This is the third part of a three-part article focusing on Lewis Little's revolutionary THEORY OF ELEMENTARY WAVES. It is prefaced by a short digest, an "Executive Summary", highlighting key elements of the article in order to establish a preliminary context, but omitting technical details and substantive information. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Executive Summary" - Part 3 ---------------------------- Recall from our previous discussions that in the TEW space is filled with elementary waves, the fundamental constituents of reality. When a detector is placed in position, it imposes an 'organization' or coherence upon the elementary waves flowing in its vicinity. The organization of the waves uniquely reflects the state of the particle from the detector which imposed the organization; the state of this particle includes the reference frame of the detector. Where, then, is the divergence between the standard theory and the TEW and what are the consequences of it? Two areas of quantum mechanics that have been popularized are quantum computing and quantum teleportation. In quantum computing, a quantum bit (qubit) replaces the familiar binary bits of computers. A qubit represents a quantum state (i.e., either on or off), but it is thought of in the standard theory as existing in _both_ states simultaneously, a condition which supposedly permits parallel operation of both states at the same time. In quantum teleportation, transmission and reconstruction of quantum states occur over arbitrary distances. Recent experiments claim to have achieved this. The standard theory holds that many possible states exist at the same time (superposition) in a single particle as well as in a pair of particles, until 'collapse' makes them real. The standard theory holds that two particles can become "entangled" so that when collapse occurs for one particle it simultaneously occurs for the other particle, with no concern for the distance separating them, distance being irrelevant to this occurrence. In the standard theory, quantum computing "entanglements" and quantum teleportation "entanglements" both rely on standard theory concepts in the same manner as does the Schroedinger cat paradox which asserts that an animal can be both alive and dead at the same time. The TEW rejects the postulate of 'entanglement' holding (a) this erroneous view is a consequence of the notion of a _forward_ moving wave and (b) the idea of entanglement arises in the standard theory because it misidentifies the fundamental nature of quantum reality. Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (STR) postulates that the speed of light in a particular medium is constant - that the speed is the same in any observer's frame of reference, regardless of the observer's own speed. The objective nature of reality has no absolute meaning in the STR. In the STR, the contraction of objects and the retardation of time occur as objects approach the speed of light. Mathematical laws remain objective in the STR, but reality becomes relative to the observations made of it and the objective nature of the objects changes. In contrast, the TEW establishes a _physical_ basis for the constancy of the speed of light and, as a consequence, the objective nature of objects does not change. The elementary wave from the observer (the detector) determines all the dynamics of the photons from the object, the source. It is only the _means of observation_ that changes among reference frames, not the objective nature of the objects themselves. The key element is: it is not the same light that is being seen by different observers! Regarding Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (GTR), fundamentally it is a geometric theory of gravitation. According to Einstein, gravitation is a consequence of the curvature of space-time -- "space-time" being thought of as an entity. The TEW rescues the GTR, holding (a) that space is not distorted; (b) that it is the elementary waves which become curved due to wave interactions; and (c) that the photons from the light source follow the curved path of the reverse waves. What is real stays real in the TEW and, at the same time, the Theory of Elementary Waves is consistent with the mathematics of the GTR and the curvature of light which the GTR predicted. ----------------------------------------------------------------- PART 3 ------ Two areas of quantum mechanics have received a lot of attention in the past several years, both in scientific journals and in the popular press - quantum computing and quantum teleportation. The miniaturization of electronic components continues at an astonishing rate and it will eventually collide with a physical limit as reductions in size approach the atomic scale. Intending to avoid this limitation, quantum computing proposes replacing the familiar binary bits of computers (where each bit represents an on-off condition, a 0 or 1) with a quantum bit, a qubit. A qubit would be represented by a quantum state which, according to the standard theory, can exist not just as a 0 or 1, but simultaneously as a superposition of both states. Unlike a classic computer where increasing the quantity of bits results in a simple increase in storage ability, a quantum computer, it is claimed, would increase its capacity exponentially as the number of qubits increase. Not only that, but since the various states allegedly exist simultaneously, quantum computations can be performed in parallel with all of the superpositioned states, rather than the single individual operations required for classic computers. Closely allied to quantum computing is the idea of quantum teleportation - the transmission and reconstruction of quantum states over arbitrary distances. Quantum teleportation evokes thoughts of science fiction travel (like Star Trek), yet several recent experiments claim to have achieved the transfer of the polarization property between photons by this means. What connects quantum computing and quantum teleportation in the standard theory interpretations (and what makes them of interest in regard to the TEW) are some principles which we have already discussed in parts 1 and 2 of this article, but which we can now integrate under the broadly ascribed name - entanglements. Entanglement is often invoked as a mechanism uniting the quantum states of two or more particles (its usage also applies to the superposition of the states of a single particle). Via a mathematical analysis, Schroedinger noted that part of a quantum formula (known as a state vector) could not be separated into its constituent parts without invoking some sort of indeterministic collapse - it was 'entangled' with its constituent parts. In 1935, the same year as the publication of the Einstein EPR paper (which we discussed in Part 2), Schroedinger made public his now famous cat paradox. In essence, Schroedinger thought of a steel chamber that contained a cat, a radioactive source, a particle detector, and a poison gas bottle. The radioactive decay of the substance obeys the same probabilistic laws of quantum mechanics such that, given its known half-life, there is a fifty-fifty chance of decay in a specified time. If the detector senses a particle from the decay process, it breaks the poison gas bottle and the cat dies. If no particle is detected, the cat survives. According to the standard theory, the cat, just as in the state vector of the mathematical formula, is neither dead nor alive; instead, it exists in some superposition of both states - an entangled state. Previously, we briefly alluded to this indeterminate state of existence when we discussed the double slit and the EPR experiments. In the double slit experiment, in one instance, according to the standard theory, the particle did not go through either slit 1 or slit 2. Instead, the particle existed as a superposition of both choices simultaneously until the 'collapse of the wave function' gave actual reality to the particle. Likewise, the entangled state of the cat, both alive and dead, is said to exist until the 'collapse' of the entanglement is caused by looking into the box to observe the outcome, which does not occur until the instant of observation. Similarly, quantum teleportation relies upon a relationship between two particles (their postulated 'entangled' state) where the alleged collapse of the superposition of quantum states of one particle results in a similar (and simultaneous) collapse in the other particle, independent of the distance between them. The TEW rejects the postulate of 'entanglement' holding (a) this erroneous view is a consequence of the notion of a _forward_ moving wave and (b) the idea of entanglement arises in the standard theory because it misidentifies the fundamental nature of quantum reality. The mathematics in the standard theory are consistent with the combination of entangled waves and collapse of the wave function, but the consequences are the bizarre and false notions of the indeterminate state of matter and 'spooky action-at-a-distance', as Einstein aptly put it. In the TEW, it is the _reverse_ motion of the wave, from the detector to the source, that accounts for a deterministic view of quantum mechanics. It is embedded entanglement which is at the root of the issues of quantum computing and quantum teleportation and which accounts for their mystical experimental interpretations and fallacious conclusions. Without detailing an analysis of the experiments themselves, suffice it to say that the claims of teleportation are a consequence of the erroneous notion of entanglement, an ineffectual attempt by the standard theory to explain observed phenomena. Quantum computing, on the other hand, does offer a valid potential, not as a consequence of entangled states, but as a sub-miniaturization of computing functions. However, the notion of the qubits existing as a superposition of both states (0 and 1) and the parallel operation of such states, comprise a fantasy that has no more reality than the alive-dead state of Schroedinger's cat. Perhaps one of the most remarkable effects of the TEW is, as Dr. Little says, that it is "automatically relativistic", meaning that other physical theories must modify their basic assumptions, their basic formulations, in order to account for situations dealing with speeds that approach the speed of light. Consider the following: The speed of light, referred to as "c", is its velocity in 'empty space' (when light travels through a material medium, such as water or glass, its speed is less than c). When we think about motion, we observe how velocities obey a simple additive law. That is, if we are traveling on a train heading east at 60 mph, and if we walk on the train in the direction of travel at 2 mph, our speed (relative to the fixed ground) would be 60 + 2 for a total of 62 mph. If, on the other hand, we walk on the train in a direction opposite to its motion (west) our speed would be 60 - 2 for a net of 58 mph. Similarly, if the motion we consider is the rotation of the Earth, the surface of which is moving east at some rate, say x mph, we would expect a light coming from the east to reach us more quickly than if it were coming from the west, because the motion of the surface of the Earth toward the east decreases the distance the light travels coming from the east and increases the distance it travels when it is coming from the west. The light from the east would be expected to arrive at a speed of c+x mph and the light from the west at a speed of c-x mph. But, did experiment verify this? The famous Michelson-Morley experiment was designed to measure these differences in speed as the Earth traveled through the 'ether wind', the posited medium of 'empty space' through which light propagated. Rather than relying on difficult-to-do measurements of distances and times, Michelson invented the interferometer, a device which relied on interference patterns similar to those we have seen in the double slit experiments. The device split a beam of light in two with one beam traveling back and forth along the line of the Earth's motion and the other beam perpendicular to the first. The two beams combined to produce interference patterns. When the entire experimental apparatus was rotated, it was expected to produce different interference patterns, representing the difference in speeds of the light beam which traveled back and forth, and thereby demonstrate the movement of the Earth through the ether. Upon executing the experiment, no difference in light speeds was found. It was this null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment which Einstein credited, in a speech given in 1922, as "the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity". Einstein was aware that H. A. Lorentz had developed his contraction formula which specified a supposed amount of contraction which a moving object undergoes in the direction of its motion. This contraction was believed at the time to be a consequence of changes in the electric forces affecting the size, the shape, and the separation distance of atoms. The difficulty was that any standard of measurement used to determine these changes would itself be affected by the very processes it was attempting to measure. Regardless of this impediment, Einstein held to his view of space and time, resulting from his postulate of the constancy of c, which uniquely defined his Special Theory of Relativity (STR). In Einstein's formulation of the STR, physical laws remain invariant across different reference frames, but observations and physical phenomena are variable. The objective nature of reality, the length of objects and the times of events, are not absolutes in the STR. Postulating the constancy of the speed of light independent of its frame of reference, led Einstein to the contraction of objects and the retardation of time - mathematical laws remained objective, reality and observations became relative. Lorentz transformations are used to keep consistency between reference frames, but in the STR, space and time have been knit together to form space-time, which is thought of as a physical entity. As Einstein states: "It is neither the point in space, nor the instant in time, at which something happens that has physical reality, but only the event itself." Just as the TEW rescued quantum mechanics by providing a local and deterministic explanation for quantum observations, so too does it establish a rational basis for relativistic phenomena. The mathematics of the STR remain the same, but the physical interpretations are radically different. The starting point is in establishing a _physical_ basis for the constancy of the speed of light as opposed to the STR which asserts it as a postulate. Recall from our previous discussions that in the TEW space is filled with elementary waves, the fundamental constituents of reality. When a detector is placed in position, it imposes an 'organization' or coherence upon the elementary waves flowing in its vicinity. The organization of the waves uniquely reflect the state of the particle from the detector which imposed the organization; the state of this particle includes the reference frame of the detector. Since the dynamics of the photon which will be emitted by the source is dependent on the organization of the wave which has stimulated its emission, the photon will move at velocity c relative to the frame of the detector (the observer). This establishes the physical basis for the constancy of the speed of light relative to the frame of this particular observer. The detector need not be a mechanical device; it can be one's own direct vision as observer. If the TEW and the STR both agree on the constancy of the speed of light relative to the frame of the observer, how do the theories differ in views that are a consequence of this fact? Recall that in the STR, objectivity is preserved only by mathematical laws, including the Lorentz transformations that permit consistency between reference frames. In the STR, reality is distorted by the contraction and lengthening of objects and the retardation of time. By contrast, because the TEW directly ties the photon particles to the observer in his/its own frame of reference, it is the _means of observation_ that changes between reference frames, not the objective nature of the objects themselves. The key element is: it is not the same light that is being seen by different observers! Elementary waves are moving towards the source from each observer (the detector); photon particles are emitted from the source and follow the wave back to the observer. Different observers are not seeing the same photons, but they are seeing the same reality. It is the _appearance_ of objects that changes; it is the _appearance_ of time intervals that changes; all due to the fact that different photons are being seen in different reference frames. The objective reality of objects remains the same. The value of the Lorentz transformations in the TEW is to connect observations between moving frames as a coordinate system adjustment to account for the different means of observation in each frame, not because of changes to the physical reality of objects. As Dr. Little sums up: "But facts are facts; facts don't change because one looks at them differently. So one knows for certain that it is the means of observation that changes when one moves, not the objects observed." Einstein was dissatisfied with the STR because "the theory was restricted to frames of reference moving with constant velocity relative to each other and could not be applied to the general motion of a reference frame". Einstein's exploration of accelerating reference frames and the 'space curvature' of Riemannian geometry led to his development of the General Theory of Relativity (GTR). The GTR is, fundamentally, a geometric theory which establishes a basis for Einsteinian gravitation. Just as the STR dealt with space-time as an entity, so now the GTR deals with the curvature of space-time to explain the force of gravity. Actually, in the GTR, gravity is not a force; it is a consequence of the distortion of space-time by the presence of a mass. Moving through the curvature of space-time causes acceleration - this is gravity according to the GTR. As predicted by the GTR, the bending of light around a massive object has been repeatedly demonstrated over the years, most notably via the gravitational lensing effect. In this effect, light from a background galaxy passes around a foreground galaxy, supposedly due to the curvature of space-time induced by the massive foreground galaxy. So, is space-time an entity which is curved? Just as the principles of the TEW explained how it is the means of observation that changes, not the physical reality of objects as posited by the STR, so does the TEW outline the gravitational effect of the GTR. The TEW posits the existence of graviton particles along with their corresponding elementary waves. The interaction of elementary waves is proportional to the mass associated with the waves, and the normal straight-line motion of the wave becomes curved due to cumulative deflection. The photon particles corresponding to the slightly curved elementary waves follow the curved path of the wave. It is not space-time which is curved, but the elementary waves themselves. Just as the Lorentz transformations were used in the TEW to account for the different means of observation for different frames, here the mathematics of the curved geometry applies, not as a distortion of space itself, but rather to account for the curved appearances due to gravitational effects. This concludes the last part of my outline of Lewis Little's "Theory of Elementary Waves". I must underscore the word _outline_, since all I have done is highlight some of the essentials of this brilliant theory. For any reader who has a technical background, I would strongly encourage reading Dr. Little's original paper. The full reference is: "The Theory of Elementary Waves", Lewis E. Little, Physics Essays, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 100 (March 1996) Physics Essays is difficult to find in some technical libraries. The address is: Physics Essays Publication c/o ALFT 189 Devault St. Unit #7, Hull, PQ J8Z1S7 Canada I originally intended to include a final section to this article which dealt with some philosophic and scientific concerns about this theory. However, because I view the elementary waves theory as such a monumental achievement, I have decided that it would not be appropriate to offer any criticism, however slight, along with my positive presentation. Perhaps such concerns will be dealt with as a separate article. I could do no better in summing up the value of the TEW then leaving the reader with a few concluding quotes from Lewis Little's paper. "In the elementary waves theory, all aspects of the mathematics of quantum mechanics correspond to something real. There are no formulas whose only referents are 'dial readings' and their relationships. Any dial readings are measurements of real properties or behavior of real entities." "In no way are we required to conclude that there is a breach between the real and the observed, between our knowledge and the objects of that knowledge. What we see is what exists." "The elementary waves theory provides a real explanation of quantum phenomena. The wave-particle theory, on the other hand, is actually not a theory at all. It is an anti-theory. It says, in effect, that an explanation is impossible - that quantum phenomena are inherently contradictory and therefore not rationally understandable. But in fact these phenomena are not inherently contradictory. They are understandable." "Clearly the fact of reverse elementary waves has been demonstrated. Too many things are explained by the one simple hypothesis to conclude otherwise." sjs@compbio.caltech.edu Copyright (C) 1998 Stephen Speicher

California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125.