7Aug2000 |
We are not yet ready to fully disclose our FTL results from
our reading of If you have a burning interest in this subject, i.e., FTL,
we can direct you to 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 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 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 |
||||||||||||||

20Jul2000 |
GRW theory countered! Schrödinger’s Cat does superpose!
See 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, Experimenters Jonathan R. Friedman, Vijay Patel, W. Chen,
S. K. Tolpygo, and J. E. Lukens, who wrote In other words, macroscopic fermion aggregations can cohere, and when they do, they manifest quantum qualitative affects macroscopically.
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 |
||||||||||||||

13Jul2000 |
Some incredible Einstein-Heisenberg
history from American Institute of Physics'
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 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=mc 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 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, " 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.
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 Doug. |
||||||||||||||

21Jun2000 |
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, gravity phenomenon) of 'low energy' atoms or quantons).In Nature's recent 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 - An assumption of gravity as partial coherence.
- An actuality of atomic nuclei as partially coherent. (Nature, 25May2000)
- An actuality of capability to 'doctor' quantum numbers. (Nature, 27Apr2000)
- 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?) |
||||||||||||||

4Jun2000 |
More on Leake tells us that scientists have demonstrated 300x FTL speeds! He also tells us what we already knew Here are a few select quotes from Leake's article
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. 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). |
||||||||||||||

25May2000 |
Nature Magazine's 25May2000 issue has a 'letters to nature'
titled, 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 ( 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' A Map of Millennium III Reality discussion on Isoflux_Gravity |
||||||||||||||

20Apr2000 |
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
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) |
||||||||||||||

13Jan2000 |
See Doug's caveat re: a heuristic of
quantum gravity as quantum
isoflux mediation of coherence in mixed quantum systems. |

Quantonics, Inc.

1950 East Greyhound Pass, Ste 18, # 368

Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730

USA

1-317-THOUGHT

(19Jul2000 rev - Add anchor to Moffatt email on his Euler's Disk article.)

(24Jul2000 rev - Add anchor to 4Jun2000 FTL remarks.)

(30Oct2000 rev - Correct (add missing) quote mark in first line from top with 'Wang.')

(7Aug2000 rev - Add FTL comments re: Mandelis and Wang.)

(14Aug2000 rev - Add anchor to Ehrenfest comments to Einstein as quoted by Dr. Gerald Holton.)

(25Nov2000 rev - Add 'Gerald Holton' anchor to 13Jul2000 Physics Today article review.)

(6Dec2000 rev - Add 'spin zero' anchor to 21Jun2000 entry above.)

(24Dec2000 rev - Add links to remaining 2000 dates.)

(5Jan2001 rev - Add link to Mandelis' Physics Today article on Diffusion Waves.)

(19Jan2001 rev - Create this Flash 2000 page.)

(23Jan2001 rev - Replace 13Jan200 and 20Apr2000 accidentally deleted segments.)

(16Apr2001 rev - Repair Keith Moffat email link.)

(2Nov2001 rev - Add anchor to 'uncertainty principle origin' in July, 2000 Holten article review.)

(29Nov2001 rev - Add quantum interpretations remark and link to13Jul2000 Einstein's "Only the theory decides what one can observe.")

(29Nov2001 rev - Add top of page frame breaker.)

(29Nov2003 rev - Add anchor to Einstein-Heisenberg discussion on 'observable.')

(24Dec2003 rev - Add anchor to Holton (13Jul200) paragraph on Einstein's "rational realism.")

(12Jan2005 rev - Change some symbol fonts to GIFs. Add red text under Holton review.)

(8Jun2005 rev - Repair ge.gif linkage.)

(9Oct2007 rev - Reformat. Massive respell.)