Elementary Wave Theory

TEW an alternative to quantum mechanics, waves travel in opposite directions as subatomic particles


The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) is a little known alternative to quantum mechanics (QM). Other alternative theories have taken QM and tinkered with it: for example they all share the idea of non-locality. TEW takes a different approach. We choose to think outside the QM box. We do not assume wave-particle duality, complementarity, superposition of states, wave function collapse, probability densities, wave packets, or other QM principles.

TEW is first and foremost a way of understanding experimental data. Our ideas come from empirical research (published by others). Here are two things we learn from experiments:

  1.  Waves can travel in the opposite direction as particles:
  2.  Waves and wave interference exist everywhere in nature, traveling in all directions, & all wavelengths.

You and I live in an ocean of elementary wave interference. We don’t see elementary waves, but we see their effects. The world we do see is shaped by elementary waves. TEW was discovered in 1993 by Dr. Lewis E. Little, who has a PhD in physics from NYU. He spent his career outside physics, in the financial world as a commodities trader.

I have been in conversation with my cousin Lewis for more than half a century. We began our discussions sitting on Grandma Beech’s living room floor before Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners, and continued them when I followed Lewis to be an undergraduate in the math department at Brown University. Currently we are old men, outside of academia. I am in my 70’s. Lewis is two years older than me, and is retired.

Decades ago, when I left mathematics as a career and ended up in medicine, it was partly because I believed that no one over the age of 30 could discover anything new in math. In clinical medicine age is sometimes an advantage, because with experienced comes wisdom. One astonishing thing about TEW is that Lewis Little and I appear to be able to think new ideas, even though we are over the age of 30!

My undergraduate degree is in mathematics from Brown University. My three graduate school degrees are from Harvard, Yale, and Case Western Reserve Universities. Currently my day job is working as a physician at a Yale teaching hospital in Waterbury, Connecticut, USA. I am a psychiatrist.

I respect QM for its incredible accomplishments. I think different theories are useful for different purposes. QM is THE way to solve engineering problems and problems that can be quantified. But QM gives us NO PICTURE of nature. TEW is useful for giving us that picture. TEW can never, and will never “replace” QM.

During my career in medicine, especially my seven years on the research faculty of the National Institutes of Health, I developed a passion for research studies. My contribution to TEW is to study the “delayed choice” experiments. When I re-think these experiments from the viewpoint of elementary waves, there is no “delayed choice.”


  1. Posted September 20, 2011 at 3:52 am | Permalink

    Very interesting. I prefer to think of standing waves (like a static force-field) throughout space. Nothing in these waves is actually “travelling”, except when there are changes in the physical distribution of matter/energy (and then changes in the static force-field, or standing wave, are propagated at the speed of light). Particle motion is then determined by this background static force-field (a la Bohm’s guiding wave). Schroedinger’s wave equation then describes the background standing-waves (and not the particles following these waves).

    I particularly like the way these ideas do away with ridiculous notions of wavefunction collapse, wave-particle duality, spooky action at a distance, and the idea that a particle goes through both slits.

    Keep up the good work,


  2. Vincent Palmer
    Posted April 12, 2013 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

    I appreciated contemplating your rebuttle on the double slit experiment findings. Then you indicated how weird theories create further weird science. I like the term ‘fractal wrongness’ for such bad seeds.

    I’m not qualified to know, yet Steven J Crothers is claiming he is mathematically indicating flaws in Einsteins relativity theory. If Crothers is correct, it undermines the WEIRD science you question.


  3. Bill Christie
    Posted May 13, 2015 at 2:26 am | Permalink

    I think the key thing is that space and time are not connected. The wave function of matter only makes it seem as though they were. The wave function I’m pretty sure is a Rotating Wave.

    Last year I used the affine connection to clearly and simply derive the Gkl that Einstein postulated. Bascally the Rotor (rotating position vector) generates the euclidean helical surface and when it is accelerated the helical tube turns into a flute shape with intrinsic curvature.

    I’m working on the clear relationship with QM which I think entails relating the Rotating Wave ultimately to the Dirac Equation. It is fertile ground and so exciting.

    Problem is, people are stuck wth this space and time connection. Certainly step outside the box, but don’t get entrapped in another, forever, and complete with imaginary numbers! It’s almost like I got to start up an independent university or school of physics. We are a product of this universe, so we should be able to understand it.

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *