The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) eliminates 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.
Copyright (c) 2015 JOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN PHYSICS
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright of their manuscripts, and all Open Access articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited.
The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, and so forth in this publication, even if not specifically identified, does not imply that these names are not protected by the relevant laws and regulations. The submitting author is responsible for securing any permissions needed for the reuse of copyrighted materials included in the manuscript.
While the advice and information in this journal are believed to be true and accurate on the date of its going to press, neither the authors, the editors, nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein.