Betsy Speicher

The Theory of Elementary Waves

234 posts in this topic

JUST PUBLISHED!

41Bp1ec-9FL.jpg

The Theory of Elementary Waves:

A New Explanation of Fundamental Physics

by Lewis E. Little

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Theory of Elementary Waves can now be pre-ordered from Amazon and already has become an extraordinary best-seller -- especially for a book on physics.

On January 23rd, 2009 it was #1 on Amazon's list of Movers and Shakers of books in all categories debuting at #144. As of this writing, it is currently ranked at #277.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey! It's been a long time! Thanks for the heads up, Betsy. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the update, Betsy! I have been looking forward to this for so long that I almost forgot I was looking forward to it... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that this is being published by stock market guru Robert Prechter of Elliott Wave fame, who is also a long time fan of Ayn Rand.

In regard to Prechter, regardless of what else you think of his theories, he has NAILED the current economic situation and had it pegged as coming for years in such books as "Conquer the Crash." Some say he was too negative for too many years, but now that his predictions have come to pass it's easier to see how insightful he was. I've followed Prechter's work closely for more than ten years and as far as I am concerned he is a brilliant example of following logic and evidence in whatever direction they lead.

Prechter's interest are wide and varied beyond the market, and he has published in the past on the parallels between his Elliott Wave theories and the Elementary Wave theory. That probably explains his getting behind this publication now. Here's the blurb from the Elliott Wave newsletter:

Don't Be Surprised If Prechter Surprises You

Quantum Physics For (Not) Dummies

By Robert Folsom

If asked to name the world's most complex topic, I'd probably say something like "quantum physics." Not that I have any expertise on the subject -- but the thought of studying matter so tiny that it's called "subatomic" is (so to speak) a challenge too minuscule for me to figure out.

Maybe you feel likewise. If so, you can understand why "quantum physics" would NOT be my answer to the question, "Name a field of study where the most basic assumption has recently been proven wrong...."

That's right. I don't mean a small miscalculation; I mean wrong in the way that the study of astronomy had it wrong before Copernicus -- massively, totally backwards.

If this intrigues you in the slightest, please believe me when I say that my description is one small taste of an extraordinary meal that Bob Prechter revealed today in his just-published Elliott Wave Theorist for January. If you never imagined you would learn something truly interesting about quantum physics, please keep reading. I trust you won't be surprised that Bob is the guy who surprises you.

Lewis Little’s long-awaited book, The Theory of Elementary Waves: A New Explanation of Fundamental Physics, is due off the press in three weeks. This book will revolutionize the science of sub-atomic physics. It is as ground-breaking as Benoit Mandelbrot’s Fractal Geometry and even more radical in overturning 80 years of bad science. Little writes for the intelligent layman, so you can follow his discussion of a field that has often posed as being too obscure and anti-intuitive for the common mind to grasp. But anything real can be explained, and Little spares no words in tearing down the edifice of magical thinking that permeates quantum mechanics and then erecting a new structure of reasoning from real, physical action and reaction that, as he puts it, “any 8th-grader can understand.” [T]his book provides more elegant revelations than any science book you have read. You should have a first-edition copy of this book on your shelf so when your grandkids ask about it you can say, “I was there.”

I can't put it any better, though I am obliged to say that I've read a pre-publication release of Dr. Little's book: his explanations are indeed straightforward and written plainly. Yet, the insights are uniquely deep. Read it only if you're willing to be challenged about the way (literally) the world works. The book's Amazon page went up yesterday, and already it has climbed into the top 150 by sales rank -- that page is here: The Theory of Elementary Waves: A New Explanation of Fundamental Physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really looking forward to receiving the five copies I pre-ordered, and to discussing Dr. Little's book in this forum and others once it starts getting into people's hands!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mine just arrived and I see it's dedicated to Stephen!

Congratulations Betsy!

I didn't see that before!

Still have a lot of other reading to do, but wanted to get in on the first printing. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After debuting at #144 on Amazon, sales of the book have simmered down somewhat, but it is still an extremely respectable #5,907. To put that in perspective, the next best-selling book in quantum physics (link) is #86,859 and Peikoff's OPAR is #43,150.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After debuting at #144 on Amazon, sales of the book have simmered down somewhat, but it is still an extremely respectable #5,907. To put that in perspective, the next best-selling book in quantum physics (link) is #86,859 and Peikoff's OPAR is #43,150.

Oops! Dr. Little's book is now #2 in quantum physics and Stephen Hawkings' The Universe in a Nutshell is #3 at #6,726.

