piz

Theory of Elementary Waves

26 posts in this topic

It's been a long time since I've seen any updates on the progress of Lewis Little's Theory of Elementary Waves. It's always been very exciting to me, since I've been following it from close to its introduction. Has there been any news in the last year or so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's been a long time since I've seen any updates on the progress of Lewis Little's Theory of Elementary Waves. It's always been very exciting to me, since I've been following it from close to its introduction. Has there been any news in the last year or so?

Well, the development of the theory itself is a hard act to follow. :angry:

Lewis Little continues to work on the theory, applying it to experiments both old and new. Without the huge government grants that are doled out to the string theorists, it is more difficult to get the work done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, the development of the theory itself is a hard act to follow.  :o

Lewis Little continues to work on the theory, applying it to experiments both old and new. Without the huge government grants that are doled out to the string theorists, it is more difficult to get the work done.

Thanks. Hey, I have a theory that the ultimate constituent is lint. Can I get some gummint bucks too? :angry:

I didn't notice before I made the original post, but you already have a forum for TEW under the "Ask the Experts" heading. I guess I should continue this there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't notice before I made the original post, but you already have a forum for TEW under the "Ask the Experts" heading. I guess I should continue this there.

Please note that we welcome members' questions in the "Ask the Experts" forums, but these forums are for specific questions directed to the individual experts, and for their replies. It is not a discussion forum for members; questions only. The rest of the forums, like those under FACTS and VALUES, are the places for member discussion and debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't notice before I made the original post, but you already have a forum for TEW under the "Ask the Experts" heading. I guess I should continue this there.

Well, I don't know if I should go straight to Lewis Little on this one, so I'm going to post it here first and see if any of you can answer it for me. I'm amateur and need a layman's explanation, so this seems more appropriate.

A commenter on my blog had this to say about TEW:

I gave up on TEW about three years ago, for a couple of reasons. The first was the set of double-delayed-choice (DDC) experiments, which basically closed the the last loophole that would have allowed a local theory of QM to be compatible with the the previously observed violations of Bell's inequality. The second was the reaction of some of TEW's defenders to the DDC experiments, which consisted of a lot of handwaving and a bizarre insistence that TEW was somehow unaffected by what was plainly strong evidence against their theory. This led me to the conclusion that the main promoters of TEW were not being objective, and that I had nothing to gain by remaining on their e-mail list.

Interestingly, there has been a published experiment that at least partially resolves the infamous "measurement problem" of QM--that is, how the superposition of possibilities within the formalism of QM actually transfers into the single, solid reality that we observe. (Historically, the "solution" to this problem was to deny reality or to claim that consciousness somehow creates reality.) The experiment involves passing a beam of buckyballs (C70 molecules) through several diffraction gratings. Normally, these molecules show a strong wave character. However, the buckyballs become purely particle-like if they are greatly heated prior to passing through the gratings. The hot buckyballs emit many photons during their flight, and so become instantaneously entangled with the quantum states of the rest of the universe. This entanglement collapses their otherwise wave-like motion into a single path, and all of their quantum spookiness disappears! No conscious observer or even an experimental measurement (of the emitted photons) is necessary for this to happen.

So I've been trying to research buckyballs and the like, but it's all a little over my head. Any one care to explain a bit to me about what TEW's response to this would be? Is there some problem with this explanation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dominique, thank you for the questions.

First, I do not know the expertise of the anonymous commenter on your blog, nor am I very good at mind reading, so I cannot comment on his general impressions. However, any technically competent person can read the TEW analysis of the experiment prominently displayed on Lewis Little's website.

Second, I spend a great deal of time keeping up with the physics journal papers in a number of fields. There has been a proliferation of quantum experiments in recent years -- Zeilinger's group in Vienna alone puts out experiments faster than rabbits make babies -- and while the experiments themselves often tighten up parameters and employ ever-new experimental technology, there is no new fundamental physics involved. The same groups make the same interpretations involving supposed quantum teleportation and nonlocal action, and the opposing groups interpret the same data in their own way.

Once you analyze dozens of these experiments, you see in each case that the same principles apply; it is just a matter of delving into all the technical and experimental details to exactly see the source of the data. This process consumes an enormous amount of time; these are not trivial experimental setups, and the details really matter. In the past I enjoyed spending time doing this, and translating the experiment and the results into words that most people will understand.

A couple of years ago I started cutting back on reading and analyzing these quantum experiments, and by now I rarely pay any attention to them beyond a cursory look. Once you understand the principles of the physics involved, all these experiments just replicate those same principles. The time I would have devoted to this I now spend elsewhere, where it is of more value to me. So whether it is Zeilinger's or Arndt's latest beam of C70 fullerenes or the like, I leave it to others to analyze if they like, but I already know the result. When truly new physics is shaken out of this endless stream of experiments, then that will get my attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, I do not know the expertise of the anonymous commenter on your blog, nor am I very good at mind reading, so I cannot comment on his general impressions.

Thanks for the response. I don't know his expertise either, he said he got his info from the Nature and Physics Today mags, which I don't intend on getting subscriptions too, so I couldn't see exactly what he meant. I wondered if it was relevant. From what you are saying it is not?

I found this also while looking around where Mrs. Speicher explains that certain interpretations of the DDC experiments are invalid because they rely on "instantaneous action at a distance." Does this have anything to do with the commenter's statement

The second was the reaction of some of TEW's defenders to the DDC experiments, which consisted of a lot of handwaving and a bizarre insistence that TEW was somehow unaffected by what was plainly strong evidence against their theory.

I'm just wondering, since he seems to be trying to invalidate TEW. Also I want to know if I'm even relating the right things to each other :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dominique, it is better that we just concentrate on the ideas rather than on who said what and when.

Instantaneous action at a distance -- otherwise known as nonlocal action, or nonlocality -- is a philosophically corrupt and scientifically unfounded notion. It is really just a claim that something acts by no means, in no time. Almost all of the standard quantum theories incorporate some form of nonlocal interaction, which in and of itself is sufficent to disqualify such theories. By contrast, the TEW is a local and causal theory, consistent with proper philosophic axioms and principles.

I realize that this is a difficult subject for non-technical people to understand, which is why in the past I have written so much attempting to translate the complicated physics into simpler ideas. But the problem for non-technical people is complicated when they hear views from others who do have some level of technical expertise, but who lack the proper perspective to understand these issues as they deserve to be understood. My suggestion is to look for consistency of ideas, for ideas that do not contradict fundamental philosophical principles, and use that as a guide in judging what others have to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My suggestion is to look for consistency of ideas, for ideas that do not contradict fundamental philosophical principles, and use that as a guide in judging what others have to say.

Understood :angry: Thanks for the response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whoa, check this out:

http://www.objectivescience.com/articles/dh_tew.htm

Apparently David Harriman, who writes for ARI, this TEW doesn't work!!

Any thoughts?

Harriman's views met very serious objections, especially his opinion that "non-locality [on which Harriman's objection to TEW is based] poses no threat to causality. ... f an action at location A causes a change at location B, metaphysics alone does not tell us that there was a time delay while something moved from A to B."

Many non-physicists, including me, strongly objected on philosophical grounds that Harriman's "instantaneous action" DOES violate the laws of causality and identity. (click here)

Harriman's statement was posted and discussed, at length, on the TEWLIP Yahoo discussion list. See this (click here) and other related posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whoa, check this out:

http://www.objectivescience.com/articles/dh_tew.htm

Apparently David Harriman, who writes for ARI, this TEW doesn't work!!

Any thoughts?

A theory of physics (TEW or otherwise) is not a part of Objectivism. There is room to disagree on how Objectivist principles apply to fields outside of philosophy, such as physics, and still be in agreement about the validity of Objectivism. One need not champion TEW to be an Objectivist, in other words, in the same way Objectivists disagree over whom to vote for in elections.

That said, I disagree with Harriman's conclusions and with the arguments defending nonlocality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A theory of physics (TEW or otherwise) is not a part of Objectivism.  There is room to disagree on how Objectivist principles apply to fields outside of philosophy, such as physics, and still be in agreement about the validity of Objectivism.  One need not champion TEW to be an Objectivist, in other words, in the same way Objectivists disagree over whom to vote for in elections.

That said, I disagree with Harriman's conclusions and with the arguments defending nonlocality.

Thanks for pointing it out that way about Objectivism and physics. There are those who attempt to create a straw man under the guise of supposedly protecting Objectivism from the TEW, when in fact the former is a philosophy and the latter is a science. The TEW advocates, most certainly Dr. Little and myself, have never presented the TEW as an "Objectivist physics theory." Claims like that are just absurd, but it seems that those who do not have the technical facts on their side rely more on fabricating straw man arguments instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is now a new web site devoted to short videos explaining the Theory of Elementary Waves at http://elwave.org/

Best of all, here is this video describing the experiment that Dr. Little and Stephen were planning to prove that the TEW is true and the standard theory is false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is now a new web site devoted to short videos explaining the Theory of Elementary Waves at http://elwave.org/

Best of all, here is this video describing the experiment that Dr. Little and Stephen were planning to prove that the TEW is true and the standard theory is false.

Quite interesting. Would love to see the experiment performed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would love to see the experiment performed.

Oh, Paul, I think it would all be happening too fast for your human eye to perceive. Sorry. :(

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lewis Little continues to work on the theory, applying it to experiments both old and new. Without the huge government grants that are doled out to the string theorists, it is more difficult to get the work done.

:o Did Dr. Speicher actually write that their funding comes with strings attached? :huh::unsure:

(Yes, it did take me more than 6 years to think of that clever response. :blush:)

Sadly, Dr. Speicher is no longer around to appreciate it... :(

Nor to ban me for it! :D;)

Hey! No objections from the peanut gallery on whether "clever" is an apt description. :angry:

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lewis Little continues to work on the theory, applying it to experiments both old and new. Without the huge government grants that are doled out to the string theorists, it is more difficult to get the work done.

:o Did Dr. Speicher actually write that their funding comes with strings attached? :huh::unsure:

(Yes, it did take me more than 6 years to think of that clever response. :blush:)

Sadly, Dr. Speicher is no longer around to appreciate it... :(

Nor to ban me for it! :D;)

Hey! No objections from the peanut gallery on whether "clever" is an apt description. :angry:

;)

I think you've passed through too many slits as your jokes are causing destructive interference on my computer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the new Lewis Little http://elwave.org/ site, a Dr. Jeffrey H. Boyd, MD, is introduced and described with these words: "the only other TEW expert on earth. Little and Boyd have been in conversation, bouncing ideas off each other, for more than half a century."

On YouTube he appears with a video

, titled "How do we see stars?".

At the end, in the last few seconds, there is a rather puzzling comment, apparently also by Jeffrey Boyd. I don't know what to think of it.

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the new Lewis Little http://elwave.org/ site, a Dr. Jeffrey H. Boyd, MD, is introduced and described with these words: "the only other TEW expert on earth. Little and Boyd have been in conversation, bouncing ideas off each other, for more than half a century."

On YouTube he appears with a video

, titled "How do we see stars?".

At the end, in the last few seconds, there is a rather puzzling comment, apparently also by Jeffrey Boyd. I don't know what to think of it.

He's commenting on something he joked about during the video. Watch it again and you'll find it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's commenting on something he joked about during the video. Watch it again and you'll find it.

OK, I got it, I understood he meant that it doesn't hurt joking, that is that his explanation was only a joke.

In fact, he really meant it. I'll have to think about it, but meanwhile here is the transcript, for reference:

It may have occurred to you that if we say that a elementary wave goes out from my eye and a photon follows it back, then how can we explain our ability to see stars that emitted their light one million years ago?

Here is my best guess.

We will say that this (the rod) is an elementary wave that has been here forever, since the beginning of time, flowing in this direction (toward the sky) at the speed of light.

One million years ago, a star passes through this EW and emits a photon going in this direction (toward the man) at the speed of light.

