Keep the good bit of quantum mechanics

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Eugene Morrow

 

There are now 4 members who all have mathematical/physics backgrounds asking for some maths. You have promoted a theory with claims that it replicates the results of qm in the main and that certain other parts diverge from qm and provide different results. As this is qm there is little point discussing and providing heuristic descriptions of the idea - qm already has multiple interpretations which all fit the experimental evidence - what is required is the equations that will both satisfy known results and distinguish themselves from current theory. You are correct that some OPs never provide maths - many of these threads are locked and others are left open as there is the possibility of a valid discussion; you however are claiming a working theory and responses will be measured in accordance with the claims.

 

the wave equation which bignose was requesting for quite some time now - and others have asked subsequently - would be a very good start.

 

 

[swansont]

I would be very interested to hear your view on how qm explains this in a local and deterministic way. Or perhaps you are comfortable with reversing time here.

 

I don't think that TEW is local, from this description. It seems to me that your "backward" waves have to start when you begin the experiment. They are not delayed by L/c. If locality is actually a claim of TEW, then it should be easy enough to test.

[Eugene Morrow]

Imatfaal, Swansont,

 

For those who want to see equations about the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW), you can see them by following the link I provided. The link goes to an early draft of the 1996 paper Dr. Little write for Physics Essays. The link gives a copy of that paper that has no diagrams but does have the equations. I don't know why the diagrams do not appear but the maths is there.

 

(Free) draft of 1996 paper in Physics Essays: here the link is to elementarywaves.com/TEW96paper.html.

 

You need to read that paper as well as the equations - Dr. Little goes into a lot of details about how quantum mechanics (qm) and TEW share the same quantum wave, only the direction of that wave is different, and how this does not affect the result in most situations. It's a densely written paper, so you'll need to study it for a while.

 

 

Swansont,

 

That's a good point to bring up:

 

t seems to me that your "backward" waves have to start when you begin the experiment.

 

This is where the physical differences between qm and TEW show up. In qm, the wave and the particle go in the same direction, so the wave only exists when the particle is moving.

 

In TEW, the waves and the particle are physicallly seperate entities. The waves are always there even though we can't see them. We can't see gravity, but we all know it's always there because we can see the effects. With elementary waves we only see the effects when particles follow elementary waves (in the reverse direction).

 

In the neutron interference experiment as in real life there are elementary waves everywhere. We only care about the ones the come out of the detector and reach the nuclear reactor, because they will get a neutron coming back which registers in the detector.

 

You can put barrier around the nuclear reactor, so that the waves from the detector hit that barrier instead of the nuclear reactor. The barrier does not emit neutrons (or only a background level) so the detector goes quiet. Notice how there are no neutrons (particles) but the waves are still there.

 

That is one of the keys of TEW - the waves are always there. It means that we don't need to wait for the waves to start their journey - we only need to wait for particles to be produced at the source and then make their journey back along the elementary wave that stimulated them.

 

 

Uncool,

 

It is you that needs to expalin more in the neutron interference experiment, when you wrote:

 

Even without superdeterminism, no time reversal is needed, unless you
are referring to the propagation of antineutrons as a move backwards in
time by neutrons (which, again, is an interpretation).

 

By referring to antineutrons moving backwards in time, you are using this interpretation to explain the result of the experiment.

 

If you believe that then clearly you are a qm supporter that is comfortable with effects backwards in time. If you don't believe that, then how do you explain the experiment?

 

To be deterministic, you must be able to explain how the neutrons in the Neutron Interferometer (NI) know what analyzer crystal is there before they reach it. How can they know? Why would the analyzer crystal affect what is happening in the NI?

 

There are two choices here - either claim that something happens backwards in time, or admit that qm cannot explain the experiment.

 

We can still keep the successes of qm. The successful predictions in lots of experiments are still there and something for physics to be proud of. It's just that sometimes there are experiments where qm doesn't seem to know what's going on, and this is one of them. This experiment deserves lots of debate.

 

Eugene Morrow

 

[uncool]

Uncool,

 

It is you that needs to expalin more in the neutron interference experiment, when you wrote:

 

By referring to antineutrons moving backwards in time, you are using this interpretation to explain the result of the experiment.

No, I am not, and "antineutrons moving backwards in time" is not an accurate paraphrase of what I wrote. Reread what I wrote. First, as I said, I was referring to what happens without superdeterminism. Second, what I said was that an interpretation was that antineutrons moving forwards in time was the same as neutrons moving backwards in time. In other words, there are interpretations that don't use this.

If you believe that then clearly you are a qm supporter that is comfortable with effects backwards in time.

Not quite. I am comfortable with being able to think of "effects backwards in time", under a different interpretation than the one I favor.

If you don't believe that, then how do you explain the experiment?

As I said, I don't explain the experiment yet, because you haven't explained what the experiment is yet.

=Uncool-

Edited June 3, 2013 by uncool

[studiot]

Forgive me for worrying at this issue, but at the outset my comment was that the 'wave' in quantum mechanics was not a true wave in the strict sense. By this I mean:

 

 

There are many solutions to the wave equation, which we call wave functions.

 

For a single particle, in one dimension

 

[math]\Psi (z,t) = C{e^{i(kz - \omega t)}}[/math]

Now this is a complex function and in classical mechanics we discard the imaginary part, leaving us with only the real part

[math]\Psi (z,t) = {\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits} [C{e^{i(kz - \omega t)}}] = A\cos (kz - \omega t + \varphi )[/math]

Where k, C and A are constants; t is time; z is distance; omega and phi have their usual angular significance.

 

For a string of identical coupled oscillators the classical choice of the real part only leads to the familiar cosine wave form of oscillation.

 

However consider a beam of particles. We do not want a cosine variation of our parameter. We want each particle to appear the same. This is achieved by taking the entire complex wavefunction in quantum mechanics.

 

Now I have looked through Dr Little's paper and cannot find such an equation describing his TEW.

 

Perhaps you could point it out as I may have missed it?

[swansont]

 

 

This is where the physical differences between qm and TEW show up. In qm, the wave and the particle go in the same direction, so the wave only exists when the particle is moving.

 

In TEW, the waves and the particle are physicallly seperate entities. The waves are always there even though we can't see them. We can't see gravity, but we all know it's always there because we can see the effects. With elementary waves we only see the effects when particles follow elementary waves (in the reverse direction).

 

In the neutron interference experiment as in real life there are elementary waves everywhere. We only care about the ones the come out of the detector and reach the nuclear reactor, because they will get a neutron coming back which registers in the detector.

The wave travels from the detector to the reactor? You said "From the TEW point of view, elementary waves start at the detector and go left through the apparatus to the reactor and stimulate neutrons coming back. If you change the elementary waves you get different neutrons coming back."

 

But the wave has to get all the way back to the source to send out these "different" neutrons. It's still happening faster than c.

Eugene Morrow, on 03 Jun 2013 - 17:31, said:

You can put barrier around the nuclear reactor, so that the waves from the detector hit that barrier instead of the nuclear reactor. The barrier does not emit neutrons (or only a background level) so the detector goes quiet. Notice how there are no neutrons (particles) but the waves are still there.

So the waves interact with the barrier, and with neutrons. Is there a way to independently measure these waves? They seem to interact with everything.

Eugene Morrow, on 03 Jun 2013 - 17:31, said:

That is one of the keys of TEW - the waves are always there. It means that we don't need to wait for the waves to start their journey - we only need to wait for particles to be produced at the source and then make their journey back along the elementary wave that stimulated them.

Seems to me they still have to travel a finite distance in no time.

 

Imatfaal, Swansont,

 

For those who want to see equations about the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW), you can see them by following the link I provided. The link goes to an early draft of the 1996 paper Dr. Little write for Physics Essays. The link gives a copy of that paper that has no diagrams but does have the equations. I don't know why the diagrams do not appear but the maths is there.

So, you're just the salesman, and if we want to know how it works, we have to talk to someone else. I don't think that's going to fly. You can't duck the hard questions like this.

[Eugene Morrow]

Uncool,

You wrote:

an interpretation was that antineutrons moving forwards in time was the same as neutrons moving backwards in time.

You might find the two ideas the same, but antineutrons do not explain the result of this experiment. So neither of us are convincing the other with our discussions on what is happening.

This is a common conversational problem with how quantum mechanics explans reality. A few quotes sum up why:

I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.

Richard Feynman, in The Character of Physical Law (1965)

 

If the price of avoiding non-locality is to make an intuitive explanation impossible, one has to ask whether the cost is too great.

David Bohm et al. Physc. Rep. 144, 321 (1987)

So qm explanations do not make sense and are non-local. The first step in improving qm is to face the one problem that it has - the explanations. The maths is fantasticaly successful, but not the explanations, which is why we need a bunch of interpretations to try and solve that problem.

In the neutron experiment, the result does not make sense to qm. This is true even if you never accept the explanation from the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW). Physics needs to be reminded of the weak point of qm now and again.


Studiot,

You needed to read the text of the 1996 paper by Dr. Lewis Little. He explains the relationship between qm maths and TEW maths in some detail, with a lot in Sections 8 and 9.

By the time we reach Section 15, Little writes:

 

It has been shown that the elementary waves theory arrives at matrix elements in a manner far simpler than current theory. No canonical quantization is required, nor any second quantization, nor any relativization to obtain pairs, nor any Fock space to understand quantum statistics. One simply has waves, as primary constituents of reality in their own right, along with particles. Because the waves simply exist, and propagate as a flux, field equations become superfluous. They are of no value in expressing the fundamental theory.

Indeed, the theory becomes so simple that one can state it without even writing down a differential equation!

It is because of the primary nature of the waves, rather than of field equations, that it was necessary, in Sections 8 and 9, to establish the mathematical equivalence of the elementary waves theory to current quantum mechanics at the level of Feynman diagrams rather than at the level of field equations.

Perhaps it is confusing that I call them `waves' and then state that there are no field equations. But, as described above, they are waves only in the sense that they combine with one another in a wave-like manner when stimulating the emission of particles. There is a periodicity along the `wave.' But these are not waves in a medium, and the signal is not carried by wavefronts.

The notion that any periodic `thing' must propagate as the result of a field equation is a carryover from classical physics. One can deduce wave equations for classical waves from the physics of the medium through which the wave propagates. This notion was then applied to quantum waves, even though no medium is involved. But this is erroneous.

It is only if the physics of the waves comes from that of the medium that it makes sense to describe the waves primarily in terms of a field equation. The field equation, after all, primarily describes the medium; the waves are the consequence. If the waves are the primary things, without there being any medium, then one simply describes the waves. The field equation becomes physically superfluous.

A few paragraphs later Dr. Little says:

So it is not the elementary waves theory that should not be criticized for the fact that it has no field equations. Rather, current theory should be criticized for the fact that it does have such equations, but without the appropriate physical foundation.

You will need to read the whole paper to understand all the reasoning he used to get to these words.

You can see that Dr. Little starts with reality first, and then uses maths. Instead of starting with an equation, he deals with what is happening in experiments. I much prefer Dr. Little's approach.


Swansont,

Your main point shows I have not yet explained elementary waves well enough:

But the wave has to get all the way back to the source to send out these "different" neutrons. It's still happening faster than c.

Elementary waves are going in all direction through all points of the universe at all times. They don't just do it once, - they are always doing this.

Think of a light globe in a room. The TEW picture is that elementary waves continuously come from all points of the surface of the room towards the light globe. If on, the light globe responds by sending photons back along the waves.

If we turn the light globe off, the elementary waves are still there, but no particles get produced. So the elementary waves do nothing, but they are still there continuously.

The same applies in the neutron interference experiment. There are elementary waves everywhere, but we're only interested in the waves coming out of the detector and reach the reactor. These waves go through a sort of obstable course: the analyzer crystal, the Neutron Interferometer (NI) and then reach the reactor if they interference patterns in the NI allow it.

You are concerned that the waves had to go from the detector to the reactor faster than c. This is not necessary. If you read the experiment, when they change the analyzer crystal, the procedure is that they turn of the flow of neutrons (by putting in some sort of barrier), walk into the lab, replace the crystal, walk out, remove the barrier and then resume taking measurements.

The elementary waves were going through the obstacle course the whole time at speed c. When they replace the crystal, the change elementary waves have already reached the barrier less than a second later. When they remove the barrier to resume measurements, the waves are flowing to the reactor and stimulating neutrons less than a second later.

The waves are flowing from the detector through the obstacle course and to the reactor continuously after that. No matter whether a neutron is traveling back or not, there are always elementary waves making the journey. You can see that the time for the elementary waves to travel is not a factor in the experiment.

I'm not interested in talking maths, because I prefer Dr. Little's approach - talk about reality. It's how we will judge whether qm or TEW is a better theory.

Eugene Morrow

[uncool]

Uncool,

 

You wrote:

 

 

You might find the two ideas the same, but antineutrons do not explain the result of this experiment.

No, I'm not taking your word for that. You have yet to actually answer any questions about this experiment, so I can't give an answer myself.

So neither of us are convincing the other with our discussions on what is happening.

 

This is a common conversational problem with how quantum mechanics explans reality. A few quotes sum up why:

 

 

 

So qm explanations do not make sense and are non-local.

Not all interpretations are. I've already shown you one. Stop asserting and start answering questions already.

The first step in improving qm is to face the one problem that it has - the explanations. The maths is fantasticaly successful, but not the explanations, which is why we need a bunch of interpretations to try and solve that problem.

 

In the neutron experiment, the result does not make sense to qm.

What is the experiment? You have yet to actually write any detail about the experiment.

This is true even if you never accept the explanation from the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW). Physics needs to be reminded of the weak point of qm now and again.

You need to be reminded that you still haven't yet even started to answer the questions I have. Would you like a reminder of what the questions are?

=Uncool-

[Klaynos]

On top of what others have said you seem to be making a very common mistake. Why do you think that a group of ape descendents should be able to understand the universe?

[swansont]

 

You are concerned that the waves had to go from the detector to the reactor faster than c. This is not necessary. If you read the experiment, when they change the analyzer crystal, the procedure is that they turn of the flow of neutrons (by putting in some sort of barrier), walk into the lab, replace the crystal, walk out, remove the barrier and then resume taking measurements.

Is that what the conjecture is based on? One experiment that had to be done slowly, because of radiation issues? This is why people are insisting on discussing other experiments, because it looks an awful lot like you're exploiting an idiosyncrasy of the experiment, instead of testing the conjecture. IOW, because of the delay, this is a bad experiment to test TEW.

[studiot]

Hmm, let's look at what you have said in the cold light of reason.

Field equations describe, surprise surprise, the field, the whole field and nothing but the field.

 

That is they describe the undisturbed field, not the disturbance.

 

In order for a disturbance to exist in the field there must be at least one agent, external to the field but interacting with it. A wave is a disturbance.

 

We call this a source.

 

There may be other agents also interacting with the field. We call these variously sinks, observers, targets and many other things.

 

The disturbance itself is governed by its own set of equations which describe it.

 

I did not ask for field equations, I asked for equations describing the disturbance.

 

This must be possible if the disturbance exists.

 

Now imagine my disappointment.

 

When I asked for this information you told me to read a certain paper.

 

I read that paper and reported that it did not contain any such equations.

 

So I posted some. Note these were not field equations, they were disturbance equations.

 

You replied that no the paper does not contain equations because there are none.

 

So why did you direct me to read the paper?

 

Unlike some, I have treated you seriously and not pretended that mathematics is the only way to deal with technical matters.

 

But nor should it be absent from the discussion.

Here is a simple example.

 

Consider the mixing of concrete, without any mathematics at all.

 

Take some aggregate, sand, cement and water and mix them together. This will form concrete.

 

Or will it?

 

Only if you are lucky enough to arrive at reasonable proportions.

 

So to try again

 

Mix 4 parts by weight of aggregate with 2 parts by weight of sand and one part by weight of cement.

 

Add water and continue mixing, until the required consistency is achieved.

 

This will get you a respectable concrete.

 

Note that the instructions are part mathematical – for the dry ingredients

 

And part procedural for the water. This part cannot be mathematical.

 

 

But both types of analysis are required to get good concrete, you cannot exactly quantify the required water.

[Eugene Morrow]

Everyone,

 

I've had one of those busy days and can't spend the time on this I want to. I will answer you all tomorrow.

 

Uncool,

 

I realise I have thrown in a very challenging experiment, and I will provide some more details so you can get your head around it. I can understand it will take some time to get more familiar with it.

 

 

Klaynos,

 

Yours is a very important philosophical point, and I want to discuss it more with you.

 

 

Swansont,

 

I am obviously not getting across how elementary waves work yet. This experiment is an excellent way of testing elementary waves versus quantum mechanics. I will discuss your issues more, and you may benefit from the extra details I give Uncool.

 

 

Studiot,

 

I have clearly frustrated you because I am not interested in equations. I have been trying to make it clear how TEW is not built from equations - rather it's built on explanations of experiments. Quantum mechanics is much more maths focused and starts there. I'm not sure how we can make any progress.

 

Eugene Morrow

 

[univeral theory]

 

I agree that without concept the maths is meaningless.

i suppose i should start from the scratch:1- what is a wave according to TEW and what is a particle?

5. A particle always follows a particular elementary wave IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION at all times.

why is it that the particle will always follow a particular elementary wave?

[Eugene Morrow]

Everyone - this will be a long post today, so I will break it up into posts for each person I am conversing with.

Univeral Theory

You asked:

 

i suppose i should start from the scratch:1- what is a wave according to TEW and what is a particle?

I'll give the quickest summary I can.

An elementary wave in the Theory of Elementary Waves is the quantum wave of quantum mechanics (qm), only the direction of the wave is the opposite to that of qm.

In qm, the wave goes along with the particle. In TEW the wave and the particle are separate entities. Both theories have an assumption about the wave direction: qm assumes it is in the "forwards" direction with the particle, and TEW assumes it is in the reverse direction which TEW calls the "reciprocal" wave.

Why would TEW suggest the wave goes in the opposite direction? The short answer is that lots of experiments make much more sense if this is true, and the best one is the neutron experiment that we are discussing a lot at the moment.

The elementary waves are a sort of infrastructure to the universe. They always exist going through every point of the universe in all directions. Elementary waves are a sinusoidally varying flux of some sort. The waves carry a marker of some sort of the last mass they wave when through. If two waves meet with the same marker, then they will interfere in the usual way waves do. If two waves do not have the same marker then they normally ignore each other, but on occasion will have collisions.

Dr. Little wrote this quick summary in the 1996 paper in Physics Essays:

 

they are waves only in the sense that they combine with one another in a wavelike manner when stimulating the emission of particles. There is a periodicity along the “wave.” But these are not waves in a medium, and the signal is not carried by wave fronts.

A particle in qm is the "wave-particle" or "wave packet". Im TEW. the particle is a point-like entity that follows a wave in the opposite direction to the direction the wave is going. Both the waves and particles are elementary, hence TEW talks about elementary waves and elementary particles. There is nothing smaller than these things.

Since TEW has the waves and particles as separate, it's worth saying a bit about how they work together. The light globe example I gave to Swansont is best here: the walls of a room have elementary waves coming towards the light globe continuously. The light globe is a source of particles and these responds to incoming waves in a certain direction - the more waves arrive the more likely the source will send a particle. For a light globe is sends particle in all directions.

You also asked:

why is it that the particle will always follow a particular elementary wave?

The short answer is that when you look at experiments from the TEW point of view, they make sense in this way. Basically, the elementary waves are always there first and interact in various ways. They form sort of railroad tracks for particle coming along (in the reverse direction to the wave). The TEW claim is that a particle is always following an elementary wave at all times.

Feynman diagrams are a good picture. The existing diagrams show the particle motions. If you reverse the arrows you see a picture of the elementary waves that were having certain collisions.

There's a lot in it, so I've summarized quite a lot in a short space there.

Eugene Morrow

 

Uncool,

You want more details of the neutron interference experiment. I'll start with a bit more about my simplication of it, and then give you an idea of the complexity of the details.

In my simplification, I have highlighted the key effect that made the physicists perform the experiment at all. The key effect is that if you change the analyzer crystal then it changes the interference pattern in the Neutron Interferometer (NI).

The role of the analyzer crystal is like a prism in optics - it splits a beam into bands of frequencies. Since qm believes that neutron particles are also waves, then this sort of experiment is called "neutron optics" (as well as neutron interferometery). The analyzer crystal is selecting a 'spectrum" of neutron "waves".

The key effect of the experiment is seen in measuring the coherence length of the neutrons. The coherence length is the spread of energies (more correctly the momentums) of the neutrons when they reach the detector. As qm believes the neutron particles are also wave packets, and the coherence length is an attempt to measure how big the wave packet is.

In the qm explanation, the coherence length is actually determined in the NI, because the size of the wave packet determines the interference pattern. What surprised the experimenters is that the analyzer crystal affects this, but the analyzer crystal is reached after the neutrons have finished intefering in the NI. So somehow the neutrons know about the analyzer crystal before they reach it.

So the two big issues are coherence length and the effect of the analyzer crystal which is filtering a spectrum of "neutron waves". Hence the title of the paper is "Coherence and spectral filtering in neutron interferometry".

There are hard numbers on the key effect. On page 41 of the paper the coherence lengths are shown:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will explain what the terms C3 and so on mean in a moment. Notice that the coherence length varies from 97.5 to 3450 - a change of more than 34 times. The analyzer crystal has an enormous effect on the coherence length.

As before, I quoted the experimenters 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.

There is a more complete look at my simplication. Now I will deal with a few more of the complexities.

Remember that only one neutron is going through the equipment at all times, but we get interference patterns, just like in the double slit experiment.

 

The experimenters are investigating the interference as well as the coherence length. There are actually there detectors in order to measure interference in more detail. The inner structure of the NI is shown in the diagram below. The diagram is taken from the 1996 paper:



The NI is the three vertical bars at left. Each vertical bar is silicon crystal. The analzyer crystal is also silicon. The neutrons enter one at a time at left, and qm believes the wave packets split into two and then combine again (just like in the double slit experiment). At the third crystal qm believes the neutron packets combine into one again, and can either go up or down, depending on the interference pattern.

The Bismuth sample is an optional extra. That delays one of the wave packets, so we can probe how the inteference is affected by that delay. The analyzer crystal is seeking to narrow the "neutron wave" spectrum being measured, which means the frequencies of the neutrons being measured.

The Detectors are named C1, C2 and C3. C1 is the lowest detector. C2 at bottom right and at top right. The terms in Table VIII are explained as follows:

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

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

© "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.

Notice how even changing the orientation of the PR analyzer crystal changes the coherence length.

So to summarize, the analyzer crystal somehow affects the coherence length in the NI - after the neutrons have left the NI. The experimenters are stunned by this and write:

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.

It is clearly very challenging to the qm view of the experiment.

In TEW, the elementary waves go in the reverse direction from the detector through all the crystals to the reactor. The analyzer crystal affects these waves, which hence affects how the waves interfere in the NI. This affects how the neutrons make the return journey from the reactor to the detector and the measured coherence length of the neutrons.

 

For TEW the coherence length is not a measure of the wave packet size. Instead, the coherence length is a measure of the energies (momentums) of the neutrons sent by the reactor. So for TEW, it is a prime example of a source (the reactor) responding to different elementary waves coming in: the response is to send different neturons back.

Eugene Morrow

Swansont,

I explained how when the analzyer crystal is replaced, there is plenty of time for the modified elementary waves to reach the reactor and send new neutrons back.

You wrote:

Is that what the conjecture is based on? One experiment that had to be done slowly, because of radiation issues? This is why people are insisting on discussing other experiments, because it looks an awful lot like you're exploiting an idiosyncrasy of the experiment, instead of testing the conjecture. IOW, because of the delay, this is a bad experiment to test TEW.

You are focusing on the journey of the elementary waves to the source, which happens before the neutrons get created. Since there is only one neutron being produced at a time, there are delays between each neutron anyway. Elementary waves travel at the speed of light, so there is plenty of time for this to happen.

The issue you are raising is something that will be tested soon. Jeff Boyd in his paper in Physics Essays in 2013 has suggested an experiment that will test exactly what you are referring to.

The experiment is the double slit experiment, where they will close one slit in the same pico second that the electron is produced. For qm, there will be no interference, because the electron has only one slit to traverse.

 

In TEW, the waves have gone through both slits and stimulated an electron. By the time the electron is produced, it only needs one of the waves to make it back to the screen, so we should still see an interference pattern. Will be fascinating to see the results of that experiment. Effectively, it will answer the issue I think you are raising.

 

In the meantime, the neutron experiment is an excellent test of qm versus TEW, becuase TEW can explain cause and effect easily and with everything happening in normal time. It is much harder for qm to make sense of it.

 

Eugene Morrow

 

Kalynos,

You are making an excellent philosophical point: why should the universe make sense at all?

I concede that there is no law that the universe must make sense to us mere humans. There is also another way of looking at this.

Think of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum. Why do physicists believe those things? Well, because we've measured these things a lot and they seem to be conserved. It also makes sense they they would be conserved. So these ideas are widely believed, even though we have no written gaurantee from God that they will always be true. At any moment, they might stop being true for no apparent reason.

So basically everything in physics is just our beliefs based on consistency of results in the past. Which means that the universe has behaved in lots of ways that are very consistent and seem logical to us mere humans. What does logical mean? It means local and deteministic.

This happy picture continued until quantum experiments were performed. Then things were a lot harder to understand.

On one hand, you could argue that the universe has stopped being to easy to understand and we should give up and accept the weirdness of quantum mechanics. I think most of phyiscs has done this.

A few people like me and Dr. Little were not convinced. The belief is that the universe still is local and deterministic, but we haven't worked out how yet.

For me, Dr. Little and TEW have solved the mystery - TEW makes the universe local and deterministic again.

That doesn't mean TEW is an easy choice. The whole idea of a wave in the opposite direcion is very confusing at first to get your head around.

 

To me, it's a simple choice. Either you believe in one of a group of interpretations that cover mutliple universes, effects backwards in time, particles being in two places at once, particles having muliple states until measure, non-local effects faster than light and other weirdness. The alternative is TEW where the quantum wave goes in the opposite direction, and that makes all the weirdness go away.

For me, TEW is a simpler choice.

 

Eugene Morrow

Studiot,

I am not interested in giving equations for a disturbance, because Dr. Little is not interested either. I am here to talk about why I like his theory, and I can't decide to choose equations he did not.

I want to turn the question around: what are you going to do with your equation of a disturbance? Are you going to analyze the neutron interference experiment with it? The experimenters (who are qm experts) tried that, but it did not answer the mystery about the coherence length and the analyzer crystal.

So why are you interested in an equation about a wave disturbance?

Eugene Morrow

[univeral theory]

I'll give the quickest summary I can.

 

An elementary wave in the Theory of Elementary Waves is the quantum wave of quantum mechanics (qm), only the direction of the wave is the opposite to that of qm.

 

 

yes, the experiment can prove the opposite direction movement;which is not daft with in the conventional interpretations of quantum mechanics. but in QM we interprete the quantum word as a single quantum phenomenon(wave particle) "made up" of two physical phenomena(wave and particle). in TEW, the quantum world is interpreted as two physically indipendent phenomena (wave and particle) that "merge" to form a single quantum phenomenon. and in relativity theory, this implies that each indipendent physical phenomenon had an indipendent accelerating frame before this merging took place. isnt it so?

[Eugene Morrow]

univeral theory,

 

Let's see if I understand the point your are raising.

 

In quantum mechanics (qm), the particle is also a wave, so the wave-particle has a single frame of reference from the special relativity point of view. In the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW), the wave and the particle are physically different phenomena, so they have different frames of reference.

 

Yes, that is right. Dr. Little goes into a lot of details about special relativity in both the 1996 article and the TEW book. He has some subtle points about how this works. Each elementary wave is a flux in a vacuum - there is no medium or "ether" (which is the same as qm). Each elementary waves carries a "marker" or "organisation" that is a result of the last mass the elementary wave went through. It is the "marker" that travels at speed c relative to the mass that created that marker. So that is the frame of reference for the elementary wave.

 

The particle has the frame of reference of the source of that particle, such as a light globe. A photon will travel at c in the frame of reference of the source. Other particles travel much slower, like neutrons, so the source frame of reference is more important.

 

Dr. Little points out that TEW is already fully compatible with special relativity, and you can say that TEW "predicts" special relativity. You can read about it in the 1996 article (which is free). TEW is fully quantitatively in agreement with special relativity. I know that qm also claims to be in agreement with special relativity.

 

The advantage of TEW is that in principle TEW is very much compatible with general relativity. All that needs to be worked out is the mechanism whereby a mass will make elementary waves in the vicinity curve. Once that mechanism is found, then TEW could easily be made to be fully quantitatively compatible with general relativity. So there is a much better chance of TEW agreeing with general relavitiy than qm agreeing with general relativity. I hope Dr. Little finishes this work on TEW and general relativity (while he's still with us). We would finally have Theory of Everything. It seems very close.

 

In the meantime, TEW explains something that no one else has. In special relativity Einstein simply said that the speed of light c is the maximum speed limit. He never proved this - he simply stated it as an assumption. Relativity has been upheld in every test of the theory, so the assumption looks good. The only question is - why is c the speed limit?

 

TEW gives a reason. The speed c is the speed of the elementary waves and their organisation (the markers). Nothing can go faster, because the particles are following elementary waves. So, in a sense, TEW has answered the question. Of course you can then ask - why do elementary waves travel at c? There will always be a deeper level to question.

 

I still like the TEW answer, because the elementary waves are this infrastructure to the universe, and I like the idea that the infrastructure limits us. Instead of c being this random speed limit, we can relate c to the elementary waves that are all through the universe. I feel a bit more satisifed with that answer.

 

I am aware that qm believes in entanglement where effects travel faster than c. In TEW there is a different explanation involving two elementary waves combining into one, which means there is no communication between the 'entangled' particles. So for TEW, there is no need or proof that anything is communicated faster than light. For TEW, the speed c remains the universal speed limit.

 

Is that the sort of discussion you wanted to have?

 

Eugene Morrow

 

[studiot]

I am not interested in giving equations for a disturbance, because Dr. Little is not interested either. I am here to talk about why I like his theory, and I can't decide to choose equations he did not.

 

I want to turn the question around: what are you going to do with your equation of a disturbance? Are you going to analyze the neutron interference experiment with it? The experimenters (who are qm experts) tried that, but it did not answer the mystery about the coherence length and the analyzer crystal.

 

So why are you interested in an equation about a wave disturbance?

 

 

 

 

You owe me an apology.

 

I, rather gently, pointed out that you mislead me earlier by directing me to look for something you must have known was not there in Little's paper.

 

As the only reader of this thread, until recently, prepared to listen and evaluate your statements, rather than dismiss and ridicule them I find this strange payback.

 

Unlike your highly selective responses to my comments on your statements, some of which were actually supportive of your ideas I try to answer each and every query or comment returned to me.

 

So the answer to your question above as to why I posted equations on disturbances in a field.

 

They are the equations that

1) Classical wave theory

2) Quantum wave mechanics

 

offer to describe a neutron beam, that you have made so much of.

 

Now I am not very interested in neutron beam theory but those are the equations and each offer a very different physical picture from the other.

 

Of course, only one matches our observations of reality.

 

Unfortunately you have made quite a number of fallacious statements about the results of quantum mechanics, relativity, classical wave mechanics, field theory, which form a poor basis to compare with your new proposed theory.

 

You have also contradicted yourself several times in these posts. In particular you sometimes claim that TEW predicts the same numerical results and has the same equations as Schrodinger, but then also claim that TEW does not posess any equations.

 

 

[univeral theory]

 

In the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW), the wave and the particle are physically different phenomena, so they have different frames of reference.

 

Is that the sort of discussion you wanted to have?

some where abit closes! so there are two different indipendent phenomena (wave and particle) with differently relative frames in the postulate of TEW. which different phenomena MUST by all means be supported by E=MC^2 indipendently (if the postulate of TEW is compartible with special relativity by local determinism. if this is true, can you please explain to me the topological or entropy structure of waves using E=MC^2 with out physical interraction with a particle.

[uncool]

In quantum mechanics (qm), the particle is also a wave, so the wave-particle has a single frame of reference from the special relativity point of view.

Quantum mechanics is usually done nonrelativistically; there are relativistic versions of quantum mechanics, but quantum field theory is both better-known and more general. Further, this statement seems to be nonsense; what do you mean by "the wave-particle has a single frame of reference from the special relativity point of view"?

Yes, that is right. Dr. Little goes into a lot of details about special relativity in both the 1996 article and the TEW book. He has some subtle points about how this works. Each elementary wave is a flux in a vacuum - there is no medium or "ether" (which is the same as qm). Each elementary waves carries a "marker" or "organisation" that is a result of the last mass the elementary wave went through. It is the "marker" that travels at speed c relative to the mass that created that marker. So that is the frame of reference for the elementary wave.

 

The particle has the frame of reference of the source of that particle, such as a light globe. A photon will travel at c in the frame of reference of the source. Other particles travel much slower, like neutrons, so the source frame of reference is more important.

 

Dr. Little points out that TEW is already fully compatible with special relativity, and you can say that TEW "predicts" special relativity.

No, you can't. It post-dicts special relativity. The word "predicts" means "to say before", i.e. to make a claim about an outcome before the outcome is clear. So no, it doesn't "predict" special relativity.

 

Now, the fact that it is claimed to reduce to special relativity in the limit is a good thing - in fact, a necessary thing. But that is not the same as predicting it.

You can read about it in the 1996 article (which is free). TEW is fully quantitatively in agreement with special relativity. I know that qm also claims to be in agreement with special relativity.

As it happens, the widely-known form is not. The widely-known theory that is in agreement (and, in fact, reduces to it) is quantum field theory (again, there is also the less-widely known relativistic quantum mechanics).

The advantage of TEW is that in principle TEW is very much compatible with general relativity. All that needs to be worked out is the mechanism whereby a mass will make elementary waves in the vicinity curve.

Then TEW is behind even quantum field theory.

Once that mechanism is found, then TEW could easily be made to be fully quantitatively compatible with general relativity. So there is a much better chance of TEW agreeing with general relavitiy than qm agreeing with general relativity.

In other words, you know less about it, so since you lack any knowledge of a contradiction, it's more likely not to have a contradiction?

I hope Dr. Little finishes this work on TEW and general relativity (while he's still with us). We would finally have Theory of Everything. It seems very close.

 

In the meantime, TEW explains something that no one else has. In special relativity Einstein simply said that the speed of light c is the maximum speed limit. He never proved this - he simply stated it as an assumption.

Actually, he didn't. The assumption only was that the speed of light was c, period. Read his original paper: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ . The assumptions are here: "They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. "

Relativity has been upheld in every test of the theory, so the assumption looks good. The only question is - why is c the speed limit?

As it happens, quantum field theory has also given the answer to this in its more general form - why it's impossible for information to be passed at a speed greater than c. It does so by proving that the commutator (or in case of fermions, anticommutator) of the field at two points which are separated by a spacelike interval must be 0, which means that the creation of a particle at a point cannot affect the creation of a particle at another point unless the particle that was created at the first point can reach the second point (approximately).

TEW gives a reason. The speed c is the speed of the elementary waves and their organisation (the markers). Nothing can go faster, because the particles are following elementary waves. So, in a sense, TEW has answered the question. Of course you can then ask - why do elementary waves travel at c? There will always be a deeper level to question.

 

I still like the TEW answer, because the elementary waves are this infrastructure to the universe, and I like the idea that the infrastructure limits us. Instead of c being this random speed limit, we can relate c to the elementary waves that are all through the universe. I feel a bit more satisifed with that answer.

