If what this guy is saying is correct, as it certainly seems to be, it makes complete nonsense of all the many-worlds theories floating about. The Emperor it seems, really isn’t wearing any clothes.
Here is his summary:
"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. " http://www.yankee.us.com/TEW/TEW96paper.html
For a precis on his (very long) paper, see -
Is this the advanced wave interpretation (the article’s very short on an actual description of what’s being proposed)? If it is it’s been kicking around for a while, it’s a pretty good model that uses results that were previously thought to be worthless but it doesn’t have that much over the Copenhagen interpretation.
Why can’t we see the waves coming off the screen? (They presumably radiate regardless of whether there’s a double slit in front of them). Are they detectable at all, eg on ultra-sensitive photographic film placed next to the screen (on its own, in complete darkness) for several weeks. If not, how are they intense enough to interact with the particles entering the slit?
For some reason when I first clicked on the link only the abstract came up, but noe having read more of the paper it’s simlair in someways to but isn’t adavanced waves.
To me it just look likes a new interpretation, with no inherent adavantage over the various other interpretations.
ermm Squark, what predictions does it make? Advance Waves IS simlair in many ways to this as it explains everything in a determintistic fashion without instanteonous communication (though admittedly it uses backwards in time communication).
Infact it is simlair in some ways to David Deutschs shadow photons theory in that it uses destructive interference of single particles.
As I said before I fail to see any inherent advantage though. it could be argued that it’s easier to understand than the Copenhagen interpretation
b) The need for time reversal in any theory is not some sort of minor inconvenience to be acknowldged in parenthesis. It is bizarre - completely contradicting the second law and all common sense.
c) This is not a particle theory. Obviously.
d) Theories are either consistent with reality or they are not.
e) Explanation is not synonymous to ‘advantage’. And if you think it is, then you are doing rhetoric, not science.
a) Yes but any of the other intrpretations can explain the results. The more I read about the theory the more I notice simlairities between it and David Deutsch’s many worlds/shadow photons theory (change the conceptilazation of the waves to universes/shadow particles and it’s virtually the same).
b) the second law of what? Thermodynamics? Time isn’t reversed in Advance Waves the waves just travel backwards in time and therfore arrive before they depart.
I have just read David Deutsh’s book, in it he goes to great lengths to try and justify his theory as a ‘proper’ theory and not just a conceptilzation, but after reading it I remain unconvinced. Simlairly I remain unconvinced that this theory is any truer representation of reality than any other, I’ll keep my Copenhagen for the minute thankyou.
I won’t reiterate the evidence against TEW, since it has already been presented clearly by Travis Norsen, Eric Dennis and many others. In my judgment, violations of the Bell inequalities in “double-delayed-choice” (DDC) experiments have proven the existence of “non-local” interactions. TEW is a local theory, and therefore it contradicts the results of these experiments. Furthermore, locality is fundamental to Little’s theory—to renounce locality is to reject TEW. (Of course, it is still possible that some features of TEW may survive in a different theory.)
Little incorporates Bell inequalities into his theory, as he does Bohm’s seminal contributions. This is part of its inherent strength.
I’m sorry, but I cannot take seriously anyone who ‘thinks’ that a) waves arriving before they depart is scientific, b) that any other theory actually ‘explains’ the results, or that c) the Copenhagen interpretation makes sense. It clearly doesn’t - hence the debates.
And just as a footnote, Little’s theory is not deterministic. The particle may jump on any wave. This is neither deterministic nor
undecidable, and this is why prediction has nothing to do with explanation in this case.
Sqwark, I’m not a scientist by any means, but if I understand the theory correctly one of the things suggested is that there is a sort of (I almost hate to use the word now) matrix of waves existing independently of particles, with which particles interact. Is that correct?
By the way, I can understand you being excited about this paper and all, but relax a little. You seem a little snippy with people who disagree. Maybe the paper’s wrong, after all.