The originator of Elementary Wave theory is generally conceded to be Lewis Little. Below a collegue, Stephen Speicher, gives a description of the theory.
See his website at http://physics.prodos.org/stephenspeicherexplains/
"The elementary wave cannot be understood by appealing to anything more basic to explain it-here is nothing more basic. The elementary waves have a structure and the effects of the changes in that structure are all we can know about them. So the ghost-like packets of waves in the standard theory have been replaced by a real existent, and the behavior of that wave is contrary to standard interpretation - the wave moves in reverse, from the target, or more generally from the detector, towards the source.
In a way, Little's elementary wave is less like a traditional wave and closer to the idea of the elusive ether, in that it is like a flow, or a flux of material, while realizing that it makes no sense to talk about what kind of material it is -it just is.
Twenty-five hundred years ago Parmenides said (and more recently, as Leonard Peikoff is fond of saying) the universe is a "plenum". That is, there are no gaps, no voids, no place where there is nothing. That is what Little's theory has identified, the elementary waves are what fill the universe - they are omnipresent. According to Little's theory the waves exist for every possible quantum state, for every variable parameter that is possible."
This means that all of the universe is connected at every point in the universe by an invisible ether of the kind we have discussed above in the Einstein blogs. Here we go again on the ether--which keeps popping up in Physics theory.
More on tomorrow.
Sept 15, 2010
Now, TEW ideas have not gained much currency but for our purposes we can give a few examples of how the theory works and the reader can make up h/her own mind.
1-When we look at the sun what is actually occuring is that waves (yes waves) project directly from our eyes to the sun where photons are excited and shoot back along this wave path to our eyes and we see the sun.
2-Second example: when we blow into a bottle with our lips a sound is created. In EW theory pre-existing waves inside the bottle move toward our lips where the sound is then created moving back into the bottle at a particular frequency determined by the same wave configurations in the bottle. Different sized bottles, therefore, create different sound pitches.
3-In the famous double-slit experiment (look this up on the internet) the explanation is that waves move from the background board through the slits and then to the electron or photon source and a photon is then emitted back to the background board. It is a two-way exchange. This is a princlple, the TEW people say televisions operate upon. They argue that a TEW does not suppplant relativity and quantum theory but merely completes and explains these ideas.
Now TEW people explain that their theory can be proven by having one slit be transparent and then opaque alternatively in nanoseconds. This will show the actual direction of the transactions involved and can prove, thereby, the waveelectron paths involved.
The problem with the theory is that these waves are hypothetical, like ether itself. But this critique can be made of many presuppositions in Physics. The basic nature of space its self, ether or no ether, is what is at issue. At this point no one seems to know for sure although there are certainly empirical data which suggest which descriptions of "empty space" are promising. This aspect is what we propose to examine next.
So there you have dear reader, a journey through modern physics and the ideas these folks are currently propounding and/or debating. Now lets see who has good data to back up claims because we see there are some pretty bizarre sounding ideas out there. But we ask, are they true ?
Can they all be true ?
Are some partially true ?
Are all merely a measure of our lack of understanding of how things actually work?
And last, does all this mean that we lack the mental capacity to understand the real fundamentals because we are merely human?
But, what is most striking to this observer is the startling consensus these various theories agree upon, and even more so, when we relate this consensus in physics to the religious themes which are often counterpoised against them, this consensus holds. This is the old science versus religion theme.
We can't do all of the consensus items in one blog so we will go through them one by in the coming days. But here is a pre-look.
The first consensus items:
1-Most people on the planet religious or scientist now agree:
There is an unseen world all around us; some of it comprehensible, some of it beyond our comprehension and, perhaps, we will never comprehend all of it. We humans simply lack to brain power to do so.
This unseen world in some theories include dark matter and dark energy ideas which state that 75% of what constitutes the universe we can not detect nor understand yet we know it exists.
This includes religious folks who claim all around us exists an unseen world including angels, gods, demons, spirits, heaven, hell and the like.
This includes membrane theories in science which state other dimensions may exist and we are a part of a muliti-verse where there might be millions of other universes and indeed millions of copies of our selves, perhaps existing, with slight variation in many of those worlds or universes.
This includes Einstein who argues that time-space--past present and future all exist simultaneously. That the universe is malleable and that space-time itself expands and contracts given one's speed and vantage point and so does matter itself.
This includes many who, by various names, indicate there is an yet undetected ether out there and we like fish have not discovered it. This is true of many of the theories of physics, even as they might call this ether by different names.
This includes ideas about God on both sides which simply state "we don't know if God exists but creation certainly does and we are limited in our ability to comprend it.
We have seen plasma and superwave theories which imply the universe is electric in nature and perhaps dangerous and the earth itself shows evidence of superwave cosmic rays striking the earth at regular intervals, and, in the past, destroying much of life here.
We have seen ideas that much of the universe we perceive is really a product of the functioning of our brains and that, in effect, the moon doesn't exist, until and unless we observe it; that in between these observations the moon is a probabilty. This is what some quantum theorists say.
We see the argument that electrons can be in many different places at the same time and every electron in the universe is in contact with a partner electron else where in the universe at the same time and these pairs can instantly effect one another irrespective of the distance between them.
We see that some fear attempts to pierce the veil between dimensions and this great unseen at Cern can destroy the planet; that seeking to create the big bang has too many dangers to risk moving forward with the experiment. Too much is at stake, the critics say, and the earth can be destroyed, or that huge magnetic storms and earthquakes can occur.
Some religious people, argue that the end of the world is at hand, citing everything from the second coming to the prophecies of the Mayan calendar to ancient texts they say actually record in mythological terms previous cosmic ray bombardments, and that 2012 is a reasonable date for such a return.
Well as you can see this is quite a list. What are we to make of it?
What is true here?
Well, I always leave the difficult questions until tomorrow. Then, I will blab and talk about what I think. We will start with the question which of the theories have actual evidence and verifiable proofs.
Sept 16th 2010
Above we saw that these various science theories and religious theories of the universe had some surprizing similaries. Now we want to examine the issue of how can one evaluate the theories presented.
I propose to make the first level of examination based upon what evidence exists for each each to merit closer examination.
First, let's do Einstein.
Do Einstein's theories bear out empircally?
Well much of it actually does, although there are some critical areas where it does not. For example, Einstein's theories and calculations do not account for critical processes in the context of black holes. Secondly, Einstein does not actually give us evidence of gravity. Gravity is the product of space-time being warped by mass in bodies, like planets but Einstein never tells us what gravity is, especially how it behaves in a black hole.
Third, Einstein himself, doubted his theory had adequately accounted for the issue of ether or the nature of space itself which gives the universe it's other characteristics.
Of course in his time he did not contemplate dark matter and dark energy and an expanding universe. He favored the notion of a steady state universe. Finally, he did not believe in quantum mechanics although he helped create it. And, in fact, he ridiculed quantum pairing notions as "spooky action from a distance."
So there is Einstein.
Quantum mechanics is, perhaps, is one of the strangest theories. Reality becomes all math, all the time. We are given a theory where matter itself and its behavior is reduced to probabilities and all of nature only exists in a quantum world where the cat is alive and the cat is dead on a probabilistic basis; where an electron can be in two more places at the same time, where electrons are paired or "entangled" even though seperated by distances light years apart. I am not of the view that these ideas have an empirical basis. They seem more math oriented than empirical. That does not mean quantum mechanics is incorrect. Rather, it feels incomplete. What it does not explain is a subject for another blog. (I know. Do not toss those rocks my way just yet.)
Plasma theories seem to have a solid empirical basis in two respects. It is clear that huge galaxy-sized magnetic clouds exist across many galaxies and do, in fact, form huge moving electric currents across immense distances. The role of magnetism is clearly at work in the universe at both the macro and the macro level. At issue is how does one interpret these phenomena?
A second level of data which seem to support plasma theories include ice-core data which show clearly that huge magnetic and cosmic impacts have affected the earth and its history. Moreover, binary star system behaviors do seem to lend support to plasma theories of star formation and dynamics. But work here needs to be done.
Plasma ideas are also generally recognized as part of a new branch of physics which has given new insights on the galaxy level as well as into the nature of superfluids and wave behavior at the micro level, the subatomic. Few dispute plasma findings. Rather how those findings are interpreted seem to be the issue--central to the functioning of the universe or incidental?
The truth of plasma theories and magnetic and cosmic wave theories, however, have pretty gloomy outcomes in that their truth may imperil the entire planet. Moreover, some of the conclusions of plasma theorists seem to disagree with everything in the standard model, Einstein, astronomy and quantum mechanics as well.
The latter points of disagreement seem to be far-reaching and many, including myself, are not willing to go quite that far, while agreeing that plasma theory is backed by some very very strong data to support parts of the theory. To see the points of disagreement with the standard model see my blog above "Everything You Heard About the Universe is Wrong."
Religious ideas of how the world of the unseen works actually dove-tail with much of membrane theory where dimensions and multiple universes are posited. After all, if one cannot know the unknowable, the mysterious is permanent and that can be called God or the unknowable. Much is untimately beyond our comprehension.
The point here is that if you argue that the whole universe is a construct beyond our ultimate knowledge then so-called empirical data, by definition, will not be forth-coming, even if it were available, it might not be comprehendable to us humans.
It becomes the height of assumption-ego to assume we can, in these theoretical constructs know everything or even a small part of what we call the universe. After all 95% of the universe is composed of stuff about which we know virtually nothing.
That leaves us to examine, string theory, membrane theory, and holographic theories for tomorrow. Until then let's do some head-scratching about it all.
Sept 17, 2010
Now holographic ideas sound Kantian and something like "the world is only perceived through our senses and therefore effected by those same senses."
In the words of one wag "The world is the story we tell ourselves about ourselves." And interestingly some quantum mechanic theorists might agree with that idea.
Others, in what I call the halographic view, state that all of what we perceive might exist only in the mind of God, ourselves included.
One interesting line of research is trying to produce the experience of "God" in experimental subjects by subjecting parts of the brain to electrical stimulation. There have been results where subjects have claimed a sense of contact with "another" with "God." This not so strange, many religious conversions claim similar contact.
The problem with this view is that such experiences are personal and not replicable upon demand or even sharable with others, and therefore, remain private views or visions.
Allied, but not the same, is the notion of different dimensions, of three four five or up to even eleven dimensions. See above for my discussion of string theory and eleven dimension postulations.
Examples of the possibility of a multi-dimensional universe or universes can be pretty convincing. After all, are do fish ever actually discover water? Maybe Cern can help in this regard if we are around to debate these issues, say the critics.
So where are we in this journey through the minds of those who think about the big questions?
Well, we have some pretty good ideas and goodness knows there are many dishes on the table to munch upon, but what in the end have we gained by this mental effort at comprehension?
Well on tomorrow I will begin a discussion of two next-step areas:
1-What are the next-in-line events or experiments which can decide these issues or at least move the debate forward?
2-And, in the case of some of these ideas, which if true , do they mean danger for us; and what can or should be done?
After all, as in the case of Plasma theory, solar flares SME's (solar mass ejections) pose a threat to the planet and what should we be doing about it? What are we doing about it?
I would say let's sleep on it but who among us can sleep after all this?
Sept 23rd 2010
Now on the "possible immediate danger chart" there are two that stand out:
The first is the experiment at Cern where this month and next, I believe, the gigantic magnetics are to be fired up once again. The scientists are doing so at much reduced capacity and plan to ramp up to full capacity in two to three years. The two colliders each have about 7 million TEV capacity so fired together they would equal 14 million electron volts.
This exceeds by far any thing that has been done in the past and will result in billions of photon-electron collisons a second at these almost light speeds.
The troubling aspect about the drivers in all this which could easily overcome caution is that hundreds of physicistsand are running hundreds of experiments in all this which could determine careers, promotions, nobel prizes and reputations.
That is a bad combination. The drive toward doing this thing is driven by human considerations rather than scientific ones and that is a bad mix of motivations..
Moreover, if one experiment does not produce the desired results then momentum builds to do it over and over again, such that the project has an endless momemtum to continue.
Meantime, the military stands in the background, silently mouthing the question "Can we get a new weapon out of this?"
I stand ready to be corrected about all of this and would welcome data which show that the danger is not there or exists at acceptably low levels--or even a credible environmental report. All I have seen is reference to Stephen Hawking's opinion/ work that any black holes which develop would quickly dissipate.
But, as you dear reader would know, in reading the blog on Einstein, the Hawking thesis on black holes has , excuse me, some very large holes. No reassurance lies there.
But since we must rely upon ideas about basic physics here (that is what the experiments are all about) we can ask the question what would some of the major ideas/theories in physics say about the danger here?
Lets take plasma theory first. Yes, the plasma theorists might say (I don't know anyone specifically) there is a danger here. Here is how I imagine their argument might go.
1- The gigantic magnets at play at Cern exactly match the electon-magnetic fields in the universe at large and the magnetic field which currently shields the earth from deadly cosmic rays.
These fields, both around the earth, the sun and the galaxies themselves are huge dynamos in effect and are tremendously explosive. In space we see that effect in the form of supernovas. Yes, we could trigger a supernova here on earth and the earth would, of course be destroyed.
2-They might argue that the disruption of the magnetic field of the earth could occur and this could trigger earthquakes, expose us to cosmic ray bombardments, floods--all of which could happen very very quickly.
The forces of the universe are very delicate indeed, they would say, and we ought not tamper with what we cannot control if things get out of hand.
Well, my mouth is dry after these thoughts. Need something to drink.
For a sense of domination of the entire universe by electro-magnetics forces, including the stars see the articles below.