How does the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) explain quantum weirdness?

[Pi]

This is to invite comment on Dr. Lewis Little's "Theory of Elementary Waves" (TEW), which is expounded at http://www.physics.prodos.org/

I'm paraphrasing and it's been a few weeks since I looked at the website, but the essence of the theory is:
-The universe consists of elementary waves and elementary particles, which do not exhibit wave-particle duality.
-Elementary particles move in paths which follow an elementary wave, in the opposite direction to the wave motion. This is the key difference between TEW and earlier theories which tried to divide the world into waves and particles: in the other theories the particles moved in the same direction as the wave.

Here are some claims the website makes for TEW:

TEW is a causal, deterministic theory of physics which provides a comprehensive, non-contradictory, and rational explanation of quantum and relativity phenomena. In TEW there are REAL waves, and REAL particles; no ghost-like existents and none of the 'weirdness' associated with 'Standard Quantum and Relativity (SQUARE)' theory such as: wave-particle duality, space-time, quantum teleportation, metaphysical uncertainty, entanglement, superposition, etc.

Further down:

TEW does for quantum and relativity what Copernicus did for Astronomy when he unravelled the convolutions of a geo-centric model in favour of the current, helio-centric model of the solar system. The complex geometry of the 'Geo-centrists' worked as well as the Copernican model (well, sort of). However one was merely a floating, mathematical construct, the other was a mathematics derived from a true picture of the solar system.

The website has a link to Little's original paper (published in Physics Essays in March 1996); I've read part of this and as far as I can tell with my undergrad knowledge of QM it all makes sense. But if Little is right there are some things I don't understand:

There are some big claims made for TEW and the theory is backed up by a paper published several years ago in a (presumably) reputable journal; why hasn't it set the world on fire? I'd never heard of Little before I stumbled upon the URL above, and his name doesn't appear on these forums. My QM lecturer hasn't heard of him either, and his chief proponent on physics.prodos.org is not a physicist but a computer scientist. Is he a crank, or just very poor at promoting his ideas? I'd appreciate it if some experts (or anyone with something useful to say) could take a look at Little's paper and tell me what they think.

Looking forward to a lively debate

 

[chroot]

Physics Essays is not a reputable journal.

You probably shouldn't expect a lively debate on this topic -- this clearly does not belong in the Physics forum.

- Warren

 

[Integral]

Yep, I agree with Chroot

 

[Pi]

Physics Essays is not a reputable journal.

I wondered if that might be the problem. What is it then?

 

[Adam]

I'd be interested in seeing some rational refutation of the guy's claims.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Well for one, it implies the Uncertainty principle is just wrong. Within any time period greater than a plank era, a particle really is 'fuzzy' because it does not have any exact points.

Second, I didn't see any mention about the energy associated with this elementary wave that is associated with elementary particles.