We are not yet ready to fully disclose our FTL results from our reading of Nature's 20Jul2000 two articles on this subject and our corresponding discussions about it with Dr. Stein. We need to do more work. Our ongoing effort revolves mostly around our following comments though. (However, you may see preliminary discussions twixt Stein and Renselle at our 2000News page.)

If you have a burning interest in this subject, i.e., FTL, we can direct you to Nature's articles in their 20July2000 issue and Physics Today's August, 2000 issue which has an article by Andreas Mandelis titled 'Diffusion Waves and Their Uses.' In our way of thinking these two sets of articles go together from an FTL perspective.

Why? Well, Mandelis' article shows us that (what we have been telling you for a long time) photons are quantum wave systems, what we call quantons. He tells us that quantons can behave as (ontologically 'be') many flavors of themselves and their Quantonic interrelationships with other quantons.

In particular, photons or light waves can be both diffusive and normal (usually as different cases). Normal waves are ones like radio and TV carriers with signal modulation. Diffuse waves are not like that. Where radio and TV waves are strictly limited to 'c' or light speed in a vacuum, diffuse waves are superluminal! They are not just superluminal but infinite speed waves!

Mandelis distinguishes normal waves as functions of classical time that have both first and second order terms. He distinguishes diffusive waves as functions of classical time which only have first order terms.

Mandelis also tells us that diffusive waves are a special kind of coherence. E.g., laser light waves travel at light speed or slower. However diffusive laser light travels infinitely fast! That means zero latency! No delay for diffusive waves to travel from one locus to another.

Mandelis does not say so (we think he implies this in his applied dankenments), but we intuit he is saying that diffuse waves are waves which are 'forced' to tunnel. This intuition fits with results we have seen via Raymond Chiao's table top photon racing experiments where one path's photons are forced to tunnel through an optical barrier.

So you say, "OK, Doug, What does this mean? There must be some problems here."

In terms of limitations, yes, there are some problems. One big one is that where normal waves can travel very long distances, diffusive waves cannot.

Still, Mandelis has shown us unambiguously that some flavors of waves (quantons) travel infinitely fast. Classicists will call this a 'special case,' and probably tell us that in general, "Nothing travels faster than light."

This is a notable quantum reality situation. It looks like both views are right, depending.

What's important here is to realize that quantons have an infinite range of flavors (quantum numbers), and no one knows what all those may potentially manifest.

Science has a rather conservative, conventional, dogmatic, and doctrinaire history. Too, science appears quite often immersed in its own parochial and provincial bureaucratic muck. Not long ago, or a long time ago (depending on your view of time :), when I was an adolescent, I read where no thing could exceed sound's maximum speed in Earth's atmosphere (that's ~1,000,000 meters per hour)!

Now even land vehicles approach speed of sound on Earth's surface!

I also read that no space vehicle could ever exceed Earth's gravity (no vehicle could achieve an escape velocity that great)! One nitwit said there would never be a use for more than six (yes, 6!) computers on Earth! Someone else asked Alexander Graham Bell why anyone would ever want to talk with someone else far away via a pair of wires!

So you see, I am skeptical of scientists who tell us what we can't do.

I believe we are safe in assuming that nature appears to have placed few bounds on us. We should act accordingly! Besides even scientists are becoming wary of calling someone else's ideas "absurd," now.

Science appears temporarily stuck in some ways. Quantum scientists are growing rapidly, but classicists are stuck in their same old mire. (Our children are still being taught classical concepts!)

There is a strong message here for you young folk: "Learn quantum science! Learn quantum principles. Classicism is dying. A quantum tsunami is imminent. Get ready." Doug 7Aug2000.

GRW theory countered! Schrödinger’s Cat does superpose! See Nature, 6Jul2000 issue, pp. 25 & 43, article titled, 'Quantum superposition of distinct macroscopic states.'

Ghiradi, Rimini, and Weber are three Italian quantum scientists who formulated a theory in 1986 which adjusts temporal aspects of Schrödinger’s wave equations to explicitly mark when wave function localization or collapse occurs. At micro scales of reality their temporal adjustment is in billions of years. However, at macro scales of reality we can attach a time of nanoseconds to localization. This time is what JS Bell described as time twixt measurement and perception.

There are many issues and assumptions here which trouble us in Quantonics.

Examples:

• Assumption that wave functions collapse
• Apparent assumption that only humans 'measure' (anthropocentricity)
• Assumption of homogeneous time
• Assumption of a classical dichotomy twixt macro and micro reality
• Assumption of a classical life or death dichotomy
• Etc.

However, our main objective here is to notify you of Nature's publication of above referenced paper and to point your attention to a superb relevant text.

Jim Baggott in his, The Meaning of Quantum Theory, Oxford Scientific Press, 1992, softbound, says, "Of course, in the 55 years [then, 1992] since Schrödinger first introduced the world to his cat, no one has ever reported seeing a cat in a linear superposition state (at least, not in a reputable scientific journal). The GRW theory suggests that such a thing is impossible because the wavefunction collapses much earlier in the measurement process. However, the theory could run into difficulties if linear superpositions of some kinds of macroscopic quantum states could be generated in the laboratory." Page 180. We suggest you at least read his Chapter 5 titled, 'What are the alternatives?' In our opinion, this chapter (and his entire book) are just superb!

Experimenters Jonathan R. Friedman, Vijay Patel, W. Chen, S. K. Tolpygo, and J. E. Lukens, who wrote Nature's article at TSU NY, appear to offer evidence of difficulties for GRW. They use an r.f. SQUID (Superconducting QUantum Interference Device) and a Josephson junction to form billions of (fermionic) cooper pairs whose usually antisymmetric kets (they call them "fluxoids:" |0> and |1>) superpose or cohere. System affects, e.g., system magnetic moment (10¹⁰m_B), are macroscopic. What they demonstrate is that a tunneling process between macroscopically distinct states can be coherent!

In other words, macroscopic fermion aggregations can cohere, and when they do, they manifest quantum qualitative affects macroscopically.

Begin aside:

These quantum qualitative affects are of unimaginable commercial value when brought to bear on many of our world's current problems. Historically, classicists referred these quantum qualitative affects as subjective and thus, "contradictory, absurd, unreasonable, nonsense, etc.," but now most individual's and organization's future successes depend heavily on their abilities to develop and exploit these quantum qualitative affects. In Quantonics, we call imminent enormous change due this commencement of quantum qualitative affect exploitation a "Quantum tsunami!" Indeed, we see it as our largest millennium III problem and opportunity. Doug.

End aside.

GRW theory claims macroscopic many fermion ensembles like Schrödinger’s Cat cannot do what Friedman, et al., experiment shows.

Many of us, like Brian Josephson, Mae-wan Ho, H. Fröhlich, et al., think that physical biology is impossible without macroscopic partial fermionic coherence, so this experiment is evidence which somewhat supports our views. Indeed in Quantonics we claim reality is panaware and thus capable of both local and pancohesion under a wide variety of natural conditions.

Another interesting sidelight for us here is Friedman's, et al., use of 'fluxoids' to describe fermions' apparent 'wobble' (Feynman) or 720 degree rotational nonsymmetry. Physical reality is impossible without this fermionic 'wobble,' this rotational nonsymmetry. You may wish to examine our descriptions of this wobble and some easy experiments you can use to demonstrate it.

Each 360 degree loop in Friedman's, et al., SQUID is half of a fermion's 720 degree rotation. Odd loops are one ket state. Even loops are opposite ket state. What we see is that fermions demonstrate bistable rotational nonsymmetry. Quantum numbers count these loops 1, 2, 3, ... They assign alternate quantum numbers one ket state and their counterparts another ket state. So ket states iterate thus: ...,|1>,|0>,|1>,|0>,... This is another way of showing Feynman's 'wobble.'

Consider how this wobble might affect Euler's disk as we describe below in our email to Keith Moffatt. Now further consider what might happen if we construct a macroscopic and mechanical version of a (partial/partially) bosonic Euler's disk!! See our classical quantum tell on contrarotation. Read our proposed nontrivial experiment as a footnote there.

Note that Moffatt tells us Euler's disk is not a fermion (aggregation). Note how he appears not to perceive fermionic wobble of a macroscopic system (i.e., Euler's disk) as a 'tell' of fermionic asymmetry recognized decades ago by Feynman.

Quantum tsunami's precursor waves are crashing against classical legacy's objective beach. Classicists, beware! Doug. 20Jul2000, and thanks for reading!

Some incredible Einstein-Heisenberg history from American Institute of Physics' Physics Today journal!

Physics Today's July, 2000 issue has an article by Gerald Holton titled, 'Werner Heisenberg and Albert Einstein.' Note that Holton, according to Physics Today, is Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics and professor of history of science at Harvard University.

This historical piece is just marvelous! It is worth your trip to a local library to read it and fathom aspects of both Heisenberg and Einstein you may not have known prior.

Holton tells us that Heisenberg considered Einstein his Vorbild, or model, his superior example. Amazingly we find that Heisenberg's greatest breakthroughs come from a growing technical antagonism twixt both men, and from Heisenberg's quantum interpretations of Einstein's classical verbal and written epistles. (Do a find on 'uncertainty principle,' below.)

Heisenberg sought Einstein's approval, but seldom got it. Heisenberg was 22 years Einstein's junior and saw Einstein somewhat as his adopted but unofficially unacknowledged mentor. As such, he studied Einstein's works carefully and adopted Einstein's methods without anticipating they might evolve within Einstein's own mind.

Over many years, Heisenberg's own ideas clashed dramatically with Einstein's. Einstein could not accept Heisenberg's and others' quantum theory/mechanics' "absurdities:"

• denial of classical scientific cause and affect
• absence of general single event determinism
  (classical science needs this to verify theory)
• quantum uncertainty relations
• etc.

Holton's excellent article contains some terrific Einstein quotes and much fascinating history on Nazis, German anti Semitism, Jews' importance to German technology and development of atomic technologies, historic scientific meetings and showdowns, references to historical information and biographies, pictures, and much more. It is tantalizing to see raw German hypocrisy when they use, without reserve, Einstein's E=mc², but declared his "Juden Wiffenfchaft" special and general relativities unacceptable Deutsch-think.

However, our main interest here is some writing by Holton in just a couple of paragraphs which we quote here:

In a walk (troubled Einstein asks Heisenberg to walk home with him) after a 1926 meeting...reported by Heisenberg in 1969...

Page 40, 4^th full paragraph, Holton writes: "In the discussion with Einstein, Heisenberg once more tried to draw attention to his having dealt not with unobservable electron orbits inside atoms, but rather with observable radiation. He said to Einstein: 'Since it is acceptable to allow into a theory only directly observable magnitudes, I thought it more natural to restrict myself to these, bringing them in, as it were, as representatives of electron orbits.' Einstein responded, 'But you don't seriously believe that only observable magnitudes must go into a physical theory?' Heisenberg goes on, 'In astonishment, I said, 'I thought that it was exactly you who had made this thought the foundation of your relativity theory...' Einstein replied, 'Perhaps I used this sort of philosophy; but it is nevertheless nonsense.'' And then came Einstein's famous sentence: 'Only the theory decides what one can observe.'" (Our bold and color.)

Holton makes a cogent observation which is worth our consideration in addition to words written and quoted above. Holton says in closing his next paragraph, "Einstein, whose development away from positivistic instrumentalism to a rational realism had escaped Heisenberg's notice, went on to explain at length how complicated any observation is in general, how it involves assumptions about phenomena that in turn are based on theories. For example, one almost unconsciously uses Maxwell's theory when interpreting experimental readings involving a beam of light." (Our bold and color.)

Glaringly, there is much to ponder in both Heisenberg's and Einstein's words above. We want to focus on words, phrases, and sentences which we highlighted in bold. Our focus is not from Holton's historical perspective, but from philosophical and quantum science perspectives.

Let's use a table to capture our bold highlights and comments associated with them.

Highlighted Text	Comments
unobservable	Heisenberg speaks of electron 'orbits' as unobservable. Bohr's original atom model was planetary. He assumed classical electron objects 'orbited' atomic sun nuclei. Quantum stuff is Quantonic. Quantum entities are sort of quanton(Jekyll,Hyde). We usually show that like this: quanton(wave,particle). Heisenberg's uncertainty relationships say that we often cannot distinguish at will Jekyll from Hyde, or that when we try to pin down Jekyll, Hyde pops out and denies us information about Jekyll. And often vice versa. What Heisenberg means here and what he discovered is that we cannot observe electron 'orbits' classically. He later intuited that we can observe them based upon quantum ensemble statistics whose necessity mandates a Poisson bracket for electron position and momentum. We can show this as quanton(momentum,position). Heisenberg showed it as mp k.
observable	What did both Einstein and Heisenberg mean by "observable?" What do their assumptions about 'observable' have for meanings of 'unobservable?' We think their assumptions for semantics of 'observable' are as follows — classical 'observables:' exist are physical substantial (not insubstantial nor phenomenal) objective (not subjective) possess absolute physical properties which may be re-verified by experiment physical properties may be used to wholly assess an observable's real nature are observable unilaterally (observables do not simultaneously coobsfect observers) are lisr do not change, except for potential analytic motion in 'time' do not compenetrate any other observable(s) are not coobsfected by, nor coobsfect any spacelike or timelike separated other observable(s) or nonobservable(s) etc. We think their assumptions for semantics of 'unobservable' are as follows — classical 'unobservables:' do not exist, are unknown, are uncertain, or are subjective phenomena (classical physicists are objectively well trained to ignore 'subjective' or 'metaphysical' phenomena and that which is unknown) are outside current capability to observe, or probably are phenomenal or metaphysical become however, classically observable when we discover (to us this idea of classical discovery implies pre-existing methods — this is Platonism pure and simple — with which we strongly disagree) how to observe them etc.
it is acceptable to allow into a theory only directly observable magnitudes	This is what we mean in Quantonics when we say "rote tote," "know ledge," and "scalarbation." Doug - 12Jan2005. Though Einstein propounded this positive approach originally, then later dispossessed it, it is worth our while to consider what this approach implies and perhaps how it came to prominence. Scientists and physicists build theories from assumptions called "hypotheses." They test theories, usually classically, and verify or contradict hypotheses. After many verifications by many diverse groups of scientists, theories may become 'laws' or 'principles,' thenceforth reliably usable until contrary evidence arises. What often happens next, unfortunately, is scientists then tend to generalize a specific theory. This generalization takes them out of their 'box.' What box? When one makes assumptions about anything, including about a scientific process of theoretical proof, one creates a 'box.' In a sense, one fences oneself in, more and more tightly, as one sharpens and hones one's own set of assumptions or axioms or whatever. (Rush Dimbaughlb is a notable celebrity who pushes this kind of localized quasi science to its hilt.) Einstein's original statement, "...it is acceptable to allow into a theory only directly observable magnitudes...," puts one in a very tiny box, indeed. So, from such a tiny box, and once 'proven,' how may one conclude that one may use such a theory in general? There is only one way that we know, and this is crux of our discussion here: One must further assume that one's assumptions for one's tiny box also fit and describe, wholly, all of reality. That is what most classical scientists, mathematicians, philosophers, et al., do! For some strange reason, they intuit they may bootstrap specificity to full-blown generality! It's like a ghetto of ants concluding their perspective of reality fits humans! Would you call those ants "arrogant?" Actually, that is what most of us do. We take our local 'box' or 'ghetto' of culture and expect it to fit all. We expect one set of axioms to fit all people in all cultures. We expect one scientific method to fit and address all nature's behaviors. But it doesn't now, and it won't in any foreseeable evolved locality. We need a little more time spent with Kurt Gödel to understand how very short-sighted we are when we declare, "One scientific method fits all," or "One anything fits all." He will tell us and show us that no formal (i.e., classical) method (axiomatic formulation) can ever be absolute. By absolute, we mean simultaneously both consistent (always states truth) and complete (states all truths). A quick demonstration of this may be found at our Aristotle Connection where we show quite well that even Aristotle's first syllogism, A=A, which he called a "self evident truth," or what we call a "tautology" (statement that is always true), is not in general true. We can show it even more easily thus - using quantum (nonformal, paralogical) Quantonic notation: AA. Truth (and physical) latency in Quantonics is as short as one Planck instant! What we intend here is that you see our physical reality as being recreated ubiquitously at up to Planck rates. Just as an electron beam repaints a character on your TV screen 60 (interlaced) times per second, or as digital video memory refreshes even faster than that, reality repaints its 'screen,' including you/us/etc., up to 40+ orders of magnitude faster!
Einstein responded, 'But you don't seriously believe that only observable magnitudes must go into a physical theory? ... Einstein replied, 'Perhaps I used this sort of philosophy; but it is nevertheless nonsense. ...     Einstein, whose development away from positivistic instrumentalism to a rational realism	Here in one famous and another less well known quote, we see Einstein apparently dispossessing his former logical positivism. This statement is profound! Yet, perhaps not so profound! We do not know Einstein's 'box.' I.e., we do not know what his assumptions were when he made this statement. His meaning depends significantly on what his assumptions were. Also, it is important to understand how Heisenberg, though he almost worshiped Einstein, appeared as an unwanted antagonist to Einstein who was threatening Einstein's own celebrated theories of relativity. Without careful investigation of what we might infer Einstein's assumptions were at that particular time, it bodes ill for us to make our own assumptions about what he thought, even without considering his emotional hurts from Heisenberg's brilliant and, to Einstein "absurd and nonsensical," work. Holton concluded Einstein had evolved his philosophy, "...away from positivistic instrumentalism to a rational realism..." As we have shown manifestly on our Quantonics site, positivism adheres a classical insistence on potential for logically evident global and absolute truths. We deny both. Also, we have shown that rational (or classical scientific) realism fails in general due to its emphases on inductivism, cause and effect, analytic determinism, etc. In retrospect Pauli's advice to Heisenberg to tilt away from Einstein's classical heuristics was prescient and good. And Ehrenfest's admonishment, "Einstein, I am ashamed of you," to Einstein for his barrage of anti-quantum 'dankenments' against Bohr at their 1927 Solvay meeting was deserved. Einstein's own classical legacy thing-king methods had made him a scientific embarrassment. All of this is new to us. Read Holton's article and enjoy these many enlightenments. (Now, awaiting just stage left, refutal of Einsteinian unitemporal relativity builds aready.)
Only the theory decides what one can observe. (Our italics.)	Einstein here shows more of his classicism. Clearly he assumes anthropocentrism. He would probably laugh at us were we to ask him whether photons and electrons 'observe.' To classicists 'Observe,' linguistically, is anthropocentric. To classicists their reality is anthropocentric, and their conventions are contrived accordingly. Naye, say yee? Protagoras: "Man is the measure of all things." Just ask anyone at U Chic. or St. John's. Reality is not exclusively anthropocentric! Observation is not exclusively anthropocentric! Yet there is some fact in what Einstein says! He is telling us what we said above. "...the theory..." places one in one's own box. Theories are based upon a box full of hypotheses or assumptions, including those about what one can observe. And perhaps most importantly, consider a quantum implication of what Einstein's "Only the theory decides what one can observe" means. If Einstein is allowing multiple/many theories, then he is in agreement with what quantum reality shows us by direct experience: there are many valid interpretations of reality! Doug - 29Nov2001. Still, there is Einstein's thelogos. I.e., his use of the. He apparently assumes there is just one, the theory which fits all! Again, we need Gödel's counsel. There is not just one box, one theory: the box, the theory, the final absolute truth. Quantum reality shows us there are many. Holton points out, very interestingly, that Heisenberg told him (Holton) during a meeting in 1965 that he (Heisenberg) mimicked Einstein's treatment of him and just turned this statement around: "...decides what one cannot observe." From this exemplary intuition, Heisenberg's own uncertainty principle arose. I.e., one is always uncertain about that which one observes!
observation and assumptions about phenomena and their 'value' in observation	Were classical science to admit that phenomena are not subjective and have enormous value in scientific observation — were science to commence evolution toward a science which acknowledges phenomenal reality, they might have a chance. But they will not! They are philosophically incapable of this leap and its massive and pervasive impact. (However, quantum science forces this issue.) Scientific realism denies phenomenal reality! To a classical scientist, phenomena which emerge apparently without cause or explanation from an experiment are just not real! Those emergent phenomena must be ignored! Ask and answer yourself a question: Which are more highly evolved: objects or phenomena? Therein answers belie classical science's deign of feign.

Whew! I'll bet you are bushed.

I am.

Thanks for reading, and be sure to get a copy of Holton's article if you can, and read it.

Doug.

More Quantonics conjecture on antigravity!

Using recent input from Nature Magazine (see our 25May2000 entry below), and our own heuristic of quantum gravity as an artifact of partial quantum coherence we may imagine a new antigravity heuristic.

Prior to reading Nature Magazine's 25May2000 issue, 'letters to nature' titled, A triplet of differently shaped spin-zero states in the nucleus of ¹⁸⁶Pb. See p. 430, Vol 405, our conjecture of gravity as a partial quantum coherence phenomenon arose mainly from our perception of gravity as superluminal and as exemplified by several other recent (e.g., APS' 27Dec99 PRL, Rongjia Tao of Southern Illinois University at Carbondale describes an experiment) and not-so-recent experiments which, in our perception and intuition, manifest gravity as a partial coherence phenomenon (e.g., BECs, or condensation (as a coherent gravity phenomenon) of 'low energy' atoms or quantons).

In Nature's recent partially coherent ¹⁸⁶Pb nuclei article, again from our own intuitive perspective, another foot drops. We see that article as partial affirmation of our conjecture. But before we bottom line this, we need another meme. This other meme is fairly recent, and a good example of it appeared in another Nature news feature article titled, Meet the Spin Doctors, p. 918, 27Apr2000, Vol. 404.

This meme is one of selective doctoring or manipulation of a quanton's quantum numbers, in this case 'spin.' We need that capability to further our latest conjecture. OK, let's take an inventory of ingredients we have and need to continue our conjecture:

1. An assumption of gravity as partial coherence.
2. An actuality of atomic nuclei as partially coherent. (Nature, 25May2000)
3. An actuality of capability to 'doctor' quantum numbers. (Nature, 27Apr2000)
4. An assumption that we can learn how to 'doctor' partially coherent quantum numbers of atomic nuclei.

Our provocative and classically "absurd, unreasonable, and nonsensical" conjecture is that if we decohere (i.e., 'doctor') (any)some atom'(s') zero spin nuclei, it(they) will lose their partially coherent gravity! Doug 21Jun2000. (Well, at least it is an interesting idea, isn't it?)

More on Faster Than Light (FTL). Matt Drudge provided a 4Jun2000 link to a London Times article by Jonathan Leake, Science Editor, titled Eureka! Scientists break speed of light . (Thanks Matt!) This article mentions Raymond Chiao and quotes him on this recent progress made in 'measuring' superlight speeds. You may see our prior references to Chiao's formidable and prior FTL breakthroughs.

Leake tells us that scientists have demonstrated 300x FTL speeds!

He also tells us what we already knew: that classical causality is a major philosophical and scientific faux pas. Gradually, these classicists will have to admit that their Aristotelian nostrums are no longer generally valid.

Here are a few select quotes from Leake's article:

"In research carried out in the United States, particle physicists have
shown that light pulses can be accelerated to up to 300 times their
normal velocity of 186,000 miles per second.

"The implications, like the speed, are mind-boggling. On one
interpretation it means that light will arrive at its destination almost
before it has started its journey. In effect, it is leaping forward in
time.

"Exact details of the findings remain confidential because they have
been submitted to Nature, the international scientific journal, for
review prior to possible publication.

"The work was carried out by Dr Lijun Wang, of the NEC research
institute in Princeton, who transmitted a pulse of light towards a
chamber filled with specially treated caesium gas."

...

"The research is already causing controversy among physicists.
What bothers them is that if light could travel forward in time it
could carry information. This would breach one of the basic
principles in physics - causality, which says that a cause must come
before an effect. It would also shatter Einstein's theory of relativity
since it depends in part on the speed of light being unbreachable." (Our bold.)

On our Quantonics site, we have been telling readers for almost three years now, that classical causality is a non-starter. Ditto induction, determinism, monism, substance-based objective reality, etc. It is time to dump classical philosophy and science!

Watch for our review of this Nature Magazine letter/report when it arrives. Nature editors are reviewing it now. (Might be a good time to subscribe to Nature, eh?)

It is well to realize that 'light' is (photons are) a quantum bosonic phenomenon! It is also well to realize that most scientists will tend to observe this phenomenon classically. Bosons are integer spin quantons! As a result they are quantum coherent and quantum reversible. (They are not classically unilogical, unitemporal, unicontextual, unidirectional, etc. They are not lisr! They must be obsfected, not classically 'observed!' ) They manifest coherent wave-particle behavior. Most classical scientists want to see only bosons' particulate (objective) nature and ignore their wave (subjective) nature. Bosons are not just particles! Bosons are complementary Quantonic Value interrelationship quantons(wave_subjective,particle_objective)! (Next topic below shows similar quantum holistic nature of coherent nuclei in atoms.) Quantum quantons are, as Mae-wan Ho has taught us, both cohesive and individually autonomous. We can show light photons that way using quantonic notation:

light_photonsquanton(cohesive,individually_autonomous).

A whole new world awaits those who depart classicism and its ills and enter a new Millennium III MoQ/Quantonic/quantum reality! Doug (4Jun2000).

Nature Magazine's 25May2000 issue has a 'letters to nature' titled, A triplet of differently shaped spin-zero states in the nucleus of ¹⁸⁶Pb. See p. 430, Vol 405.

We are amazed! Twenty-six separate scientists contributed to this article!

We have conjectured multiple times here in Quantonics that gravity is partial quantum coherence. Now this article provides even more evidence that our heuristic may be somewhat well-guided.

What scientists have found is that atomic nuclei are not particulate in their quantum behaviors. Atomic nuclei appear to manifest multiple coherent quantum numbers or what classicists call spin states. They found in lead (¹⁸⁶Pb) three partial quantum modes each of which is spin-zero. To say that in local Quantonics lingo, we would say each mode is "partially coherent."

Perhaps even more jarring to classicists but resonant with our Quantonics Thinking Modes, scientists say these partial quantum modes of coherence appear superfluidic.

Scientists use this large lead atom because of an improvement in statistical ensemble size of its nucleus. But we may infer that other atoms' nuclei also manifest superfluidic (spin-zero) modes and thus partial quantum coherence.

Enter our gravity heuristic. Imagine all fermionic reality partially coherent via these superfluid modes of all atomic nuclei. That ubiquitous cohesion, we think, is what classicists call "gravity." Now we can see how gravity's affects are superluminal!

These following links are examples of our prior conjectures on gravity as partial quantum coherence:

Godel aside in our Decidable Godel Meme

Page 95 comments in our Mae-wan Ho Raw Quotes

Classically Perceived Quantum Tells - notes at top of page

Partial Coherence comments last page - James' Some Problems of Philosophy

A Map of Millennium III Reality discussion on Isoflux_Gravity

Our Energy predictions in our December, 1999 TQS News

An Euler's Disk tête-à-tête with Dr. Moffatt:

Doug read a classical physicist's description of Euler's disk behavior, and sent him an email with a simpler, Quantonic description. Below are Doug's email and Dr. Moffatt's response:

Doug's email to Dr. Moffatt:

Dear HK Moffatt, and Nature Magazine,

We read with interest your 'brief communication,' titled
"Euler's disk and its finite-time singularity," on page 833
of your Nature, 20Apr2000 issue.

Subtitle says, "Air viscosity makes the rolling speed of a
disk go up as its energy goes down."

Is that statement correct?

Does not disk's behavior regime near end of it's dynamic
behavior depend on:

1. Disk is a fermion.
2. Fermions have spin 1/2.
3. Fermions wobble.
4. Thus wobble frequency is 2 times rotation (~free
fermion, e.g., airborne), or 2 times rolling speed (when
fermion is in contact with another dense fermion) See
Feynman, et al. (Reality could not exist without fermionic
wobble. :)
5. As angle alpha decreases, wobble frequency increases
nearly without limit, thus
6. Rolling speed increases at half that rate.

For discussion list above, we ignored visible precession
rate decrease due to gradual loss of disk's angular
momentum.

Is it not so that air has little to do with this process?
What if we did our experiment in a vacuum? Would not we
expect to see nearly identical behavior?

Thanks for recommending Tangent! We have our own Euler's
disk, and it is superb fun to play with.

Thanks for listening to our comments,

PD Renselle (Doug)

Dr. Moffatt's (immediate) response to Doug:

[Doug,]

No, the disk is not a fermion, so your statements don't make
any sense to me--except your statement that it's fun to play
with!

Yes, it's worth doing in a vacuum; if you remove one source
of dissipation of energy (air friction), then another will
take its place (probably deformation friction at the point
of contact); a finite-time singularity still forms with
resolution in the last fraction of a second.

Keith Moffatt.

We leave assessment of this brief tête-à-tête to you, reader. You may easily imagine our own.

Nature magazine has not yet published this correspondence.

Doug (3Jun2000)