This website presents an imaginative theory of quantum mechanics (QM) according to which a tiny, counterintuitive change to the mathematics of the Schrödinger wave packet could vastly simplify how we view Nature. Quantum experiments would change their meaning. The quantum world would look very similar to the classical world of everyday experience. Schrödinger’s cat would be gone.

What is this tiny change? There is a short answer and a long answer. If you want the long answer click here: Mathematical Detail. The short answer is that **a Schrödinger wave packet is a small part of an Elementary Wave traveling in the opposite direction.**

This figure shows a one dimensional Elementary Wave (Æ) moving to the left, while a Schrödinger wave packet moves to the right. They are two aspects of the same thing. In which direction is the line itself moving? You might assume that it is stationary, but in TEW the line itself is moving rapidly to the left. Even that part of the line that consists of sinusoidal oscillations, is moving rapidly to the left. Think of it like a river flowing rapidly to the left, while on the surface of the river a wave packet moves to the right.

In this model the Elementary Wave travels in two opposite directions simultaneously (one direction being that of the Schrödinger wave packet). It is well known in QM that a one dimensional plane wave can come in from the right, hit an infinite barrier, bounce off and double back on itself. That is a wave traveling in two directions simultaneously. Elementary Waves travel in two directions simultaneously, but without the infinite barrier.

The Elementary Wave conveys **zero energy**. Many people instantly say That’s impossible, all waves convey energy. But the **Schrödinger wave packet itself conveys zero energy.** It does not push or pull particles, nor does it do any work. It carries probability amplitudes, not energy. So if we expand the boundaries of a Schrödinger wave packet, we can include the context within which it lives. That context is a larger Elementary Wave traveling in the opposite direction.

**Although this mathematical picture is weird, its size is small whereas its impact is vast.** The entire quantum world is transformed into something sensible and lacking in quantum weirdness. **Quantum experiments change their meaning**, so that experiments that clearly proved that data can be erased backwards in time in the quantum world, no longer say that. Experiments that previously said that two entangled particles can communicate instantaneously at a vast distance, no longer say that. And a known flaw in Feynman’s QED (Quantum ElectroDynamics) is repaired, making QED stronger than before, as explained in this VIDEO.

Long story short: TEW preserves quantum math, and therefore preserves the accuracy and fruitfulness of QM. But quantum experiments change their meaning, so that the quantum world no longer behaves in a bizarre way. The TEW interpretation of the quantum experiments is that the quantum world behaves in a similar way to the world of everyday experience. This is what you should expect, because when you look at the classical world of everyday experience, what you are seeing is the quantum world.

There are two ways you can learn more details. The first is a YouTube video of 18 minutes (Ted Talk length) that is devoid of mathematical equations: YouTube video. The second is a 34 page SCHOLARLY ARTICLE published in a peer reviewed physics journal, which does contain equations.

Given that no one feels comfortable with the existence of quantum weirdness, you might expect that the scholarly world would be open to a unique approach to getting rid of weirdness and restoring sanity. But that is not the case. There is intense hostility to TEW (Theory of Elementary Waves). Why? Because TEW brings a **paradigm shift.** Many of the comfortable Truths of QM are discarded as being untrue. For example, wave particle duality is discarded. Experts in QM turn off their ears when they hear that we have disproved wave particle duality, and they are not open to any further discussion.

The scientific community is as open to a paradigm shift today as it was in the past. Alfred Wegener for example proposed in 1912 that there was once a continent named Pangea that split apart and the continents then drifted into their present locations. That idea was rejected by all geologists and scientific societies as absurd, because everyone knew (or thought they knew) there was no force on earth strong enough to move continents. Wegener’s idea appeared in no scientific textbooks until fifty years later when it came back in the form of plate tectonics. The hostility of the scientific community to paradigm shifts is documented in Thomas Kuhn’s book, ** Structure of Scientific Revolutions**.

The term ** “paradigm shift“** means that a new mathematical science arises based on assumptions that are so different than the conventional assumptions in science that experts cannot comprehend what is being said. To the journal editors and other experts the new viewpoint sounds like unintelligible gibberish. They promptly reject the new ideas as absurd, not even worth thinking about. They send a submitted manuscript back without peer review, with the comment, “Not appropriate for this journal.”

If you the experts what they think of TEW, the experts will reply that they never heard of it.

Countless leading journals of physics and mathematics have rejected scholarly articles we submitted. An editor of the journal ** Science** sent an email back in 15 minutes, saying, “Not the kind of thing we publish.”