Customer Reviews

The Theory of Elementary Waves: A New Explanation of Fundamental Physics

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

For a century, experiments with subatomic particles--such as the double-slit experiment linked to the particle-wave theory of light--have yielded puzzling results. Physicists have long possessed equations that successfully predict these results, but quantum mechanics, the theory that has accompanied those equations, is less satisfying. Like the math, it does explain the results, but only if the physicist accepts such propositions as these:
-A single particle at once occupies multiple, separate locations.
-A particle travels on multiple paths toward multiple destinations but arrives at only one destination.
-The destination of a particle depends on its conscious observer. (Consciousness determines reality.)
-Conscious observation of a particle collapses it from a "superposition of multiple states" into a single state.
-At any given instant, a particle can have only an exact position or an exact velocity, not both.
-Objects can interact from a distance without any physical means to do so.
-Objects can change location instantly (moving at infinite speed).
-Causation can run backward in time (so that an event in the present determines what happened in the past).

Unlike the author, Dr. Little--and unlike Albert Einstein before him--most physicists accepted such propositions. They had no choice: that no other theory had been proposed proved that quantum mechanics was the correct theory, and the illogical nature of this theory proved that the rules of logic were delusions. Many of the physicists who reached this conclusion no doubt had I.Q.s over 200, like Dr. Little's. These physicists did not, however, match Dr. Little in intellectual discipline or persistence.

As a disciplined thinker, Dr. Little knew that quantum mechanics had to be wrong. As a persistent investigator, he continued his inquiry until he discovered a likely source of the error. Earlier physicists had labored under an unrecognized assumption: that the wave on which a particle of light travels runs in the same direction as the particle. Dr. Little recognized this assumption as an assumption and tried working with the opposite notion: that the wave runs from the particle's destination to the particle's source. This alternative notion makes sense of the experimental results that, under quantum mechanics, are explained only by simultaneous occupation of separate locations, interaction from a distance and by no physical means, backward-in-time causation, and so forth.

The assumption that Dr. Little replaced--the assumption about wave direction--affects none of the math that quantum physicists have used to predict the results of experiments. The math works the same, regardless of wave direction. It supports Dr. Little's theory just as well as it supports quantum mechanics. But, unlike quantum mechanics, Dr. Little's theory obeys the rules of logic and hence may be right!

In fact, there is very good reason to believe that the Theory of Elementary Waves accurately describes reality. One test of a theory is whether it explains phenomena that it was not devised to explain. Little's theory does so in abundance, solving problems that involve Newton's physics, the Theory of Relativity, the inner workings of the atom, and even magnetism--another topic over which physicists have long parted ways with reason. The Theory of Elementary Waves in fact explains so much that it is far more than an alternative to quantum mechanics: it is a new explanation of physics, an explanation so elegant that Dr. Little shares it and its implications in a mere hundred and fifty pages.

Dr. Little has toppled a pyramid of mystical and impossible nonsense that less disciplined geniuses built over the course of a hundred years and which, for all that time, most physicists have admired. To replace that pyramid, Dr. Little has devised an ingenious theory that obeys the laws of reason and, so far, appears to be consistent with reality. His book offers fantastic encouragement for individuals who dare to think with discipline and persistence until they find answers that work.

The kindle version does not have illustrations, which are VERY important to the understanding of the material!

In this book Dr. Little presents his comprehensive theory of physics. The method used is reasoning from factual information inductively towards a coherent physical theory. This contrasts with many physical theories today that represent theories imposed on reality i.e. deductively. Accordingly, these currently accepted theories always have nasty inconsistencies that result from the deductive approach.

Although the book is quite accessible to the general reader, this is not light reading. One must progress slowly in order to absorb the various points that are made in each chapter. As you would expect, the subject matter builds on itself. Thusly, each component is integrated consistently with existing knowledge in a coherent manner yielding a comprehensive whole.

Although the criticism of current physical theories laid down in the book by the author is deserved, I found it perhaps more severe than I would have used. The book clearly explains why current theories are irrational and then goes on to present a coherent theory of matter.

I am in complete disagreement with the reviews expressed by Hobbyman and O. R. Blaumanis - they must have read different books.

I recommend the book to anyone who is interested in promising physical theories. But, the book is more than that. For the first time, a theory is presented that yields a rational quantum theory as well as explaining relativity phenomena. Additionally, Dr. Little shows how the Theory of Elementary Waves gives rise to the macroscopic - that is - electrical phenomena (electricity and magnetism) and mechanics.

Dr. Lewis Little has rightly pointed out some of the absurdities of quantum theory, and the extent to which theoretical physicists must go to maintain current models of the universe. He deals with the universe from the cosmic to the subatomic levels, and shows how his Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) can provide a consistent explanation of observed data.

The small book is understandable to non-specialists with a reasonable college-level base of physics and mathematics, but it does require careful reading and thought. Little is a fundamental thinker, and views modern quantum theory skeptically. The skepticism is constantly, and sometimes excessively, expounded throughout the book.

Nevertheless, his originality and fearlessness in following observed data to alternate explanations places him in a very small group of brave persons. As he points out, modern academic science is mostly unforgiving of such unorthodox views. Others with this ability to observe data and form revolutionary explanations include Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, and Hannes Alfven, all of whom proposed theories with far-reaching implications, and who were often dismissed despite their impressive credentials and bodies of work. It is certainly Little's originality and unorthodox approach which attracted Robert Prechter, who founded the field of socionomics and published this book.

Little builds from a base of wave and particle behavior to new ways of looking at electromagnetism, general and special relativity, and atomic structure. He concludes with discussions of astrophysics, galactic structures, and even neurobiology.

Whether or not you ultimately find TEW convincing, this book is guaranteed to provide a challenging new way of thinking about the universe and the reality of current theories.

There are no illustrations in the kindle version of this book. The illustrations are referred to constantly in the text and are vital to an understanding of the subject matter. This book is useless without them and should not even be available on the Kindle umless corrected.

Dr. Little brilliantly explains how the evidence currently available to the scientific community has been misinterpreted to reach many a wrong conclusion. He elucidates many fundamental flaws of Quantum Mechanics step-by-step, and then re-interprets the results of the experiments previously used to lend credence to Quantum Mechanics to support the the Theory of Elementary Waves.

While I personally don't subscribe to the theory he puts forth to fill the void that his tour de force counter argument to QM has effected, I would still recommend this book to anyone with a penchant for physics.

TEW is optimistically billed as a revolutionary refutation of quantum physics (QP) and relativity (RL). With the exception of some ill-advised quoting of some crackpots's claims (e.g. the moon might not be there if nobody looks), TEW does not really attempt to refute the practical, experimental success of QP and RL in engineering and science. It attacks them essentially on aesthetic grounds, that the explanations "don't make physical sense" or are contradictory, confusing, etc. I remember reading arguments like this in my college physics classes 30 years ago, along with descriptions of backwards-moving wave theories very similar to TEWs description. Not that TEW is necessarily wrong, however, I suspect TEW also has some aesthetic problems that the author does not point-out. I learned in graduate physics that there are many possible valid formulisms for quantum physics. I found TEW to be somewhat difficult to follow and imprecise, especially compared to the lucid, concise R.P Feynman physics textbooks. TEW might be of interest to a scientist already versed in QM and RL who wants to know about the aesthetic dilemma and one alternative theory. I recommend TEW to a lay reader not as a primer for understanding of QP or RL but only as an introduction to an aethetic controvery that is of little concern to most real-world scientist and engineers.

Everybody is intrigued to see something new. And, when it has flash and creativity attached, that is even more the case. Dr. Little is a great self promoter. The only problem is that emotional and moral objection to the conclusions of modern quantum physics is philosophy and psychology (the degree of his co-author) and not physics. The world he believes is true can't be if quantum physics is true. His solution is not to change or examine his personal beliefs but to insist that his beliefs must be right ergo the physics must be wrong. He even stoops to name calling some really fine people who don't deserve his insults. And, in truth, his theory demands a far greater suspension of disbelief than even the most amazing conclusions of quantum physics. And, unlike his theory which he says is "incomplete", the quantum physics mathematics have been used as the basis for much of modern technology.

Now, there is no reason for me to reinvent the wheel when the author of this site [...] has already done such a great job. This below is a small summary of the much larger discussion available at that site. It is getting hard to find now so I hope this will help preserve it for some of the newer folks.

"#1 Elementary waves are described as real, physical, existing - yet what physical unit measures their amplitude?

# 2. In fact the waves must be dimensionless. The square of their magnitude is a probability, which has no units. (If taken as a factor to obtain an average, it's a percentage). Thus we have in one of these waves a physical object, with no physical dimension.

# 3. The theory is manifestly statistical, yet it is claimed to be deterministic. We find "probability" and "Feynman propagator" (which is a probability amplitude) on page after page of the theory's exposition. Where there is a number called a probability, something is being considered random. Pushing that randomness back, say back to emission, won't get rid of it in the theory. The elementary waves are wedded to probability.

The theory gives no definition of the wave's amplitude independent of a probability. What waves in an elementary wave is a probability amplitude - a number whose magnitude squared is a probability. There is nothing wrong with that, by itself. There exists a concept of randomness compatible with causality, one can argue. I suspect all quantum theories will be statistical. What is wrong is that TEW's proponents refuse to acknowledge that their own theory is essentially statistical. They claim TEW is a deterministic theory that is merely incomplete. If so, since the waves are measured by a probability, what becomes of them when the theory finally gets completed, all of it deterministic ? Do they suddenly disappear ? If there is no probability inherent in the world, what is it doing inherent in elementary waves ? If a phenomenon ceases to be considered random because an advance in scientific knowledge allows its prediction, what becomes of the elementary waves of probability that had been mediating that phenomenon?

The phenomena TEW addresses must be intrinsically random - if the waves are to be part of this world.

TEW rejects randomness for fundamental particle emission such as for photons and electrons. If we accept that such processes are deterministic, that though apparently random they aren't intrinsically random, then elementary waves can have no real interaction with these processes, because such an interaction involves the essential characteristic of elementary waves, their amplitude - which has no independent definition from probability amplitudes.

# 4. The ambiguous use of the word "determinism." What the theory predicts are probabilities, statistical distributions. The theory is not deterministic, not in the sense of predicting phenomena completely from preceding events. The theory predicts statistical distributions of trajectories, not individual trajectories. To say predicting probabilities is determinism is to torture the English language. The theory's "determinism" consists only in the reality - determinedness if you will - of particle trajectories. Because dice don't lose their reality while in midair transit from hand to floor, dice games are "deterministic" - in the sense TEW uses the word."

From my point of view this book has two aspects. One is his analysis of conventional physics as irrational. On that I completely agree with him and find the book good. The second part is his solution. It has been some time since I read the book but he hypothesizes that rather than a wave going from the source of radiation to the viewer the wave goes from the viewer back to the source of radiation. This may escape the logical contradictions in the conventional wave-particle duality but I do not find it either intellectually satisfying or convincing. I went to engineering school and the point of view there was that the equations are wave equations so take them at face value and don't try to turn them into something else. Rather than doing some kind of hocus pokus to solve the irrationality in physics it is necessary to go back and find the fundamentally flawed assumptions that lead to the irrationality. In my opinion the author has failed to do that. The fact that you are interested in this book means you are probably a dissident so you don't need his arguments along that line. If you find the idea that the wave flows back to the light rather than from the light appealing then you will probably like this book. I feel I totally wasted my money!

This book was an excellent explanation of the basic issues still being debated in the field of quantum mechanics. It clarifies the topic for the educated lay person in science and can be followed with no more background than high school physics. It is refreshing to see that old paradigms, even ones taken for granted by so many brilliant thinkers, can still be challenged effectively by someone unwilling to accept the status quo. It is shocking that something so apparently flawed is only now being truly questioned and done so in such a matter of fact, common sense manner. I recommend this book to anyone but would like to see the counter argument laid out by another expert who can write clearly and simply.