retrocausality should theoretically exist, if space-time were curved and closed. but I don`t believe it is so...

I don`t believe not even in gödel`s Theorem (published not only here on ResearchGate)

As long as there exist an interpretation which is causal, retrocausality should be rejected as nonsensical.  

I have never understood the point of the (in)consistent histories approach. Quite similarly, I see no reason to take a non-realistic interpretation seriously as long as realistic interpretations exist.  And they exist. Actually, the most interesting approach is Caticha's entropic dynamics.  Even if it has also a problem with the Wallstrom objection, it makes more sense than Nelsonian stochastics. 

You have silently used some postulates, we do not more accept in Transactionnal Physics :

That time is newtonian and universal.

That you can extrapolate newtonian time at any scale, event under the atomic limit.

That any micro-time should be confused with the macro-time of the laboratory.

You can't go anywhere so.

http://jacques.lavau.deonto-ethique.eu/Physique/Microphysique_contee.pdf

Obsolete version, but with an english abstract at 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313309517_La_microphysique_que_l%27on_vous_conte_est-elle_bien_la_bonne_La_physique_quantique_transactionnelle_expliquee_pour_tous

Book La microphysique que l'on vous conte est-elle bien la bonne ...

To some extent, non-locality and retrocausality, in a Lorentz covariant world, are but two side of the same coin. So I find both extremely difficult to understand. I do not see that a retrocausal story makes QM any easier to understand, but if it does for some people, it is OK with me. To my mind, both aspects of non-locality (spatial and temporal) are hard to believe. On the other hand, they are undoubtedly present in experiment. There is so far no easy way out.

I have put in bilingual french-english the list of the postulates by which the transactionnal physics differ from the standard one : 

http://jacques.lavau.deonto-ethique.eu/Physique/postulates.html

Transactionnist postulates :

The absorbers exist. No "corpuscular aspects" exist.

De Broglie-Dirac postulate : The intrinsic frequencies from de Broglie mc²/h and from Dirac-Schrödinger 2 mc²/h play their own roles. The broglian one for interferences of the quanton with itself, the Dirac-Schrödinger in every electromagnetic interaction, for instance the Compton scattering.

Fermat-Fresnel postulate : The real paths come in phase, at less than a quarter of period, plus eventually at an integer of periods. So comes the geometry of the Fermat's spindle between emitter and absorber.

Every photon has an absorber. A photon is a successful transaction between three partners :

an emitter, an absorber, and the space or (at least half-transparent) medium or optical devices between them,

which transfers by electromagnetic means a quantum of looping h,

and an impulsion-energy that depends on the respective frames of the emitter and of the absorber.

End of definition.

It does not matter whether the emitter and the absorber are separated, in our human frame, by tens or hundreds of milliards of human years. The human point of view does not matter at all.

We distinguish the macro-times of the macro-systems, such as the laboratory, from the micro-times. In the micro-times are all the gropings of broglian waves, where some transactions will succeed.

No, no one can isolate any quantic system, like we isolate its equations on the blackboard : no one can shield the Dirac-de-Broglie noise. No one can predict which transaction will emerge from all that lapping, nor when.

It is incorrect, and it violates the scientific deontology, to hide to students so much experimental facts that embarrass the copenhaguist heirs : all the spectral absorptions, all the interferences, including the anti-reflect coatings, the quarter-wave nicols, the interferential colors, the Goos-Hänchen and Imbert-Fiodorov effects - proofs of the notable width of each photon. A very long list of hidden facts. They have hidden the transparency effect, Ramsauer-Townsend, as strictly undulatory.  If the electron is always undulatory, how will they still sell their mysterious wave-corpuscle dualism ? Numerous are the experimental facts that contradict the mystic and corpuscularist ideation so dear to the hearts of the Göttingen-Københavnists.

 I had heard somewhere about "consistent histories". Where ? When ?

 What may be new ?

Do you really believe that keeping "observers, measurement, histories", and the laboratory macro-time you could be pertinent ?

In 1928 Dirac proved that in the four components of an electron, two are retrochrone. No consequences ?

@F. Leyvraz "To some extent, non-locality and retrocausality, in a Lorentz covariant world, are but two side of the same coin."

But why assuming that the world is Lorentz-covariant?  Given the conflict between quantum theory and relativity, the cheapest solution is a hidden preferred frame.  And with such a preferred frame, the "non-locality" in not more strange than that of classical Newtonian theory.  So, it is easily compatible with some higher maximal speed of information transfer, which, in the quantum approximation, would be oo.  

I do not understand why one would give up common sense (realism, causality) as long as there are cheap solutions compatible with common sense.  

Why assume the world is Lorentz-covariant?

Experimental evidence. Common sense is important, but cannot be our only guide. Common sense, after all, leads us to assume that the earth is flat and stands still. We ust occasionally be willing to go beyond common sense.

Besides, there is a considerable esthetic attraction in the claim that rectilinear uniform motion is unobservable. It accounts in a very simple way for a large number of facts. Of course, esthetic appeal is just as problematic as common sense, but I would simply say that I find a non-Lorentz covariant solution extremely ``expensive'' and that one may buy too dear the impression that common sense is satisfied.

@Ilja Schmelzer. Does the feeling of common sense prove that our frame of big animals is the good one to study and formulate the laws, valid in microphysics ?

The "conflict between quantum theory and relativity" remains for 1926 a conflict between people, mainly a conflict of Niels Bohr against Erwin Schrödinger and Louis de Broglie, and for 1928 a discrete conflict against P.A.M. Dirac too.

Not any logical reason, no scientific reasons in the expulsion of the relativistic frame by the Göttingen-København sect. Only territorial reasons, a monkey business.

Amongst the consequences : Stephen Hawking teaches that an electron between the wehnelt and the microcircuit to engrave, "takes the time to explore beyond planet Jupiter".

Lots and lots and lots of experimental facts this sect has expelled from the lecture rooms. 89 years already. Have you ever heard of the Ramsauer-Townsend transparency in a lecture room ? 1921... This ferocious censure is a smoking gun.

Your conformism adhering to the myth of 3-dimensionnal "wave function" is not compatible at all with the result of Einstein in 1916 : On the quantum theory of radiation.

No emitters-only theory can give the required directivity to atoms emitting a photon.

Only the coupling emitter-absorber can. Like it or not.

@Jacques Lavau,   common sense does not prove something.  It simply tells us not to give up fundamental concepts like realism and causality or even logic or probability theory for nothing but some artificial symmetries of the mathematical apparatus of actual physical theories.

@Remi Cornwall, of course  some variant of Lorentz symmetry appears as emergent in every wave equation.  It was known already to Lorentz that if it is the EM field which holds matter together, then length contraction and time dilation follows automatically.  

Your idea of "causality" is proved in the macroscopic realm, with statistics and macro-time.

But is ONE photon statistical ?

And how do you concile your idea of statistics for one photon, with the directivity proved by Einstein in 1916 (republished in 1917) ?

With you statistical and macrophysical ideations, how do you find the cross section of say, a CO molecule, for an infrared radiation that has exactly its resonant frequency ? Lots of industrial CO-detectors are based on this principle.

@Remi Cornwall. In 1916, A. Einstein had no idea on directivity of antennas. We do not more have this excuse : 

in http://www.agoravox.fr/actualites/technologies/article/postulats-herites-du-copenhaguisme-162467

or in http://www.agoravox.fr/culture-loisirs/culture/article/coluche-nous-avait-explique-154321

@ Remi: Everything hangs on the issue of whether *all* of physics is Lorentz covariant, in which case there can be no observable Lorentz violations, or whether some parts of physics, perhaps involving measurement, might violate it. My objection, not a cogent one, against the latter, is the following: experiments like the modern versions of Michelson-Morley are *extremely* accurate, and show Lorentz covariant behaviour for, say, a sapphire microwave cavity, or a high-finesse Fabry-Pérot. These objects are held together by chemistry, hence quantum mechanics. If some sector of physics, in particular QM,  were non-Lorentz invariant, should it not somewhere have manifested itself? A good objection to this argument would be, of course, to claim that non-Lorentz covariance arises at the Planck scale. I guess no experiments exist against that.

@ Remi: My opinion is that QM requires one, at least, to believe 6 impossible things before breakfast. One may view it as distressing or challenging. In my view, there are, very broadly speaking, 4 options, all equally weird:

1) true nonlocality à la Bohm. Bite the bullet, introduce nonlocal variables, have some theorems showing that, unless we can actually control them in a finer way than seems possible today, we cannot transport information FTL. The appearance of a classical world is not obvious.

2) Retrocausality

3) Multiple worlds, where the existence of a classical world is explained via consistent histories and decoherence

4) True collapse theories, of the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber type. These are also nonlocal, but they allow the classical world to appear straightforwardly. But they imply ``new physics''. If they are ever proved experimentally, fine. They surely are the least weird of the 4.

My own personal favourite is (3). But this is no more fundamental than my own favourite brand of chocolate. It seems (to me) to have the least number of arbitrary hypotheses, and to follow from QM in the most natural way. In a sense, it is simply ``QM for macroscopic objects''.

Of course, Remi, if your information transmission ever comes through, then it would show clearly that we have to throw Lorentz covariance overboard. You know that you have not convinced me on that issue: maybe the above remarks may have shown why?

``I would have thought EPR type scenarios (especially if information could be sent) would be the smoking gun''

Well, of course. If it could happen, that is, if an experiment were to show it, I would have to revise all I said here. On the other hand, my point is another one: any theory implying a violation of Lorentz covariance should be generally applicable. It would be indeed an artificial theory that only applied to measurement setups!

So any QM theory violating Lorentz invariance should have some effects, perhaps quite small, at the chemical bond level. But Lorentz covariance is observed to high accuracy in sapphire cavities, say. So at best, I am worried as to why the ``violations'' only appear when someone is measuring a quantum system.

When a theory fails, it usually does so in several places: think origin of QM:

1) atomic spectra

2) Dulong-Petit law violations

3) blackbody radiation

4) discrepancy between electron densities and metallic specific heats

etc... were all showing similar inconsistencies, which were all resolved by the same hypothesis. To me, the introduction of new physics *solely* for the measurement problem, in spite of the fact that QM works perfectly in all experiments, is somehow problematic. I would like to see QM fail elsewhere before I consider proposals of new physics seriously.

Dear me, I never claimed to make an exhaustive list of all possible interpretations of QM. I would argue that most interpretations can, with some goodwill, be put in connection with one of these 4.

``QM is correct'' is an assumption of all of these options, except (4). The point is, of course, experimentally QM has been correct. If there were any point where the prediction of a clearly justified QM computation were to disagree with experiment, then everybody would, at least, know where to look for modifications to QM. As it is, one is constrained to look for ways to make QM more palatable without affecting any of its predictions. This is what makes it difficult.

As to the ``shut up and calculate'' view, they may have a point. For a long time, after Newton, the question of the ``cause'' of gravity occupied the minds of several people. Until GRT, however, the answers to such a question was out of reach, and even its correct formulation was impossible.

Are we perhaps in a similar situation today? It may well be that, at least for the next few centuries, the question of the interpretation of QM will turn out to be, essentially, fruitless, because we do not really know the question, and are thus unable to comprehend why 42 is the answer.

OK, so that means we should find a theory that treats mass/energy on a different footing than ``information''. So far, however, there is no theory I know of that takes ``information'' as a fundamental concept. I am not saying it cannot be done, just that I do not see how.