 

I am aware that qm believes in entanglement where effects travel faster than c.

Not...quite. Entanglement means that there is a correlation between things that are more than c apart; that's not the same as having effects that travel faster than c.

 

 

In TEW there is a different explanation involving two elementary waves combining into one, which means there is no communication between the 'entangled' particles.

Please show the math behind this. In fact, you've given me an experiment; now I'll give you an experiment to explain while I continue to work through your experiment. Please read this article, and then explain the math of the "two elementary waves combining into one": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clauser_and_Horne%27s_1974_Bell_test

 

I also have a few more questions about the experiment you've given me. You've said that the analyzer crystal acts as a prism; does that mean that it somehow couples the momentum and the coherence length of the neutron? Can you give me a mathematical description of what it does with a given incoming wave? And then am I correct that the detectors both detect the collision of neutrons with the detectors and the position of those neutrons?

=Uncool-

[Eugene Morrow]

univeral theory,

 

I have re-read the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) on special relativity.

 

I realise that I my last post was wrong on the frames of reference. Re-reading the TEW book and the 1996 article, I realise that the particle travels in the frame of referecence of the elementary wave. So the elementary wave travels in it's own frame of refernce, and the particles travels back along in that frame of reference. The source is in it's own frame of reference, and that's fine because the source simply receives the elementary wave and issues a particle - the source doesn't care what frame of reference the elementary wave is in.

 

 

Studiot,

 

I apologise that you are feeling bad treated by the way I have answered your posts.

 

Your line of reasoning seems to have been much the same as everyone on this thread - you are clearly thinking in the quantum mechanics (qm) approch, which starts with maths. By asking for maths you are making an assumption that reality follows from maths, whereas TEW has it the other way around - maths follows from reality. There was always going to be tension on this point, and it is very appropriate we are having this disagreement.

 

It is the Reciprocity theorem that allows TEW to use largely the same maths as qm and reach such different conclusions. Dr. Little states that the Schrodinger equation is still valid for TEW. You are pointing out that Dr Little is not using equations to model everything. It's the same issue as in my last paragraph. The equations that qm uses in Schrodinger describe a result that TEW describes using reality. The qm equations are compatible (via reciprocity) with the TEW desciption of reality, so TEW is comfortable. However, the TEW description of reality does not fit with the qm assumptions behind the qm maths, so qm is not comfortable with this.

 

So by asking for equations we are seeing the stark differences between TEW and qm. There is no avoiding the tension on this point.

 

 

Uncool,

 

You wrote:

Further, this statement seems to be nonsense; what do you mean by "the wave-particle has a single frame of reference from the special relativity point of view"?

 

I was pointing out that since a particle in qm is regarded as both a wave and a particle moving together, the particle and the quantum wave share the same frame of reference. Do you disagree with that?

 

What I wrote was:

 

you can say that TEW "predicts" special relativity.

 

Of course TEW was after special relativity - by about 90 years: that's why the word predicts was in inverted commas. Dr. Little says the above statement to show how strongly TEW agrees with special relativity - if TEW had been developed first, then it would have predicted special relativity. It's just a statement of the strength of agreement between the two.

 

Regarding whether Einstein made an assumption about the speed of c, I think you are being a bit pedantic. Your quote is effectively saying what I was saying. Dr. Little claims that TEW gives a physical explanation to Einstein's postulates, and I very much agree.

 

You are clearly happy with the qm field theory reason why c is the speed limit. I am not convinced by the qm case, as usual because it is derived from maths, rather than from a description of reality. As I was discussing with Studiot, TEW and qm have a big difference in the relationship between maths and reality, and I much prefer the TEW approach.

 

About entanglement, you wrote:

 

Entanglement means that there is a correlation between things that are more than c apart; that's not the same as having effects that travel faster than c.

 

You are rare in interpreting entanglement this way. Most qm supporters I encounter favour the interpretation that something really is being communicated between the particles, and even backwards in time.

 

I have an example of entanglement where the only explanation for qm is that there is communication between the particles backwards in time. I have written a TEW explanations that is local and deterministic - everything happens in normal time. Both the TEW and qm explanations are free downloads.

 

You may not have time to look at them, especially since we are still debating the neutron interference experiment at the moment. I will give you the link in case you do have time: http://www.scribd.com/doc/99753535

 

Bell's theorem is more complex that just entanglement. There are double delayed varations that make analyzing the results more complex. TEW can still account for all the results in a local and deterministic way. I will have to deal with that in another post.

 

You asked some more questions on the neutron inteference experiment:

 

I also have a few more questions about the experiment you've given me. You've said that the analyzer crystal acts as a prism; does that mean that it somehow couples the momentum and the coherence length of the neutron? Can you give me a mathematical description of what it does with a given incoming wave? And then am I correct that the detectors both detect the collision of neutrons with the detectors and the position of those neutrons?

 

I must point out I made a mistake on numbering the detectors C1, C2, and C3 in the diagram I gave showing the inner parts of the Neutron Interfereometer. C2 is top right. C3 is bottom right and C1 is the "analyzed C3 beam" with is bottom middle (below the analzyer crystal). I had C2 and C3 mixed up.

 

The short answers to your questions are as follows:

(a) The analyzer crystal should not affect the coherence length at all (it just redirects the neutron).

(b) There is no maths for the analyzer crystal given by qm or TEW. You are doing the same thing as Studiot - asking for maths, and my reaction is the same.

© The detectors give a measure of the momentum of the incoming neutron for that detector. A spread of momentums is found by comparing many neutrons. The position is just the location of that detector.

 

Eugene Morrow

[studiot]

Studiot post#111

 

Unlike some, I have treated you seriously and not pretended that mathematics is the only way to deal with technical matters.

 

But nor should it be absent from the discussion.

 

Here is a simple example.

 

Consider the mixing of concrete, without any mathematics at all.

 

Take some aggregate, sand, cement and water and mix them together. This will form concrete.

 

Or will it?

 

Only if you are lucky enough to arrive at reasonable proportions.

 

So to try again

 

Mix 4 parts by weight of aggregate with 2 parts by weight of sand and one part by weight of cement.

 

Add water and continue mixing, until the required consistency is achieved.

 

This will get you a respectable concrete.

 

Note that the instructions are part mathematical – for the dry ingredients

 

And part procedural for the water. This part cannot be mathematical.

 

 

But both types of analysis are required to get good concrete, you cannot exactly quantify the required water.

 

A substantial last part of my post#111 was a clear demonstration of a technical situation where mathematics cannot be employed to describe the technicalities of that situation.

 

This was your reply, in post#112

 

Eugene Morrow post#112

 

 

I have clearly frustrated you because I am not interested in equations. I have been trying to make it clear how TEW is not built from equations - rather it's built on explanations of experiments. Quantum mechanics is much more maths focused and starts there. I'm not sure how we can make any progress.

 

How did you get from my comment to your reply?

 

And in post#120 you are still promoting the fiction that all I want is mathematics

 

Eugene Morrow post#120

 

I apologise that you are feeling bad treated by the way I have answered your posts.

 

Your line of reasoning seems to have been much the same as everyone on this thread - you are clearly thinking in the quantum mechanics (qm) approch, which starts with maths. By asking for maths you are making an assumption that reality follows from maths, whereas TEW has it the other way around - maths follows from reality. There was always going to be tension on this point, and it is very appropriate we are having this disagreement.