One million years later, I go outside and look at the night sky and, as I position my head, this EW that has been here forever comes into the back of my skull ... and emerges through the subatomic particles in my rods and cones, carrying downstream information about my retina and, in the last minute, the photon comes this direction into my eye and I see the star.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He's commenting on something he joked about during the video. Watch it again and you'll find it.

OK, I got it, I understood he meant that it doesn't hurt joking, that is that his explanation was only a joke.

In fact, he really meant it. I'll have to think about it, but meanwhile here is the transcript, for reference:

It may have occurred to you that if we say that a elementary wave goes out from my eye and a photon follows it back, then how can we explain our ability to see stars that emitted their light one million years ago?

Here is my best guess.

We will say that this (the rod) is an elementary wave that has been here forever, since the beginning of time, flowing in this direction (toward the sky) at the speed of light.

One million years ago, a star passes through this EW and emits a photon going in this direction (toward the man) at the speed of light.

One million years later, I go outside and look at the night sky and, as I position my head, this EW that has been here forever comes into the back of my skull ... and emerges through the subatomic particles in my rods and cones, carrying downstream information about my retina and, in the last minute, the photon comes this direction into my eye and I see the star.

[emphasis added]

You omitted the exact part that the video's closing line refers to. Where your ellipsis is should be the words "I hope it doesn't hurt," meaning pain from the elementary wave passing through the skull. That's supposed to be the joke, feeble as it is.

In any case, his explanation for how we can see light that was emitted before we existed is different than the one given by Dr. Little in his original descriptions of TEW. Dr. Little's is much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understood the joke, that's why I dropped it from the transcript, so lets forget about it.

In any case, his explanation for how we can see light that was emitted before we existed is different than the one given by Dr. Little in his original descriptions of TEW. Dr. Little's is much better.

Dr. Boyd's explanation is short and clear. Is it essentially correct, in your view?

As I understood it, Dr. Little endorses Dr. Boyd expertize in TEW, and this means, I guess, that Dr. Boyd would not publish an unapproved explanation.

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The metaphor I use to visualize the TEW is of a boat (the particle) traveling in one direction over ocean waves (the elementary waves) going in the opposite direction. The waves impart an up-and-down motion to the straight-line forward motion of the boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It may have occurred to you that if we say that a elementary wave goes out from my eye and a photon follows it back, then how can we explain our ability to see stars that emitted their light one million years ago?

Here is my best guess.

We will say that this (the rod) is an elementary wave that has been here forever, since the beginning of time, flowing in this direction (toward the sky) at the speed of light.

One million years ago, a star passes through this EW and emits a photon going in this direction (toward the man) at the speed of light.

One million years later, I go outside and look at the night sky and, as I position my head, this EW that has been here forever comes into the back of my skull and emerges through the subatomic particles in my rods and cones, carrying downstream information about my retina and, in the last minute, the photon comes this direction into my eye and I see the star.

In any case, his explanation for how we can see light that was emitted before we existed is different than the one given by Dr. Little in his original descriptions of TEW. Dr. Little's is much better.

I couldn't find the standard TEW explanation, but DR- Boyd's explanation is apparently at variance with standard TEW, according to which

- first, an Elementary Wave passes through the receiver and carries to the photon emitter the information about its characteristics.

- then the photon emission with necessary characteristics is stimulated at the source and then guided / transported back to the destination by the Elementary Wave

In standard TEW, this process will have to take the time necessary for the EW travel from the eye to the star and the photon to travel back to the eye, which means the man will receive the right photon from the star millions years later.

Dr. Boyd's explanation circumvents partly this obvious problem by stating that the EW gets and carries the eye's characteristics towards the already emitted incoming photon "in the last moment".

Therefore, it is my understanding that :

- the standard TEW should have problems explaining our ability to see stars that emitted their light a long time ago (I do not know where does Dr. Little explain this ability of ours)

- and that Dr. Boyd advances an unorthodox explanation, still based on elementary waves and almost certainly approved by Dr. Little.

Any ideas?

Sasha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites