I particularly like the way these ideas do away with ridiculous notions of wavefunction collapse, wave-particle duality, spooky action at a distance, and the idea that a particle goes through both slits.

Keep up the good work,

Alex

Imagine that a billiard ball could shrunk to the size of C-60 (with an atomic weight of 720). Such a billiard ball would be unlikely to vibrate primarily at one frequency (too inhomogeneous). If we fired such a miniature billiard ball through a double slit experiment, we expect that a multitude of frequencies of elementary waves would be involved. Therefore the results would be expected to look like “noise,” i.e. no hills and valleys on the target screen.
Consequently we don’t have any empirical data that would allow us to extend TEW into the arena of ordinary sound waves (too inhomogeneous). If we limited our attention to a squeal of one single frequency (a monotone), perhaps a case could be made to develop an elementary wave theory of sound.
Cordially, Jeff Boyd

Even by simply using Occam’s razor, the weirdness of Quantum theory is refuted by the successful explanations using local and classical reasoning.

It worries me greatly that so many in our scientific community have such closed minds. Their minds seem to open to the wildest fantasies, however, when a practical explanation comes along, they deride it.

I have had some discussions with colleagues about the theory, and they would not acknowledge the successes of TEW in explaining fundamental experiments such as the double slit experiment, but rather, would look for every exception which would disprove the theory.

I almost believe that Quantum Physics has become a pseudo religion rather than a science.

Thanks again, and all respect and honor to Dr. Little for his insight and courage in the face of criticism which borders upon non-science.

Regardless of that fact, I do have a suggestion which might help prove (or disprove) one theory or the other using modern day materials. In two of your videos (one for layman and one for physicists) the experiment for rapidly blocking one slit and obtaining the same or a different pattern is intriguing the problem that you have indicated is how to block and then unblock the slit fast enough.

Why not use two electron guns? One for the firing at the slits in the traditional experiment and one for blocking one of the two slits? Basically creating a photon deconstruction behind the slit? The point is the electron gun will not fire until there is a potential field applied, but you can couple two guns with a known field phase shift using conventional technology based on the wavelength of the emitted light, whose timing and be calculated in advance.

The location for the second shooter would be in line with the second slit and possibly be more powerful. Thus effectively preventing a fired photon from getting to the screen yet not getting in the way of the L wave patch to the first gun. Since you are testing the presence or lack there of L waves the second shooter screen would need to be exceedingly small to limit its effect on the overall experiment.

The other possibility is to put a beam splitter or an optical isolator (or several) or a two way mirror in the path. Yes they will not stop all the photons but they might stop large enough portion to prove or disprove a particular theory.

Also, your right, this would need to be a very large experiment in terms of distance between the screen and the emitting laser to even have a shot at effectively blocking one of the slits.

Peter Hahn appears to have a highly geometric mind. There is an underlying geometry that is the core of Hahn’s model. This is not the case with elementary wave theory, which grows more out of experimental research data than it does out of any central organizing idea. We are still struggling to put together a picture of how these waves work. TEW starts with empirical data such as the double slit experiment and the Innsbruck experiments, and tries to make sense of them. Unlike Hahn we do not accept the assumptions upon which quantum mechanics rest, nor do we accept the uncertainty principle. Our starting point is to reject wave particle duality, and let the chips fall where they may. Waves and particles are independent, but the waves strongly influence the particles.

One might think we have a coherent theory based on the idea that elementary waves travel in the opposite direction as subatomic particles. But it is not that simple. This very evening we are struggling to understand the Innsbruck experiments using a TWO wave theory. While a subatomic particle (such as a photon or electron) may follow an elementary wave, nevertheless, it is also accompanied by another wave traveling in the same direction as the particle. After all, if elementary waves are everywhere, traveling in all directions at the speed of light, then for any one wave there is a mate with the same wavelength and going in precisely the opposite direction. We don’t understand nearly as much about this elementary wave variety of ether as Hahn understands about his foamy ether.

Like Hahn, we expect that many properties of particles (such as their energy, polarization, or wavelength) will eventually be found to be properties of the ether, not of the particle.
Cordially, Jeff Boyd

http://www3.telus.net/foamyether/conclusion.html

Bob Bronson
Bronson Capital Markets Research
http://financialsense.com/editorials/bronson/main.html

I can imagine that some very clever scientist may find a way to explore these ideas you’ve outlined. It seems very reasonable to believe that these elementary waves would a play role in molecular organization and communication.

I would imagine that TEW could make possible some new experimental set ups that may have never been conceived of before.
An experiment that could somehow detect or measure the focus of these waves during a biochemical reaction would be a huge leap for human understanding if possible.

As well,an experiment to test for any correlation to subjective experience would be really interesting.Of course,we are dealing with an incredibly small scale, so…

TEW’s implications for sight are very remarkable.It may be that large portions of our understanding of visual processing will have to be reworked.I noticed that it seems slightly similar to the way some computer graphics programs are able to produce “realism”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_tracing_(graphics)
Thanks again,
Jeff