THE THEORY OF ELEMENTARY WAVES A Causal Explanation of Quantum Phenomena

Yankee Robotics, LLC ^ | March 30, 2000 | Lewis E. Little

[ThePythonicCow]

The above is from the Introduction to a new theory of elementary waves, to replace the troubled foundations of Quantum Mechanics.

For further links on this theory, see The Yankee Robotics site: THE THEORY OF ELEMENTARY WAVES.

Whether Little's alternative to Quantum Mechanics holds up or not, I am not competent to predict. But at least his critique of modern Quantum Mechanics, and its apparent paradoxes, contradictions and unrealities seems, to me at least, to be refreshing.

[Smokin' Joe]

Downloaded for later reading. I Asked a college physics professor about the velocity of gravity once and was invited to shut up or flunk. I remain a repressed heretic.

[tictoc]

Found this highly critical article on the net.

Am endlessly fascinated with the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics, though unfortunately I lack the training to comprehend original research and must make do with popular science articles and books.

It seems that the infuriating paradoxes and mysteries associated with QM drive many people to reject it out of hand, but what they come up with in its place is not necessarily as good.

My personal hunch: the mystery of non-locality, if it is ever resolved, hides some very unsettling news for us about the nature of free will; we may not be able to handle the truth. Yes, I am only talking through my hat :-)

[AdmSmith]

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:

A -5 point starting credit.
1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
read more here:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

[libertylover]

Unless the initial error is corrected, the consequence is an endless series of errors piled on errors.

Yes, we know this to be true. One such initial error: Bill Clinton elected to -something- in Arkansas. I just hope the endless series of errors part is wrong.

[PatrickHenry]

Thanks for the ping. I read the thing, and it seems to me that the author is a loon. I'm only going to ping a few others, not my whole list. There's very little info on the web about the author. But I found this: HERE.

[Rudder]

What the hell is a "proem?"

[Ff--150]

You believe in a dice-playing God and I in perfect laws in the world of things existing as real objects." Albert Einstein

FYI

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

My personal hunch: the mystery of non-locality, if it is ever resolved, hides some very unsettling news for us about the nature of free will

Have you caught the recent book, The Mind and the Brain? The author attempts to use quantum theory, with its wierd results such as the idea that things don't exist until observed, to rescue free will from what he takes to be essentially naive Newtonian reductionism.

And that is a long way from the entireity of the book's fascination; author talks a lot about the "plasticity" of even the adult brain, indicating that the "map" of the parts of the brain "dedicated" to particular functions is far less ironclad than had been assumed.

The author's name, best I can now recall it, is Jeffrey (or Jeremy?) Schwartz. Something of that sort, if you see it you will I hope recognize it. Book was co-authored by a (female, as I recall) Wall Street Journal writer. Your self-description strongly suggests to me that you may like it.

[f.Christian]

The evo liberal prism ... garbled light --- darkness always !

PROOF

The assimilation of data in such a way that the desired conclusion seems to be the most plausible hypothesis.

[Physicist]

I'll sit this one out, for the most part. There are so many articles purporting to "debunk" quantum mechanics (and relativity, and the Big Bang, and, and, and...) that it is not humanly possible to wade through them all to find where each went wrong. If anyone has specific questions, of course, I'll be glad to answer them.

[NukeMan]

Proem = introduction. This is only the 2nd time I have seen the word actually used in any web article...

[norwaypinesavage]

FYI,
Gravity has recently been measured to travel at the speed of light. It is, of course, noted that the measured speed of anything will never exceed the speed of light, if you use light to measure its speed.

[Maelstrom]

Serious problem.

This simple method would create a relatively high score for non-revolutionary contributions.

[Maelstrom]

Ok...here's a question.

If I'm reading this guy right, his entire argument is invalidated because we have objectively measured the velocity of light in air, and other media. Correct?

Next, the best this guy could hope for in his weirdness is a "reverse" save at *right angles* to a photon particle moving in the direction of the path it has just followed...like some sort of wake behind the photon, but not, I guess, in front of it...either the weirdness waves stop at the path, or create a wake indistinguishable from waves originating from the photon as they pass through one another?

Instead he's violated both locality and causality. That big ball of hydrogen fusion we call Sol has all it's light *pulled* from it.

LOL!

[Physicist]

If I'm reading this guy right, his entire argument is invalidated because we have objectively measured the velocity of light in air, and other media. Correct?

Well, that I can't tell you, because I didn't read the article. What I meant was that I'd answer any questions about QM.

One thing I can tell you about QM crackpots in general is that they think that all the weirdness comes from the theory, the result of an error in mathematics that can be corrected at a single stroke. In reality, the weirdness is an experimental fact. It can't be "done away with". QM may not be correct, but the correct theory will be weird in exactly the same ways.

[Free the USA]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[ckilmer]

I'm not a mathemetician. I only got as far as trig/functions in HS. Since then lack of use has reduced my math abilities to about the sixth grade level.

quantum mechanics is/was beyond my ability to evaluate both as a mathematical phenomina and as an observational phenomena. (Heck I can't even spell ph--well you get the idea.) Its the second part that I'd like to talk about. QM is/was beyond my ability to evaluate as an observational phenomena. Can something be described as both a particle or a wave. Can something be in two places at one time? Does the observation of a thing change it. Since we're talking about physical events on a subatomic level and therefor off the screen of natural human observational capabilities--we're also talking about/beyond the limits of human observational capabilities--and therefor the scientific method--which depends on observation as a form of proof.

At this level I prefer to think that God is the measure of all things--rather than the Greek formulation "man is the measure of all things." Why? Because if you say that "man is the measure of all things then its reasonable to ask--ok what sort of man. a zygote a fetus a baby a child a teenager an adult, an old person, a death watch, a person with red/green vision, glaucoma, color blindness, 20/20 vision, no stereo vision, a person whose hearing catches all the high & low pitches a person who is black white yellow red brown: short tall, male female. There is a lot variation in measurement when you use man as the plumb line. However, God is one. He sees all perfectly, knows all perfectly. I don't know however, if there is an apporopriate mathematic for infinity that allows for tha passage of information from the uncreated/infinite/holy/unknown/unobservable) to the created/finite/unholy/known/oberservable. But the quirky humor of the Quantum Mechanics guys suggests that that's what they think they're about.

[boris]

There are no photons, only darktons. A light bulb is a darkton sink. The reason lightbulbs "burn out" is that they become clogged with darktons.

This makes about as much sense as the article above.

--Boris

[boris]

"Downloaded for later reading. I Asked a college physics professor about the velocity of gravity once and was invited to shut up or flunk. I remain a repressed heretic."

Gravity moves at the speed of light. It cannot move faster. This is by now well-established, despite the non-physical ramblings of people like Tom Van Flandern, who just plain don't understand relativity--and make a virtue out of ignorance.

--Boris