Correction of single error makes nonsense of quantum.

[sqwark]

A radical yet devastatingly elegant elimination of quantum confusion, leading to a unified field theory. By far the most convincing physics theory to date. www.yankee.us.com/TEW/TEW96paper.htmlHere is a shortened albeit still lengthy version of the article, with headings added for easier reading. Unpredictability is not equivalent to indeterminismAll `unpredictability,' as distinguished from `uncertainty' in the usual quantum mechanical sense, is now explained as resulting from lack of knowledge of the values of parameters in the particle source. Hence there is no need to conclude that there is any lack of strict determinism. The `uncertainty principle' is thereby explained. There must indeed be such parameters in the emitting system to explain why it reacts to one wave rather than another, as indicated earlier. And these parameters are additional to those in standard quantum mechanics. They thus do constitute `hidden variables' in the usual sense. But it is clear now that they create no conceptual difficulties. In the new form .. it will be shown that one can account for the unpredictability-as opposed to indeterminism-of particle behavior as being the product of `hidden' variables which have exact-if unknown-values at all times. The exact value of the particle momentum is unpredictable. We don't know which wave will lead to the emission of a particle at which time, and hence don't know in advance the value of the parameters describing a particular particle. But this is now due solely to ignorance of the value of parameters in the emitting system and not to any fundamental uncertainty. But this entire `uncertainty principle' way of looking at things is necessary only in a theory which holds that the particle is the wave. With the elementary wave picture it is clear that there is no actual uncertainty at all. Indeed, there are no wave-packets at all. Every individual wave frequency acts independently from all others, and every particle follows its own individual wave. There is some degree of `randomness' in how a particle follows its wave. Internal, `hidden' parameters in a particle determine which of several mutually coherent waves the particle will respond to at a particular vertex. But, as before, the randomness is only apparent, due to ignorance as to the values of the internal parameters. There is no lack of causality. It will be argued in Section 13 that this randomness-resulting as it does from parameters internal to the particles, and not from parameters characterizing a particle's motion directly-provides a physical basis for understanding irreversibility in quantum statistical processes. Variables as indirect, not hiddenAs an aside I must say that the notion of `hidden' variables of any kind is a misnomer. If a variable really were hidden, this would imply that it had no observable consequences, in which case one would never know of its existence-it would play no role in any theory. Indeed, a proper empiricism dictates that any such `variable' would be entirely meaningless. If a variable has any observable consequence, then, by that very fact, it is not hidden. The `hidden variables' in the source above clearly do have observable consequences: the emission of one particle rather than another, and at a particular time. They are therefore clearly not hidden. A more correct designation would be `more indirectly observed variable.Randomness is not ChanceThere is some unpredictability-as opposed to indeterminism-in this theory, in that we do not know in advance which wave the source will respond to in emitting a particular particle photon. However, unlike the situation in the usual theory, here the unpredictability can be described as resulting from a random process following an ordinary probability distribution. All of the wave states exist as real waves. The source then simply has a constant probability of responding to the intensity of each incident wave. The randomness thus reflects lack of knowledge of the value of some parameters in the source, rather than representing a fundamental indeterminism. The `hidden variables' must, mathematically, come into play as part of the event at which the squaring of the wave is performed. In current theory this is at the detector. But in fact the hidden variables are in the source, not the detector. Nonlocality as a single waveElementary 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. No actual cancellation of waves occurs; all `pieces' of every wave are present at all times. It is only the effects of a wave that cancel when its `pieces' are mutually coherent (and out of phase). This is unlike current wave theory, but is actually necessary in a theory where the waves are real things. The real waves don't go out of existence when they interfere; only their effects disappear. So clearly both waves and particles are present. One sees waves and one sees particles, so one has both waves and particles. Yet, as is well known, all attempts to interpret the experiment using separate waves and particles have failed. Perhaps the reader is so used to the usual quantum mechanical description of this phenomenon, in which the particles follow no trajectory in particular, that it isn't immediately apparent that the trajectories are screen-location-dependent. But unless one is already wedded to the usual quantum picture, what one has here is a direct experimental observation of the fact that something moves from the screen to the particles. There is no other local manner in which one can explain what is observed. One might try to invent a theory such as Bohm's[6] in which a potential of some kind exists in the region behind the slits. This potential would not depend on the screen position, but rather only on the slits. The particles would