Dr. Little's book is also now available as a Kindle download by clicking on this link:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very strong criticism of TEW appears here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A very strong criticism of TEW appears here.

He might have started out with his scientific or philosophic objections, rather than character attacks. I got bored reading after the first couple paragraphs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A very strong criticism of TEW appears here.

"ttn" who wrote that criticism is Travis Norsen who has been opposed to the TEW for years because he supports a competing theory. Stephen disagreed with Norsen on the grounds that Norsen was arguing against a straw man misrepresentation of the TEW and not the actual theory, and, worst of all, was basing his criticism on the notion of non-locality which, Stephen argued on HBL and elsewhere, reduces to non-causality.

You can read Stephen's response to a Norsen's 2004 critique of the TEW here. For additional responses to Norsen by Stephen and others, see these posts on the TEWLIP list (link).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A very strong criticism of TEW appears here.

He might have started out with his scientific or philosophic objections, rather than character attacks. I got bored reading after the first couple paragraphs.

You mean Norsen calling Dr. Little "an ordinary (but perhaps extraordinarily dishonest) crackpot" in the first paragraph didn't convince you? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations to Dr. Little. Getting the book out is a big achievement.

I got my copy in the mail and have flipped through it. I read the original 1996 paper when it came out, and I think that had more technical information than the book. I was hoping the book would have more detail, but in my brief glancing through it I don't see it. It looks like the book is aimed at a mass-market audience, rather than one more technically informed on the issues. When I have the time, I'll read it more thoroughly.

I certainly have no philosophical disagreements with TEW, but there are some technical issues that I'm not sure how to resolve, as a result of the limits of my knowledge of physics. That is, there may be scientific issues or experimental results that contradict the theory that may be well known among physics PhDs that I'm not up to snuff on. So I do need to say, in the interest of honesty, that I support discussion of the theory and let others know of its existence, but do not have sufficient context to fully support it.

I wonder what Dr. Little will work on next. Is he marketing the book online? It would be great to have him set up a FAQ to answer questions he gets in emails, or set up a discussion forum (whether it is on this forum or another is up to him). That way technical issues or questions the book's readers come up with can be answered and made generally available.

In any case, congratulations again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A very strong criticism of TEW appears here.

I don't see it as a strong criticism. In glancing at it, he seems to be repeating arguments made a few years back, to which Stephen and others responded sufficiently. I don't plan to waste more time on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A very strong criticism of TEW appears here.

I don't see it as a strong criticism. In glancing at it, he seems to be repeating arguments made a few years back, to which Stephen and others responded sufficiently. I don't plan to waste more time on it.

I glanced at it too. I didn't read the bulk of it, but also skimmed through the conclusion to see if there would be any justification for the character attacks in the opening. The second-to-last paragraph was such a vicious, sweeping character assault beyond what was in the opening that I felt the desire to make clear that I intend to continue to mention TEW to friends and family, as a theory worthy of interest--because people I highly respect, support it. I don't know enough about the theory, or have the necessary physics background (not even close) to know whether it is true or false. But supposing it were false, that would not reflect negatively on the character of any advocates of the theory I have seen. Even supposing the theory were false, why would a denouncer have any objection to the theory being presented alongside of an argument against it? The demand that we owe silence as a "reasonable guideline" in "repayment" for reading this character assault--and that we should not mention TEW without a careful study of it, but we are to take his denunciation on faith--is almost beyond believability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A very strong criticism of TEW appears here.

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

This item addresses only the deficiencies of TEW and does not reference Dr. Little's character in any way.

In criticizing what purports to be a scientific theory character judments have no part. One addresses the theory and only the theory with contraindicating facts.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to get involved in the physics debate over this matter on the grounds that I don't have the expertise, but I thought maybe this would be of interest to some readers here.

Lewis Little has written an addendum to his text and it has been posted here:

http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.p...st&p=208454

That is post number 25 of the thread on OO.net.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I read the accounts on the this and the other Objectivist forum.

I would like to propose something - back when I was taking physics in school, when an argument over a theory came about, instead of name calling, we did experiments specifically aimed at either refuting or confirming a theory if possible.

I realize this is elementary - but better that calling names in my opinion. One thing I really like about TEW is in the introduction - as I fondly remember telling my advanced physics teacher that much of Quantum Physics sounded like "epi-circles" using that very word, and to see Dr. Little using the same phrasing put a smile on my face.

Let the experiments do the talking!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let the experiments do the talking!
You're right, of course. Unfortunately, sometimes in physics there is a gap between technology and theory, such as after Einstein's prediction that light would be bent by gravity. Until then, we're left with handwaving which is just so dissatisfying :wacko:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites