Elementary Wave Theory

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

Introduction

by Jeffrey H. Boyd

Copyright © Jeffrey H. Boyd, 2014

The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) is usually thought to be one of hundreds of dingbat ideas floating around in popular culture. Why do I claim that it is THE valid one? Such arguments are futile. The only thing that will settle the arguments are empirical data: what theory does Nature follow? There are few experiments for which TEW and QM predict different outcomes: usually both predict the same thing. Among the experiments that can distinguish the two, one has been conducted, and the results contradict QM but are consistent with TEW. There are other experimental designs, not yet tried. What we need today is not philosophers, but bench scientists willing to build equipment to get nature to answer the question.

Most people are intimidated by quantum physics. Relax: this website will require no mathematics. Many of my readers don’t know what quantum mechanics is. QM is a hugely successful form of mathematics designed to tell us about the subatomic world. It is the most successful scientific theory of all time. The world you live in, with smart phones, lasers, and the internet “cloud” exists because of QM. Without QM the economy would collapse. However, there are problems with QM as everyone knows. This is evident from the Schrödinger cat paradox.

Fuchs and Peres once said that there was no such thing as “physical reality.” At the subatomic level all that exists is mathematics. Remember Plato? He and Socrates thought that the Forms were real, and physical reality wasn’t real. Same idea. Fuchs has become a quantum Bayesian, a school of thought denies the existence of physical reality independent of the observer.

These issues are not easy to think through. I have published many articles in peer reviewed mathematics and physics journals, as a way of seeking legitimacy. As strange as my ideas may be, at least there are other scholars in the world who think I make some sense. Check out the following technical journal articles by me:

2 Comments

  1. abdul
    Posted January 7, 2014 at 11:20 pm | Permalink

    Hi,

    I am a student interested in physics. I went through your website, videos and the elementary wave theory.

    By going through all the explanation, it seems to me that the wave travels from detector to source backwards in time. But it is clearly stated in your introduction that it is forward in time. I am little confused.

    I Appreciate if you can clear my confusion.

    Regards,
    Abdul

  2. Jeff Boyd
    Posted March 14, 2014 at 10:58 am | Permalink

    It helps to watch my humorous 6 minute video on an experiment by Kaiser et al about how waves go backwards in space but forwards in time: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTgkLMgfPVY). In the real world time only goes forwards. I live in the real world. The waves in question carry no energy. They are more like pathways that a particle can follow. The waves do not push or pull the particle; they do no work. Particles carry all the energy, momentum, mass. Waves do actually move, but at the speed of light. Particles travel more slowly, following the pathways backwards. All these ideas do not come from mathematics (unlike “interpretations of QM”) but are a different way of interpreting the same empirical research upon which QM is based.

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *