From: Prodos, TEWLIP list-owner

Dear Friends,

I am moving all PRODOS lists, including TEWLIP, to a new mailing
list server and closing down all the YahooGroups-based lists.

That means I will be subscribing/adding you to TEWLIP @
prodoscope.com

Then, once I've transferred the TEWLIP @ YahooGroups.com archives to
a handy location I'll close down this list.

YahooGroups has served us well over the years. But their new
policies have made it difficult for those who run lots of lists
(there are about 200 PRODOS lists set up at YahooGroups - mainly
relating to various campaigns I coordinate) and those who run a
number of big lists.

A special thanks to Phil Oliver @ http://OliverComputing.com and to
Ed Greenberg @ http://EdGreenberg.com for their terrific help in
setting up the new mailing list server.

Talk to you soon!

=]:-)

PRODOS

http://Physics.prodos.ORG


.

From Stephen Speicher

Steve Stoddard wrote:
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TEWLIP/message/1575>
>
> I would appreciate some further explanation of how locality is
> philosophically demanded.
>
> I can see how the notion has some basic perceptual appeal, for
> instance, you can't get a hit if the bat doesn't touch the ball.
> But then again, a magnet can move a ball bearing without touching
> it.... So how does philosophy tell me how "locality" is a must?  How
> wide a range does a "local area" cover?
>

The philosophic justification for locality is contained in the
statements that

"The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. All
actions are caused by entities." [1]

The notion of locality simply expresses the two most general
metaphysical conditions under which causal actions or changes take
place; namely, an action or change requires both a duration and a
means. Nonlocality is instantaneous action-at-a-distance, in effect a
cause which occurs in no time and by no means.

Philosophy simply tells us that actions are finite and caused by
entities, but it is the purpose of science, not philosophy, to tell us
the means by which such actions occur. Philosophy does not prescribe
how the magnet affects the ball bearing, except to say it must do so
in a local manner, i.e., over a period of time and by some physical
means. Each type of force or interaction has its own range, so the
"local area" is determined by the physical means by which the action
occurs.

Ultimately, though, in the TEW macroscopic locality is naught but the
interactions of particles and waves, but that is the level of the
world which we infer, not the level of the world within which we live.

[1] Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged," pp. 1037, _Random House_, 1957.





---------------------------------------------------------
[Moderator: Subject line changed.]
---------------------------------------------------------




-

From Steve Stoddard:


Stephen Speicher wrote:
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TEWLIP/message/1573>
   "the world in which we live is local in nature, just
   as fundamental philosophic and scientific notions demand."

I would appreciate some further explanation of how locality is
philosophically demanded.

I can see how the notion has some basic perceptual appeal, for instance, you
can't get a hit if the bat doesn't touch the ball.  But then again, a magnet
can move a ball bearing without touching it.... So how does philosophy tell
me how "locality" is a must?  How wide a range does a "local area" cover?




---------------------------------------------------------
[Moderator: Message URL added. Subject line changed.
Minor reformatting. Locality issue considered important
topic for this list. Aspects of this question have been
discussed before on TEWLIP. Keyword search of archives:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TEWLIP/messagesearch?query=locality ]
---------------------------------------------------------





-

From Stephen Speicher

Here on TEWLIP, and elsewhere, certain astronomical "observations"
have been offered in support of black holes, and for quite some time I
have been emphasizing the importance of carefully distinguishing
between observational evidence, and inferences drawn there from. One
such hallmark observation for black holes has been the spectacular
X-ray images showing jets of particles traveling at ultra-relativistic
speeds (99.8 % of the speed of light). These jets, which are amongst
the most energetic phenomena ever observed, have been taken as
observational evidence for black holes because nothing else in the
standard theory could create the proper conditions to accelerate the
particles to those ultra-relativistic speeds.

However, Nature has a way of doing what she does, independent of what
the standard theory might say. A recent paper in a prestigious
scientific Journal [1] announced radio observations of
ultra-relativistic jets emanating from a neutron star. The authors
state "We conclude that the generation of highly relativistic outflows
[jets] does not require properties that are unique to black holes,
such as an event horizon." In this case, at least, with the
observation of this X-ray source Circinus X-1, nothing more exotic
than a standard neutron star was needed to demonstrate that the
physics associated with ultra-relativistic jets is poorly understood,
and wrongly taken as evidence for a black hole.

As I keep saying, in all science it is important to carefully
distinguish between inferences and the observational data from which
such inferences are drawn.

[1] "An ultra-relativistic outflow from a neutron star accreting gas
from a companion," R. Fender et al., _Nature_, V. 427, pp 222-224, 15
January 2004.




-

From Stephen Speicher


- - - - - - - - - - -
[Moderator:

Dr Lewis Little's "EXPLANATION OF THE INNSBRUCK
DOUBLE DELAYED CHOICE EXPERIMENT" was announced
on TEWLIP @ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TEWLIP/message/1566

The DDC explanation itself can be read online @
http://www.physics.prodos.org/ddcexplained.html

Recently, non TEWLIP member, Travis Norsen, wrote a
critical commentary @
http://akbar.marlboro.edu/~norsen/tewddc.pdf

Below, Stephen Speicher responds to Norsen's comments.]
- - - - - - -


Travis Norsen's attempt to introduce nonlocality into Lewis Little's
local explanation of the Innsbruck experiment is an abysmal failure.
Norsen continues with the sort of thinking in a box that gave birth to
quantum nonlocality in the first place and he either does not grasp or
ignores the actual arguments advanced by Dr. Little. After reiterating
some of the well known standard mathematics of quantum mechanics,
Norsen laments "But surely in a _local_ theory the only wave
interference should be between waves that are physically present at
the same location," and then faults the TEW for somehow failing to do
just that. But the very essence of the TEW explanation lies in the
fact that the quantum statistics _are_ determined locally where the
interfering waves are physically present; namely, right at the source
where the particles are emitted.

Norsen asserts that "the reverse waves picture can't help us here"
because the "final polarizer settings aren't even made until the
photons have left the source." This again ignores the essence of Dr.
Little's explanation wherein the polarizers simply observe the
particles and the final polarizer settings play absolutely no role in
the statistics determined by particle emission at the source.
Stimulated emission at the source occurs for all orientations of the
polarizers, and the polarizers passively capture those particles which
are then recorded. The mathematical derivation of the equations in the
TEW explanation encapsulates these facts, wherein all interactions are
completely local. The mathematical form and the physical concepts say
the same thing: the world in which we live is local in nature, just as
fundamental philosophic and scientific notions demand.

Note that Norsen admits that "one could interpret the sum of terms in
Little's equation (3) as 'interference between the four initial
waves,'" and then goes on to assert that the contributions to the
total amplitude "depend on the final settings of the polarizers."
Norsen here grants that the TEW mathematics reflects the facts, but he
then reasserts nonlocality as his only understanding of how this can
be so. Had he instead followed the correct explanation given by Dr.
Little, rather than manufacturing a false one of his own, Norsen would
have nothing with which he could fault the TEW. Instead of
sarcastically suggesting that the TEW explanation might require that
"the emission event has ESP," Norsen's credibility would be much
better served by using his own psychic powers to actually understand
the arguments presented by Dr. Little.

There is a direct analogy here to the double-slit experiment: as long
as it was thought that the interference occurs at the detector, all
sorts of spooky behavior is promoted, i.e., a particle goes through
both slits simultaneously, etc. With the reverse wave of the TEW all
of the statistics are determined at the source, where the waves
interfere, and the spooky behavior disappears.  Likewise, the same
thinking in a box led to nonlocality in the EPR-type experiments, and
the correct physics as explained by the TEW removes that.  Nonlocality
was only an appearance seen through the eyes of those who looked at
the problem from the wrong perspective. You can't solve a problem
using the same thinking which led to the problem in the first place.
Lewis Little thought out-of-the-box, not within it.






------------------------------------------------------
[Moderator: Mod's note added at top. Possible "stab"
noted but seems within bounds of "robust discourse".
http://prodos.com/discussionlistguidelines/index.html#selfcontained
http://prodos.com/discussionlistguidelines/index.html#nostabs ]
-------------------------------------------------------




-

From Stephen Speicher

Michael Pizolato wrote:
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TEWLIP/message/1570>

[In reference to Dr Lewis Little's TEW explanation of the
DDC experiment @ http://www.physics.prodos.org/ddcexplained.html ...]

> I do have to ask though, if anyone is willing to take the time to
> provide it, for a less technical description of the solution.
>

Perhaps when I get some time I will write an addendum to my
non-technical articles explaining the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen
(EPR) experiments in general, and the double-delayed-choice
version in particular, as modified from Dr. Little's original
description by his current analysis. In essence, though, the
major point is that the DDC is actually little different from the
case where no polarizers, or just one polarizer, is rotated, and
the physics for all cases turns out to be the same. Dr. Little's
original description contained the notion that the elementary
waves themselves would reflect rotation when the polarizers
rotate, thereby causing a particle following the wave to jump to
a new wave. This notion obscured the underlying physics which
applies to all cases as described by the TEW, where a basic
principle is that the waves interfere at the particle source and
they do so for all orientations of the polarizers.

When this issue first arose several years ago, I speculated on
both TEWLIP and elsewhere that the simplest explanation would be
that the physical results were actually independent of the
polarizer orientation, regardless of the appearance of direct
correlations. It is this simple fact which Dr. Little has
explained in the physics of the TEW.

> And, to refresh myself, where can I find a good description of
> the DDC experiment (again, not too technical)?
>

The EPR experiment in general, along with the DDC version, is
described in section 4, "Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Experiments," in
Dr. Little's 1996 paper located at:

http://www.yankee.us.com/TEW/TEW96paper.html

The EPR-type experiment is also discussed in part 2 of my
non-technical papers on the TEW, and that also contains a
simplified diagram of the setup:

http://Physics.prodos.org/stephenspeicherexplains/index.html#1.17.04








---------------------------------------------------
[Moderator: Elaboration to quoted portion added.
URL substituted.]
--------------------------------------------------




-

From Stephen Speicher

Kevin Heck wrote:
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TEWLIP/message/1569>
>
> Is there any diagram of the Innsbruck experiment showing the
> polarizers, source etc. that contains all of the angles
> in which Lewis Little's equations are derived?
>

The Innsbruck paper from Zeilinger's group, which contains some
diagrams and descriptions, is archived at this URL:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9810080

A somewhat more readable presentation on a non-technical level
can be found at:

http://www.quantum.univie.ac.at/research/photonentangle/bellexp






--------------------------------------------
[Moderator: Subject line changed. Minor reformatting.
Keywords for web browsers: Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen,
Double Delayed Choice, Bell's Inequalities, Aspect,
Quantum physics.]
--------------------------------------------




-

[From: Michael Pizolato]


[Stephen Speicher wrote:]
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TEWLIP/message/1567>
> The DDC solution is both simple and insightful,
> just as are the basic premises of the TEW.
> Congratulations to Dr. Little for accomplishing this.


Wonderful! Congratulation to Dr. Little!

I do have to ask though, if anyone is willing to take the time to
provide it, for a less technical description of the solution.

And, to refresh myself, where can I find a good description of
the DDC experiment (again, not too technical)?

[Moderator: I don't have time to search the archives for it
just this moment. I'll try and look for it tomorrow if possible
- unless someone beats me to it - hopefully! :-) ]


[ ... ]

How often does one have the chance to be among
the first in the world to hear of something like this?


[Moderator: TEWLIP reigns supreme! :-) ]




-----------------------------------------------------------
[Moderator: Subject line changed. Poster's name added at top.
Some editing at Mod's discretion. Mod's notes added.
Excerpt and link to earlier message added.]
----------------------------------------------------------





-

[From: Kevin Heck]

[Prodos wrote:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TEWLIP/message/1567
>
> EXPLANATION OF THE INNSBRUCK DOUBLE DELAYED CHOICE EXPERIMENT
> By Lewis Little
>
> @ http://Physics.prodos.ORG/ddcexplained.html
>
> And @ > http://www.yankee.us.com/TEW/DDC.html


Is there any diagram of the Innsbruck experiment showing the polarizers,
source etc. that contains all of the angles in which Lewis Little's
equations are derived?

[I find it] a little bit difficult to follow without a
diagram.

This all sounds very promising, hopefully this will satisfy the
non-local advocates.




------------------------------------------------------------
[Moderator: Minor editing, slight change in emphasis but
no problem. Name added at top. Minor reformatting. Subject
line changed.
http://www.prodos.com/discussionlistguidelines/#yournameattop ]
------------------------------------------------------------





-

[From: Sione]

[Following on from
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TEWLIP/message/1566 and
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TEWLIP/message/1567 ]

Can someone who is familiar with programming in Java language
develop a simple animation applet to demonstrate how TEW
accounts for DDC?

It would be nice to visualize how the
the reverse wave and polarizers interact.

[ ... ]


[Moderator: Thanks to Sione for that suggestion. If any
TEWLIP members are able to assist or have helpful suggestions
please let me know. Thanks.]






------------------------------------------------------
[Moderator: Subject line changed. Message URLs added.
Minor editing, no change to meaning.]
-------------------------------------------------------






-

From Stephen Speicher

PRODOS wrote:
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TEWLIP/message/1566>
>
> EXPLANATION OF THE INNSBRUCK DOUBLE DELAYED CHOICE EXPERIMENT
> By Lewis Little
>
> @
>
> http://Physics.prodos.ORG/ddcexplained.html
>
> And @
>
> http://www.yankee.us.com/TEW/DDC.html
>

The DDC solution is both simple and insightful, just as are the
basic premises of the TEW. Congratulations to Dr. Little for
accomplishing this.

I would, however, like to add some perspective. In a way, the DDC
is just one small aspect of the broad ranging theory which is the
TEW. While the DDC does have an inherent importance, that
importance was greatly exaggerated by those detractors who chose
to make their evaluation of the theory based on this one issue
alone.

The experimental facts _never_ contradicted the TEW; the TEW just
never had a satisfactory explanation of this one issue until now.
If experimental fact contradicts a theory, the theory must be
wrong. But if an otherwise good theory does not yet provide an
explanation for some experimental fact, as was the case with the
TEW, then that represents a theoretical job yet to be done. One
does not -- or, at least, rationally one should not -- dismiss an
entire theory because work still needs to be done.

There was never any doubt about the absurdity of nonlocality,
which one can dismiss on philosophical grounds alone. The TEW
was, and is, a _local_ theory, and on this basis it explains much
of modern physics. Speaking personally, even if a DDC explanation
had not been found, I would continue to accept the basic
correctness of the TEW as a causal and local theory explaining an
enormous amount of physical phenomena.

In addition, in my own view, I would not be surprised to discover
the need for detailed revisions of some aspects of the TEW as it
continues to develop, be applied, and integrated over time. At
root the TEW is philosophically and scientifically a sound
theory, and certain details are somewhat optional in devising the
theory, details to be determined by experimental fact. Thanks to
Dr. Little for the TEW.





-

From: Prodos, TEWLIP Moderator

Dear Friends,

A SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT:

An important breakthrough in Physics by Dr Lewis Little!

And TEWLIP is FIRST to announce this new development!

Dr Little has sent me the following note:

     "I am pleased to announce that the TEW explanation
      for double delayed choice experiments has now been
      worked out ... I welcome comments."

You are FIRST to share in this historic development!

Read it online now:

EXPLANATION OF THE INNSBRUCK DOUBLE DELAYED CHOICE EXPERIMENT
By Lewis Little

@

http://Physics.prodos.ORG/ddcexplained.html

And @

http://www.yankee.us.com/TEW/DDC.html

Excerpt:

      "The theory of elementary waves (TEW) accounts for
       the "double-delayed-choice" (DDC) experiment performed
       at Innsbruck, as well as other similar experiments,
       in a manner essentially the same as for single particle
       phenomena.  Waves from the two polarizers impinge on
       the two-particle source where they stimulate the emission
       of particle pairs, each particle of which then follows
       its wave to its polarizer."


Congratulations to Dr Lewis Little!



Your questions and comments are welcome.




-

From Dean M. Sandin

[Stephen Speicher wrote:]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TEWLIP/message/1563
> Einstein's explicit philosophy was also "better than those
> around him." Never lose the important context of Einstein's
> life-long battle against the irrational quantum philosophy of
> Bohr and Heisenberg, both of which, unfortunately, had a
> greater explicit philosophical influence than did Einstein on
> the development of physics.

[I agree with Stephen Speicher that singling] out Einstein for
villiany is wrong.  On balance, it isn't even close: he was heroic.

So a packaging of him with the ideas ...

"that a particle can travel many different paths simultaneously, or
travel backwards in time, or randomly pop into and out of existence
from nothingness"

[Moderator: A reference to issues first introduced @
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TEWLIP/message/1544 ]

... needs to be corrected. (With great integrity,
Einstein _opposed_ such denials of identity.)

It does not denigrate Newton's achievements to point out his deep
religious fervor.  Likewise, Einstein's achievements are real and
profound despite his mixed professions on epistemology.  Both
Newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics are immense advances over
what was understood before, made by geniuses well ahead of their times.

Newton placed physics in the container of an absolute space and time
given by God for the existence of matter to play out.  Einstein
reified the gravitational field at the center of mechanics, abstractly
described in terms of space-time curvature.  Neither got it
right, since physics is ultimately the study of entities, and its
explanations must reduce to the identity of entities in a plenum of
them.  But there's no reason to insist they get it right, any more
than there would be any reason to complain that Aristotle failed to go
on to create Objectivism; they discovered so much of world-shaking
value as it was.  And it would be perverse to, in effect, use the very
magnititude of their genius as a basis for blaming them for not doing
even better.

Both men took on the mission to think deeply and originally, so as to
make rational sense of everything observed by the physics of their
times.  (The undertakings in themselves were heroic.)  They worked
from the principle that if they rejected or contradicted reality they
would be wrong.  It's impossible to demand more than this: the right
method and a noble goal.

As for philosophic status, Newton was a hero for fighting (as part of
a growing tide) against the prevalent rationalistic method of science
in the culture of the middle ages.

Einstein too was a hero for (almost in isolation, against the tide)
upholding identity over indeterminism and "spooky" action at a
distance, when identity was under horrendous attack by subjectivist
physicists produced by the same Kantian-soaked Germanic culture
that he himself came from.  Both men chose to answer to their
rational selves over answering to the authorities of their times.



--------------------------------------------------------------
[Moderator: Minor editing at Mod's discretion to make post
self-contained and clearly link to current thread. Caused no
change in meaning. Minor reformatting. Post sent from other
email address, then adjusted by Mod.
Fahrenheit good, nice and cool.
http://www.prodos.com/discussionlistguidelines/#fahrenheit

Reference to Objectivism seems okay.
http://www.prodos.com/discussionlistguidelines/#saloc

Just and fair treatment of Einstein and Newton
considered on-topic for this list.]
------------------------------------------------------------------






- - -

From: Stephen Speicher

Regarding the questions posed by Prodos about Feynman diagrams
and the notion of backward in time:
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TEWLIP/message/1561>

If one reads Feynman's original papers developing quantum
electrodynamics, starting with his "The Theory of Positrons,"
_Physical Review_, Vol. 76, p. 749, 1949, it is clear that
Feynman established a _mathematical_ equivalence between a
forward in time electron and a backward in time positron, not to
be taken literally as motion backwards in time.

In the standard theory Feynman diagrams are just contributions to
a path integral, computed as sums over histories analogous to the
Riemann integral. Antiparticles as particles moving backwards in
time simply represent a different mathematical space with the
usual arrows pointing in reverse. The Feynman diagrams have no
physical reality in the standard theory, being nothing more than
a very clever mathematical technique for handling a perturbation
series.

It is usual for popularizations of standard quantum field theory
to sensationalize the concepts, such as backwards in time, to
mean more than the standard theory implies.  One can still find
some theorists who themselves promote such notions, but, in
general, the standard theory approach is primarily mathematical,
as most modern physicists will agree. The TEW, of course, lends
physical reality to the Feynman diagrams in so far as they
actually capture the picture of the particle scattering process,
with the real elementary waves taking all of the Feynman paths









-------------------------------------------------
[Moderator: Sent through from different address]
-------------------------------------------------




- - -

From: Stephen Speicher

>
> [Stephen Speicher wrote:]
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TEWLIP/message/1557
> > [O]ne needs to be very careful in separating some ideas which
> > Einstein may have advocated from the actual methodology he
> > used.
>

   [Jim Syrow wrote:]
> I don't understand Stephen Speicher's opinion on this.
>
> If [as he is indicating] there is good reason to separate
> Einstein's implicit philosophy from his explicit philosophy,
> then [doesn't] it stands to reason that the explicit philosophy
> (the one visible to other physicists) was bad, and so he
> deserves the blame he gets?
>

First, one "good reason" to separate out Einstein's methodology
is because that methodology was attacked in the first place, in
the original op-ed.  My overall purpose was to highlight that
such an attack displays historical and technical ignorance, and
is unjust.

Second, please note that I wrote "SOME ideas which Einstein may
have advocated [Emphasis added]," so it does not "stand[s] to
reason" that Einstein's overall explicit philosophy was bad.

Third, Einstein's primary influence on physicists was not in what
he said, but in the physics which he created, so I question the
assertion that his philosophy is what was "visible to other
physicists."

Fourth, as I pointed out, in context, "Einstein was a very
complicated thinker, one whose own ideas evolved over time." I
went on to discuss how "Einstein was less allied to Kant in his
earlier years, when Einstein's main work was done, and more
allied to Kant in his later years, after relativity had been
created." Another reason to separate out Einstein's working
methodology.

> In contrast, Newton's explicit philosophy was better than of
> those around him, just like Aristotle's was better than those
> around him, despite his support for slavery and other
> unpleasant things.
>

Einstein's explicit philosophy was also "better than those around
him." Never lose the important context of Einstein's life-long
battle against the irrational quantum philosophy of Bohr and
Heisenberg, both of which, unfortunately, had a greater explicit
philosophical influence than did Einstein on the development of
physics.

> I mean Thomas Aquinas is *Saint* Thomas Aquinas for Christians,
> due to all the things he said in support of Christianity. That
> doesn't automatically make him bad and vicious, considering the
> historical context of his times. Can't the same reasoning be
> applied to Newton?
>

And who here has accused Newton of being "bad and vicious?" Just
as I objected to the unfair demonizing of Einstein, I likewise
objected to the unfair glorifying of Newton, _beyond which the
facts allow_. I have documented how Newton's religious fanaticism
infected some of his scientific thinking, at odds with the op-ed
assertion that he "dismissed any idea that was unsupported by
observational evidence." I have presented facts, not feelings,
and I most certainly did not portray Newton as "bad and vicious."







-------------------------------------------------
[Moderator: Sent through from different address.]
-------------------------------------------------




- - -

From Dean M. Sandin

[Stephen Speicher:]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TEWLIP/message/1560
> > [O]ne needs to be very careful in separating some
> > ideas which Einstein may have advocated from the actual
> > methodology he used.


[Jim Syrow:]
> I don't understand Stephen Speicher's opinion on this.
>
> If [as he is indicating] there is good reason to separate Einstein's
> implicit philosophy from his explicit philosophy, then [doesn't] it
> stands to reason that the explicit philosophy (the one visible to
> other physicists) was bad, and so he deserves the blame he gets?


Any impression that Einstein was a philosopher who led physics astray
is baseless.

Einstein made huge, stunning discoveries about physical
reality, then explained them in terms of how his development of his
ideas was justified in being mindful of reality.

He didn't create his theories as "hypothetico-deductive" conceits that
he wished reality to conform to. He didn't spin rationalistic castles
in the air. He didn't hold that the mathematics is primary and
concrete reality is secondary. He most surely did not abandon reality
and identity as the arbiters of what was proper theory. Blame? By
far what is most visible and compelling is _what_ he did and _how_ he
demonstrated he did it. If we lead by example, his example was
positive. It is the things that he did _not_ do that are the great
modern crimes against rational physics.


I think it's especially important in a forum devoted to understanding
Dr. Little's TEW theory that we recognize when great thinkers are
devoted to deeply understanding reality on its own terms.




----------------------------------------------------------------
[Moderator: Subject line changed. Fahrenheit alert - some
escalation noted:
http://www.prodos.com/discussionlistguidelines/#fahrenheit
Probably still within bounds of robust discourse but prefer
some cooling down please.

Some parts which I didn't understand, but seem okay:
http://www.prodos.com/discussionlistguidelines/#donotunderstand

Minor reformatting for emphasis. Further excerpts added to make
post self-contained. Einstein thread considered on-topic.
List-owner gives special treatment to Einstein.]
------------------------------------------------------------------





- - -

From: Prodos

I have a question about Feynman diagrams.

I understand that in the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW)
there is no such thing as moving "backward in time":

Lewis Little writes:
http://www.yankee.us.com/TEW/TEW96paper.html

       "Notice, then, that an opposite phase-velocity,
        anti-particle wave can produce the same particles-moving
        in reverse-as the particle wave. This statement replaces
        the usual statement as to how anti-(wave-)particles are
        negative frequency (wave-)particles moving backwards
        in time. Nothing moves backwards in time in the elementary
        waves theory - as of course must be true in any theory that
        purports to represent real objects."


However, I would like to ask: What does the Standard Theory
mean when referring to "moving backwards in time"?

Is it meant literally? Or do SQUARE physicists simply
use "backwards in time" as a mathematical device, not meant to
be taken literally or treated as a physical fact?

A couple of examples with my CAPS for emphasis ....

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

http://www.britannica.com/nobel/micro/710_26.html

       "One intriguing feature of Feynman diagrams is that
       antiparticles are REPRESENTED AS normal particles
       moving backward in time."

Another online reference ...

http://www.fotuva.org/online/frameload.htm?/online/diagrams.htm

       "These [Feynman] diagrams are roadmaps for calculating how things
         happen in nature ...

        " ... b. ... Note: the photon (a "virtual photon") is not actually
        detected going from one electron to the other - indeed, it
        COULD BE IMAGINED as a positron going backwards in
        time, and it wouldn't make any difference in the numbers.
        By taking into account this additional possibility, the calculated
        probability better matches the observed probability in experiment.

And this following reference I find particularly confusing ....

http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Quantum/localepr.html

       "No doubt the idea of motion backward in time
        makes a grievous assault on common sense. The world just
        does not seem to operate that way, as our ever-aging bodies
        testify. However, to a particle physicist raised on a diet of
        Feynman diagrams, motion backward in time is not
        all that disturbing. All fundamental particle interactions WORK
        BACKWARD as well as forward and, with rare exceptions,
        do not distinguish between directions of time ..."

But even here it says that particle interactions "work" backward as
well as forward. That's not the same as saying particles interactions
actually *happen* that way.

Any clarification regarding this issue would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

PS: Thanks to Glenn Edwards for first raising this general issue off-list.








- - -

From Jim Syrow

[Stephen Speicher wrote:]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TEWLIP/message/1557
> [O]ne needs to be very careful in separating some
> ideas which Einstein may have advocated from the actual
> methodology he used.

I don't understand Stephen Speicher's opinion on this.

If [as he is indicating] there is good reason to separate Einstein's
implicit philosophy from his explicit philosophy, then [doesn't] it
stands to reason that the explicit philosophy (the one visible to
other physicists) was bad, and so he deserves the blame he gets?

In contrast, Newton's explicit philosophy was better than of those
around him, just like Aristotle's was better than those around him,
despite his support for slavery and other unpleasant things.

I mean Thomas Aquinas is *Saint* Thomas Aquinas for Christians, due
to all the things he said in support of Christianity. That doesn't
automatically make him bad and vicious, considering the historical
context of his times. Can't the same reasoning be applied to Newton?



-----------------------------------------------------------------
[Moderator: Reference to other list removed. Parts snipped,
but not all shown. Some "I think thus" editing. Some "cool down"
editing. Minor reformatting. Message URLs added.
"You" statements changed.

http://www.prodos.com/discussionlistguidelines/#noyou
http://www.prodos.com/discussionlistguidelines/#personalize
http://www.prodos.com/discussionlistguidelines/#fahrenheit
-----------------------------------------------------------------




- - -

From: Stephen Speicher


[Stephen Speicher:]
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TEWLIP/message/1556>
> > ... simplistically put, you can think of coherence
> > as 'sameness' amongst waves, and incoherence as a
> > 'difference' between waves. It is only 'like'
> > waves -- waves which are coherent -- that can
> > interfere with themselves.

[Luke Conlin:]
> Is any more detail known about the coherence amongst
> waves?  Specifically, what is the _physical property_
> of mutually coherent waves which is the _same_?
>

From Chapter 1 of Little's forthcoming book:
<http://www.yankee.us.com/TEW/TEWchap1.pdf>

"It will be shown later that, in the theory being proposed, the
wave from each point on the screen carries a vector the direction
of which is determined by a similar vector in one of the
particles which make up the screen at that point. Only waves
carrying the same vector can interfere with one another. The
vectors are randomly oriented over the area of the screen; no two
particles in the screen will have exactly the same orientation.
So the waves from different points will never mutually interfere;
their actions at the particle source will be entirely
independent. When an inelastic scattering `implants' a coherence
on a wave, both the phase of the wave and the direction of the
internal vector are `implanted'; both together constitute the
"coherence" of the wave."

> Traditional waves are said to be coherent if they have
> the same phase (i.e. if their peaks & troughs line
> up).  Is this the kind of coherence we are talking
> about?
>

The interference associated with phase differences are the
_effects_ which only occur between mutually coherent waves.

> My impression of EW's so far is that they follow a
> wave equation but somehow don't propagate like waves.
> It is unclear to me whether EW's are even periodic in
> some sense.  It seems the only property EW's have that
> is wavelike is that they exhibit interference.
>

It is precisely this periodic effect on particle emission for
which the elementary waves were named, though the dynamic
behavior is more like that of a flux.

> I don't understand how effects like 'coherence' and
> 'interference' can be attributed to objects that
> aren't really waves, especially since these effects
> are _due to_ the properties of waves that EW's do not
> possess.
>

Hopefully now it is more clear as to what properties of
elementary waves are involved, and that the elementary waves
differ in that the interference occurs at the source, and the
waves themselves do not physically come into and go out of
existence.






- - -

From Stephen Speicher

Luke Conlin wrote:
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TEWLIP/message/1555>
> If in the Theory of Elementay Waves the EW's are described by
> the Schroedinger equation, what does the Psi function
> _represent physically_ about the EW's?  Their position?
> Potential?  Coherence?
>

From Chapter 1 of Little's forthcoming book:
<http://www.yankee.us.com/TEW/TEWchap1.pdf>

"Because the reverse waves are described by the Schrödinger
equation - the fundamental equation of quantum mechanics - a
startling fact about the above explanation of the double slit
experiment is perhaps not readily apparent: The theory does not
involve any quantization. The reverse waves are not quantum
waves; that is, they don't "collapse" into particles, and the
amplitude squared at a point in space does not give the
probability that a particle will be observed there. (Only the
square at the particle source of the wave from an existing
detector gives the probability that a particle will be observed
by that detector.) The Schrödinger equation serves as a clas-
sical field equation describing the reverse waves. The particles
are always particles, and follow classical, linear trajectories."

> And if they are are propogating as waves, why would they follow
> a wave equation? (since that is what Schroedinger's is...)  The
> Shroedinger equation describes something that is waving (even
> if SQAURE hasn't correctly interpreted what that 'something'
> is).  What takes that role in the TEW?
>

(In my response I will assume that Luke actually meant 'they are
NOT propagating' in what he wrote above.) The wave equation can
describe a disturbance propagated in a medium, or it may be
thought of as representing some form of periodicity. It is in the
latter sense that elementary waves are to be thought of in the
TEW. The periodicity lies solely in the wave effect on particle
emission, the constructive or destructive phase interference of
mutually coherent waves.  Of course, as discussed by Dr. Little,
and as has been repeated here many times, it is best to think of
the elementary waves as a flux with a coherence implanted on
them, rather than "something that is waving," since the latter
conjures up images of a flag in the wind.

> Has Little _derived_ the Schroedinger equation from the
> properties of EW's somehow?  If not, on what basis is it
> claimed that the mathematics will be the same?
>

I suspect the same basis which Schroedinger used in developing
the equation in the first place -- a generalization from
experiment. Now, after the fact, it is possible to 'derive' it
from a classical Hamilton-Jacobi equation with a specific action
function, but I doubt that Little has yet to do anything similar
from "properties of EW's." Keep in mind that most of the standard
theory mathematics works _because_ it was essentially induced
from experiment, and if the induction was correct -- and
experiment certainly indicates that to be so -- then there is no
reason to reject any useful mathematical structure even if it has
not currently been derived from first principles.





-------------------------------------------------------
[Moderator: Some typos fixed, but not shown.]
------------------------------------------------------





- - -

From Stephen Speicher

John McNulty wrote:
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TEWLIP/message/1554>
> [As I understand it,] Einstein was implicitly and explicitly a
> Kantian.
>

This statement is far too simplistic and overreaching. Einstein
was a very complicated thinker, one whose own ideas evolved over
time.  Also, one needs to be very careful in separating some
ideas which Einstein may have advocated from the actual
methodology he used.

Kant did have a limited role in Einstein's development, as did
the philosophy of Mach, but Hume had a greater influence on
Einstein than did Kant. Einstein own reminiscence of this fact is
borne out in careful study of his views.

    "Hume made a really powerful impression on me. Against
     him, Kant seems quite weak to me, but to save time I
     have given up maintaining this thesis."

     --Albert Einstein, letter to Paul Ehrenfest dated 24
       October 1916, in "The Collected Papers of Albert
       Einstein," Volume 8, The Berlin Years: Correspondence,
       1914-1918, _Princeton University Press_, 1998.


If I were to have to identify the single most important aspect
that connected Einstein and Kant, it was via the sense of
systematic unity or order of Nature which Kant raised to a
transcendental principle.  Einstein learned Kant through the
neo-Kantian August Stadler in lectures given at the the Zurich
Polytechnique around 1897. This unity of Nature was a quite
prominent theme in Stadler's lectures, and quite likely made an
impression on Einstein. But, also, we have to look at Einstein
within the full context of his life: Einstein was less allied to
Kant in his earlier years, when Einstein's main work was done,
and more allied to Kant in his later years, after relativity had
been created.

I think it fair to say that Einstein was a neo-Kantian in regard
to some limited aspects of Kant's approach. Einstein acknowledged
his debt to Kant several times, in a variety of ways, but he also
differed with Kant in many fundamental ways.  Regarding the a
priori and Einstein's view of Hume and Kant, consider the
following.

    "Man has an intense desire for assured knowledge. That
     is why Hume's clear message seemed crushing: the
     sensory raw material, the only source of our knowledge,
     through habit may lead us to belief and expectation but
     not to the knowledge and still less to the
     understanding of lawful relations. Then Kant took the
     stage with an idea which, though certainly untenable in
     in the form in which he put it, signified a step
     towards the solution of Hume's dilemma: whatever in
     knowledge is of empirical origin is never certain
     (Hume). If, therefore, we have definitely assured
     knowledge, it must be grounded in reason itself. This
     is held to be the case, for example, in the principles
     of geometry and in the principle of causality. These
     and certain other types of knowledge are, so to speak,
     a part of the implements of thinking and therefore do
     not previously have to be gained from sense data (i.e.,
     they are a priori knowledge). Today everyone knows, of
     course, that the mentioned concepts contain nothing of
     the certainty, of the inherent necessity, which Kant
     had attributed to them. The following, however, appears
     to me to be correct in Kant's statement of the problem:
     in thinking we use, with a certain 'right,' concepts to
     which there is no access from the materials of sensory
     experience, if the situation is viewed from the logical
     point of view."

     ...

    "As soon as one is at home in Hume's critique one is
     easily led to believe that all those concepts and
     propositions which cannot be deduced from the sensory
     raw material are, on account of their 'metaphysical'
     character, to be removed from thinking. For all thought
     acquires material content only through its relationship
     with that sensory material."

     --Albert Einstein, "Remarks on Bertrand Russell's
     Theory of Knowledge," in "The Philosophy of Bertrand
     Russell, Vol. V of 'The Library of Living
     Philosophers,'" edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp, Tudor
     Publishers, 1971, reprinted in "Ideas and Opinions,"
     _Three Rivers Press_, 1954/82.

Einstein rejected Kant's epistemolological view of Euclidean
geometry as well as Kant's synthetic a priori (though Einstein
certainly endorsed certain aspects of the Kantian approach).

    "He [Kant], however, was misled by the erroneous
     opinion -- difficult to avoid in his time -- that
     Euclidean geometry is necessary to thinking and offers
     _assured_ (i.e., not dependent upon sensory experience)
     knowledge concerning objects of 'external' perception.
     From this easily understandable error he concluded the
     existence of synthetic judgments a priori, which are
     produced by reason alone, and which, consequently, can
     lay claim to absolute validity.  I think your censure
     is directed less against Kant himself than against
     those who today still adhere to the errors of
     'synthetic judgments a priori.'"

     --Albert Einstein, "Reply to Criticisms," p. 679 in
     "Albert Einstein: Philosopher Scientist," Volume II,
     Edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp, _Harper Torchbooks_,
     1949/51.








-----------------------------------------------------
[Moderator: One snip, not shown. Dealt with off-list.

Consider this thread on-topic so far because it examines
underlying philosophical premises and consequent approaches
to physics of Newton (i.e. CLASSICAL Physics), and Einstein
(SQUARE - Standard Quantum and Relativity). Feel this could
contribute to an appreciation of TEW both physics-wise
and philosophy-wise.
---------------------------------------------------







- - -

From: Luke Conlin

Stephen Speicher wrote:
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TEWLIP/message/1552>
> ...simplistically put, you can think of coherence
> as 'sameness' amongst waves, and incoherence as a
> 'difference' between waves. It is only 'like'
> waves -- waves which are coherent -- that can
> interfere with themselves.

Is any more detail known about the coherence amongst
waves?  Specifically, what is the _physical property_
of mutually coherent waves which is the _same_?

Traditional waves are said to be coherent if they have
the same phase (i.e. if their peaks & troughs line
up).  Is this the kind of coherence we are talking
about?

My impression of EW's so far is that they follow a
wave equation but somehow don't propagate like waves.
It is unclear to me whether EW's are even periodic in
some sense.  It seems the only property EW's have that
is wavelike is that they exhibit interference.

I don't understand how effects like 'coherence' and
'interference' can be attributed to objects that
aren't really waves, especially since these effects
are _due to_ the properties of waves that EW's do not
possess.

Any clarification on the matter would be much appreciated!



--------------------------------------------
[Moderator: Typo fixed. Minor reformatting.]
-------------------------------------------






- - -

From: Luke Conlin

If memory serves me correct, the Schroedinger equation
for a free electron is something like:

-(h/2*m*pi)(d^2Psi/dt^2)-V*Psi=E*Psi

where in SQUARE Psi represents the wave function of
the electron, the square of which gives the
probability of finding an electron in a given region.


Stephen Speicher wrote:
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TEWLIP/message/1550>
> Although the dynamics of the elementary waves is not
> that of wave propagation, they _are_ described by the
> Schroedinger equation
>

If in the Theory of Elementay Waves the EW's are
described by the Schroedinger equation, what does
the Psi function _represent physically_ about
the EW's?  Their position? Potential?  Coherence?

And if they are are propogating as waves, why would
they follow a wave equation? (since that is what
Schroedinger's is...)  The Shroedinger equation
describes something that is waving (even if SQAURE
hasn't correctly interpreted what that 'something'
is).  What takes that role in the TEW?

Has Little _derived_ the Schroedinger equation from
the properties of EW's somehow?  If not, on what basis
is it claimed that the mathematics will be the same?




-------------------------------------------------
[Moderator: Subject line changed. Typo fixed, but
not shown. Minor reformatting. Abbreviation extended,
but not shown.]
-------------------------------------------------






- - -

[From: John McNulty]

[Stephen Speicher wrote:]
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TEWLIP/message/1544>
> Newton's _scientific_ writings are infected with a
> dose of religious fanaticism, such that, in some cases,
> "observational evidence" _is_ dispensed with and
> Newton's science _does_ enter into the "disreputable
> realm of pseudo-science." Or, a lot worse.
> Here is a sampling from Newton's two monumental
> achievements, the "Principia" and the "Opticks."
>
> [ .... ]
>
> I dare anyone to show me any words in Einstein's scientific
> writings which are even remotely as mystical and
> pseudo-scientific as those words from Newton. For that
> matter, even the worst of Einstein's _non-scientific_
> writings is nowhere as bad.
>
> And, please don't get me wrong -- I revere Newton. But
> his scientific writings are infected with a dose of his
> religious fanaticism. Not so for Einstein.
>



[I offer some contextual/historical notes on Einstein
and Newton.]


EINSTEIN

[As I understand it,] Einstein was implicitly and explicitly a
Kantian.

His original papers are now on-line at
http://www.alberteinstein.info

[Moderator: Using the search function at that website
I found some items listed that related to Kant, but
they weren't available online or they weren't available
in English. Or else I couldn't work out how to access them.
Could John or anyone else point to specific
material that shows Einstein to be a Kantian? Thanks.]

[Some quotes from Einstein:]

[Moderator: Are these quotes from AlbertEinstein.info ?
Could John provide the specific URL where they appear?
Thanks.]

"There are no logical paths to such natural laws, only
intuition can reach them."

"The word or the language, as they are written and spoken,
do not seem to play any role in my mechanism of thought.
The psychical entities which seem to serve as elements
in thought are certain signs and more or less clear
images which can be "voluntarily" reproduced and
combined.... The above mentioned elements are, in my case,
of visual and some muscular types."

"The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the
mystical. It is the sower of all true art and science."

"one of the strongest motives that lead men to art and
science is to escape from everyday life, with its painful
crudity and hopeless dreariness, from the fetters of
one's own ever-shifting desires."


NEWTON

Newton swallowed the Primacy of Consciousness fallacy
("wishing will make it so" - cogito ergo sum) directly from Descartes.

According to a Royal Society Lecture by Keynes "Newton was not
the first of the Age of Reason. He was the last of the magicians,
the last of the Babylonians and Sumerians."

- - - -
[Moderator:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianweekly/story/0,12674,1039861,00.html
      The economist John Maynard Keynes, the saviour of much
      of this documentation, was astonished by what he read.
      "Newton", Keynes told his students at Trinity College,
      Cambridge, "was not the first of the age of reason.
      He was the last of the magicians."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Isaac_Newton
      John Maynard Keynes, who acquired many of Newton's
      writings on alchemy, stated that "Newton was not the
      first of the age of reason: he was the last of the
      magicians." Newton's interest in alchemy cannot be
      isolated from his contributions to science. Had he
      not believed in the occult idea of action at a
      distance, across a vacuum, he may not have developed
      his theory of gravity.

http://www.cftech.com/BrainBank/OTHERREFERENCE/BIOGRAPHY/Newtonian.html
      ... In 1936 an interesting lot came on the block at
      Sotheby's in London containing a cache of writings by
      Newton -- journals and personal notebooks deemed to be
      "of no scientific value." The winning bidder was the
      economist John Maynard Keynes. After perusing his purchase,
      Keynes delivered a somewhat shocking lecture to the Royal
      Society Club in 1942, on the tercentenary of Newton's birth.
      "Newton was not the first of the age of reason," Keynes
      announced. "He was the last of the magicians." This was
      meant quite literally ... ]
- - - -


Newton was not a nice character at all. For all his reported...
"If I have been able to see farther than others, it is because
I stood on the shoulders of giants." ... it seems he was eager
to trample all around and eagerly sentenced people to death
in his later years.

He tried very hard to obliterate Robert Hooke's work and maliciously
destroyed many of his papers and models. He plagiarised others in many
cases, including Leibniz.

BTW the soi-disant 'Newton's Cradle' - the equal
and opposite reaction toy made of ball bearings on strings is actually
Hooke's invention. Hooke provided the physical engineering models for Wren
to build St Paul's Cathedral.

[Moderator: Could John or anyone else please provide
supporting references on the above notes? Preferably online.
Thanks.]

[snip]

Physical science generally went over to Kant and has been proudly(!)
Kantian since around 1900. It is astonishing that we progress
at all ;-)





------------------------------------------------------------
[Moderator: Subject line changed. Post narrowed down to
just Einstein and Newton. Some editing at Mod's discretion.
No change in basic meaning. Feel it will be acceptable to
poster. Some excerpts and URL's added. Mod's requests for
supporting references added. Quoted reply-to post added.
Some "I think thus" editing.

Consider this thread on-topic so far because it examines
underlying philosophical premises and consequent approaches
to physics of Newton (i.e. CLASSICAL Physics), and Einstein
(SQUARE - Standard Quantum and Relativity). Feel this could
contribute to an appreciation of TEW both physics-wise
and philosophy-wise.

Some relevant guidelines:
http://www.prodos.com/discussionlistguidelines/#nice1
http://www.prodos.com/discussionlistguidelines/#personalize
http://www.prodos.com/discussionlistguidelines/#copyonlyrelevant
http://www.prodos.com/discussionlistguidelines/#yournameattop
http://www.prodos.com/discussionlistguidelines/#spune
----------------------------------------------------------






- - -

From: Prodos


Question:
If a particle - eg: a photon - is following an elementary wave
coming from a target/detector and the detector moves, does
that result in the particle changing its trajectory?


Answer:
[By Stephen Speicher, provided off-list]
A particle photon does not change direction unless it interacts
with another particle; when its wave is disrupted due to motion
of the detector then the photon jumps into coherence with another
wave, but its direction does not change .... Apart from gravitational
effects, the particle photon will always travel in a straight line, and
it is only due to interaction with other particles that a particle's
direction can change.




- - -

From: Stephen Speicher


[Stephen Speicher:]
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TEWLIP/message/1547>
> > The whole idea of the TEW as so far presented is that the
> > interference is only between the mutually coherent waves which
> > have been organized by the inelastic scattering of the particle
> > with the wave. There is no interference between waves associated
> > with different particles, being that they are mutually
> > incoherent.
> >
>

[Kevin Blake:]
> Sorry I must admit I don't understand what is meant by mutually
> coherent [or mutually incoherent] waves in the TEW.
>

In this context, simplistically put, you can think of coherence
as a 'sameness' amongst waves, and incoherence as a 'difference'
between waves. It is only 'like' waves -- waves which are
coherent -- that can interfere with themselves.







- - -

From: Stephen Speicher


>
> Stephen Speicher writes:
> <http://Physics.prodos.ORG/stephenspeicherexplains/#1.14.10>
> >
> >       "From every point on the detector flows a complete set
> >        of waves that uniquely reflect the state of the particle
> >        which imposed the organization on the wave and they
> >        are all coherent with each other; but they are incoherent
> >        with the waves flowing from other points."
>

[Arnold Shcherban:]
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TEWLIP/message/1546>
> [How has this interpretation or model been arrived at? Is it
> a basic axiom of TEW regarding the nature of the EWs?
> I don't understand how such a physical explanation could
> be established/derived.]
>

I cannot speak directly for Dr. Little regarding all of his
thought processes, but historically most major breakthroughs in
physics arise by induction from experiment combined with
brilliant insight. Bear in mind that the TEW is not a complete
particle theory, and its generalizations are derived from
existing experiments. Again, I am not speaking for Lewis Little,
but it is my own expectation that various details of the TEW will
change and evolve as specifically designed experiments can be
performed to assist in determining various parameters. It is my
view that there are several optional formulations which can only
be unambiguously determined by additional experiments.

>
> Given the theoretical homogenuity of the material the detector
> is made of and the identical states of the points of emission,
> how does it happen to them to emit "incoherent" EW wavelets?
>
> [What is the physical nature of the "incoherence" refered to
> above, according to TEW?]
>
> Are the wavelets coming from different points of the detector
> completely, or partially "incoherent"?
>

This is discussed in Section 1.3 of Dr. Little's forthcoming
book, available at <http://www.yankee.us.com/TEW/TEWchap1.pdf>.
Essentially there is a different orientation for each particle of
which the detector is composed, and a vector in each elementary
wave will be associated with different particles.  Interference
occurs between waves having the same vector.

>
> The other point I don't understand is the following:
>
> If from every point of the detector flows the complete set
> of EWs that already uniquely reflects the state of the particle
> emitted in the future, why would they interfere just at the
> source, not at the slits (since they obviously interact with the slits)?
>

The very notion of interference is different in the TEW than in
the standard theory. When the elementary waves interfere, they do
not physically combine to make a resultant wave. The elementary
waves do not come into or go out of existence by constructive
or destructive interference.  In the TEW the interference is
expressed by the intensity of the wave at the particle source,
thereby determining the probability of particle emission.  Note
also that the interaction at the slits is an elastic scattering
of the waves.





--------------------------------------------------------
[Moderator: Link changed. Minor reformatting.]
--------------------------------------------------------






- - -

From: Stephen Speicher

Jason Crupper wrote:
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TEWLIP/message/1545>
> ... I don't have any idea how the waves would be mathematically
> described....  At least in SQUARE, it was clear that an
> electron was a wave satisfying Shroedinger's equation.
>

Although the dynamics of the elementary waves is not that of wave
propagation, they _are_ described by the Schroedinger equation
(except for relativistic modifications).  Most of the essential
mathematics of standard theory is not changed; what changes is
the underlying meaning. See Chapter 1 of Dr. Little's forthcoming
book <http://www.yankee.us.com/TEW/TEWchap1.pdf>
as well as Chapter 8 of his 1996 paper
<http://www.yankee.us.com/TEW/TEW96paper.html>
for a nice qualitative description of this, and see Chapter 9 of
the same paper for mathematical examples, including the Klein-Gordon
equation and the physical interpretation of Feynman diagrams.





------------------------------------------------------
[Moderator: Links added/altered. Minor reformatting.]
------------------------------------------------------






- - -

From Dean M. Sandin


[Jim Syrow wrote:]
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TEWLIP/message/1548>
> In Penrose's book, "The Emperor's New Mind" he talks
> about himself and Hawking, and how he considers
> himself a realist, and Hawking a Kantian I think.


Regarding Roger Penrose and his possible relevance to the TEW, my own
initial thoughts are:

a) Penrose is explicitly a metaphysical Platonist.  He envisions a
literally existing mathematical dimension of reality to which concrete
reality is related.  I think it's safe to say this utterly contradicts
the TEW position.

b) Penrose wants to use General Relativity to solve the supposed
collapse of the wave-function, by positing that competing space-time
metrics corresponding to different quantum states split further apart
as energy an difference between them grows, until space-time has to
settle on one of them.  I think it's safe to say this utterly
contradicts the TEW position.

c) That Penrose is coming from GR doesn't mean he's Einsteinian on QM,
or that Einstein would countenance his attempts to use GR to solve an
issue in QM.  As seen above, Penrose accepts indeterminacy and merely
shifts it to a new context (he also argues that quantum indeterminacy
underlies consciousness).  But Einstein didn't accept indeterminacy in
the first place.

d) My guess is that Penrose is so bent on the primacy of mathematics
that the idea of reverse waves providing an exclusively physical
solution to QM (and SR and GR) is all but incomprehensible, whereas
Einstein probably could have appreciated it.





---------------------------------------------------------------
[Moderator: Excerpt from earlier post added to link
to start of thread. Penrose position - most relevant
part of thread - now seems dealt with, therefore thread
will probably close.]
---------------------------------------------------------------





- - -

From Jim Syrow


[I would like to ask about the "duel" between Roger Penrose
and Stephen Hawking.]

In Penrose's book, "The Emperor's New Mind" he talks about himself
and Hawking, and how he considers himself a realist, and Hawking a
Kantian I think.

[snip]

Hawking is on the Bohr side of the war over QM, and Penrose on the
Einstein side. Ever since I heard that Penrose, a world-renowned
physicist, argued against SQUARE, I became curious about him.


[Is there anything useful to TEW-related issues
in the Penrose/Hawking duel?]




---------------------------------------------------------
[Moderator: Subject line modified. Some editing - including
an addition, caused some change in meaning, but not
likely to be objectionable. Not sure how this thread
is relevant to the "study and discussion of TEW" at
this point, but giving it a brief run just in case.]
---------------------------------------------------------





- - -