Does the New Quantization Method Redefine Time Symmetry in Quantum Mechanics?

[naturale]

One reason that I like the paper is that I have a soft spot in my heart for Kaluza-Klein models and so when I read the paper, that was the first thing I thought of.

One thing that I find nice about the paper is that if the entire universe has another time dimension which extremely small then you can communicate quickly between two different parts of the universe that seems spatial separated.

One crazy idea is that it's believed that cosmic inflation was causes when something happened to cause 3 space dimensions to suddenly get big. So it would be interesting to think about what the universe would look like if there were a lot of time dimensions that are tightly wound out, and then something happened to cause the universe to massive expand in the time direction.

That's true. Extra dimensions are between the most appealing theories of new physics on the market.

However, in that paper the fields are four dimensional fields, there are not "real" extra dimensions. That fields with intrinsic periodicity, which can be matched with ordinary second quantized fields, are "dual" to extra dimensional fields. The author says in the last paragraph that this is a "close parallelism with the AdS/CFT correspondence".

The theory is four dimensional, and I appreciate it because is physics that de Broglie, Einstein, Planck, Bohr & C could use at that time.
It is not simple to do good physics without playing with additional variables.

If you add an extra time dimension to reproduce quantum mechanics you end up to a theory with hidden variables and related no-go theorems.

 

[zonde]

Use a little bit of imagination. I meant that the stroboscopic light is tuned on and shows the coin at place S and time T_0 for an infinitesimal instant. Alice looks at a face of the coin and B looks at other side. Alice in A and at time T_1 (that is after a time delay T_1 - T_0 depending on how far she is from the coin) sees the face (the photon emitted by the that face of the coin at T_0 and S) with an up arrow (down arrow) whereas Bob in B sees the other face (the photon emitted by the other face at T_0 and S) with the down arrow (up arrow) at time T_2. Alice knows at T_1 what Bob will see at time T_2. It is clear now?

It seems clear what you mean but I don't see how this avoids Bell's inequalities.
From your description it follows that Alice sees (after period T_1 - T_0) classical variable that is produced at source - the face with an up arrow (down arrow) and the same for Bob (after period T_2 - T_0).

Please consider looking into this simple explanation of Bell's inequalities - https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2817138#post2817138"
ignoring of course the final conclusion as it is not conclusively proved by experiments.
This shows the problem with Bell's inequalities in very simple form. From this example it is clear that measurement of photon plays central role in this paradox and not exactly their production at source (this is just condition that we are free to adjust to our liking).

 

[zonde]

One thing that I find nice about the paper is that if the entire universe has another time dimension which extremely small then you can communicate quickly between two different parts of the universe that seems spatial separated.

What kind of topology is this where smaller distance in one dimension can dramatically reduce total distance even when distances in other dimensions are big?
Maybe I have poor imagination but it seems to me that this doesn't quite work. Well maybe if you introduce speed of some interaction as mathematical extra dimension.

 

[naturale]

It seems clear what you mean but I don't see how this avoids Bell's inequalities.

Do you see any hidden variable around in the above formulation of the EPR experiment?

From your description it follows that Alice sees (after period T_1 - T_0) classical variable that is produced at source - the face with an up arrow (down arrow) and the same for Bob (after period T_2 - T_0).


Please consider looking into this simple explanation of Bell's inequalities - https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2817138#post2817138"
ignoring of course the final conclusion as it is not conclusively proved by experiments.
This shows the problem with Bell's inequalities in very simple form. From this example it is clear that measurement of photon plays central role in this paradox and not exactly their production at source (this is just condition that we are free to adjust to our liking).

In deterministic physics, as in EPR-like experiments, the measurement doen't play such a central role. The Schrödinger's cat is dead or alive, independently if you watch it or not. Do you feel dead if I don't watch at you?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Have a nice reading!

Thanks! I’m still "digesting", but I think the idea and conclusions are just beautiful!

Having not understood everything yet, there are some things that "bother" me. The first is that the word "wave function" is mentioned twice, in a footnote and in References. I’ll get back to that.

The next is related, and I see that you guys have already got into the subject, EPR-Bell experiments.

If you could explain EPR-Bell to me, I will probably send you a bottle champagne!

The crucial key here is that the entangled pair of photons shares the same wavefunction, and is outside each other’s light-cones when the wavefunction decohere. There is no way for communication. This is the way the author explains non-locality:

In the ’t Hooft approach to determinism as well as in the model with “stroboscopic quantization” there is the attempt to avoid local hidden variables. It is worth noting that the approach with compact time proposed throughout this paper has not local-hidden-variables that must be integrated out to get the quantum observables. We have just space and time coordinates which are physical variables. On the other hand the periodic conditions in eq.(3) can be regarded as an element of non locality (which is consistent with relativistic causality) in the theory. Therefore model proposed in this paper is deterministic²⁰ since it represents a possible way out of the Bell’s inequality or similar non-local-hidden-variable theorems [31].

If we take the very simple example (already mentioned) by Nick Herbert:

If both polarizers are set to 0º, we will get perfect agreement, i.e. 100% matches and 0% discordance.

To start, we set first polarizer at +30º, and the second polarizer at 0º:

If we calculate that discordance (i.e. the number of mismatching outcome), we get 25% according to QM and experiments.

Now, if we set first polarizer to 0º, and the second polarizer to -30º:

This discordance will also naturally be 25%.

Now let’s ask ourselves:

– What will the discordance be if we set the polarizers to +30º and -30º?

If we assume a local reality, that NOTHING we do to one polarizer can affect the outcome of the other polarizer, we can formulate this simple Bell Inequality:

N(+30°, -30°) ≤ N(+30°, 0°) + N(0°, -30°)​

The symbol N represents the number of discordance (or mismatches).

(The "is less than or equal to" sign is just to show that there could be compensating changes where a mismatch is converted to a match.)

We can make this simple Bell Inequality even simpler:

50% = 25% + 25%​

This is the obvious local realistic assumption.

But this wrong! According to QM and physical experiments we will now get 75% discordance:

sin^2 (60º) = 75%​

Now, I have 3 problems:

1) How can a deterministic model handle random and spatially separated apparatus?

2) How can the "periodic conditions" introduce non locality?

3) How can "relativistic causality" be compatible with what happen in EPR-Bell experiments? In one frame of reference Alice will cause the "decoherence", and in another frame of reference Bob will cause "decoherence"? (The shared wavefunction can only decohere once.)

 

[zonde]

Do you see any hidden variable around in the above formulation of the EPR experiment?

EPR paradox involves two non-commuting observables. Your formulation above involves only one observable so it has nothing to do with EPR paradox.
And yes I can see hidden variable in this formulation. Information is created at S when coin is illuminated and then this information is transferred to places A and B for observation. This information transfer is what is meant with hidden variables.

In deterministic physics, as in EPR-like experiments, the measurement doen't play such a central role.

Can't agree with this.

Did you look at Bell explanation I gave? Can we discuss it?

 

[twofish-quant]

In this way what Alice and Bob see is entangled, they see two different faces of the same coin in S and T_0. In this case Alice knows what Bob will see (or have seen) without speak each other.

That means however that there is one universal strobe light, which causes problems since you then have an absolute time coordinate.

First let me point out that 1s is an "eternity" with respect to the De broglie clock of an electron. The mass of the electron 9.10938215(45)×10−31 kg is known with a precision of 8 digits. To know the number of periods of a electron de Broglie clock in 1s we should know the mass of the electron with a precision of 20 digits, and we are quit far from that!

But you don't have to know the exact periods. You just need to know that they are the same.

In this case I would say that if Alice sees up and coin flips an even (odd) of half periods, then Bob will see down (up). So to speak, the can see the classical evolution of the coin.

OK, we are getting somewhere.

If some of the above conditions are not fulfilled (decoherence), the outcomes can be only described statistically through the usual laws of quantum mechanics.

Not really. In the pure situation we've agreed that you get predictions very different from QM. Now then the question is, how far away from the pure situation do you have to be before you see something different.

Also, personally, I think that they were hand waving when it came to Bell's inequality, and they didn't provide any particular information on how they intend to resolve it.

The author demonstrates that the Feynman path integral eq.(40) "has been obtained just assuming relativistic periodic waves without any further assumption". To me this is sufficient to say that the theory reproduces ordinary quantum mechanics.

If it's mathematically identical to quantum mechanics in all situations, then it's just another interpretation, and I'm not too interested in those, since those are a dime a dozen. The universal strobe light sounds a lot like the Bohm interpretation of QM.

If they have some alternative ideas that looks like QM at large scales, but is different in some situations, then it gets interesting.

If this is true, I believe it is true also because the paper has been peer reviewed, there is nothing more to say.

Peer reviewers are human and make mistakes. The threshold for passing peer review in these sorts of papers isn't very high (and that's a good thing IMHO).

I would say that in our case decoherence is a possible thermal noise such that one or more of the possible conditions above are not verified.

We know that the time it takes for something to go into a classical state is much shorter than the deBroglie period. We know this because if it takes longer to go into the classical state than the deBroglie period, then you won't be selecting a particular quantum state.

If it's thermal noise, then we know that there is some mechanism involving thermal noise that can cause things to happen on small fractions of the deBroglie period. Once we isolated whatever that is, we can change it to see if it affects quantum probabilities. For example, if it's thermal noise that cases things to decoher, then you can think of an experiment to see of temperature affects quantum probabilities.


Most likely condition 0) could be disturbed by the presence of thermal noise, other candidates are conditions 3), 4), 6), 7), 8), 9), ... .[/QUOTE]

 

[Dickfore]

If those particles are the quanta of the field, they must be off-shell to have opposite directions. Otherwise they are described by different field with different frequencies and wave-vectors.

Seems like you are simply using some 'vibe words' out of their proper context. I don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Shortly, imagine that the polarization of the two photons can be for instance determined (at the moment of the emission) by deterministic dynamics intrinsically too fast to be resolved experimentally (of the source)...

I have no idea if technically a polarizer can resolve dynamics faster than 10^-20 s.
From the physicsworld's article it seems hard to have such a resolution in time.

Then Alice and Bob see up and down or down and up, but if their resolution in time is poor they can predict the outcomes only statistically, and the probabilities are 50% and 50%. As Alice see the up arrow, she automatically knows that Bob will see the down arrow or vice versa. Since no hidden variables are involved, we are not in the hypothesis of the Bell theorem and the model can in principle satisfy the Bell inequality.

Use a little bit of imagination. I meant that the stroboscopic light is tuned on and shows the coin at place S and time T_0 for an infinitesimal instant. Alice looks at a face of the coin and B looks at other side. Alice in A and at time T_1 (that is after a time delay T_1 - T_0 depending on how far she is from the coin) sees the face (the photon emitted by the that face of the coin at T_0 and S) with an up arrow (down arrow) whereas Bob in B sees the other face (the photon emitted by the other face at T_0 and S) with the down arrow (up arrow) at time T_2. Alice knows at T_1 what Bob will see at time T_2. It is clear now?

With rolling coin I mean flipping coin. Probably the misunderstood is originated by this.

I am absolutely not says that A and B talk with each other. The only thing they know could be their position w.r.t. the coin, which is the source of entangled photons.

To define even better this gedanken experiment we must suppose that
0) when the stroboscopic light it turned on, the coin will be forced to be orientated in such a way that it shows a face to Alice and the other face to Bob.

In this way what Alice and Bob see is entangled, they see two different faces of the same coin in S and T_0. In this case Alice knows what Bob will see (or have seen) without speak each other.

...

In this case I would say that if Alice sees up and coin flips an even (odd) of half periods, then Bob will see down (up). So to speak, the can see the classical evolution of the coin.

In deterministic physics, as in EPR-like experiments, the measurement doen't play such a central role. The Schrödinger's cat is dead or alive, independently if you watch it or not. Do you feel dead if I don't watch at you?

naturale, with all due respect, I think you are missing one important factor here; EPR-Bell.

It seems like you are talking about the 1935 Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen 'vision' on the paradox, with only perfect correlation, and a presumed determinism.

But John Bell changed all that, and the measurement does play the ENTIRE role! And it is physically confirmed beyond any doubts that (deterministic) Local Hidden Variables (LHV) does not work. I know you are not talking about "Hidden Variables", but still you assume that the outcome is set at the source, and this is just impossible in practice.

In EPR-Bell experiments Alice do not always see the opposite side of Bob’s flip coin. When not aligned parallel for perfect correlation – they can get the same side, randomly!

The statistics of EPR-Bell experiments is sinusoidal. Deterministic models (at the best) always produce non-sinusoidal statistics:

And it all depends on the RANDOM settings of the polarizers, which are outside each other light-cone.

 

[naturale]

Thanks! I’m still "digesting", but I think the idea and conclusions are just beautiful!

Having not understood everything yet, there are some things that "bother" me. The first is that the word "wave function" is mentioned twice, in a footnote and in References. I’ll get back to that.

The next is related, and I see that you guys have already got into the subject, EPR-Bell experiments.

If you could explain EPR-Bell to me, I will probably send you a bottle champagne!

Yes, I was speaking about EPR experiment. The EPR_BEll experiment is pretty much complicated to figure out. As soon as I will find time I'll try to do what I can, at least from a formal point of view by using:

The generic Hilbert state defined before eqn.(31) in this case is |\phi > = 1 / \sqrt{2} (|up>\otimes |down> - |down> \otimes |up>), where \otimes is the tensor product of two pure states of the periodic fields described in the paper.

Hopefully this should involve the "element of non-locality" of the theory as you suggested:

The crucial key here is that the entangled pair of photons shares the same wavefunction, and is outside each other’s light-cones when the wavefunction decohere. There is no way for communication. This is the way the author explains non-locality:

This non-lacality (periodic boundary conditions) actually is why the field can self-interferes. Moreover the probability of an observable eqn.41 is given by a field (the Born rule is mentioned in footnote n.16, is this your problem with the wave function?).
This yields to the same composition rule of probabilities of quantum mechanics P(a+b) \neq P(a) + P(b)..
If I'll ever find such an explanation I will write a paper first and then I'll ask you a battle of champagne (but I fear that to have that bottle of champagne you what something more than a formal description, something like an intuitive example, isn't it?).
At this point I have a request to you all: I would like that this tread is focused on the results discussed on that paper, which (IMHO) are extremely ex exciting.

From a mathematical level the paper seems to provide an exact matching with ordinary quantum mechanics by using essentially "deterministic" physics. I would like to discuss about this formal matching and its limits.

In few words I would like to discuss this:

Since we have inferred the Hilbert space eqs.(25), eq.(28) and eq.(29), the Schr ̈odinger equation eq.(27), eq.(30) and eq.(33), the commutation relations eq.(44), the path integral eq.(40), the Heisenberg uncertainty relation eq.(45) and the Bohr-Sommerfeld condition eq.(46) from the periodicity assumption, it is reasonably correct to interpret our theory as a quantum theory.

or

The effective time evolution of a periodic field is described by the Schr ̈odinger equation in a Hilbert space. Due to invariance by space-time translations of periods there are different classical trajectories with different winding number between the initial and final points. This gives rise to interference between different on-shell paths and thus to a path integral formulation, without relaxing the variational principle.

Other interesting aspects of the theory are described in the version 4 (arXiv:0903.3680v4). I believe the graphical interpretation of the path integral is something that should be read. The EPR paradox is not mentioned in that paper. The only think that is mentioned is that there are no hidden variables.

As long as someone of you do not prove that the Bell theorem can be adapted to rule out the case of intrinsic periodicity of the fields, the theory must be considered compatible with quantum mechanics (the Bell's hypothesis of local hidden variable can't be used in our case).

 

[naturale]

Seems like you are simply using some 'vibe words' out of their proper context. I don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

If a field has a give frequency-wavevector f_\mu, then its quanta have energy-momentum p_\mu = h f_\mu. If you says that two of them can have different directions, then one of two has different fourmometum w.r.t p_\mu, i.e. it is off-shell.

 

[naturale]

If it's mathematically identical to quantum mechanics in all situations, then it's just another interpretation, and I'm not too interested in those, since those are a dime a dozen.

If it's mathematically identical to quantum mechanics in all situations, that it is not only an interpretation but a new formulation which is based only on deterministic physics (classical variational principle, energy conservation, etc). This would imply an unbelievable simplification in solving complicated problems, or even simple conceptual interpretations. If you are not interested on this it means that you think that physicists "should shut up and calculate".

The more general quantum formulations of QM is the "ordinary axiomatic formulation" (in field theory is the second quantization) and Feynman formulation. The theory reproduces surprisingly both of them. If as Feynman says "same equation, same physics" (or something similar), then that theory can provide a correct formulation of the EPR-Bell experiment, as well.

I could add the Wigner formulation which however doesn't reproduce relativistic quantum mechanics.

The others:
5.3 Many worlds
5.4 Consistent histories
5.5 Ensemble interpretation, or statistical interpretation
5.6 de Broglie–Bohm theory
5.7 Relational quantum mechanics
5.8 Transactional interpretation
5.9 Stochastic mechanics
5.10 Objective collapse theories
5.11 The decoherence approach
5.12 von Neumann/Wigner interpretation: consciousness causes the collapse
5.13 Many minds
5.14 Quantum logic
5.15 Modal interpretations of quantum theory
5.16 Other interpretations

are mainly speculations, or in the best cases interpretations which only match partially aspects of quantum mechanics and give disasters for other aspects.

Peer reviewers are human and make mistakes. The threshold for passing peer review in these sorts of papers isn't very high (and that's a good thing IMHO).

IMHO the publication treshold is too law for that papers which:
don't say nothing new, or
are based on ambiguous definitions/hypothesis, or
because they are just speculations, or
predict results which can't be confuted on a period of time longer that the estimated life time of the referees/editor/readers (string theory or similar) or
no results at all.
In all these situations to have papers published is extremely simple. This is the drama of modern physics: a huge number of papers with really too few original ideas or concrete applications. When you have a paper with something new, concrete, which implies a redefinition of well assumed concepts and which (the most heretic fact) really works, you are in serious troubles with referees.

If it's thermal noise, then we know that there is some mechanism involving thermal noise that can cause things to happen on small fractions of the deBroglie period. Once we isolated whatever that is, we can change it to see if it affects quantum probabilities. For example, if it's thermal noise that cases things to decoher, then you can think of an experiment to see of temperature affects quantum probabilities.

To observe a single photon it is necessary that the thermal noise is small w.r.t its energy. This is an experimental fact.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

This non-lacality (periodic boundary conditions) actually is why the field can self-interferes. Moreover the probability of an observable eqn.41 is given by a field (the Born rule is mentioned in footnote n.16, is this your problem with the wave function?).

Thanks for your answers naturale. The problems I have are most likely my own fault = a lack of understanding. (but I’m working on it)

I interpret the "new quantization method" as it goes 'beyond' regular QM and gives us a hope to really understand what goes on at the microscopic level. Afaict you "give up" the wavefunction, and instead use the fields of QFT to obtain the same "results", right? This causes some conflicts in my brain... afaict QFT combines SR & QM, thus QFT must obey SR, right? But this seems not to be the case...?

A massive periodic field turns out to be localized inside the Compton wavelength. In fact, the non-relativistic limit corresponds to a low intensity massive field where only the first energy level is largely populated. In this way we obtain the usual non-relativistic free particle distribution (modulo the de broglie internal clock). This gives a consistent interpretation of the dualism between waves and particles and also of the double slit experiment.

If we take the double-slit experiment, there are claims that this "can easily be reformulated". Now, I presume that this means that the "schizophrenic" wave–particle duality is substituted by something more "natural" and "logical"? And I want to know what it is and how it works?

As a consequence of the periodic nature of the fields, typical quantum phenomena such as black body radiation, the double slit experiment, Schrödinger problems, superconductivity, and many others can easily be reformulated.

Can the de Broglie internal clock, inside a single electron, really explain easily what goes on here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="640" height="505">
<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FCoiyhC30bc&fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0&amp;color1=0x402061&amp;color2=0x9461ca"></param>
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param>
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FCoiyhC30bc&fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0&amp;color1=0x402061&amp;color2=0x9461ca" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed>
</object>

(but I fear that to have that bottle of champagne you what something more than a formal description, something like an intuitive example, isn't it?).

Yes please! Honestly, if this new theory is going to open the "Black Box" of QM and show us what really is inside, I sure hope it is possible to talk about, in some way... If it’s not – what have we really gained? Another mathematical "Black Box"?? As you know, there are some scientist who prefer the "shut up and calculate" approach, and this is understandable if Bohr was right "There is no quantum world". But now you say that this world do exist, and at the fundamental level is deterministic. If we still can’t talk about this real world, it’s real gloomy...

At this point I have a request to you all: I would like that this tread is focused on the results discussed on that paper, which (IMHO) are extremely ex exciting.

I agree, and I understand. To me it looks like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is the strongest candidate for "easy explanation" by this new theory. The microscopic world is not uncertain; it’s just a matter of really good measurements, right? In this demonstration, the opening is 1/100th of an inch wide (or 0.25 mm), when the HUP becomes noticeable. Can this be explained by the de Broglie internal clock of 10^-20 s?

Walter Lewin MIT – The Uncertainty Principle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="640" height="505">
<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KT7xJ0tjB4A&fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0&amp;color1=0x402061&amp;color2=0x9461ca"></param>
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param>
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param>
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KT7xJ0tjB4A&fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0&amp;color1=0x402061&amp;color2=0x9461ca" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed>
</object>

As long as someone of you do not prove that the Bell theorem can be adapted to rule out the case of intrinsic periodicity of the fields, the theory must be considered compatible with quantum mechanics (the Bell's hypothesis of local hidden variable can't be used in our case).

You are probably right, but personally I think you do have a problem. If your theory is deterministic, then we know what’s "wrong" in Local Realism – its locality. The best test of non-locality (afaict) is EPR-Bell experiments, thus: you must provide a reasonable explanation for how "relativistic causality" and determinism can be compatible and how this works in EPR-Bell experiment.

If you can’t – I personally think you have a serious problem in your theory...

(Unless you are talking about super-determinism, where not only the particles but the apparatus and humans are predetermined... which to me is totally depressing and uninteresting...)

 

[naturale]

Thanks for your answers naturale. The problems I have are most likely my own fault = a lack of understanding. (but I’m working on it)

I interpret the "new quantization method" as it goes 'beyond' regular QM and gives us a hope to really understand what goes on at the microscopic level. Afaict you "give up" the wavefunction, and instead use the fields of QFT to obtain the same "results", right? This causes some conflicts in my brain... afaict QFT combines SR & QM, thus QFT must obey SR, right? But this seems not to be the case...?

QFT is, so to say, the "evolution" of the matter wavefunction of QM introduced by de Broglie. It is fundamental when you want to include SR. Periodic fields are kinds of relativistic fields. Therefore that theory absolutely don't "give up" the wavefunction. The periodic fields describes probabilities as in QFT and absolutely respect SR in all its aspects (lorentz invariance, relativistic causality, ...)! Look to the above posts or read the first section of the paper. One can say that such a theory unifies SR with QM, I believe.

If we take the double-slit experiment, there are claims that this "can easily be reformulated". Now, I presume that this means that the "schizophrenic" wave–particle duality is substituted by something more "natural" and "logical"? And I want to know what it is and how it works?

The answer is: a periodic field with periodicity T=h/E. It gives a particle description in the non relativistic case (end of the end of par.1.2). The arXiv paper version4 have two section of the appendix dedicated to the wave/particle dualism and double slits experiment.

Can the de Broglie internal clock, inside a single electron, really explain easily what goes on here?

You have a field theory (or wave theory if you like) which in the no-quantum limit (h-> 0 or M -> \infty) describe a particle. If M is infinite, " In the non relativistic limit, matter fields can be approximated as with infinite spatial periodicity and microscopic time compactification proportional to its Compton wavelengths. Hence they can be regarded as nearly three spatial dimensional objects. Furthermore, since they are spatially localized inside their microscopical Compton wavelengths, they can be effectively regarded as non-relativistic point-like particles."

Yes please! Honestly, if this new theory is going to open the "Black Box" of QM and show us what really is inside, I sure hope it is possible to talk about, in some way... If it’s not – what have we really gained? Another mathematical "Black Box"?? As you know, there are some scientist who prefer the "shut up and calculate" approach, and this is understandable if Bohr was right "There is no quantum world". But now you say that this world do exist, and at the fundamental level is deterministic. If we still can’t talk about this real world, it’s real gloomy...

You are pretending too much. There will always be "Black Boxes" in physics I fear. As you give an answer you rise new questions. In this case you pass from a "Black Box" to a " little less Black Box": it is ruled by classical and deterministic laws. Since I read that paper I can't avoid to think QM in that way.

The language of physics is mathematics and the first think a physicist should do is to have theories mathematically well formulated and consistent. This is not "shut up and calculate". Once that mathematics works, you can even try to interpret your results by word. But you have always to bearing in mind that translating physics into words inevitably generates misunderstandings. In that theory mathematics really works and you obtaining, as far as I can see, the very same laws of QM. This can't be by chance! I can't help to explain it by words if the mathematics behind that theory is not known.

I agree, and I understand. To me it looks like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is the strongest candidate for "easy explanation" by this new theory. The microscopic world is not uncertain; it’s just a matter of really good measurements, right? In this demonstration, the opening is 1/100th of an inch wide (or 0.25 mm), when the HUP becomes noticeable. Can this be explained by the de Broglie internal clock of 10^-20 s?Walter Lewin MIT – The Uncertainty Principle

The par.2.4 is Heisenberg uncertainty relation. Have you read it?
"Mathematically we can see this by noting that the phase E t / \hbar is defined modulo factors 2 \pi n . Supposing for simplicity n = 1 , we can reabsorb this factor either as a variation of the time variable \Delta t = 2 \pi \hbar / E or of the energy \Delta E = 2 \pi \hbar /t , so that \Delta E * \Delta t = (2 \pi \hbar )^2 /E t , which is minimized by the largest value of the time in the denominator t -&gt; T_t . Finally, we recover the Heisenberg uncertainty relation[14].
\Delta E * \Delta t &gt;= 2\pi \hbar = h." In this case you must consider the intrinsic spatial periodicity (transverse w.r.t the propagation direction) of the photons (not the periodicity of electrons) inside the laser beam, i.e. you must think them as objects with compact spatial dimension of length \lambda = 0.55 mm. In a laser the all photons "want" to have the same periodicity of \lambda. If you want a bar of length \lamnda to pass through a hole of diameter d < \lambda you have to incline it of an angle cos \theta = \lambda/ d. Right? When the laser beam is inside the slit, the photons are like particles on a box and the wall of the slit tries to force the field to a shorter spatial periodicity \lambda. The only way the photons have to preserve the same compactification length is to bend as they pass through the slit, so that some of them have a deviation \theta (of course, not all the photons, because possible scatterings...). If you write the variations of the components of their momentum whose modulo is |p| = h \lamnda and you multiply it by the variation of direction of the wavelength you will see that they are related by the Heisenberg relation.
This again is only my guess! There are an infinite number of experiments that are related to the HUP. But at this point it is not necessary to explain them on by one. Since the theory has an underling Heisenberg relation all this kind or experiment should be consistently interpreted in that theory ("same equation, same physics"!).

You are probably right, but personally I think you do have a problem. If your theory is deterministic, then we know what’s "wrong" in Local Realism – its locality. The best test of non-locality (afaict) is EPR-Bell experiments, thus: you must provide a reasonable explanation for how "relativistic causality" and determinism can be compatible and how this works in EPR-Bell experiment.

If you can’t – I personally think you have a serious problem in your theory...

(Unless you are talking about super-determinism, where not only the particles but the apparatus and humans are predetermined... which to me is totally depressing and uninteresting...)

You are still applied a theorem based on local hidden variable to a theory without hidden variables. Maybe, the non-lacality has an intuitive interpretation in this case (probably arising from the periodic condition).