DGM

Any progress on Dr. Little's TEW?

15 posts in this topic

Googling for it doesn't turn up anything recent, at least not from Little himself. All I see from the last 3 years is the first chapter of his (presumably still unfinished) book.

What's the latest word?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Googling for it doesn't turn up anything recent, at least not from Little himself. All I see from the last 3 years is the first chapter of his (presumably still unfinished) book.

What's the latest word?

I don't know either. The last I heard was well before Stephen died.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Googling for it doesn't turn up anything recent, at least not from Little himself. All I see from the last 3 years is the first chapter of his (presumably still unfinished) book.

What's the latest word?

Dr. Little's book is now complete (I have a pdf of it), he has a publisher, and it should be out in a year or so.

Also, Dr. Little and Stephen were working on something I cannot discuss here, but academic physicists and grad students who are working in quantum physics and are intererested in the TEW should contact me at betsy@speicher.com for further information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. Little's book is now complete (I have a pdf of it), he has a publisher, and it should be out in a year or so.

A year or two? I admit I know nothing about the publishing business, but why so long for a book that's already written? Regardless, I'm glad to know that TEW didn't just quietly expire. Thanks, Betsy.

Anyway, just two questions about the book itself, both of which I assume will be NDA-safe: how much of a background in physics and mathematics do you need to follow what Dr. Little is saying, and what will the price be?

Also, Dr. Little and Stephen were working on something I cannot discuss here, but academic physicists and grad students who are working in quantum physics and are intererested in the TEW should contact me at betsy@speicher.com for further information.

Heh. I'd ask, but in all honesty I don't qualify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, Dr. Little and Stephen were working on something I cannot discuss here, but academic physicists and grad students who are working in quantum physics and are intererested in the TEW should contact me at betsy@speicher.com for further information.

If it's a ray screen we need it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyway, just two questions about the book itself, both of which I assume will be NDA-safe: how much of a background in physics and mathematics do you need to follow what Dr. Little is saying, and what will the price be?

The book is written for a general reader who has some background in physics and mathematics. I can follow some of it. A friend of ours who took physics in college a long time ago but has maintained his interest in the subject read the pdf and was able to follow all of it.

I have no clue as to what the price will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had read recently (sorry, can't recall where :rolleyes: ) that someone had tested some kind of prediction of Dr. Little's theory and had found it didn't work or something. I seem to recall a more general critique relating to the general principle of indeterminacy when dealing with two different dimensions, and seeing that the commentator had mentioned that although indeed Dr. Little's theory did address something along one kind of dimension, that it simply opened up a different issue along another.

I sometimes get concerned that Objectivists interested in this theory are somehow looking for a Fully Deterministic Physical Theory--I would caution metaphysical shoppers to be careful what they buy and install, should they find all interesting and non-trivial phenomena in the universe suddenly extinguished should they install an incorrect metaphysical theory module into the cosmos... ;) ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had read recently (sorry, can't recall where :rolleyes: ) that someone had tested some kind of prediction of Dr. Little's theory and had found it didn't work or something. I seem to recall a more general critique relating to the general principle of indeterminacy when dealing with two different dimensions, and seeing that the commentator had mentioned that although indeed Dr. Little's theory did address something along one kind of dimension, that it simply opened up a different issue along another.

Many people have questioned or disagreed with the TEW and those objections have been discussed in numerous postings here. As far as I know, the TEW has not been refuted and it explains all the know experimental findings -- but not necessarily in accordance with some other theories. In any case, eventually there will be additional knowledge gained that will give us more insight into which of the competing theories better describes reality. (See Betsy's Law #1.)

I sometimes get concerned that Objectivists interested in this theory are somehow looking for a Fully Deterministic Physical Theory¬ô--I would caution metaphysical shoppers to be careful what they buy and install, should they find all interesting and non-trivial phenomena in the universe suddenly extinguished should they install an incorrect metaphysical theory module into the cosmos... ;) ;)

Instead of getting "concerned," trying to read other Objectivists' minds, and imagining what they might be thinking, just look at reality and see whether what they are saying is true or false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I sometimes get concerned that Objectivists interested in this theory are somehow looking for a Fully Deterministic Physical Theory--I would caution metaphysical shoppers to be careful what they buy and install, should they find all interesting and non-trivial phenomena in the universe suddenly extinguished should they install an incorrect metaphysical theory module into the cosmos... :rolleyes:;)
Quantum Mechanics as it is now is not the final theory, and the Copenhagen Interpretation or any interpretation of QM that involves some kind of intrinsic randomness or departure from causality has no place in a rational universe. Something else is needed beyond QM, and TEW may indeed be it. If we go by only what QM strictly is saying through the math, then it is telling us how to accurately calculate the probability of obtaining certain values from a measurement, that energy is quantized, etc, but what it doesn't tell us is what the heck |psi(x)|^2 really is, what exactly psi(x) physically represents in reality (a quantum field, a quantum potential?), or why we even have to use wavefunctions instead of the classical approach of obtaining equations of motion. QM did not come with much of a helpful conceptual interpretation available, and the motto some young physicists are told when pondering QM is "shut up and calculate".

That psi(x,t) deterministically evolves with time should be evidence enough that the quantum world is indeed not a-causal; "collapsing" the wavefunction and returning a random value through measurement is simply our perspective from ignorance, not proof that the quantum world is random.

I do not know of any experimental results that contradict TEW. Some have stated that the Bell experiments disprove TEW, but once again the assumptions behind this (non-locality, instantaneous action at a distance) have no place in a rational universe.

TEW is still a viable theory that patiently awaits testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... the Copenhagen Interpretation or any interpretation of QM that involves some kind of intrinsic randomness or departure from causality has no place in a rational universe.

Correction: QM does not deny causality, it denies *mechanistic* *deterministic* causality *at a specified level of granularity*. All the things in they physical world are built from the blocks at that level.

I just don't think it is correct to equate causality with *mechanistic causality* down to some assumed level of axiomatic foundation in the universe. Causality simple means that things have identity and act in certain ways in specified contexts according to that identity. It doesn't provide a detailed demand that that action be deterministic.

And in any event, it wouldn't matter if someone discovered tomorrow some "sub-quantum" description of things that was mechanistic, since it wouldn't change the fact that the level above that was not mechanistic. In fact, this is a perfect example of what I have been saying in the thread about consciousness, regarding the distinction between mechanistic and non-mechanistic causality, as well as what I was saying about systems not being determined by the substrate on which they are built.

QM qua mathematical theory is one of the most spectacularly successful theories in the history of science. Something that successful is highly unlikely to be far from the mark. As for the *interpretations* of QM, I heartily accept it to be a legitimate subject for debate... (And of course I don't believe in wonky contradictions like Schroedinger's cat, etc.)

... the assumptions behind this (non-locality, instantaneous action at a distance) have no place in a rational universe.

Well, I would suggest that this is inverting science and philosophy. I don't think philosophy can rule out any specific observed phenomena--just because we don't know exactly why we observe this phenomena, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And we *already* have actions at a distance--they are mediated by a force, itself a highly nebulous metaphysical/physical concept. Maybe there is some kind of underlying force-like or medium-like aspect to sub-subatomic reality that is not itself subject to speed-of-light limits, maybe speed-of-light emerges on top of that substrate. I'm no physicist, but all I'm saying is to caution against being too overzealous in what comprises "identity", "causality" etc. A certain kind of probabilistic behavior that occurs with the exact same probability distribution in specified contexts is a very absolute form of identity.

TEW is still a viable theory that patiently awaits testing.

I am all for better theories winning out over worse ones! If this is such a case, then I wish the TEW folks the best!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... the Copenhagen Interpretation or any interpretation of QM that involves some kind of intrinsic randomness or departure from causality has no place in a rational universe.

Correction: QM does not deny causality, it denies *mechanistic* *deterministic* causality *at a specified level of granularity*. All the things in they physical world are built from the blocks at that level.

