(Extended revisions commencing 2Jul2006; mainly due metainnovations
involved and omnifficulties expressing them well. We intend to
dwell here on issues of quantum~phase~encodings until we are satisfied
that a decent grundlagen has emerqed. This issi n¤n
trivial quantum~pr¤sæ. Too, it represents essential
primitive hermeneutics and semiotics of quantum~reality's quantonic
descriptionings. Generally, we can say, "Quantum reality
is dynamic phase-mental phase~interrelationshipings vis-à-vis
classical reality is static state-mental 'state-event' interactions.
Initial progress statement - 26-28Jun-2,13-16Jul2006...
You may recall how this sequence of research reviews started out as a QQA asking "In what ways are Quantonics' breakthr¤ugh, n¤vel descriptions of quantum reality h¤l¤graphic? H5W? H5W n¤t?"
We've come a long way since we first wrote that query. Allow us to summarize where we believe Quantonics is now in mid-2006 on that question. Our purpose in doing so is to compare Quantonics' memeos of a flux~based quantum~holographic reality to Bohm's apparently more classical conspectives of an implicate-explicate-ordered holographic (hologramic) reality. Two key words here are Quantonics' flux vis-à-vis Bohm's order. Order implies classical 'state,' for us, and flux implies absence of state. Where 'state' is a "holds still" type of classically-stoppable h-bar-zeroed inertial order, flux is a dynamic type, rather emerscence, of quantumly~unstoppable h-bar affective change~durational ¤rdær.
So how do we get ¤rdær out of flux? We are assuming Bohm's work is his showing us how we get 'order' out of 'state' and 'holomovement flow.'
Essential to our Quantonics description ¤f quantum~¤rdær are memeos of quantum~phase, ~phasicity (be sure to read all of that QELR's text), and ~phase~encoding. Of course it is rigorous to say, "we cann¤t have phasicity without flux." Indeed, then, quantum~phasicity is a metameme of quantum~flux and quantum~fluxings' Quantonic interrelationshipings which we refer "quantum~phasicityings." Succinctly then, Bohm SIOD HotMeme "Quantonic quantum~¤rdærings aræ quantum~phasicityings." Bohm SIOD HotMeme. So we desnouer a Quantonics' philosophical supposition of Value as interrelationshipings quantum~h¤l¤graphic~phasihcihtyings bears enormous fruit and holographic essences of quantum~understandings.
A Quantonics Breakthrough: Explication of quantum relativity as phase~encoding!
Too, it is essential to blurt out Quantonics' innovative solution to one of classical science's greatest 'problems:' how can 'science' unify relativism and quantumism? Quantonics shows us that quantum~reality's phase~encoding is quantum~relativity! Quantum reality, according Quantonics, is flux~relative. Quantum reality is interrelativities of quantons(isoflux, flux) which we call quantum~phase~encodings. No classical need to mechanistically unify Einstein's bogus relativity and classical science's bogus classical mechanics. Nonmechanical quantum~flux~reality is, at its most nascent and primal roots, flux~relative! Doug - 31Oct2006.
Our analogue of Bohm's implicate order, assuming his implicate order corresponds QVF AKA n¤nactuality, is what we call "isoflux." In this dialogue Renée Weber refers what we call "isoflux" as "emptiness, silence."
We need to offer a fine affine here: Quantonics offers heterogeneous memes of silence, including: actual silence, and n¤nactual silence. In Bohm's model we might call these "explicate silence," and "implicate silence."
We ask our readers and students to view actual silence as flux cancellation in actuality. It looks like this, using classical 'zero' offset 2D transverse sinusoids:
Solid black on right side of lower graph represents what we mean by actual silence. Actual flux can cancel to make apparent 'emptiness.' But it is only apparent, isn't it? Actually it takes double energy (assuming 2D transverse sinusoids), in appropriate phase~interrelationshipings to make an apparition of 'no energy,' 'flux absence,' 'energy emptiness,' 'flux silence,' doesn't it? (Please ponder how we are making a bunch of other assumptions too, when we make a 'state' ment (n¤t a phasement) like that. For example, most actual flux issi n¤t idyllically, uni~wahvæ~n¤mbær, 'stable' and classically mono frequent as illustrated above. Unstable real quantum fluxings almost always mix to emersce, at least partially, n¤n canceling phase~encodings. Fathom how important our phrase "at least partially" becomes. That which is phase~encoded is that which becomes actual, that which we can, have qua to, 'ømniht¤r.' That which issi n¤t phase~encoded, remains 'silent.' And what is that which remains silent? QVF, n¤nactuality, DQ, etc.)
Now take another epiphanous mind~reembodying quantum leap forward. Visualize your mind as a quantum stage which phase~encodes reality!
Do you wish that your mind do less phase~encoding? More?
Do you perceive here a metaphoristic analogue of "more phase~encoding" and increased qua for "tapping reserve energy?"
Now realize that dialectical mind denies quantum~phase~encoding 'exists.' Then, what is your first step toward learning to "tap into reserve energy?" Yes, that's a step in your own personal quantum Chautauqua toward better!
Something similar happens omnimensionally, and n¤ntransversely in isoflux, but energies involved are almost beyond fathomable. We show it primitively as a single Planck quanton like this:
Our blue-dotted contrarotating generators represent quantum~reality's isoflux complement of our animate Planck quanton. You may imagine isoflux 'silence' transversely by imagining our flux 'silence' above as blue-dotted. Here is another way to view it:
You might imagine blue-dotted generator rotating counter-clock-wise and green dotted generator rotating clock-wise, wraithing apparent silence. Contrarotating generator waves cancel, and thus offer n¤ phase~encoding. If contrarotating waves are dotted we are 'silencing' n¤nactual isoflux (due absence of quantum~n¤nactual iso~phase~encoding of n¤nactual isoflux). If contrarotating waves are solid we are 'silencing' actual flux (due absence of quantum~actual phase~encoding of actual flux). (Our sentences are making beau coup assumptions... keep that in mind. Big ones: both generators are running at 'same' frequency and they are 'perfectly' phase 'locked' 180 degrees out of phase with (full 180o phase~encoding, "n¤ phase~encoding," i.e., full energy~canceling: "silencing") each other. You may fathom some classical vis-à-vis quantum linguistic issues with those words.) If we showed our silence spectrum distribution to right of those two signals it would appear 'black' as in our third-to-last graphic above.
If your quantum~stage is commingling ours at this phase~interrelationship, we imagine, even sense, how you may be wondering how we can use what Doug has written so far to do useful stuff. Some examples will include: how do we show classical 'science's' undefinables mass, length, and time, and possibly gravity as quantum~phase~encodings? How about their interrelative derivatives as quantum~phase~encodings? We have your interest... You just had glimmers of Quantum Lightings, didn't you...? Good! Now those are bettershipings.
Before we show you some "useful stuff," allow Doug to share some personal memeos which have borne much anxiety for Doug since he started his personal quantum Chautauqua at least 20 years ago.
Doug saw that classical 'science' had major problems whose bases are founded in, established in, dialectic. Doug learned this from his own empirical studies, but Robert M. Pirsig's opus acted as a proactive mentor for Doug and pushed Doug into real quantum~pragma. What Doug found was that, "Yes, classical science is dialectical, but it has some proemial notions of quantum perspectives of reality." A key classical notion is 'frequency.' We are using that notion here to help you (and us, including Doug) begin to understand how important Paul Pietsch's Shufflebrain memes our version of them, our quantum memeos of holographic phase~encoding are. Especially as they relate to Bohm's holomovement when we view it as Quantonically quantum.
Aside SIOD HotMeme "Essentials for Understanding Quantum Reality:" SIOD HotMeme.
Dialectic distorted classical science's nascent, formative notions of frequency. How? Dialectic blinds its practitioners to essential quantum flux reality. Classicists cannot noodle real quantum flux! They lack qua to do so. And they made a huge mistake. They needed a 'catholic,' i.e., universal, uni-flux analogue (which they call "time") of frequency (usually shown as wt, i.e., omega-tau; notice how omega-tau classically and scalarbatively specifies, as Pietsch describes it, "location of amplitude," AKA classical 'phase,' a stopped scalar metric (n¤t quantum, quantonic~interrelationshipings); read carefully classical vis-á-vis quantum phase; quantumly, we can fathom there is n¤ classical scalar 'amplitude,' and there is n¤ classical scalar 'location;' why? quantum~flux is Bergsonian durational: always fluxingfluxing all; classical location and amplitude are quantumly irrelevantdue their suppositional stoppability AKA 'zero momentum: ideal classical absence of Planck rate flux;' dynamic flux interrelationshipings AKA phase~encodings are quantum~relevant), so classicists used their dialectical thingk-king methods (DTMs) to 'create,' and 'invent' a radically mechanical ideal notion of frequency. Essence in grasping what Doug is saying here is that classicists assume reality is analytic, simply: ideally stoppable objective independence. Quantumists assume, simply: absolutely~animate flux coinsidence. Latter takes many emerqancies, e.g., quantum~superposition with and without quantum~interference, with and without quantum~entanglement. Doug - In Quantonics - 14Jul2006.
Our comments in Bergson's final Time and Free Will Topic 35 appropriately extend that paragraph's exegesis. Doug - 18Sep2006.
End SIOD HotMeme Essentials for Understanding Quantum Reality: SIOD HotMeme aside.
Now pause a moment and think about what Doug just wrote. Classicists essentially deny absolute flux, but they need a classical analogue of that which they deny (Brownian motion unsettled Einstein, significantly. Plus he claimed 'the vacuum is empty.'). Hmmm... Does that fascinate you? We believe it should.
Well, then, what is this classical analogue (scalarbation; note that all classical 'variables' have to be stopped to 'measure' them) of flux? Mechanical, dialectical, unitime. Scientists use it like this: y=f(t). That 't' looks like our rotating generators above. It ('t') is a mechanical clock, a mechanical analogue of real quantum flux.
"How did they invent it?"
Objectively they intuited space and spatial extensity. Classical objects 'fit' in space, Descartesian 'space.' <x,y,z>! Classical objects immutably 'move' in 'space.' So their rate (time change) of movement, classically-dialectically-intuitively, is delta-space/space! Classically time (AKA mechanically invented flux) is space rate of change.
For Doug that classical notion is bogus, for almost innumerable 'reasons.' Our site lists most of those, at least ones we are k~now~ings about. Please do not expect us to regurgitate them here. Read Bergson's Creative Evolution and his Time and Free Will if you desire bases and due diligence for our indictment. See our A-Z QELRed terms, our acronyms, our coined terms and our QELPed terms.
Classicists could intuit space and delta-space/space as 3D1T. (Note that Leibnitz, near his life's ending, began to see that this was wrong: he began to see that reality is not objective, and that we needed to take a more subjective approach to our work.) Einstein, despite Leibnitz' caveats ran with an objective 3D1T and set 'science' back at least a century in doing so. We are just now digging out from Einstein's great faux pas.
If one dialectically chooses 'space' and 'spatial extensity' as bases for objective reality one digs a hole so deep as to almost disallow extraction. Quantum reality to our rescue! Why? Classical 'science' can only 'measure' state when it uses space and delta-space/space as its objective primitives.
Quantum reality shows us there is a primitive whose classical dialectical, mechanical, objective apparitions are: space and delta-space/space.
"Doug, what is that?" Flux!
Let's continue our little dialogue further and review some classical meta-apparitions borne on notions of space and delta-space. (For a scrumptious adventure, read Irving Stein's The Concept of Object as the Basis of Physics.)
Irving Stein helped Doug see a quantum memeo which he had not grasped prior: flux is quantum reality's primitive meme for all classical measurables. Stein used space-rate to proxy mass and energy. That is a classical approach which begs Doug's epiphany that quantum flux proxies all reality! And that epiphany fits a metameme of flux as a proxy for Bohm's holomovement and Pietsch's phase~encoding.
Now we may offer "useful stuffings."
Recall that Pirsig's MoQ offers quanton(DQ,SQ) and Quantonics offers quanton(is¤flux,flux) as quantum m¤dalings of rælihty. Yes, you may view both SQ and flux as actual and you may view both DQ and is¤flux as n¤nactual.
Further you may view DQ and isoflux as unlatched (quantum_n¤nactual~) flux and SQ and flux as latched (quantum_actual~) flux. See our quantum essence.
Quantumly mass, space, and time, indeed all reality, are quantum~phase~encodings of flux which manifest in and as latched flux. We can say, "...latched flux is phase~encodings and phase~encodings are latched flux." Rather than saying "latched flux," we prefer "latchings of flux." Now let's make all this incredibly flux~simple: SIOD HotMeme "All of actual reality and everything we and it can sense and do in actual reality are latchings and unlatchings of flux." SIOD HotMeme.
If our Hot Meme is valid, then we can say mass, space, time, and you and Doug and all actual reality are quantum phase~encoding metamemes of reality. Measurement! And its quantum dual: omnitorings! Comprehensively, All!
Classicists among you will say, "OK, great. But what can we do with this?" We should be able, capable, have qua to show that mass, space and time and their parables: distance, velocity, acceleration, gravity, temperature, and so on..., may be represented fabulously as quantum~phase~encodings. And, folks, that is our bridge from classical to quantum! Really! Acceber, we found it! Wow! We found Led Zeppelin's Bridge! Wow! Finally! Wow! (Doug had powerful reserve energy intuitions that our Bohm research was gonna pay off. It has! Manifestly, it has! Middle~include us your pneumatic accolades please...Doug - 6Jul2006.)
Now take two and more 2D sinusoids and show us how we can use their quantum~phase~encodings to illustrate massings, spacings, timings, distancings, velocityings, accelerationings, gravityings, temperaturings, and so on...
There. You have it!
Dan, you should be happy now. We are almost straddling...
More to come here as we show you our own, continuing efforts on this...
We are almost ready to continue with our Research Review of Bohm's Super-Implicate Order Dialogue (SIOD).
Now we have a tad of foundation on Quantonics' quantum memeos of actual and n¤nactual 'silence.' That provides us with means to compare Quantonics' 'silence' with Bohm and Weber's notions of 'silence.'
Our analogue of Bohm's explicate order, assuming his explicate order corresponds actuality, is what we call "flux."
Bohm's explicate order unfolds from his implicate order. Quantonics flux emersces from isoflux. How? We offer a candidate fermionic emergence ontology.
What we want to accomplish right here is an exegesis of Quantonics flux as memeos of quantum~phase, ~phasicity, and ~phase~encoding using simple sinusoids as quantum~m¤dals of flux.
Doug - 26-27Jun2006.