interferometer being affected by the analyzer crystal, even when the wave packets have not reached the crystal yet. For Feynman path propagators the key effect is simply another probability calculation - there is no mechanism described.

    So qm gives no mechanism for the key effect in the neutron experiment. To me, the words of the experimenters clearly make a claim the effect happens backwards in time, but don't say how. You deny they said this, so you are left with no mechanism at all. TEW has a clear mechanism, based on the TEW wave direction.

    You assumed that elementary waves are superpositions of plane waves in post 49, but this is not the case. Elementary waves that are coherent with one another can combine and interfere with each other, but this is a group of waves, not a single elementary wave. A single elementary wave is never a superposition.

    TEW claims to be consistent with special relativity and TEW even claims to predict special relativity. I had forgotten that the Dirac equation is fully compatible with special relativity. So both qm and TEW can claim to be consistent with special relativity. Lewis Little claims that TEW is already in principle consistent with general relativity, which means unity is closer for TEW.

    The claim that "for TEW the particle always has a precise position and momentum" is entirely consistent with experiments. The uncertainty being measured is a property of the waves, not the particles. This is why the neutron experiment is so important: it shows that waves and particles are different things, and so all experiments need to be seen in the light of that. In TEW, you need to ask yourself "is this about the particle or the wave?".

    So a summary is:

    1. TEW differs from qm mainly in the direction of the quantum wave, which is the opposite direction as for qm.
    2. TEW and reciprocity means the probabilities and predictions of qm and TEW are the same. Probabilities do not explain how or why things happen - they only describe final results. The successful probabilities are in common between TEW and qm - the only dispute is explanations and wave direction.
    3. TEW has a clear cause and effect for the neutron experiment, and hence clearly has the correct wave direction. For qm there is no explanation, other than either an effect backwards in time by the experimenters, and you deny they even said that. Either way, there is no clear cause for qm.
    4. TEW is local and deterministic, unlike qm.
    5. TEW removes the quantum weirdness. Richard Feynman who won a Nobel prize and was a qm believer famously said that "no one understand quantum mechanics". He was meaning the quantum weirdness, which even he could see. You claim there is no quantum weirdness, even though the interpretations of qm include the Many World interpretation with multiple universes, and the idea that knowledge in the mind of the experimenters affects the outcome of experiments.
    6. TEW is backed by all experiments, and this is understood only when you remember that for TEW the waves and particles are separate. The neutron experiment is one where the differences between qm and TEW are easy to see, so it is a good place to start.

    Eugene Morrow
     

  79. #78  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post
    Lewis Little does not give an equation for the elementary wave flux themselves - he only gives a description of the flux and shows how it produces the same qm effects and probabilities.
    Finally. You admit there is no formalism for the fundamental part of this theory. So: no math, no evidence and no need. Doesn't sound much like a "theory" to me.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  80. #79  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post
    That equation squared describes the same probabilities for qm and TEW because of the Reciprocity Theorem.
    No it doesn't ! Your refusal to acknowledge already shown facts is really starting to frustrate me. I have shown you in post 69 that EWs, being waves in reverse direction, are not valid solutions to the Schroedinger Equation. Reciprocity does not apply to the Schroedinger Equation, thus the above claim is just plain wrong !

    The neutron experiment is clear evidence for elementary waves and shows clearly that TEW has the correct wave direction. The wave direction is the main difference between the qm and TEW quantum waves. Since TEW has the waves and particles going in opposite directions, then clearly the waves and the particles are separate entities.
    No matter how often you repeat the same claims, it doesn't make them any less wrong.

    The Feynman path propagators do not explain the neutron experiment, as you claimed in post 29. Feynman path propagators are probability amplitudes, which you acknowledged as follows:
    And again you are trying to twist my words. Feynman propagators are not probability amplitudes. It is only the total wave function ( which is the sum of all possibilities ) which is a probability amplitude. The Feynman propagator is simply a mathematical function describing the evolution of the system, not more. Yes, the system as a whole is indeed described via probability amplitudes, and thus perfectly explains the experiment, but the propagator functions are not probabilities.
    I am finding it extremely frustrating that you keep trying to twist my statements in your favor. If you are that desperate then I see no reason to continue this discussion; if you obviously lack understanding of something, like the above mentioned maths, then just don't bring it up at all, but don't twist my words. The maths are clear, and I have given them in post 29.

