Quantonics ch¤¤ses t¤ c¤¤pt classical 'photon' amd remerq all quantum comtextual ¤ccurrences with 'ph¤t¤n.'

In classical contexts we shall use 'photon.' In Quantonics/quantum comtexts we shall use 'ph¤t¤n.'

Classicists view photons as particles, and thus see photons as classical objects.

Students of Quantonics see ph¤t¤ns as quantons with everywhere-ass¤ciative asympt¤tic anihmatæ pr¤bability distributi¤ns. As such ph¤t¤ns are quantum flux, and thus we view them as anihmatæ and emerging pr¤cesses.

To exemplify how important and omnifferent our Quantonics view of ph¤t¤ns is, comsider how classicists view photons as stable (by that they mean photons have ~infinite 'particle/object' life times) SOM Box, SOM Loop analytic-motion objects.

Recently, mid 2005, borne of our research into David Bohm's holomovement, we have a decent description of what photons are in quantonicsese.

Photons, in quantonics, are fuzzonic attractor ensembles of EIMA, animate holographic interrelationshipings. Quantonically, photons are ensemble attractor phase~encodings of holographic interrelationshipings.

Also ponder how photons quantum tunnel so classical notions of 'light speed' significantly lose 'scientific' semantic. Ask yourself, "What does this do to Hubble's constant?"

Photons phase~encode Pirsigean Value interrelationshipings.

Doug - 31Jul2005. (Beth says 'Hubble' stands for a "hunka, hunka burning love." )

'photon,'
cont'd.

In Quantonics, any ph¤t¤n is an example of ¤ne of at least three of Nature's pærpætual m¤ti¤n quantons: ph¤t¤ns, electr¤ns, and pr¤t¤ns. All three exemplify Nature's own comstituent c¤re pærpætual pr¤cesses. Classicists deny any notions of nascent or manufactured/manufacturable 'perpetual motion,' but in Quantonics we k-n¤w they are misguided by their own CTMs. Ph¤t¤ns are unambigu¤usly pærpætual m¤ti¤n/anihmatæ quantum flux pr¤cesses.

In quantum reality, ph¤t¤ns' pærpætual life pr¤cesses emerge during a quantum pr¤cess called "emissi¤n." They demerge during a quantum pr¤cess called "abs¤rpti¤n." Abs¤rpti¤n ¤f any ph¤t¤n is usually by s¤me c¤mpatible fermi¤n, ¤ften an electr¤n in an at¤m. Between abs¤rpti¤n (Bayt of a photon, 'death' of photon) and re-emissi¤n (Vayt of photon, 'rebirth' of a photon) a ph¤t¤n's energy is 'st¤red' in ¤ne ¤f an at¤m's electr¤ns by quantum jumping an electr¤n t¤ a higher energy shell. (see Vayt to Bayt) Notice that this rebirth isn't bound to a single photon being reborn. Re~emission, depending upon photon's energy level when it was absorbed (Bayt), may be a multiplicate quantum~process. In this scenario, re~emission may be a more gradual pr¤cæss of descending quantized ladder steps (avalanching: a kind of down~energy cha¤s) over multiple quantized~leaps down. We see a kind of multiple~rebirth (many Vayts) quantum~parthenogenesis of one high energy photon's absorption which may be gradience 'dissipated' more~less gradually by multiple re~emissions over multiple 'down~leaps' of quantized~energyings. This partially, enthymemetically explains 'light' being quantum~transmuted into heat. Similar other kinds of scintillation of higher and lower energy transmutationings. Con(m)sider omnissipation of X-rays as parthenogenesis (many Vayts) of a wide variety of lower level 'radiation.' Doug - 24Mar2014.

From a classical viewpoint emergence and demergence are n¤t quantum pr¤cesses, rather they are viewed as stoppable state-ic events. You may thingk of this classically as Aristotle did regarding an apple falling from a tree. Stopped state '1' is apple_on_tree. Stopped state '2' is apple_on_ground. Event '1' is analytic transition from state '1' to state '2.' In Quantonics we regard this classical style of thing-king misguided and unfortunate. Why? It flagrantly fails to describe anihmatæ, c¤mplementary, heter¤gene¤us, everywhere-ass¤ciative, pærpætually-processing (ensehmble BAWAM at up-to Planck rate quantized) quantum reality. See CTMs See QTMs.

Astute readers and students may notice this is what Zeno of Elea was talking about in his first paradox beginning, "There is no motion..." Aristotle essentially said that there are only stoppable states. Aristotle described events stoppably without describing real evolutionary motion-process twixt states.

This is a Mount Everestesque height of bogus CTM thing-king!

Allow us to quote Arthur I. Miller's 1994 Early QED - 'A Source Book,' "Although suitably quantized laws of classical mechanics are used to calculate [an] electron's allowed orbits, or stationary states, classical mechanics can neither depict nor describe [an] electron in transit." P. 4. Our brackets to remove thelogos.

This state-ic classical viewpoint is egregious, ersatz. This exemplar of 'normal, enlightened scientific' thing-king is classicism's legacy: a deign to feign.

'photon,'
cont'd.

When that at¤m's electr¤n falls back t¤ a l¤wer energy level, said ph¤t¤n's energy re-emerges as a pærpætual ph¤t¤n flux pr¤cess. If abs¤rpti¤n ¤pp¤rtunities fail t¤ arise, any ph¤t¤ns' life pr¤cesses run in pærpætuity, e.g., ph¤t¤ns traveling, say ~12.5 billi¤n light years fr¤m a distant galaxy, t¤, e.g., Earth's Hubble Space Telescope or your eyes' retinas. (Take time to contemplate those last three words vis-à-vis a double slit experiment. )

It is w¤rthwhile t¤ n¤te that quantum electrodynamics, QED, classically describes photon-electron 'interactions.'

Further it is w¤rthwhile t¤ n¤te that ph¤t¤ns are spin 1 b¤s¤ns ¤f family Gauge B¤s¤ns, and electr¤ns are spin ½ fermi¤ns ¤f family Lept¤ns.

See OEDC. See QCD. See electron. See proton.

See Schweber on QED.

Page top index.