then follow curved paths of some kind, but paths which do not change as the screen is moved. However, as proved indirectly by Bell's theorem, it is impossible to accomplish this with a local potential. And Bohm's `quantum potential' is explicitly nonlocal. Bell's Theorem as confirming dependencePerhaps the best example confirming the reverse motion is provided by EPR experiments. Consider, to be specific, the experiments with two photons and measurements of their polarization[2]. Bell's theorem[1], generalized to this experiment[8], proves-although it is not usually interpreted in this manner-that whatever variables might describe the photon on one side of the experiment, there must be a dependence on the orientation of the polarizer on the other side. Otherwise one cannot explain the observed correlations between the polarizations of the two photons. This must be true for any description of the photon based on parameters which have exact values. But, given our `pre-quantal' outlook, all parameters must have exact values, and nonlocality is unacceptable. Hence what we have is a direct proof that the photon state depends on the orientation of the opposite polarizer. It might seem strange to interpret Bell's theorem as proving the fact of this dependence. Bell's reasoning was premised on the absence of any such dependence. He then proved that, given this lack of dependence, there is no local manner in which one can account for what is observed, assuming a description of the photons based on parameters with exact values. But far from proving nonlocality and/or the absence of parameters with exact values, as this is frequently interpreted, the fact that nonlocality and the absence of exact parameters are unacceptable means instead that the theorem is a reductio ad absurdum of its major premise. The photon state must depend on the polarizers, because if not one is forced to accept nonlocality and/or the absence of parameters with exact values describing the photons. But both of these latter conclusions are absurd. Reverse waves explain Aspect's experiments locallyAs will be demonstrated in Section 4, there is a shortcoming in Aspect's experiment, arising from the repetitive switching back and forth between the same two polarizer states on each side of the apparatus. For the parameters chosen by Aspect, something travelling in reverse, from polarizers to photons, will, in fact, explain his result in a local manner. A proposal for a definitive experiment which corrects the shortcoming will be made in Section 4. A local explanation for the single-delayed-choice experiments will also be presented. But the state of a particle can only depend on the measuring device if something moves from the device to the oncoming particle to affect its state. There must be a real physical basis for the dependence. But, at the same time, we have the mountainous evidence that the equations of current quantum mechanics work. When applied to any known physical system, those equations yield what is observed in the laboratory. Yet nothing moves in reverse in current theory. If some new entity is to be added, moving in reverse, how can one still explain the fact that the current mathematics works so well? Quantum wave reversal consistent with current mathematicsThe essence of the proposed answer is very simple: It is the quantum wave itself that moves in reverse. With a reverse wave all that changes mathematically is the sign of the momentum exponent in the exponential describing the wave.1 But that exponential is squared in absolute value when deriving an observable result anyway; so a change to its sign changes nothing. And, by reciprocity[9], the matrix element for any scattering of a reversed wave is identical, but for a possible phase factor, with the forward scattering. If one can make a theory work with reverse waves, it should yield the same mathematics and yet still provide the `something' that moves in reverse. Clearly reverse waves imply a radically different theory. No longer are the waves somehow the particles. Rather, the waves are present in the environment already, and the particles then follow those waves. But enough evidence supports such a picture to warrant its consideration. The reason for the failure of all previous attempts at a theory with separate waves and particles-indeed, of all previous attempts to account for quantum behavior in a local, deterministic manner-is that the waves were always assumed to move forward, with (or as) the particles. Because the waves actually move in reverse-as will be even more fully demonstrated in what follows-and carry with them `information' regarding the environment into which a particle is moving, all such forward-waves theories were necessarily nonlocal. The physical effects caused by the `information' carried by the reverse waves could only be accounted for through one kind or another of nonlocal interaction. This, I submit, is the real physical basis for Bell's theorem. Nonlocality debunkedThe wave is present at all times, and not only when the particle is emitted. There is thus no problem in explaining why the wave is present when the particle `needs' it. And the wave doesn't have to `carry' the particle in any sense. The particle simply follows the direction from which the wave is coming (by a process which will be described in detail in Sections 8 and 9), following it back to its source, which it reaches with probability 1. No nonlocal interaction between an extended wave and the particle is required to understand how the particle follows the wave. The theory is both local and deterministic. Waves are waves and particles are particles, and both have an exact state at all times. The particle travels through only one slit. The wave goes through both slits. But the wave goes through first, setting up the interferences, before the particle arrives. No wave function collapseWith this picture one doesn't even need any `measurement theory' to understand what happens when the particle reaches the screen. The squaring of the wave takes place at the particle source;-and this makes perfect sense: one would expect the probability of particle emission to be proportional to the intensity of the stimulating wave. At the screen one simply sees the particle with probability 1. There is no wave function `collapse'; the wave is there all the time. Multiplicity of reverse wavesAnd, just as for the double-slit, if a particle might take more than one path between the source and the detector, any interference is explained by the fact that the reverse waves take all paths. Each particle takes only one path. It is never necessary to have a particle in more than one location at a single time. Instead of particles being two places at once, one simply has two waves. It is clear qualitatively how the reverse waves picture will explain EPR experiments, or at least those without delayed choice. The reverse waves penetrate the polarizers before they arrive at the particle source, and thus carry with them `information' regarding the polarizer orientations. The particle photons are then created in a state that reflects the polarizer orientations at the outset. Bell's major premise is violated: the variables that describe the photons do depend on both polarizer orientations.4 The waves are the mediumBecause 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. They actually propagate much like a simple flux of material, with the material carrying a wave `implanted' in it, so to speak. However, the product looks exactly like a wave propagating according to the usual field equations. Because the waves exist in their own right, there is no need to somehow obtain the laws of the waves from those of the particles, as is done in the usual canonical quantization procedure. It is from the observed behavior of particles that one determines the fact that the waves exist and what their properties are; but once one knows their properties, one simply says that the waves exist. There is no need to explain their properties from something else. Canonical quantization becomes entirely superfluous in this theory. Entanglement as a function of forward waves assumptionEntangled wave functions are necessary in current theory because of the forward motion of the waves. The actual `entanglement' occurs at the photon source, as just indicated. But that entanglement must, mathematically, be present at the location where the square is performed. With forward moving waves the squares occur at the polarizers and detectors, not at the source. So in order to make the forward wave theory work, the waves must be entangled-with subsequent `collapse'-in order to carry the entanglement from the source to the detectors. With reverse waves no wave entanglement is necessary. Each wave is simply an independent, single particle wave. Wave entanglements are generally viewed as being essential to the description of identical particle phenomena and to the entire structure of quantum mechanics; so it may strike the reader as absurd to try to account for multi-particle effects without them. But certainly the above EPR experiment is one instance where the effects in question are manifested. And, using reverse waves, as just demonstrated, the correct result is obtained with no entanglements. It really is only the erroneous forward wave motion that gives rise to them. Furthermore, as explained in the previous section, there is no need in this theory to assign any `spin' to the particle itself. All of the spin behavior is captured by the waves-which, again, is exactly what the mathematics of current quantum mechanics says. The waves act as current theory describes, and the particle then `blindly' follows. Spin, thereby, acquires a simple, pictorial explanation. Notice, then, that it is not necessary in general for a wave to make the entire trip from detector to source in order to understand quantum processes. If the wave changes while the particle is in midflight, the particle jumps into exactly the state it would have been in had the change occurred before the particle's creation at the source. With this fact one can understand how the elementary waves theory explains dynamic, changing systems as well as the static systems treated in Section 3. Furthermore, because the photon and the effective (anti-)photon move in opposite directions, the (anti-)photon wave from the electron moves in the same direction as the photon. That is, it travels with the photon. So it is this very same wave that is present when the photon `jumps' later on. Hence, the `jump' occurs exactly as it would have occurred had the new waves from the rotated polarizer arrived at the photon source before the initial emission. The photon pair process at the jump is exactly the same-in response to exactly the same waves-as that which would have occurred at the source had there been no delay. The result is exactly as if no delay had occurred. The Copenhagen presumption of duality is the problemWhat forces one to assign a fundamental uncertainty to particles in current theory is the forward motion of the waves. By assuming that the wave goes from source to detector, and that the wave is the particle, one is forced to conclude that the particle exists in multiple states simultaneously in order to explain phenomena involving `widths.' But with the correct direction of motion one can understand the phenomena of `widths' without the need for any uncertainty in any parameter-without the need to assume that the particle itself was in all of the states in the width simultaneously. Only the waves were in all of the states, not the particle. And the existence of waves in