 

It is the Reciprocity theorem that allows TEW to use largely the same maths as qm and reach such different conclusions. Dr. Little states that the Schrodinger equation is still valid for TEW. You are pointing out that Dr Little is not using equations to model everything. It's the same issue as in my last paragraph. The equations that qm uses in Schrodinger describe a result that TEW describes using reality. The qm equations are compatible (via reciprocity) with the TEW desciption of reality, so TEW is comfortable. However, the TEW description of reality does not fit with the qm assumptions behind the qm maths, so qm is not comfortable with this.

 

So by asking for equations we are seeing the stark differences between TEW and qm. There is no avoiding the tension on this point.

 

 

I would say that my post#95 pretty much matched your specification above!!

 

 

Studiot post#95

 

I have not asked you for maths, others have done this.

 

If you choose to respond mathematically, that is fine. If you choose to respond with a chain of reasoning, that is also fine.

 

But I cannot accept a 'because I say so' type of explanation.

 

Waves are very precisely defined in their properties and also what they do not do. Mathematics is very convenient for this, but you can also do this descriptively.

 

I asked you descriptively about some proposed properties of Little's 'wave' that I cannot reconcile with my understanding of basic requirements for wave motion. You cannot cherry pick some properties and ignore others. As an example you would be erroneous to say that because clay is a soil it behaves as a granular material like sand. They are both soils with some common properties. But there are also differences.

 

The modern quantum theory can provide many accurate outputs. But this is only the same as same as a modern engineer saying that his steam tables are accurate to n decimal places because some gentlemen in the 1920s made many measurements to synchronise them with reality. We still use the gas laws for understanding gas behaviour. The kinetic theory and the gas laws form logical basis for deducing much about the behaviour of gasses.

 

So am seeking a gas law explanation of TEW, that is as consistent with and develops further the theory of waves as the kinetic theory is for the gas laws.

 

As to the reciprocal theorem, you introduced it, not I. However I would observe that the principle of reversibility of light, which is in fact a simple application of the reciprocal theorem, depends upon a linear system. It does not hold for a non linear one. The initial switching on or off is always non linear. The principle assumes a steady stae (=linear) condition.

 

So how about a proper discussion?

 

[uncool]

Uncool,

 

You wrote:

 

 

I was pointing out that since a particle in qm is regarded as both a wave and a particle moving together, the particle and the quantum wave share the same frame of reference. Do you disagree with that?

I can't agree or disagree with it, because it doesn't seem to mean anything. What do you mean by "share the same frame of reference" in this case?

 

It looks like you are mixing up what happens in relativistic classical (non-quantum) mechanics, where every simple object (i.e. no separate parts) has a unique frame of reference where it is not moving, and classical (non-relativistic) quantum mechanics.

What I wrote was:

 

 

Of course TEW was after special relativity - by about 90 years: that's why the word predicts was in inverted commas. Dr. Little says the above statement to show how strongly TEW agrees with special relativity - if TEW had been developed first, then it would have predicted special relativity. It's just a statement of the strength of agreement between the two.

And the point I was making is that "predicts" is a very strong word in science, and that this was not an appropriate use for it.

Regarding whether Einstein made an assumption about the speed of c, I think you are being a bit pedantic. Your quote is effectively saying what I was saying.

No, it is not even close to what you are saying. Einstein's assumption said nothing about a maximum at all - only the statement that the speed of light is exactly c. In fact, special relativity doesn't rule out particles going faster than light at all; it just says that in some frames, they will go backwards in time. It takes quantum field theory to rule out communication using such particles. So no, my quote is not what you were saying at all.

Dr. Little claims that TEW gives a physical explanation to Einstein's postulates, and I very much agree.

Then you have an odd idea of what an explanation provides. Einstein's postulate is that light moves at c; your postulate is that "elementary waves" move at c. That isn't an explanation; it's just pushing the question back.

You are clearly happy with the qm field theory reason why c is the speed limit. I am not convinced by the qm case, as usual because it is derived from maths, rather than from a description of reality.

The math that is used is derived from reality. So no, the two are not mutually exclusive.

As I was discussing with Studiot, TEW and qm have a big difference in the relationship between maths and reality, and I much prefer the TEW approach.

 

About entanglement, you wrote:

 

 

You are rare in interpreting entanglement this way. Most qm supporters I encounter favour the interpretation that something really is being communicated between the particles, and even backwards in time.

No, I am not rare. One of the major points about entanglement is that there is no information being passed - that is by far the consensus view. The only things which might be rare with respect to this are my interpretation of collapse, which I did not even hint at above. From Wikipedia on quantum entanglement: "The outcome of Alice's measurement is random. Alice cannot decide which state to collapse the composite system into, and therefore cannot transmit information to Bob by acting on her system."

 

 

I have an example of entanglement where the only explanation for qm is that there is communication between the particles backwards in time.

 

I have written a TEW explanations that is local and deterministic - everything happens in normal time. Both the TEW and qm explanations are free downloads.

 

 

 

You may not have time to look at them, especially since we are still debating the neutron interference experiment at the moment. I will give you the link in case you do have time: http://www.scribd.com/doc/99753535

Given all of your previously demonstrated misunderstandings of quantum mechanics, I'd like the explanation from someone who was actually an expert on quantum mechanics. No, that doesn't include Little.

 

Bell's theorem is more complex that just entanglement. There are double delayed varations that make analyzing the results more complex. TEW can still account for all the results in a local and deterministic way. I will have to deal with that in another post.

 

I am asking you to explain any of them, but to include the math.

 

 

You asked some more questions on the neutron inteference experiment:

 

 

I must point out I made a mistake on numbering the detectors C1, C2, and C3 in the diagram I gave showing the inner parts of the Neutron Interfereometer. C2 is top right. C3 is bottom right and C1 is the "analyzed C3 beam" with is bottom middle (below the analzyer crystal). I had C2 and C3 mixed up.

 

The short answers to your questions are as follows:

(a) The analyzer crystal should not affect the coherence length at all (it just redirects the neutron).

But it has to detect the coherence length; how does it do so?

(b) There is no maths for the analyzer crystal given by qm or TEW. You are doing the same thing as Studiot - asking for maths, and my reaction is the same.

Somehow I doubt that "there is no maths for the analyzer crystal given by qm". But even then, you should be able to explain further what it does. Given a neutron wave with a certain coherence length, what does the analyzer crystal do with it? Does it change its momentum in proportion to that coherence length? What does it do?

© The detectors give a measure of the momentum of the incoming neutron for that detector. A spread of momentums is found by comparing many neutrons. The position is just the location of that detector.

 

Eugene Morrow

Then the analyzer crystal must be giving the neutrons momentum based on their coherence lengths, right?

 

In other words, it must be coupling the momentum with the coherence length.

=Uncool-

[univeral theory]

I have re-read the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) on special relativity.

 

I realise that I my last post was wrong on the frames of reference. Re-reading the TEW book and the 1996 article, I realise that the particle travels in the frame of referecence of the elementary wave.

so;there is only a single frame from which the quantum world can be predicted! this implies that the phenomena with in this frame can be predicted as:

 

1- either; a single phenomenon made up of wave and particle coordination and regulation.