I just don't think it is correct to equate causality with *mechanistic causality* down to some assumed level of axiomatic foundation in the universe. Causality simple means that things have identity and act in certain ways in specified contexts according to that identity. It doesn't provide a detailed demand that that action be deterministic.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, but Jordan referred to the Copenhagen Interpretation, which does deny causality because it denies identity. Particles are described as "wavefunctions" having no definite properties until they are observed, at which time they finally "collapse" into a certain state. Schrödinger devised his famous cat thought experiment as a reductio ad absurdem, to expose the problems with this interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... the assumptions behind this (non-locality, instantaneous action at a distance) have no place in a rational universe.

Well, I would suggest that this is inverting science and philosophy.

A scientific theory cannot contradict the nature of the universe, so in this sense philosophy does have a say in what science does. A scientific theory that states the Universe exploded from a tiny point and expanded into nothingness can rightfully be censured by philosophy as foolishness.

I don't think philosophy can rule out any specific observed phenomena...
I agree, because if something has been observed then it most certainly exists.
...just because we don't know exactly why we observe this phenomena, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And we *already* have actions at a distance--they are mediated by a force, itself a highly nebulous metaphysical/physical concept.
Well let's be precise here:

Of course there are actions at a distance that are perfectly fine--gravity, EM fields--what I am rejecting is the idea of an instantaneous action at a distance interaction. Any interaction between entities must be done by some mechanism, and this mechanism will have some identity. A good example is an electron's orbit decays, it emits a photon of finite energy, the photon travels through space at a finite speed until it interacts with some other charged particle.

But how could you sensibly explain an interaction that happened literally instantly across any distance? You certainly couldn't describe it as some particle or field traveling from one entity to another, because a finite speed is a prerequisite for the concept of "traveling" itself. To travel from one location to another in literally zero time would require that the interaction mechanism be present both at it's departure and arrival location simultaneously, and everywhere in between all at one instant of time. This is clearly preposterous, because there is no way of bringing the concept into being without contradicting reality.

...I'm no physicist, but all I'm saying is to caution against being too overzealous in what comprises "identity", "causality" etc.
There is no need for caution, philosophy clearly lays out what identity and causality are, so we should be quite capable and fearless to reject nonsense on sight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... the Copenhagen Interpretation or any interpretation of QM that involves some kind of intrinsic randomness or departure from causality has no place in a rational universe.

Correction: QM does not deny causality, it denies *mechanistic* *deterministic* causality *at a specified level of granularity*. All the things in they physical world are built from the blocks at that level.

I just don't think it is correct to equate causality with *mechanistic causality* down to some assumed level of axiomatic foundation in the universe. Causality simple means that things have identity and act in certain ways in specified contexts according to that identity. It doesn't provide a detailed demand that that action be deterministic.

[...]

QM qua mathematical theory is one of the most spectacularly successful theories in the history of science. Something that successful is highly unlikely to be far from the mark. As for the *interpretations* of QM, I heartily accept it to be a legitimate subject for debate... (And of course I don't believe in wonky contradictions like Schroedinger's cat, etc.)

... the assumptions behind this (non-locality, instantaneous action at a distance) have no place in a rational universe.

Well, I would suggest that this is inverting science and philosophy. I don't think philosophy can rule out any specific observed phenomena--just because we don't know exactly why we observe this phenomena, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Philosophy can, however, rule out any allegedly scientific idea that requires violation of the Law of Identity or results in contradictions. In this essay, I show why instantaneous action is such an invalid idea.

Also, nobody has ever observed non-locality or instantaneous action. That is simply an errorneous explanation for what was observed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am all for better theories winning out over worse ones! If this is such a case, then I wish the TEW folks the best!

See

http://www.capmag.com/objective-science/ar..._dissidents.htm

and

http://www.capmag.com/objective-science/index.htm

Do "finds" on TEW.

ruveyn

The TEW is controversial. Some Objectivists are enthusiastic about it and some are dubious. To see my late husband's answers to many critics and objections, read this board and search for any issue of interest.

Which side will win the debate? Reality!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites