Wave particle duality is a cornerstone of quantum chemistry and quantum mechanics (QM). But there are experiments it cannot explain, such as a neutron interferometer experiment. If QM uses Ψ as its wavefunction, several experiments suggest that nature uses -Ψ instead. The difference between -Ψ and +Ψ is that they describe entirely different pictures of how nature is organized. For example, with -Ψ quantum particles follow waves backwards, which is incompatible with wave-particle-duality, obviously. We call the -Ψ proposal the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW). It unlocks opportunities for young scientists with no budget to conduct the basic research for a new, unexplored science. This is a dream come true for young scientists: the discovery of uncharted territory. We show how TEW explains the double slit, Pfleegor Mandel and Davisson Germer experiments, Feynman diagrams and the Bell test experiments. We provide innovative research designs for which -Ψ and +Ψ would predict divergent outcomes. What makes QM so accurate is its probability predictions. But Born’s law would yield the same probabilities if it were changed from P = |+Ψ |2 to P = |-Ψ |2. This article is accompanied by a lively YouTube video, “6 reasons to discard wave particle duality.”
Wave particle duality is a cornerstone of quantum chemistry and quantum mechanics (QM). But there are experiments it cannot explain, such as a neutron interferometer experiment. If QM uses Ψ as its wavefunction, several experiments suggest that nature uses -Ψ instead. The difference between -Ψ and +Ψ is that they describe entirely different pictures of how nature is organized. For example, with -Ψ quantum particles follow waves backwards, which is incompatible with wave-particle-duality, obviously. We call the -Ψ proposal the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW). It unlocks opportunities for young scientists with no budget to conduct the basic research for a new, unexplored science. This is a dream come true for young scientists: the discovery of uncharted territory. We show how TEW explains the double slit, Pfleegor Mandel and Davisson Germer experiments, Feynman diagrams and the Bell test experiments. We provide innovative research designs for which -Ψ and +Ψ would predict divergent outcomes. What makes QM so accurate is its probability predictions. But Born’s law would yield the same probabilities if it were changed from P = |+Ψ |2 to P = |-Ψ |2. This article is accompanied by a lively YouTube video, “6 reasons to discard wave particle duality.”
Wave particle duality is a mistake. Another option was neither conceived nor debated, which is a better foundation for quantum mechanics. The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) is based on the idea that particles follow zero energy waves backwards. A particle cannot be identical with its wave if they travel in opposite directions. TEW is the only form of local realism that is consistent with the results of the experiment by Aspect, Dalibard and Roger (1982). Here we show that 1. although QM teaches that complementarity in a double slit experiment cannot be logically explained, TEW explains it logically, without wave function collapse, and 2. gives an unconventional explanation of the Davisson Germer experiment. 3. There is empirical evidence for countervailing waves and particles and 4. zero energy waves. 5. TEW clarifies our understanding of probability amplitudes and supports quantum math. 6. There is an untested experiment for which TEW and wave particle duality predict different outcomes. If TEW is valid, then wave particle duality is not necessary for quantum math, which is the most accurate and productive science ever. With a more solid foundation, new vistas of science open, such as the study of elementary waves.
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).
Why is quantum mathematics (QM) the only science based on probability amplitudes rather than probabilities? A paradigm shift called the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) posits zero energy waves traveling in the opposite direction as particles, which a particle follows backwards: like a probabilistic guidance system emanating from detectors. Probability amplitudes are the mathematical analog of these elementary rays. Although this proposal might sound like gibberish, that is the hallmark of a paradigm shift. Thomas Kuhn warns that previous paradigm shifts were rejected because they sounded like gibberish. TEW is internally coherent, explains a mountain of empirical data, and resolves insoluble problems of QM. For example, it dispenses with the need for wavefunction collapse because probability decisions are made at the particle source, not the detector. It is the only local realistic theory consistent with the Bell test experiments. That which QM calls “nonlocality,” TEW calls “elementary rays.” One term is vague, the other involves elegant mathematics. This article introduces that mathematical notation, explains complementarity in double slit experiments, and reinterprets Feynman diagrams. QM and TEW are partners that need each other. One is a science of observables; the other a science of how nature works independent of the observer.
Every discussion of quantum computing starts with wave-particle duality, to explain how qubits differ from bits. But what if wave-particle duality were wrong? How would we explain quantum computing then? A little-known science called the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) says that quantum particles follow zero-energy waves backwards. Wave-particle duality cannot be true if waves and particles travel in opposite directions. This article proposes the first-ever TEW theory of quantum circuits. Elementary waves emanate from measuring devices and travel backwards through the circuits, whereas qubits move forwards through the wires and gates following those waves backwards. Quantum computers are known to be reversible. After we present that way-of-thinking, we will explain some of the evidence that TEW is valid. There is a mountain of empirical evidence from outside information technology. TEW is a maverick theory, out-of-step with the consensus about how quantum computers work. At first TEW sounds counterintuitive. Its advantage is Occam’s Razor: we present a simpler explanation of quantum circuits. We will present the quantum computer equivalent of saying that before the box is open Schrödinger’s cat is already dead or alive, but not both. Observing the cat simply tells us what was already true before we looked.
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.
A consensus among quantum experts is that the quantum world is not properly understood. It is a mistake to think we can cure quantum weirdness by tinkering with superficial aspects of quantum mechanics (QM). We propose that nature uses (–ψ) as its wave function, whereas QM uses (+ψ). We propose therefore that the Periodical Table should be changed to negative orbitals (–ψ). Surprisingly, this change makes almost no difference to chemistry on a practical level. The Born rule takes the absolute square of an amplitude to obtain a probability to test in chemistry lab P=|–ψ|2=|+ψ|2. We propose a new math based on (–ψ) that is the mirror image of quantum mathematics. We call it the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW). The negative sign is not an electrical charge. It has nothing to do with Coulomb’s law. Valence electrons are unchanged. Ions, covalent bonds, dipoles, metals, hydrogen bonding and the hydrogen 21 cm line are unchanged. The octet rule and rules for drawing dot structures of molecules do not change. Amino acids, sugars and DNA do not change their handedness. We cite abundant experimental evidence showing that TEW is correct and QM is wrong.