Once more, these questions will come dramatically to the fore if your communication schemes can be made to work, or, more strikingly yet, if they can be shown to follow from the QM formalism. As you know, we disagree on that issue, and I am unwilling to revive that discussion. 

@Remi Cornwall. Einstein has proved that a photon always transfers the momentum hν/c. So it is perfectly directionnal. And the-emitter-only-the-emitter is far too small to provide any directivity, in the range IR and beyond.

The same problems occurs at the receiving antenna too : the carbon monoxyde molecule is approx. 4,7 Å long and 3 Å width. However an infrared photon at the frequency of 65,05 Terahertz finds this molecule and is entirely absorbed by it. Wavelength of 4,608 µm.

Hergé has pictured such a situation in Tintin in Congo... It was imagination...

Your mythology of "collapse", it is like a swell, 200 m between crests, that suddenly concentrates all its energy on a cork and ejects it at 300 m height.

Miracle ! Miracle ! Miracle !

List of the surrepticious Göttingen-København postulates we do not more accept in transactionnal physics :

Anti-relativistic postulate :

The time remains the Isaac Newton's god's time : the same parameter everywhere for everybody, so that the Isaac Newton's god could see all instantaneously.

Corpuscularist or anti-optical postulate :

The neo-newtonian corpuscle invented in 1905 by Albert Einstein denegates all the quantitative laws of optics. This concept is inherent to macrophysics and has never been validated in microphysics.

The anti-Broglie and anti-Schrödinger postulate :

Negation of all frequential phenomena, but those electromagnetic and massless. Negation of the intrinsic frequencies of massive particles (the de Broglie's and Dirac's frequencies mc²/h and 2mc²/h).

Macroscopic geometrical postulate :

Postulation of autosimilarity of space and time at all scales, with unlimited extrapolations ; extrapolation to microphysics of the statistic irreversibility of the macroscopic time. With extrapolation of the infinitely fine topology, as postulated by the mathematicians of the 19th century.

Corollary 1, of "something very small" :

Postulate that you could always find a smaller thing, that authorize you to tell that a something, say an electron, is "small", corpuscular, and even "punctual".

Corollary 2, anti-absorbers :

There are no absorbers in microphysics, only artillery of corpuscles, exactly as in macrophysics.

Positivist postulate, but with an elastic and opportunist geometry :

Systematic call to the macrophysic scale, with its macroscopic "observer", to rule the microphysical realities.

Anthropocentrist corollary :

The physical laws are here to satisfy the curiosity of the copenhaguist physicist, therefore to furnish him informations. If the copenhaguist physicist cannot more know the actual position of the submarine, therefore the submarine is in a superposition of states.

To dare to distinguish the microphysics realities from the knowledges we have, is heretic and relapsed.

Anti-Fourier corollary :

For hiding the properties of the Fourier's transformation, call them Principle of crual uncertainty of the Prophet, and Holy Duality.

Postulate of separation and delimitation.

For the economy of writings, and by analogy with the macroscopic mechanics of rigid bodies, one thinks that with thinking a few objects and manageable computation, it implies that the real quantic objects are separated from the remaining of the world.

Goblinic and poltergeist postulate :

Postulate that each quanton (quantic particle) is exempt from any physical law, but magically, in great numbers, their statistics come back under physical laws, as the postulated corpuscular character blurs under great numbers.

Anti-waves postulate :

Though it is precisely calculated, and though the chemists use it daily with success, however the Schrödinger's wave remains ficticious, without any physical meaning, only good to be elevated at a hermitian square, for giving the probability of apparition of the goblinic and poltergeist corpuscle. According to Feynman et Hawking, this corpuscle is authorized to "go and explore farther than the planet Jupiter" during its travel between the Wehnelt of the electrons cannon to the cathodic screen, or to the integrated circuit to engrave. Feynman et Hawking have written that, so you must believe...

Confusionnist postulate :

You should deny any atomic limit in undulatory. You should confuse any kind of "waves" :

- Waves in collectivity, like sound waves, gravity waves, seismic waves, spin waves in a ferromagnetic material,

- collective of waves, like in a laser cavity,

- and individual waves, one photon, one electron, one neutron, ...

This confusion has limited consequences on bosons, like photons, but has huge consequences when applied on fermions. And the worst on electrons, which repell each other.

Tactical postulate :

Pretend that the formalism and the Göttingen-København semantics are indissoluble. For more safe, deny any meaning to the word "semantics".

Göttingen Postulate :

Deny transitions, focus on states, only states. So, no more interferences, nor any related optical devices.

End of citation.

@Remi Cornwall. I have here more ("good" ?) textboks than you have read in your academic life.

Your "wave functions" exist in books, not in the real world, and do not have the properties the real world exhibits to experimenters.

Please enumerate the texbooks that do not censure the Ramsauer-Townsend transparency. Say at 0.6 or 0.7 V for xenon. Facts known from 1921, not compatible with the Göttingen-København mythology taught everywhere.

"Boom boom, get out of that!" is a valid sample of the ordinary violence of locally hegemonic sects, against those who ceased to believe. Another sample : 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8791196/Police-inquiry-over-Jehovahs-Witness-magazine-mentally-diseased-article.html

Yes I remember this paper from Kwiat, Weinfurter and Zeilinger, in december 1996. Such a heap of professional faults had upset me, and I understood something should be done. My first version was as faulty as is the Cramer's version of TIQM : transaction between two partners only. So no Planck's law of the black body (and no interference astronomy, too)... I kept it under the elbow until I came on the solution. It was unavoidable.

" little ball bearings" is precisely the silent basic assumption of all the standard teachings, just adding some magic properties... Err, lots of magic properties.

But explain how a 200 m wavelength swell can find the small cork it should transfer its energy to, and can transfer it, in order to propel this small cork at 300 m height.

It is not more odd than denying transaction and convergence on the absorber, a gaseous molecule more complex than O2 or N2, or a dye, or a F-center in a crystal...

Hin hin ! The WatchTower "thinks" and writes just like you :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8791196/Police-inquiry-over-Jehovahs-Witness-magazine-mentally-diseased-article.html

Those who stop believing are pretended "mentally disordered"...

Every sect sells to its adepts that he/she is now so superior to the remaining of the mankind.

Beyond these highly philosophal imprecations, the experimental facts remain :

If its frequency is 65,05 Terahertz (in the margin of error of Doppler-Fizeau effect of temperature, in the margin of the variants according to the isotops), a photon converges on the tiny but resonating CO molecule. However the photon may be one or several meters long, and about a millimeter wide, depending on the distance between emitter and absorber. Up to thousands kilometers wide and more on astronomical distances, if you are in the exochemistry business.

There is no way out, but considering the micro-time of the synchronous transfer from the emitter to the absorber and vice-versa. And the micro-time does not have the statistical and thermodynamical properties of the macro-time of the laboratory.

The same contradiction between the experimental facts and the official doctrine of the official church occurs for every spectral absorptions. Including dyes... Lots of colorimetric methods are used in analytic chemistry. A silicomolybdic complex is far more small than the visible photons it captures.

I have already given lots of other experimental facts that the official church cannot tolerate. Mainly in optics, electronic optics included, radiocrystallography included.

The contradiction remains between the formalism, which is strictly undulatory and strictly determinist, and the standard semantics of the official church, which is all in the mystery of Holy Duality and cruel uncertainty of the immortal Prophet and statistical wavefunction of probalility (when squared) of apparition of the magical and goblinic corpuscle...

``I have already given lots of other experimental facts that the official church cannot tolerate.''

Factually incorrect. All the facts you claim follow strictly from the QM formalism, correctly applied. They do, indeed, conflict severely with a too strongly wave-based intuition, such as yours. But conflict between experiment and Jacques Lavau's understanding of QM is a matter of somewhat less moment than a possible contradiction with actual quantitative predictions from QM. These do not arise.

The name calling, of course, involves contempt of what, over all, is sound and well-done work by a community in which there is, in fact, a very broad variety of competing opinions concerning the interpretation of QM. Such contempt will, by an entirely justified extension of Newton's third law, merely lead to a similar attitude toward your approach by mainstream scientists.

Eventually some prose writers, many prose writers have written a much more clear than the above prose. Please do not hesitate to precise who is accused of having said or written or drawed what. Please bring proofs or quotations or references.

I have published my proofs, in these standards, even on Nobel prizes.

You simply never have shown a discrepancy between any quantum calculation and experiment: absorption, whether in the infrared or in the optical regime, has been treated with complete success. I do not ``accuse'' you of anything, except of misrepresenting the facts when you claim a disagreement between QM and experiment. Otherwise, do present an experimental data set, as well as a quantum computation, in which the quantum computation predicts no absorption and the experiment shows the absorption.

 Again you pretend that the doctrine of the church is one and unite.

The formalism is strictly undulatory. But no student access it if he/she has not first adhered to the Göttingen-København semantics. Several Nobel prizes have proved they are still trapped in it.

I repeat : please enumerate the texbooks that do NOT censure such purely undulatory facts as the Scherrer law in crystallography, or the Ramsauer-Townsend transparency, so on.

They are two for Ramsauer-Townsend effect. No more. One of them is Sivoukhin.

The formalism is *not* undulatory. Read, if you wish

Mott, N. F. (1929, December). The Wave Mechanics of $\ alpha $-Ray Tracks. In Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences (Vol. 126, No. 800, pp. 79-84). The Royal Society.

in which it is made clear how, for example, how an alpha particle, isotropically emitted, leaves  a rectiliner trace in a bubble chamber: there the effect of the fact that wave functions are *not* waves in 3d, but ``waves'' in higher dimensional configuration spaces, is clearly explained.

Arguably, some attempts to ``popularise'' quantum mechanics fail, among other things because they do not do justice to the truly unexpected features of QM. This, however, should not be confused with issues of the theory itself.

As to the claim of censorship, consulting the link below will make you realise, perhaps, that a large number of elementary textbooks mention the effect. Myself, I seem to remember having seen it first in Flügge's exercises on quantum mechanics, but do not have the reference at hand any more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsauer%E2%80%93Townsend_effect

Again you maintain the confusion. A surrepticious postulate we had already clarified and refused...

In macrophysics, we know waves in a collectivity. Say gravity waves between two fluids, acoustic waves, seismic waves. And in microphysics, spin waves.

In optics and some electronics, we know collections of individual waves. So is the the beam of electrons in an electronic microscope.

In microphysics we deal with individual waves. Each one has one emitter and one absorber. More intricate is the case of the bosons ; it allows the interferential astronomy on large bases.

An alpha particle, is not "isotropically emitted", unless you could experimentally prove your statement.

When referring you to Mott, I was not discussing absorber theory, but the usual QM formalism. In that formalism, an alpha particle can be isotropically emitted. Mott then proceeds to show that in that case, if we detect the particle via ionisation of a surrounding gas, we wind up observing rectilinear tracks. My claim is that, if you see how this is done, you will see that your claim that ``the formalism is purely undulatory'' is incorrect: the notion of quantum state is more intricate than that of a wave, and it ``vibrates'' in a different space. In fact, it is precisely this feature of the formalism which is masterfully used by Mott.

@F. Leyvraz. The "``vibrates'' in a different space" theory has never been proved.

As soon as a particle is emitted, it has shadows on our macroscopic space, until it is absorbed. And the phenomenon is essentially unidimensionnal, not three-dimensionnal. W. R. Hamilton had already proved that in the 183x years, and L. V. de Broglie has proved why in 1924.

But which one potential emitter will emit and when, which one potential absorber will absorb, which one of the potential transactions will occur and when, are beyond reach of any investigation. The theorem of the requisite variety, by W.R. Ashby, ruins any hopes on that.

Sure we can evaluate the admittances and the concurrency-functions, that's all.

``The "``vibrates'' in a different space" theory has never been proved''

What do you mean? Of course, the ordinary formalism of QM, the one you (erroneously in my view) claim to be ``purely undulatory'', in fact postulates a state function which is a function of the N positions of the N particles of the system. So clearly the state function is defined, in altogether orthodox QM, as something which is not a function of ordinary space coordinates, but rather of configuration space.

Since that is the ordinary theory, I can understand you might want to say that ``it has never been proved''. But, from my point of view, that is irreleveant. You were making a statement concerning standard QM, essentially that the formalism is purely undulatory, and that some wishywashy metaphysics take care of the measurement process.

The claim I made is that both statements are incorrect. The basic formalism is not purely undulatory, sice the state function is not defined in space, but in configuration space (a wave function of two particles is a function psi (vec x_1, vec x_2), which is a function of 6 arguments: what kind of wave is this?). Secondly, precisely this feature can be used, as did Mott, to show a well defined measurement mechanism which stays altogether within the formalism, that is, it uses only the Schroedinger equation, without reduction of the wave packet and such like.

So my point is simply to argue that your perception of the ``orthodox'' QM  is misleading, more precisely wrong. From this follows that the various ``paradoxes'' you derive, relying as they do, on a misconception' are inexistent.

Finally, since the track record of the QM formalism is excellent, it may not be easy to find experimental evidence against it.

dear Jacques, What if that 1-dim space is curved? and not Torsion-free??

@ Paul Pistea.

 From ONE emitter to ONE absorber, there is no dilution or spreading in a 3-dimensionnal space, as postulated in standard. No "exploration beyond planet Jupiter" : the Fermat's principle does not allow such fantasies. The law of maximum widening of the Fermat's spindle has been given.

@F. Leyvraz ·: The butchery of the world war is now over by 98 years and 5 months. So we have no more reason to share the revendications of the Knaben Physiker of Göttingen :  "Me, Myself and I, and My measurement and My information !". The Universe exists for much more long time than the Göttingen Knaben Physiker, and quantic reactions too. So no physical "law" should place any more the Göttingen-København physicists in the middle of the picture in microphysics. The biologists have fought 2 centuries to get rid of the animism the dominant churches wanted to impose us. So why now impose again animism in microphysics ?

In the meantime, the de Broglie frenquency mc²/h is published from september 1923. The Dirac-Schrödinger frequency 2mc²/h is published from 1930. It has been proved in 2005, at the Linear Accelerator of Saclay. In his Nobel lecture in 1933, Dirac mentionned he knew that the Zitterbewegung fully explains the Compton scattering. No other publication of this fact, so I had to re-establish the proof in 2011.

No need for an abstract and ficticious space for the oscillations of particles with mass. And Dirac proved in 1928 that any electron has two components on four that are retrochronous. Hadron waves maybe have more components, though a half of them remain retrochronous.

No need to postulate that the involved micro-times share the statistical and thermodynamical properties of the macro-time of the laboratory. This postulate is superfluous.

@ F. Leyvraz.  Thanks for mentionning the reference : Mott, N. F. (1929, December). The Wave Mechanics of $\ alpha $-Ray Tracks.

It was a good incentive. So I added the new pages 151-153 for treating this kind of experimental facts :

http://jacques.lavau.deonto-ethique.eu/Physique/Microphysique_contee_avril2017.pdf

Thanks, it was necessary.

http://jacques.lavau.deonto-ethique.eu/Physique/Microphysique_contee_avril2017.pdf