    In the neutron experiment, this includes the probability of the coherence length of the neutron wave packets in the Neutron Interferometer being affected by the analyzer crystal, even when the wave packets have not reached the crystal yet. For Feynman path propagators the key effect is simply another probability calculation - there is no mechanism described.

    So qm gives no mechanism for the key effect in the neutron experiment. To me, the words of the experimenters clearly make a claim the effect happens backwards in time, but don't say how. You deny they said this, so you are left with no mechanism at all. TEW has a clear mechanism, based on the TEW wave direction.
    Again, it does't matter how often you repeat the same statements, they are still wrong, as I have already demonstrated to you on several occasions in the course of this thread. All explanations for this experiment, both textual and maths, can be found in post 29.

    You assumed that elementary waves are superpositions of plane waves in post 49, but this is not the case. Elementary waves that are coherent with one another can combine and interfere with each other, but this is a group of waves, not a single elementary wave. A single elementary wave is never a superposition.
    Fine. In post 69, just simply omit the summation; this turns a superposition of waves into a single wave. That doesn't change the fact that such a wave is not a solution to the Schroedinger Equation since this is a differential equation, and summations are linear in their derivatives. You are still proven wrong.

    TEW claims to be consistent with special relativity and TEW even claims to predict special relativity. I had forgotten that the Dirac equation is fully compatible with special relativity. So both qm and TEW can claim to be consistent with special relativity.
    No, because the Dirac equation is not the equation you are using. All along on this thread you have been saying that the equation to be used for TEW is the Schroedinger Equation. Ref post 50. You cannot just change everything now as you please, or this discussion looses all its meaning.
    And I should also tell you straight away that to the best of my knowledge the Dirac equation is not subject to reciprocity either, though the maths to show that would be substantially more difficult than in the case of the SE.

    The claim that "for TEW the particle always has a precise position and momentum" is entirely consistent with experiments.
    Please provide references to a repeatable, verifiable experiment which has shown that both position and momentum of a particle is simultaneously measurable with arbitrary precision; in other words, given references to an experiment which shows that the HUP is wrong.
    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so your references on this point will better be very good ones. In the meantime I am providing you a reference to this article

    http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs.../xedp60329.pdf

    which clearly proves that your claim is an impossibility. The reason is that any conjugate observables ( like position and momentum ) are transformed into one another via Fourier transformations; this is a simple mathematical fact, and not even reliant on QM. What this means is that when one observable is highly localized, the Fourier transform of itself becomes widely spread out. It's basic analysis, specifically Lesbesgue integral theory, and doesn't rely on any QM assumptions.

    2. TEW and reciprocity means the probabilities and predictions of qm and TEW are the same.
    I have given proof to the contrary in post 69.

    For qm there is no explanation, other than either an effect backwards in time by the experimenters,
    Wrong. The explanation can be found in post 29.

    5. TEW removes the quantum weirdness.
    No "weirdness" exists. See post 29.

    6. TEW is backed by all experiments,
    No it's not. In fact it is in contradiction to experiment, since it is not compatible with QM maths, as shown in post 69.
     

  81. #80  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post
    Lewis Little does not give an equation for the elementary wave flux themselves - he only gives a description of the flux and shows how it produces the same qm effects and probabilities.
    Finally. You admit there is no formalism for the fundamental part of this theory. So: no math, no evidence and no need. Doesn't sound much like a "theory" to me.
    Precisely. Thus far none of his claims have held up, and I have given him the maths to show that TEW is not internally consistent at all.
    I expect that going forward his posts will be just regurgitations of already posted ( and refuted ! ) material.
     

  82. #81  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    And still I am awaiting the answers to my questions in post 55...
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30
    Markus, Strange,

    I will write a more detailed reply later. The issue I will answer immediately is about the need for an equation for elementary waves.

    Lewis Little developed the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) by looking at reality - and explaining cause and effect. In quantum mechanics (qm) the approach is to start with maths first and to calculate the results of the experiment.

    The main difference between the two theories is the wave direction (opposites). The issue of where to start is the next most important difference - do you start with cause and effect or maths?

    Markus shows the qm approach when he says:

    The Feynman propagator is simply a mathematical function describing the evolution of the system, not more. Yes, the system as a whole is indeed described via probability amplitudes, and thus perfectly explains the experiment, but the propagator functions are not probabilities
    Notice how the system as a whole is described via probability amplitudes. This is a mathematical approach that concentrates on probabilities.

    In TEW, the approach is based on looking at the components of the experiment and thinking about how they interact. It is by this approach that TEW deduced the wave direction in the neutron experiment. There are other experiments given by Little that also show that cause and effect is only possible with the wave traveling in the opposite direction as claimed by qm.

    TEW also claims that it is the problem with the qm wave direction is the reason that qm concentrates on maths.

    Reciprocity and the Reciprocity Theorem does work for any system with a wave, and I will find some references on this point.

    I shall give a more detailed answer on the rest of the issues later.

    Eugene Morrow
     

  84. #83  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    If you are not going to answer Markus' question (post #55) after 30 more posts, this should be moved to Trash. I'd suggest you make it your highest priority.
    MW
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Eugene is just going around in circles now. You have been proven wrong, by very elementary math. Marcus has shown explicitly why your theory does not work. There is no getting around this. If your waves do not solve the SE, then supply the equation that they do obey or give up.
     

  86. #85  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post
    In quantum mechanics (qm) the approach is to start with maths first and to calculate the results of the experiment.
    Nonsense. As with all science it starts with observations and a theory that explains the data. Sometimes the theory will predict new things (e.g. Dirac's equation predicting the existence of the positron which was found a little later; the conservation of energy predicting the neutrino, etc). That is the difference between a theory and something like TEW, which is unable to do anything useful.

    Note, the word "theory" implies the use of mathematics to describe the theory in a formal and quantitative way. If you don't like that (and/or can't do the maths) then that is just too bad.

    [edit to add:]
    Also, theory might predict the possibility of things that are never found to exist (e.g. tachyons). These remain purely hypothetical despite the maths - further falsifying your claim.

    Theory might also predict the impossibility of things that are later observed. Contrary to your implication, such things are not covered up but, instead, form the basis of real breakthroughs.
    Last edited by Strange; April 11th, 2012 at 03:58 AM.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  87. #86  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,229
    Think I'll move this to pseudo.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  88. #87  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post
    The issue I will answer immediately is about the need for an equation for elementary waves.
    There is no "issue". Without the maths you don't have anything to do show for, because your model isn't able to make any quantitative predictions. This goes for TEW just as it goes for any other model/theory/hypothesis in physics. So yes, that equation is needed.

    The main difference between the two theories is the wave direction (opposites).
    We have been through this in detail already. Reverse waves aren't compatible with the ( already very well established and experimentally verified ) principles of QM.

    Notice how the system as a whole is described via probability amplitudes. This is a mathematical approach that concentrates on probabilities.
    Yes, because that's the very foundation of QM. And it works very well !

    TEW also claims that it is the problem with the qm wave direction is the reason that qm concentrates on maths.
    No, the reason for maths is simply that one needs to be able to make quantitive predictions.

    Reciprocity and the Reciprocity Theorem does work for any system with a wave, and I will find some references on this point.
    When are you going to acknowledge that I have already proven otherwise in post 69 ?
    I don't think you are even interested in a proper discussion here, you are just ignoring all evidence presented.
    The "Reciprocity Theorem" only applies to Maxwell's Equations in classical electrodynamics, but not to just any system with waves in it, and certainly not to Schroedinger's Equation. Here's the reference :

    Reciprocity (electromagnetism) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; April 11th, 2012 at 06:15 AM.
     

  89. #88  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Think I'll move this to pseudo.
    Which is where it belongs. Thank you Kalster.
     

  90. #89  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    Eugene is just going around in circles now. You have been proven wrong, by very elementary math. Marcus has shown explicitly why your theory does not work. There is no getting around this. If your waves do not solve the SE, then supply the equation that they do obey or give up.
    Thank you TheObserver.
    So, Eugene, where are my answers to the questions in post 55 ? This is now the fifth time I am asking, and with every time you ignore my request it becomes more and more obvious that TEW is really just a bunch of nonsense. There is no such thing as elementary waves !
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30
    Kalster,

    Nothing I can do if you move this thread. I am well aware that most people are quantum mechanics (qm) supporters, and that many qm supporters do not consider the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) to be a proper theory. I will continue debating the merits of TEW in the pseudo category.


    Markus,

    Lewis Little has not supplied an equation for elementary waves, so that leaves me in a position where I cannot answer your post 55. If you consider that somehow disproves TEW then that is your view. I think the physical evidence of the neutron experiment and the other experiments Little discusses to be ample proof that elementary waves exist, and the wave direction of qm is clearly incorrect.

    I disagree with your claims about reciprocity - the Reciprocity Theorem universally applies to any system with a wave. If is often applies to Maxwell's Equations in classical electrodynamics, but it is not limited to that.


    Strange,

    Maths is useful, as long as it reflects the physical reality. The neutron experiment shows a reality that maths not solved - why does the analyzer crystal affect the Neutron Interferometer? None of the maths in qm provides an answer, nor does the qm picture of the physical reality. TEW has an answer - the wave direction. The direction of the wave is the key to understanding what is happening in that experiment, and many others. Choosing an equation for elementary waves is a minor issue in comparison, which I think is why Lewis Little did not provide one.


    The Observer,

    I do not agree anything has been proven wrong in TEW. The lack of an equation for elementary waves being provided by Lewis Little does not prove anything.


    Everyone,

    The lack of a qm explanation for the key effect in the neutron experiment proves that qm need to be reviewed - the explanations are not adequate. You can keep repeating the point about the lack of an equation for elementary waves, and I will keep repeating the lack of a qm explanation. Which problem you consider worse is a matter of debate too.

    Eugene Morrow
     

  92. #91  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post
    Lewis Little has not supplied an equation for elementary waves, so that leaves me in a position where I cannot answer your post 55. If you consider that somehow disproves TEW then that is your view.
    Thank you for finally clearing this up. My view on this is that, without proper mathematical formalism, TEW is not a theory at all, only a hypothesis which cannot be verified or even further investigated, because it makes no quantifiable predictions.

    Choosing an equation for elementary waves is a minor issue in comparison, which I think is why Lewis Little did not provide one.
    No, he didn't provide one because he knew precisely that his model would immediately be shown to be in contradiction with QM, and, indeed, some of his own claims. He would have literally shot himself in the foot by providing any type of wave equation.

    I disagree with your claims about reciprocity - the Reciprocity Theorem universally applies to any system with a wave. If is often applies to Maxwell's Equations in classical electrodynamics, but it is not limited to that.
    Disagree all you like, but reciprocity does not apply to all systems of waves. I have given the counter proof in post 69. Petty that you don't acknowledge this. When everything else is said and done then this is the real reason why TEW cannot work.

    The neutron experiment shows a reality that maths not solved - why does the analyzer crystal affect the Neutron Interferometer?
    This has been answered in detail in posts 28 & 29. Once again, petty that you don't wish to acknowledge this, but that's your personal choice, and not a shortcoming of QM. The crystal does not directly affect the NI, the two are just correlated to the final measured outcome at the detector, thus there is no retrocausality, and no need for any backwards traveling waves.

    I do not agree anything has been proven wrong in TEW.
    Again, you can disagree as much as you like, but my proof in post 69 that reverse waves aren't compatible with the "usual maths" ( your own expression ) still stands.

    The lack of a qm explanation for the key effect in the neutron experiment proves that qm need to be reviewed
    You will find this very explanation in posts 28 & 29, maths and all.

    You can keep repeating the point about the lack of an equation for elementary waves, and I will keep repeating the lack of a qm explanation.
    Problem is - the lack of an equation is unfortunately real, whereas the supposed lack of an explanation is not. You can find that very explanation and the matching maths in posts 28 & 29, as well as many other of my posts.
    It is your choice alone that you refuse to acknowledge that.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; April 12th, 2012 at 12:11 AM.
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post
    Kalster,

    Nothing I can do if you move this thread. I am well aware that most people are quantum mechanics (qm) supporters, and that many qm supporters do not consider the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) to be a proper theory. I will continue debating the merits of TEW in the pseudo category.
    π/2

    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post
    Markus,

    Lewis Little has not supplied an equation for elementary waves, so that leaves me in a position where I cannot answer your post 55. If you consider that somehow disproves TEW then that is your view. I think the physical evidence of the neutron experiment and the other experiments Little discusses to be ample proof that elementary waves exist, and the wave direction of qm is clearly incorrect.

    I disagree with your claims about reciprocity - the Reciprocity Theorem universally applies to any system with a wave. If is often applies to Maxwell's Equations in classical electrodynamics, but it is not limited to that.
    π
    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post
    Strange,

    Maths is useful, as long as it reflects the physical reality. The neutron experiment shows a reality that maths not solved - why does the analyzer crystal affect the Neutron Interferometer? None of the maths in qm provides an answer, nor does the qm picture of the physical reality. TEW has an answer - the wave direction. The direction of the wave is the key to understanding what is happening in that experiment, and many others. Choosing an equation for elementary waves is a minor issue in comparison, which I think is why Lewis Little did not provide one.
    3π/2
    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post
    The Observer,

    I do not agree anything has been proven wrong in TEW. The lack of an equation for elementary waves being provided by Lewis Little does not prove anything.
    2π right back where we started!
    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post
    Everyone,

    The lack of a qm explanation for the key effect in the neutron experiment proves that qm need to be reviewed - the explanations are not adequate. You can keep repeating the point about the lack of an equation for elementary waves, and I will keep repeating the lack of a qm explanation. Which problem you consider worse is a matter of debate too.

    Eugene Morrow
    I would say enough of this thread.
     

  94. #93  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    I would say enough of this thread.
    Normally I enjoy discussing topics like this, however, in this case I would tend to agree with you. All questions have been answered, and all conclusions drawn. We are just going around in circles now. It is quite frustrating if posters just completely refuse to acknowledge the fact that they have been disproven.
     

  95. #94  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post
    The lack of a qm explanation for the key effect in the neutron experiment proves that qm need to be reviewed - the explanations are not adequate. You can keep repeating the point about the lack of an equation for elementary waves, and I will keep repeating the lack of a qm explanation. Which problem you consider worse is a matter of debate too.
    You have been provided with an explanation repeatedly. The fact you choose to ignore it is your problem, not a problem with QM.

    You have been shown that the mathematics you claim is "the same" for TEW doesn't work.

    You admit that there is no formal description for the key element of TEW.

    So, apart from the fact that TEW is not required, is incorrect and is not a theory, what would persuade you?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,820
    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post
    Kalster,

    Nothing I can do if you move this thread. I am well aware that most people are quantum mechanics (qm) supporters, and that many qm supporters do not consider the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) to be a proper theory. I will continue debating the merits of TEW in the pseudo category.
    In failing to acknowledge the reasons that so many support QM, you seem to imply that all is a matter of taste. But it's not a Pepsi-vs-Coke sort of thing. QM produces quantitative predictions that are verified to many, many digits (you yourself cited 11 in your first post). You have not shown that TEW can replicate this success; you've merely asserted that TEW can. So it's not Pepsi vs Coke; it's Pepsi vs. a picture of Coke (or maybe even Pepsi vs. a verbal description of Coke).


    Lewis Little has not supplied an equation for elementary waves, so that leaves me in a position where I cannot answer your post 55. If you consider that somehow disproves TEW then that is your view.
    No; the lack of an equation itself doesn't disprove TEW, but it certainly places TEW into the category of "not a theory," in the Popperian sense.

    I think the physical evidence of the neutron experiment and the other experiments Little discusses to be ample proof that elementary waves exist, and the wave direction of qm is clearly incorrect.
    That is merely your and Little's opinion. Unfortunately for you, opinions do not become factual, no matter often they are repeated. You have utterly failed to do more than opine.

    I disagree with your claims about reciprocity - the Reciprocity Theorem universally applies to any system with a wave.
    Any system with a wave? Really? That is completely absurd, and trivially proved false. Here's a simple counterexample: Put in a nonlinear material. Or do a quick google search for "wave propagation in nonreciprocal magnetic media." Reciprocity is not at all guaranteed by the mere existence of waves. You've blundered quite badly here.

    If is often applies to Maxwell's Equations in classical electrodynamics, but it is not limited to that.
    Sure, but you haven't even stated the conditions under which reciprocity holds. And by not knowing that, you have left yourself wide open.

    Maths is useful, as long as it reflects the physical reality.
    That's exactly the point! The only "reality" that we care about is what we can measure. Postulating that "reality" is mediated by undetectable pink unicorns on a drinking binge doesn't matter. If we are led to the right measurable outcomes, the invisible drunk pink unicorn theory works.

    The neutron experiment shows a reality that maths not solved - why does the analyzer crystal affect the Neutron Interferometer? None of the maths in qm provides an answer, nor does the qm picture of the physical reality.
    No. What you are really saying is that you don't like the answer that QM actually gives you. Sorry to disappoint, but nature doesn't give a hang about what you like or don't like. Nature is as nature does. And QM describes -- to exquisite accuracy -- what nature does. That's the most important characteristic of a good theory. If, in addition, it also makes humans happy, great. But that's not a necessary (or even reasonably expected) outcome. You are placing far too much importance on an artifical criterion that a theory be psychologically pleasing to you personally.

    It's not about you.

    TEW has an answer - the wave direction.
    You've presented no answers at all. Just assertions. By answers, I mean verified quantitative predictions.

    The direction of the wave is the key to understanding what is happening in that experiment, and many others. Choosing an equation for elementary waves is a minor issue in comparison, which I think is why Lewis Little did not provide one.
    Again, you misplace priorities. If you think providing equations is a minor requirement for a theory, then you are obviously not a scientist. You are a philosopher (with a small "p").

    I do not agree anything has been proven wrong in TEW. The lack of an equation for elementary waves being provided by Lewis Little does not prove anything.
    Au contraire. The very lack of an equation is completely dispositive of TEW not being a theory. Aside from that, several of your assertions have been shown to be wrong. You just refuse to acknowledge it. Denial of reality is a common characteristic of crackpots (I am not calling you one, but I am saying that you share behaviors with that species).

    The lack of a qm explanation for the key effect in the neutron experiment proves that qm need to be reviewed - the explanations are not adequate.
    Again, you are imposing your personal tastes on nature.

    You can keep repeating the point about the lack of an equation for elementary waves, and I will keep repeating the lack of a qm explanation. Which problem you consider worse is a matter of debate too.
    Not really. Given a choice between a theory that has successfully produced verified predictions in an overwhelming number of experiments, and a fairy tale that has produced none, only a nutjob would say that the fairy tale is preferable as a scientific theory.
    Last edited by tk421; April 12th, 2012 at 11:50 AM.
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    30
    Markus,

    We disagree on many things, and there seems to be no way we can find way to constructively debate this.

    You claim TEW is disproved mathematically, or does not have maths. I claim TEW has the correct desription of reality when compared to quantum mechanics (qm), and that the maths is irrelevant because of Reciprocity. We'll have to keep exploring some way to debate this to see if we can find a way that makes sense to both sides.

    You claim qm provides an explanation for the neutron experiment, based on correlations of measurements and probabilities. I claim TEW has an explanation and qm has either claimed a change backwards in time or has no mechanism at all. I have heard that more qm believers have commented on the neutron experiment, so I am searching for more on this topic to debate.

    I disagree that any of your posts have proved anything about TEW. You do, and neither is convincing the other. We'll have to keep exploring new ways to debate that stuff.

    The Observer,

    You seem to be getting tired of this thread. I understand I have convinced none of the debaters here, and that's fine. I'm still keen to look for ways we can find something to agree on.


    Strange,

    You and I disagree in much the same way as I disagree with Markus, so I'm gong to keep on searching for new ways we can tackle all this.


    tk421,

    The reason so many people support qm is that it has been around for about 80 years and the mathematical predictions are the most accurate achieved in science. The reason people like Lewis Little and I want a new theory is that qm comes with quantum weirdness. Markus may deny that weirdness exists, and that makes him very rare - even Nobel prize winning physicists like Richard Feynman acknowledged quantum weirdness.

    The issue is the explanations of qm, not the maths. Most supporters in qm want to talk maths, and that's why this debate is so fractured. I want to debate the weak spot of qm which is the explanations, and you guys want to debate the lack of a wave equation in TEW.

    We may be able to resolve the debate on Reciprocity. If I can find a qm supporter that acknowledges that the Reciprocity theorem applies to any system with a wave, I may be able to get through to some of you guys.


    Everyone,

    I still here ready to debate. I realize we need to find a way to avoid just repeating ourselves. The areas where we disagree are the right ones - qm focuses on maths and TEW focuses on explanations of physical reality. It is right this difference is coming out.

    Eugene Morrow
     

  98. #97  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    But with no math, TEW is worthless...
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Aside from explain already existing phenomena, what does your theory purport to do? I mean generally we have theories to do something like calculate energy states. What productive science can be we extract from this theory? It is my view that a theory does not have to be "true" to be useful. If you can give me an idea of what you plan to do with this theory then maybe we can shift the attitude of this discussion. If nobody here is getting convinced of the "truth" of this model, then perhaps we can be more productive by assuming that the model is good, and then work with it. But for that to work we need to know what your theory is for, how can we use it?
     

  100. #99  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post
    We disagree on many things, and there seems to be no way we can find way to constructively debate this.
    But I have constructively debated this. I have answered every one of your point/questions. Unfortunately you have failed to do the same, and I am now finding myself in a situation where you complete ignore and refuse to acknowledge some of the key evidence I have presented.

    I claim TEW has the correct desription of reality when compared to quantum mechanics (qm), and that the maths is irrelevant because of Reciprocity.
    You can claim whatever you like. I have shown you to be wrong in a number of my posts, particularly post 69.

    You claim qm provides an explanation for the neutron experiment, based on correlations of measurements and probabilities.
    I do not "claim" anything, instead I have shown you both the explanation, and the maths that goes with it, in post 29. I understand you refuse to accept this, but that is your problem.

    I disagree that any of your posts have proved anything about TEW.
    Yes, I noticed your refusal to accept certain points. Again, this is by your own choice, and nothing to do with QM.

    Markus may deny that weirdness exists, and that makes him very rare - even Nobel prize winning physicists like Richard Feynman acknowledged quantum weirdness.
    You define "weirdness" to mean "retro-causality", an action backwards in time, as you have made quite clear over the course of this thread. Such a thing is not allowed under QM, in fact it is explicitly ruled out by the Eberhard Theorem. Show me references that prove Feynman was a proponent of retro-causality.
    What Feynman and all other mainstream scientists are referring to by "weird" is only the fact that QM does not follow the same rules as our macro world, and many of its laws may thus seem counterintuitive to us; I acknowledge that and say there is nothing wrong with it. However, there is no retro-causality involved anywhere in QM.

    I want to debate the weak spot of qm which is the explanations
    There is no weak spot. QM's explanations hold up perfectly, and your interferometer experiment is explainable in terms of stochastics, particularly probability correlations.

    We may be able to resolve the debate on Reciprocity. If I can find a qm supporter that acknowledges that the Reciprocity theorem applies to any system with a wave,
    There is no debate on this. The reciprocity theorem is not a universal law, and does not apply to any system of waves. This is basic physics, as tk421 has pointed out. Even for a simple wave equation like the one given in post 69, this theorem does not hold, much less for more complicated systems. You have already been proven wrong on this, just accept it and move on; it is ridiculous that you are still saying otherwise, it makes you look like a fool.

    qm focuses on maths and TEW focuses on explanations of physical reality
    QM has given all the explanations you asked for, you just need to acknowledge them.
     

  101. #100  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by EugeneMorrow View Post
    Strange,

    You and I disagree in much the same way as I disagree with Markus, so I'm gong to keep on searching for new ways we can tackle all this.
    There was a (fairly important) question in my post: apart from the established facts that TEW is not required, is incorrect and is not a theory, what would persuade you?

    If nothing can change your mind, then you have a dose of religion, not science and we can't help you.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Quantum Mechanics
    By TheScienceNerd in forum Physics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 6th, 2010, 03:17 AM
  2. What is Quantum Mechanics?
    By TheScienceNerd in forum Physics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 5th, 2010, 07:43 PM
  3. quantum mechanics
    By shawngoldw in forum Physics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 17th, 2007, 03:41 PM
  4. quantum mechanics???
    By pyrofreak2 in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: August 13th, 2006, 08:29 PM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •