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