all the states merely means that there was more than one wave involved, not that a single wave was in multiple states. Each wave is in one state at one time, as is the particle. Light, then, doesn't simply move from object to observer, or from observer to object; it does both. Nor is it simply a wave or simply a particle. It consists of a wave from observer to object, and a particle from object to observer. However, the fact that a wave travels from observer to object does not make this an `extramissive'[14] light theory-one in which light travels from observer to object. The light that is observed is the particle photons, which travel (`intromissively') from object to observer. Relativity explained by differing photons`Relativistic' phenomena can thus be understood without the requirement that space be a physical object of some kind that stretches and shrinks as we change frames of reference. What changes when one changes frames is only the light used to observe objects. In the standard derivation it is assumed that the light seen by both observers is physically the same light-the same photons. Space and time are then distorted in order to account for the fact that both observers see a spherical pulse. In the elementary waves theory observers in both frames still see a spherical pulse. But this is because the light is different, not because of a deformation of space-time. The two observers in two different frames do not see the same photons (this, again, for local observations where our units of space and time are established.) The invariant quantity-the actual, objective nature of the object observed-is exactly what current theory says: the invariant interval. That interval is not simply mathematically equal in all frames, it is physically the same thing. The interval appears to change physically, because the `mix' of space and time is different in different frames. But this is entirely due to the change in the light, not to a change in the nature of the interval. All observers see the same reality. The elementary waves theory of `relativistic' phenomena is an objective theory of those phemonena. Reality is the same for all observers. It is not the case that `everything is relative.' Space, after all, is nothing. Space is merely the place where real objects can be located. What is real are the objects, not the space. We arrive at our concept of space by abstraction from real objects. So space as such, aside from the objects located in that space, can be neither Galilean nor Lorentzian, nor have any other special properties. Nothingness can't have properties. If we assign any properties to space, what we mean is that these are properties that would be possessed by any object that might be located in space. If all objects transform in a Lorentzian manner, one might then say that space-time is Lorentzian. But this must not be understood as implying any modifications to the space as such. Nothingness can't be modified. General relativity also can be understood without attributing `curvature' or other properties to space as such. This explanation of the constancy of c, as will be shown below, does not require that a single wave travel the entire distance from an observer to the source of any photon seen by that observer-a proposition that would clearly be absurd for, among other things, intergallactic light. This need be true only for light observed locally-that is, for those distances at which our basic, directly perceivable units of length and time are established. The behavior of particle photons over long distances will be shown to be exactly the same as if a single wave made the entire trip. Elementary Waves theory unifies quantum and relativityThe elementary waves theory is `automatically' relativistic-it is already relativistic as it stands. It is not necessary to add relativity to a non-relativistic theory. Had relativistic phenomena not yet been discovered, the elementary waves theory would have predicted them. I offer this as the single most significant piece of evidence supporting the theory. The same theory which explains quantum phenomena, immediately-with no further assumptions-predicts and explains special relativity. Indeed, turning this argument around, the fact of relativistic phenomena is the single largest piece of evidence that something must be travelling from the observer/detector to the particle photons. Without this there is no local means of understanding how objects change-or appear to change-when one moves.Objects do indeed appear to change when one moves. But facts are facts; facts don't change because one looks at them differently. So one knows for certain that it is the means of observation that changes when one moves, not the objects observed. But motion of the observer can affect the means of observation only if the means involves something travelling from the observer. Lorentz function not violatedBut according to the elementary waves theory, exactly these two spherical pulses is what would be seen by observers in the two frames. Imagine an array of observers in each frame, placed around the origin, but intersperced so as not to block one another. The light seen by each observer will move with velocity c relative to that observer, because it is that observer's own elementary waves that will determine the velocity of the light he sees. The light will thus be seen by both arrays of observers as moving in a spherical pattern with velocity c. So the light seen by one array of observers is exactly what one would obtain by applying a Lorentz transformation to the light seen by the other array. The elementary waves theory thus predicts exactly the relationship captured by the Lorentz transformation. What we end up concluding, then, is that space is filled with waves of all frequencies and wavelengths, all of which move with velocity of (coherence) propagation equal to c. Particle photons follow the photon waves (in reverse) with velocity c. Given the Lorentzian nature of space-time-where this is to be understood in the sense indicated at the end of the previous section-this `medium' of waves appears the same in all frames of reference. A given wave will appear to have a different frequency in another frame; but another wave will take its place in the new frame. What we have, then, is an `aether' of sorts, but one that is Lorentzian in nature. Rather than having a material medium through which the waves propagate, with the medium thereby fixing a preferred frame of reference, the waves themselves are the medium. They move with velocity c in all frames, so there is no preferred frame. But here also, as with special relativity, there is no need to conclude that space-time is a real `stuff' that is `curved.' There is now no contradiction between the view that space is unchanging and yet that Einstein's equations hold. The elementary waves are curved, not the space. One must use a curved geometry, just as on must, in the special theory, use Lorentz transformations. But the curved geometry merely reflects the curved appearance of any coordinates-which are real or imagined real objects. One might describe the space as curved, but by this one merely means that all objects that might be placed in that space are curved. it is really the (4-dimensional) vector potential that is the primary quantity-as proved, for example, by the Aharanov-Bohm effect[21]. But the field equation for the vector potential is simply the wave equation; and one can fully describe the resulting waves aside from such an equation. Electric and magnetic fields, again, refer to the resulting particle effects. ConclusionOne of the most `weird' aspects of current quantum theory is precisely the fact that one uses `fields' which in fact are nothing in their own right, but which are nonetheless, somehow, the particles. We saw this above with the `available states;' quantum theory treats them as if they were both something and nothing. This makes no sense. If a field is something, then it is something-something in its own right, aside from the particles that `arise' from it. If the field is nothing then it is nothing. And no particles can arise from nothing. Something is something. Nothing is nothing. But, more importantly, the elementary waves theory is both local and deterministic. All of the principal `weird' aspects of quantum mechanics are explained with a picture in which all objects have an exact state at all times, and in which all causal relationships are local, deterministic, and in the proper time sequence. This is accomplished in a manner which does not conflict with Bell's theorem. In the elementary waves theory, all aspects of the mathematics of quantum mechanics correspond to something real. There are no formulas whose only real referents are `dial readings' and their relationships. Any dial readings are measurements of real properties or behavior of real entities. But this cannot be done for the wave-particle theory. The test of any hypothesis is: Does the hypothesis fit all the facts with no contradictions? Bell has shown[1]-although he was not aware of this-that the forward wave theory fails this test. If one accepts the forward wave picture of things, one is forced to accept the existence of nonlocal behavior-interactions over long distances by no physical means. But an interaction by no means is a contradiction. Bell's theorem thus constitutes a reductio ad absurdum of the forward wave interpretation. Far from validating current quantum theory and its associated philosophy, Bell's theorem proves it incorrect. Previous attempts to interpret quantum mechanics-whether it be the Copenhagen interpretation, DeBroglie's pilot waves, Bohm's quantum potential, or what-have-you-have all failed for the same simple reason: they all had the waves moving in the wrong direction. Once this error was made, the nonlocality was locked in. There was no way around it. This is why the various `hidden-variables proofs' worked. By proving that wave-particle quantum mechanics could not be `fixed' through the addition of new variables, these proofs simply demonstrated that an error had already been made, and that the weird results of quantum mechanics could not be `fixed' until that error was corrected. Most of what has been accomplished above follows simply from the recognition that the waves move in reverse. With that one small change we have: 1) explained the double slit experiment without requiring that a particle go through both slits; 2) resolved the EPR paradox, obtaining a local understanding of Bell's theorem; 3) resolved the Schroedinger cat paradox; 4) given a pictorial, deterministic explanation for the uncertainly principle; 5) explained the Pauli principle; 6) given a simple, picturable explanation for quantum statistics more generally, Bose and Fermi; 7) explained the mysterious phenomena involving noncommuting observables; explained the constancy of the velocity of light relative to all observers on simple, physical grounds, thereby explaining the special theory of relativity; 9) explained, in principle, the general theory of relativity; 10) explained the Aharanov-Bohm effect, this in a local manner; 11) shown how in principle one can understand the irreversibility of quantum statistical processes; 12) shown that one can understand Feynman diagrams in a simple, pictorial manner; 13) eliminated all of the mysteries and unanswered questions concerning quantum measurement; 14) obtained a fully picturable understanding of atomic physics; .... Virtually all of the principle mysteries of 20th century physics disappear as soon as one corrects the one error. Edited by: sqwark at: 6/10/03 12:48 am

[Jeremy1952]

1. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not the result of indeterminancy, it is the source of it2. The principle states that it is not possible, even in principle, to know, at the same time, the exact position and velocity of any particle, ever. This is not a lack of information, or parameters, or anything else; it is a fundamental law of the universe.3. The uncertainty principle was proven mathematically. I don't understand the math, and neither, I suspect, does squark; but every single physicist who does understand the math has been in agreement that the proof is sound.4. More recently, the uncertainty principle was verified experimentally. This was done by the creation of a bose-einstein condensate, whose behaviour is identical to that of a single particle but whose size allows direct observation. Experiment verified theory to six decimal places. (The most prominent physical effect was the condensate's failure to sink to the bottom of its container: classical physics predicted that it should have, but the uncertainty principle forbids it, because it would have had an exact position and velocity).5. If there is a real challenge to a fundamental scientific principle then it should be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, where people who do understand the math can confirm its plausibility for us lay people.

[Chris OConnor]

SqwarkAre you by any chance a theist?Chris

[sqwark]

Hardly. I am a freelance journalist.

[sqwark]

This changing status bar is cracking me up. lol. Novel.

[sqwark]

I'm sorry to have to say this, but if you had actually bothered to read the abstract first hand, you would know that the mathematics are identical. It is the interpretation which is incoherent, not the maths.

[Chris OConnor]

SqwarkMy question was not about your profession. I am asking if you believe in a God.Chris

[sqwark]

No. I believe in good science. Science today resembles religion more than religion does. Quantum is held as dogma. Selfish gene is held as dogma. Yet quantum does not explain reality, nor does the selfish gene explain evolution. Both theories create more confusion than they resolve - yet anyone who even raises an eyebrow is dismissed as heretical. This alone should sound a loud warning bell.Good science does not require a blind adherence to dogma. It stands or falls on it own merits, and a strong theory welcomes challenge. Edited by: sqwark at: 6/14/03 1:19 am

[Chris OConnor]

Amen! I agree completely...and was just wondering.Chris

[sqwark]

Permit me to add though, that the very assumption in your question is the most insidious part of Dawkins' rhetoric, and certainly no accident. Namely - that anyone who queries Darwinism on any grounds is therefore a creationist (ergo an idiot with no credibility). Dawkins bangs this drum throughout all his material as loudly and often as he can, and this is what I mean about a straw man. See how he set you up to assume that? This is because his theory is so weak it cannot survive any serious scrutiny. And he knows it. That's why he labels any dissidents as creationists before they even open their mouths, and he gets you to do so too. This is not the hallmark of credible science. This is the hallmark of propoganda. Edited by: sqwark at: 6/14/03 6:52 am