Although quantum mathematics is the most successful science ever, that does not mean we live in the universe described by quantum mechanics. This article is entirely based on symmetry. Two symmetrical universes could have exactly the same mathematics, but differ in other respects. The motivation for seeking symmetry inside quantum mathematics is that the QM picture of nature is bizarre. Richard Feynman says no one can understand it. We propose that the quantum world is not bizarre. QM portrays the wrong universe: the symmetrical one, not the one we inhabit. If quantum waves travel in the opposite direction as what is expected, then we would have the same math but a different universe, one that is recognizable and familiar. Wave equations are symmetrical with respect to time reversal. This means they are symmetrical with respect to wave direction reversal (with time going forwards). This wave equation symmetry is the basis of the symmetry of two models of the universe, only one of which is congruent with the universe we inhabit.
Although quantum mathematics is the most successful science ever, that does not mean we live in the universe described by quantum mechanics. This article is entirely based on symmetry. Two symmetrical universes could have exactly the same mathematics, but differ in other respects. The motivation for seeking symmetry inside quantum mathematics is that the QM picture of nature is bizarre. Richard Feynman says no one can understand it. We propose that the quantum world is not bizarre. QM portrays the wrong universe: the symmetrical one, not the one we inhabit. If quantum waves travel in the opposite direction as what is expected, then we would have the same math but a different universe, one that is recognizable and familiar. Wave equations are symmetrical with respect to time reversal. This means they are symmetrical with respect to wave direction reversal (with time going forwards). This wave equation symmetry is the basis of the symmetry of two models of the universe, only one of which is congruent with the universe we inhabit.
All “interpretations” of Quantum Mechanics (QM) are predicated on the assumption that quantum mathematics is correct. We disagree. The Born rule implies that nature may have a hidden symmetry: |+ψ|2 = |–ψ|2 = probability. If nature uses –ψ then physicists would not recognize that their math is 100% wrong. This hypothesis could explain the mystery that quantum math appears to be the most accurate and productive mathematics humans ever possessed, the source of our high-tech economy, yet scientists cannot agree on what the quantum world is like: does it exist, are there infinitely many worlds, etc. If we change our wave-function from +ψ to –ψ, that will mean that quantum particles follow zero-energy “Elementary Waves” backwards. This symmetry does not conform to Noether’s Theorem because it does not involve physical space, rather an error in the human imagination. Wave-function collapse no longer occurs when a quantum particle is observed. It occurs when a free particle is emitted: when the particle selects which in-coming Elementary Wave to follow backwards. This undermines the foundations of the many-worlds theory. A superposition of states collapses as a particle is emitted, becoming only one state, located in only one world, not many. Type (Method/Approach): No one previously recognized the Born rule could hide a “Born Symmetry”: |+ψ|2 ≡ |–ψ|2. If so, it would be so immense, pervasive, insidious, and invisible that it could explain all quantum “weirdness” even though quantum math is the most accurate and productive science ever.
Is the quantum world as strange as they say? If this were an unsolved mathematics question, we might try a new angle of attack. We know quantum mechanics (QM) is the most accurate and productive science humans ever had, meaning its probability predictions are accurate. Every probability has two square roots. The Born rule says either would produce the same probability. Assume nature uses the negative of QM’s equations. What could that mean? We’d need to revise Feynman’s path-integrals and Schrödinger’s equation. If waves travel in the opposite direction as what QM believes, that could produce the negative equations. No wave-particle duality. Free particles would follow backwards zero-energy waves coming from detectors. This, surprisingly, gets rid of quantum weirdness. Our proposal is that nature uses the negative of QM’s equations because particles follow zero-energy waves backwards. Considerable evidence fits this model, including a neutron-interferometer and the Davisson-Germer experiments, a quantum-eraser experiment, Wheeler-gedanken and double-slit experiments, Bell-test experiments, Stern-Gerlach, and high-energy scattering experiments. Finally, we propose a plan for how to motivate students to want to study quantum technologies, thereby addressing the most prominent problem in QM today: the shortage of an educated workforce, the scarcity of aspiring students.
The quantum world is allegedly strange. But is it? What if there’s a simple mathematical explanation, and a simple solution? The success of quantum mechanics (QM) arises from the accuracy of its probability predictions, which are obtained by squaring amplitudes (the Born rule). Suppose for a moment that nature uses the negative of QM’s equations. When squared they would yield the same probabilities, confirmed by the same experiments and technological triumphs. If that were true, if nature uses the negative of QM’s equations, then the quantum world would become transparent, easy to understand. No more Schrödinger’s-cat. No quantum-eraser. No backwards-in-time cause-and-effect. No paradoxes nor enigmas. But, what’s a negative quantum equation? It could mean that particles follow zero-energy waves backwards, instead of forwards. That’s still an eccentric idea, a residual strangeness. Overall, it’s a bargain. We could swap one odd idea for another, because wave-particle duality is odd. We are accustomed to wave-particle duality. But we’ll show that experiments support the other arrangement: quantum particles follow zero-energy waves backwards. How could that possibly be true? We present substantial experimental evidence, new mathematics, and six dozen colorful illustrations. This is the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
The story of quantum mechanics is a fable of wonder and bewilderment. It has elements of science, philosophy, religion, and dare I say magic. It’ll turn your mind upside down, and sometimes it’ll make you question the existence of an all-powerful creator out there. Even though I find its concepts difficult to grasp, I’ve always been fascinated by it. Some of the concepts presented in this chapter are hard to understand; however don’t be troubled. Nobody has been able to fully describe what this all means, not even the titans of physics fully understand quantum mechanics. However that doesn’t mean we can’t be fascinated by it. The great physicist Richard Feynman once said: If somebody tells you he understands quantum mechanics, it means he doesn’t understand quantum mechanics. This chapter is my take on this fascinating fable and how the struggle of two titans of science shaped its past, present, and future.
This is Part 1 of a four part paper, intended to redress some of the most fundamental confusions in the subject of physical time directionality, and represent the concepts accurately. There are widespread fallacies in the subject that need to be corrected in introductory courses for physics students and philosophers. Parts 1 and 2 are about quantum mechanics, Part 3 is about fundamental concepts, and Part 4 is about cosmology. We start in Part 1 by analysing the time reversal symmetry of quantum probability laws. Time reversal symmetry is defined as the property of invariance under the time reversal transformation, T: t -> -t. It is shown that quantum mechanics (classical or relativistic) is strongly time asymmetric in its probability laws. This contradicts the orthodox analysis, found throughout the conventional literature on physical time, which claims that quantum mechanics is time symmetric or reversible. This is widely claimed as settled scientific fact, and large philosophical and scientific conclusions are drawn from it. But it is an error. The fact is that while quantum mechanics is widely claimed to be reversible on the basis of two formal mathematical properties (that it does have), these properties do not represent invariance under the time reversal transformation. A recent experiment (Batalhao at alia, 2015) showing irreversibility of quantum thermodynamics is discussed as an illustration of this result. Most physicists remain unaware of the errors, decades after they were first demonstrated. Orthodox specialists in the philosophy of time who are aware of the error continue to refer to the ‘time symmetry’ or ‘reversibility’ of quantum mechanics anyway – and exploit the ambiguity to claim false implications about physical time reversal symmetry in nature. The excuse for perpetrating the confusion is that, since it is has now become customary to refer to the formal properties of quantum mechanics as ‘reversibility’ or ‘time reversal symmetry’, we should just keep referring to them by this name, even though they are not time reversal symmetry. This causes endless confusion, in attempts to explain the physical irreversibility of our universe, and in philosophical discussions of implications of physics for the nature of time. The failure of time reversal symmetry in quantum mechanics changes the interpretation of modern physics in a deep way. It changes the problem of explaining the real irreversibility found throughout nature.
Unlike special relativity, quantum mechanics was not the inspired product of one mind. It developed, in fits and starts, over a period of 25 years (1900–1925), and many cooks stirred the broth. Even now, a century later, quantum mechanics raises profound conceptual questions. Every competent physicist can “do” quantum mechanics, and the predictions it makes are in spectacularly good agreement with experimental results; there can be little doubt that quantum mechanics is “right.” On the other hand, as Richard Feynman once remarked, “nobody understands quantum mechanics.” I'll tell the story in two parts. First the history (how the essential pieces of the puzzle were assembled), and then the implications (what the finished picture has to say about our world). Photons Like relativity, quantum mechanics began with the study of light. In both cases, this historical association is misleading. Relativity, really, has nothing to do with light – to be sure, it involves that magic speed limit, c , and of course the most familiar thing that travels at speed c is light. So light is a convenient vehicle for introducing the subject. But it is perfectly possible to imagine a universe in which there is no such thing as light, and yet relativity might still be valid. Quantum mechanics, too, starts with light – in this case the “quantum” of light (the photon). But, as it turns out, this is just one rather specialized example of much more general principles – in fact, a rather bad example, because photons are by their nature relativistic (they travel at the speed of light), and it would be more natural to begin with the quantum mechanics of slow-moving objects, in analogy with Newtonian mechanics.