 

2- or; a single phenomenon changing states of (either particle or wave).

IS IT NOT SO?

[Eugene Morrow]

Studiot,

 

Thanks for persisting on your point about wanting to discuss the basis of elementary waves. I have not been addressing this.

 

Dr. Little called the "elementary" waves in the same sense that a photon is an elementary particle - there is nothing smaller. So we can't have a gas law for elementary waves - there is nothing underneath them that we know of. Of course there will always be some level where we can't go any lower.

 

I can quote Dr. Little on this. In the 1996 article, in Section 7, there are three passages that sum this up:

 

They are not waves in a medium. The elementary waves are the medium: they are the “material” filling otherwise empty space.

 

I am reluctant, however, to refer to a wave “material,” as if it were something aside from the waves. There is no evidence of such a material. Indeed, if the wave objects are genuinely elementary, then it is meaningless to refer to a (more elementary?) material out of which they are composed. One can only say for sure that the wave objects exist.

 

Elementary waves are waves only in the sense that they add and subtract as waves when they are mutually coherent. That is, they so add and subtract insofar as they act to stimulate the emission of any particles.

 

So Dr. Little defines elementary waves in terms of their behavior in experiments. That is why he says "One can only say for sure that the waves objects exist".

 

What do you think of this basis for elementary waves?

 

 

 

Uncool,

 

I will leave you to describe frames of reference for wave-particles in quantum mechanics. Not sure the point you want to discuss on that one.

 

You pointed out that saying the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) "predicts" special relativity is an inappropriate use of the word. I was repeating a claim by Dr. Little on this. On page 85 of the TEW book, he writes:

 

Had Einstein not yet discovered relativity theory, TEW would have predicted it.

 

To be precise, Einstein did say that all frames of reference measure the speed of light as c. TEW explains this very neatly - every measuring device sends out elementary waves traveling at c (in that frame of reference). The photon comes back along that wave at c. So all measuring devices get the same result - c, no matter what their frame of reference is.

 

You pointed out that saying c comes from elementary waves is just putting the question back. That's true. I still prefer the explanation of TEW, because the constancy of c is now explained in terms of a physical reality - elementary waves - rather than explaining the constancy of c as being true by observation or a simply a postulate.

 

I stated that most qm supporters believe their is communication between the particles in entanglement, and it must be faster than c. I also said you are rare to not require that communication. You stated:

 

No, I am not rare. One of the major points about entanglement is that there is no information being passed - that is by far the consensus view.

 

There are experiments where the only qm explanation available is communication between the particles, and even backwards in time. The experiment is written by qm experts. One example is:

 

S. P. Walborn, M. O. Terra Cunha, S. Padua, C. H. Monken, "Double-slit quantum eraser", Physical Review A, Volume 65, 033818, Feb 2002.

 

A free copy of a PDF of this experiment is found as follows:

1. Go to Wikipedia DSlit QEraser

1. Under “External links”, look for “The original paper on which this article is based.”

 

Let's look at the quantum mechanics (qm) point of view for this experiment.

 

The basic idea is that there are two entangled photons created: call them Photon P and S (perhaps named Partner and Slit). Photon S is put through a double slit experiment to create interference. Then we put a quarter-wave plate in front of the double slit. The quarter wave plate gives a different polarization to Photon S going through the different slits, so we can know which slit Photon S passed through. That polarization information stops interference of Photon S (according to qm).

 

Now we get to the interesting bit: we put a polarizer in front of Photon P, which changes the polarization of Photon S (which is the qm claim that there is communication between the photons). After all, only Photon P reaches the polarizer - how does Photons S know?

 

By putting the polarizer in front of P, we suddenly start getting an interference pattern with photon S (with the quarter wave plate still there).

 

The qm explanation is that there is communication between the photons, and that Photon P "erases" the polarization data we had on S (from the quarter-wave plate), so Photon S is now free to interfere. The experiment is called the "quantum eraser" becuase of the information that is "erased" by the entangled partner.

 

Even more interesting, the polarizer for P is placed a distance away so that Photon P reaches the polarizer AFTER Photon S has been detected and no longer exists. So Photon P "erased" the information about Photon S backwards in time. From the qm point of view, this explains the results of the experiment.

 

So according to qm there is communication between the entangled pair, even backwards in time.

 

My explanation here shows how TEW can explain everything in a local and deterministic way - nothing being erased and nothing happening backwards in time. See http://www.scribd.com/doc/99753535

 

 

When I get around to Bell's theorem, I will explain it by the usual physical description of the processes. For TEW, it is not necessary to use maths. If you want maths, you will be totally unsatisfied by my explanations.

 

In the neutron interference experiment, the calculation of coherence length is given, along with the results. As you ponit out, I'm not a qm expert, so you should read the paper. It is only USD $25 from http://pra.aps.org/. You are looking for:

 

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 analyzer crystal is like a prism for light - it breaks up one beam into constituent frequencies. So the analyzer crystal is like a filter - selecting a subset of the neutron beam. This is taken into account in the qm calculation of wave packet size, which is given in the paper.

 

I think you are thinking that the analyzer crystal has changed the coherence length on the way through. The experimenters are qm experts - they either were already or later became professors of physics. If there was a possibility of the analyzer crystal affecting coherence length, they would have considered it.

 

Instead, they are clear that that the coherence length is determined in the Neutron Interferometer. Their claim says it all:

 

The thing to keep in mind is that we determine the coherence length after the interference has taken place, far downstream from the interferometer.

 

They knew that the analyzer crystal was affecting the interferometer, but they clearly did not know why. At the time, qm was the only theory to choose from. Now there is TEW, which does explain why the analyzer crystal affects the interferometer. We have a choice of theory now. You can still choose qm if you prefer the explanations.

 

 

univeral theory,

 

We seem to agree that TEW uses a single frame of reference: the one for the elementary waves.

 

You then wrote:

this implies that the phenomena with in this frame can be predicted as:

 

1- either; a single phenomenon made up of wave and particle coordination and regulation.

 

2- or; a single phenomenon changing states of (either particle or wave).

IS IT NOT SO?

 

This is a really important philosophical question. My answer is that I think you have a limited imagination - there is at least another choice:

 

3 - two phenomena, where the waves are always there and propagate in one direction, and optionally a particle travels backwards along that wave.

 

TEW is presenting a new physical description that has not been considered before. The idea of the wave and particle being separate physical entities in the same frame of reference is something that Neils Bohr, Werner Heisenberg and even Einstein did not consider. It is a different answer to the usual qm picture, and hence will take some getting used to.

 

Eugene Morrow

[studiot]

What do you think of this basis for elementary waves?

 

Now I hope we are ready to make a start.

 

I think that in order to have a meaningful discussion we first have to agree on the meaning of the various terms we wish to employ. The fundamental ones at least, others can be developed along the way.

 

You see I think that part of your difficulty communicating your ideas to others is that you and they mean different things by some basic terms.

 

That is why I asked to start with the term 'wave'.

 

So what do you mean by a wave (any wave, not just your TEW), how would I recognise one if I met one in the street?

 

Armed with this I can compare against your 'basis for elementary waves' above and answer the question, and you will have communicated.

 

Other important terms to agree are field, velocity as applied to waves, interference.

 

Would that do for starters?