*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:

- J. H. Boyd, “A paradigm shift in mathematical physics, Part 1: The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW),”
*Journal of Advances in Mathematics,*2015″A paradigm shift in mathematical physics, Part 2: A new local realism explains Bell test & other experiments,”*Journal of Advances in Mathematics,*2015. - “A paradigm shift in mathematical physics, Part 3: A mirror image of Feynman’s quantum electrodynamics (QED),”
*Journal of Advances in Mathematics,*2015. - A paradigm shift in mathematical physics, Part 4: Quantum computers and the local realism of all 4 Bell states”
*Journal of Advances in Mathematics*, 2015. - “The Theory of Elementary Waves eliminates Wave Particle Duality,”
*Journal of Advances in Physics,*2015. - “A new variety of local realism explains a Bell test experiment: the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) with no hidden variables,”
*Journal of Advances in Physics,*2015. - “A proposed physical analog of a quantum amplitude: Corkscrew model from the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW)”
*Journal of Advances in Physics,*2015. - “Re-thinking Alain Aspect’s 1982 Bell test experiment with delayed choice,”
*Physics Essays*, 2013. - “Re-thinking a delayed choice quantum eraser experiment: a simple baseball model,”
*Physics Essays*, 2013. - J. H. Boyd, “Rethinking a Wheeler delayed choice gedanken experiment,”
*Physics Essays,*2012.

## 2 Comments

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

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.