Prev: the deal with Maxwell theory deriving Principle of Least Action or Fermat's Principle but not vice versa Re: Re:
Next: yes us, it is jesus, jesus runs my asus and my asus is russ plus we'n'us
From: maxwell on 28 Oct 2009 20:19
This is the first part of a review of “The Theory of Elementary
Waves” (TEW) by Lewis E. Little. The focus will be on Little’s
recently published book but, for those readers who wish to save money,
the original paper (same title, same theory) was published in Physical
Essays in 1996 and is accessible online at http://elementarywaves.com/TEW96paper.html
.. This review will be a more detailed discussion of the book than the
one written by science writer Brian Clegg in “Popular Science”, a
magazine he edited, (http://www.popularscience.co.uk/reviews/
rev449.htm ) and is designed to help readers of this review to make a
decision between either wasting any further time on this theory or to
read the original paper in depth or even, perhaps, to buy the book. A
quick Google search on the complete phrase (“TEW”) will provide nearly
400,000 hits so there is obviously some interest in this theory. The
book was published in 2009 and is available through Amazon (
http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Elementary-Waves-Explanation-Fundamental/dp/0932750842
); the majority of public reviews there are favorable, perhaps
indicating the wide-spread dissatisfaction with the current
interpretations of quantum mechanics (which I share). The book was
published by New Classics Library, an organization dedicated to new
models of reality and headed by Robert Prechter, who both edited this
book and provided the foreword, where he acknowledges Dr Little as
being as revolutionary as Copernicus.

One of the first surprises in reading the book is how little this
theory has changed since it first appeared in 1996. Some chapters
have been re-arranged and almost all the math has been omitted. It
must be said, however, that there is minimal math even in the original
paper, often just quoting well-known formulae (like QED propagators)
but not being used. In fact, one of the most frustrating aspects of
this theory is that it has not and does not predict anything new so
that its value could be determined. Little’s extensive use of natural
language is appropriate to discuss the philosophy of quantum mechanics
but there are so few mathematical derivations (beyond the most
simplistic use of algebra) that this theory runs the risk of being
regarded simply as “hand-waving”.

The book is short (about 150 small pages) and lacks both a
bibliography and index, making cross-referencing difficult. Each of
the twelve principal chapters covers three or four topics very
briefly. The Introduction sets the scene by claiming a realist view
of physics (one I share) by criticizing modern physicists who
"conceive of physics not as a science dealing with real entities and
their consequent behavior but instead as nothing more than a
mathematical description of behavior.” For another of my reviews of a
recent book by a philosopher of science that criticizes this view
(“The Inadequacies of Phenomenology”), see my earlier posts in the
Foundations NG: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.foundations/t/f953615ecb5eb090
As Lewis is reminding us physicists (and mathematicians always seem to
forget): “Behavior is always behavior of something – something real.”
<p.5>

Chapter two covers quantum mechanics (QM) and the “weirdness” of
conventional interpretations, not the least of which is the behavior
of microscopic particles covered by the “complementary” descriptions
of waves and particles, even though these two concepts are the
complete opposite of one another (point versus all of space) – in
other words, a self-contradiction. The paradigmatic experiment here
is the “double-slit” scattering of non-interfering subatomic particles
producing a pattern (over time) on the target screen that resembles
one where the source is emitting waves that subsequently interfere
with one another. As Little reminds us, waves are never observed
(only point hits on the target screen are seen) <p.11> but quantum
physicists leapt to the conclusion that actual waves were being
emitted from the source, traveling through BOTH slits and were
“guiding” the particles (the “forward-wave” hypothesis). This
viewpoint resulted in the form of QM known as “wave mechanics”
invented in 1925 by Erwin Schroedinger in analogy with geometric and
wave optics. The problem is that although waves can follow multiple
paths at the same time (from the source, through the slits, to the
screen), localized particles can only be at one point at any one time
so they must follow only one trajectory. Lewis points out that these
waves only meet at the screen, a view shared by those who view the
waves “collapsing” into a particle when they reach the screen. The
logical contradictions of this interpretation do not prove that the
subatomic world is “weird” or that standard (Aristotelian) logic does
not apply but that “the forward-wave hypothesis is false” <p. 15>. In
the next section <2.3> Lewis analyzes the famous experiment of Kaiser
et al in 1992 involving neutron interferometry where the claim was
made that “reverse-temporal causality” was demonstrated. Lewis
dismisses this as nonsense (“Time cannot go backward.”) but makes no
mention of advanced solutions to the wave equation that have been used
successfully in both classical EM (Feynman & Wheeler, 1945) and the
“Transactional Interpretation of QM” (Cramer 1986).
(... to be continued).
From: Just Me on 29 Oct 2009 01:04
On Oct 28, 7:19 pm, maxwell <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
>
 The paradigmatic experiment here
> is the “double-slit” scattering of non-interfering subatomic particles
> producing a pattern (over time) on the target screen that resembles
> one where the source is emitting waves that subsequently interfere
> with one another.  As Little reminds us, waves are never observed
> (only point hits on the target screen are seen) <p.11> but quantum
> physicists leapt to the conclusion that actual waves were being
> emitted from the source, traveling through BOTH slits and were
> “guiding” the particles (the “forward-wave” hypothesis). This
> viewpoint resulted in the form of QM known as “wave mechanics”
> invented in 1925 by Erwin Schroedinger in analogy with geometric and
> wave optics.  The problem is that although waves can follow multiple
> paths at the same time (from the source, through the slits, to the
> screen), localized particles can only be at one point at any one time
> so they must follow only one trajectory.  Lewis points out that these
> waves only meet at the screen, a view shared by those who view the
> waves “collapsing” into a particle when they reach the screen.

Of course collapsing into "a particle" would never do to explain the
phenomenon except the wave should so collapse at both slits to yield
two particles, one for each hole. It is the diffraction, the
interference pattern observed on the screen which shows that both
slits have been penetrated by a wave. Would any suggest that such a
wave collapse occurs at only one hole, while at the other it passes
through as a wave? How then will the interference pattern be
explained seeing there is no other wave to be interfered with, but
only the path of an alleged particle instead. Thomas Young's sketch of
the double slit diffraction pattern observed . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Young_Diffraction.png

As for the attempt to apply Schrödinger's wave mechanics to the double-
slit diffraction anomaly, this was not Schrödinger's baby but that of
Louis de Broglie with his "pilot wave" hypothesis which being proposed
never came to anything mathematically sound. And as to what
Schrödinger's opinion may have been on it, that may be out there, but
for more on this specific topic current here today . . .

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/6100aef7decc2148#
--
JM
From: Benj on 29 Oct 2009 01:46
On Oct 28, 8:19 pm, maxwell <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
> In
> the next section <2.3> Lewis analyzes the famous experiment of Kaiser
> et al in 1992 involving neutron interferometry where the claim was
> made that “reverse-temporal causality” was demonstrated.  Lewis
> dismisses this as nonsense (“Time cannot go backward.”) but makes no
> mention of advanced solutions to the wave equation that have been used
> successfully in both classical EM (Feynman & Wheeler, 1945) and the
> “Transactional Interpretation of QM” (Cramer 1986).
> (... to be continued).

Hey, guy, time can't go backward (as far as we've observed and know).
I would not call the use of advanced solutions to the wave equation
"sucessful". While it is true that certain very interesting results
have been obtained through theory sort of based upon this theory,
those solutions are clearly "non-physical" and any application that
tries to use them only APPROXIMATES them as best we can in normal
time. Nobody that I know is currently making time travel successfully
in reverse.

The Lewis "guide wave" theory is especially interesting in that it
makes the waves travel in a reverse direction rather than having time
do so. In other words the waves are not from the source but from the
detectors.
From: Androcles on 29 Oct 2009 03:11

"Benj" <bjacoby(a)iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:ac7d95c0-c306-494f-9ffa-c2a0cf2edb8a(a)o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 28, 8:19 pm, maxwell <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
> In
> the next section <2.3> Lewis analyzes the famous experiment of Kaiser
> et al in 1992 involving neutron interferometry where the claim was
> made that �reverse-temporal causality� was demonstrated. Lewis
> dismisses this as nonsense (�Time cannot go backward.�) but makes no
> mention of advanced solutions to the wave equation that have been used
> successfully in both classical EM (Feynman & Wheeler, 1945) and the
> �Transactional Interpretation of QM� (Cramer 1986).
> (... to be continued).

Hey, guy, time can't go backward (as far as we've observed and know).
I would not call the use of advanced solutions to the wave equation
"sucessful". While it is true that certain very interesting results
have been obtained through theory sort of based upon this theory,
those solutions are clearly "non-physical" and any application that
tries to use them only APPROXIMATES them as best we can in normal
time. Nobody that I know is currently making time travel successfully
in reverse.

The Lewis "guide wave" theory is especially interesting in that it
makes the waves travel in a reverse direction rather than having time
do so. In other words the waves are not from the source but from the
detectors.

===================================
Yeah, cancer causes smoking.



From: maxwell on 29 Oct 2009 13:15
On Oct 28, 10:46 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On Oct 28, 8:19 pm, maxwell <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > In
> > the next section <2.3> Lewis analyzes the famous experiment of Kaiser
> > et al in 1992 involving neutron interferometry where the claim was
> > made that “reverse-temporal causality” was demonstrated.  Lewis
> > dismisses this as nonsense (“Time cannot go backward.”) but makes no
> > mention of advanced solutions to the wave equation that have been used
> > successfully in both classical EM (Feynman & Wheeler, 1945) and the
> > “Transactional Interpretation of QM” (Cramer 1986).
> > (... to be continued).
>
> Hey, guy, time can't go backward (as far as we've observed and know).
> I would not call the use of advanced solutions to the wave equation
> "sucessful". While it is true that certain very interesting results
> have been obtained through theory sort of based upon this theory,
> those solutions are clearly "non-physical" and any application that
> tries to use them only APPROXIMATES them as best we can in normal
> time. Nobody that I know is currently making time travel successfully
> in reverse.
>
> The Lewis "guide wave" theory is especially interesting in that it
> makes thewavestravel in a reverse direction rather than having time
> do so. In other words thewavesare not from the source but from the
> detectors.

Sorry, Benj but surely you have heard of statistical mechanics? The
classical equations of motion are time reversible (second order in the
time derivative) but at our human level the chance of seeing this
happen is slim to none. Similarly, the wave equation has two
solutions at the micro-level. However, if you are a positivist you
will believe that all reality only exists at the human scale or
larger, so 'by definition' time-reversal is 'impossible'. Some of us
do not put ourselves at the center of the universe.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: the deal with Maxwell theory deriving Principle of Least Action or Fermat's Principle but not vice versa Re: Re:
Next: yes us, it is jesus, jesus runs my asus and my asus is russ plus we'n'us