Where classical time is a homogeneous concept, Quantonic tihmings are m¤re n¤vel heter¤gene¤us memes. See our time memes. Simply stated, classical time is one continuous flow of time. Quantonic tihmings are many tihmings. Where classical time is only a measurable quantity, indefinable in terms of anything simpler than itself, Quantonic tihmings are definable/describable fluxings' animate, included-middle, everywhere-associative qualities. We ch¤¤se t¤ define Quantonic tihmings as functi¤ns ¤f ubiquit¤us quantum fluxings. We sh¤w this definiti¤n/descripti¤n simply as:
t_{}quantum_comtext | f(fluxings) | |
From this point forward, when we see 't' used as a symbol for time, 't' in any equation containing a classical equals sign ('=') shall represent classical time, and 't' in any equati¤n comtaining a Quantonic equals symb¤l () shall represent ensehmblings of Quantonic tihmings. For example, object y = f(t) is a classical object depicted as a function of classical time. By comtrast quanton(n¤nactual,actual)f(t), is an ensehmble quantum system depicted as ensehmble functi¤ns ¤f Quantonic tihmings which adhere tihmings as ensehmble functi¤ns ¤f ensehmble quantum fluxings.
Where classical time is fundamentally at odds with quantum theory and quantum mechanics, ¤ur n¤vel Quantonic timæ aligns amd harm¤nizes well with quantum memes amd m¤des ¤f th¤ught.
As an example ¤ur f¤ll¤wing quatr¤t¤m¤us entr¤pic n¤tati¤ns f¤r Quantonic timæ are "absurd," "nonsense," "meaningless," "illogical," "unreasonable," etc. from a classical perspective:
t_{}quantum_comtext_{}iso | f(fluxings_{}Isocoherent) | |
negentropy |
t_{}quantum_comtext_{}co | f(fluxings_{}Coherent) | |
zeroentropy |
t_{}quantum_comtext_{}deco | f(fluxings_{}Decoherent) | |
posentropy |
t_{}quantum_comtext_{}mix | f(fluxings_{}Mixed) | |
mixentropy |
A classicist would ask, "How can timæ be isocoherent?" Why would said classicist ask such a question? Classicists deny 'existence' of quantum n¤nactuality's is¤flux! Similarly some of them still deny ensehmble quantum c¤herent and mixed quantum phases of reality! Most perceive dec¤herent quantum reality as classically objective and substantial and declare that is all there is! Then they further impose only posentropy (mostly via J. C. Maxwell's 'laws' of thermodynamics, esp. his 2nd law), and as a result logically conclude that posentropy is unitemporal, but time can entropically only flow in a single direction. This is all classical HyperBoole!
If you will permit us an analogous quantum dual to exemplify, we can answer our classicist's question by parable. Will you allow us to restate our classicist's question using another classical measurable, for which we can show a recognizable analogy? Try this: "How can tehmperature be isocoherent?" This answer is easy. Why? We have terminology and percepts which we can readily relate to our answer: "Is¤c¤herent tehmperature(s)/tehmperaturings appear to classicists as 'absolute zero,' what in Quantonics we might call 'abs¤lute zer¤ings.' " Notice that classicism has no analogous concept of classical time, except as an absolute, radically mechanistic — alpha — the — beginning. Classical time is not permitted to quantumly "is¤bec¤me zer¤" as classical temperature is! Currently, in Quantonics, we have n¤ g¤¤d way t¤ describe is¤c¤herent timæ, but if y¤u recall Nicholas Cage in that fab flick City of Angels, y¤u may grasp h¤w we pragmatehmp¤rally view is¤c¤herent timæ. There aræ c¤untless subtle memes here. As a simple example, p¤nder h¤w any arbitrary tehmperaturing pr¤cess in quantum reality might transiti¤n t¤ is¤c¤herency in a Planck m¤ment. S¤ if tehmperature may is¤bec¤me abs¤lute zer¤ (in countless other ways which classicists do not even consider), then what else might als¤, amd what quantum pr¤cesses might we devel¤p t¤ exemplify them amd then use them t¤ great amd Valuable advantage? N¤w, ¤n y¤ur ¤wn, d¤ this, create a quantum tehmperaturings ¤nt¤l¤gy. Then d¤ ¤ne f¤r quantum tihmings. See an ¤nt¤l¤gy example here.
As you, reader, can rather easily ¤bserve, quantum reality's many, ensehmble entr¤pic m¤des ¤ffer per intera, many temp¤ral entr¤pic m¤des amd their many quantum tihmings' Value interrelati¤nships. And that is s¤, even with¤ut comsidering quantum temp¤ral b¤th l¤cality amd n¤nl¤cality, b¤th is¤lability amd n¤nis¤lability, b¤th separability, n¤nseparability, amd b¤th reducibility amd n¤nreducibility. All this with¤ut even comsidering many temp¤ral islands ¤f latched l¤cal temp¤ral bandwidths in reality's actual c¤mplements.
Fr¤m a few familiar tihmings' m¤delings we can emerse t¤ m¤re c¤mplex, heter¤gene¤us comcepts.
Let's start with a general concept of circle as wave generator. Look at Figure 1.
Here we see a circle, a simple vector lying on a circle's radius, amd one period of a sine wave. Imagine a circle's vector rotating counter clockwise. For each angular vector position on our circle, we can plot a corresponding point on our sine wave. One full rotation of our vector plots a 360^{o} (•diameter, or 2••r circumference) circle amd simultaneously plots one full 360^{o} (2• radians/radius) period of our sine wave. Thus, simply, we intuit a circle as a wave generator. We begin intuition of circle and wave as classically complementary. Think of circle: think of wave. This is a good model of how classical science and our legacy classical ontology perceive 'time.'
For this portion of our current discussion, let's avoid issues of classical relativistic time. But just to give us a hint of what awaits in that unusual realm of thought we can do one of Einstein's gedanken experiments with some of our own embellishments to get our subconscious working in background on relativistic time.
A b¤tt¤m line, which as students ¤f Quantonics we must always maintain, is that ¤ur classical depiction in Figure 1 is assumed by all classicists to have zero momentum. That assumption allows them to make another classically 'sillygistic' assumption that: is constant. In other words classicism's 'complementary' dichon(wave, circle) is an ideal opposite, and at best a classically dichotomous orthogon, a Pirsigean platypus, a Bohrian "...opposites are complementary."
In quantum reality, c¤mplementarity is stindyanically subjective, thus as a quanton(wave,circle) is n¤t, in general, classically 'constant.' Why? Quantum reality ¤ffers n¤ such classical concept as zero momentum! Quantum flux is abs¤lute: b¤th always changing, amd changing all. F¤r a g¤¤d gedankenment ¤f this classical vis-à-vis quantum issue see ¤ur Quantum Pi remarks. Also see our Quantum Pendulum - Doug - 19Oct2003.
Again, a b¤tt¤m line is that while ¤ur drawn circle appears classically statically whole, its quantum renditi¤n in is¤space is dramatically different. In ¤ur Quantum Pi we sh¤wed that if we ¤nly comsider, f¤r example, Earth's m¤ti¤n as we draw ¤ur circle, we realize that fr¤m when we start drawing ¤ur circle until we st¤p (also see end), say ¤ne sec¤nd later, endp¤ints ¤f ¤ur circle are ~30 kil¤meters ¤r ~18.5 miles apart! As part ¤f ¤ur quantum epiphany we must learn t¤ see ¤ur circle in its quantum wave c¤mplement pr¤jecti¤n t¤¤. That stindyanic interrelati¤nship twixt (apparently classically) inanimate circle amd (quantumly more) animate wave c¤mplement, as we have quite easily sh¤wn, is n¤ classical dich¤t¤my!
One other fine point. What is a least time interval in which we can draw a circle? One Planck moment, right? Outcome? Best case classical Pi, drawn in quantum least timæ, is 3.1415926...+quantum_one_Planck_moment. Comsider t¤¤, h¤w start ¤f circle amd cl¤sure may n¤t c¤inside, which begs a question: Do quantum, 'closed' circles exist? If they do, under what interrelationships' preconditions? Can we draw a circle of arbitrary diameter in ¤ne Planck m¤ment? Why and why n¤t? Was Einstein correct?
James Gleick, in his Genius biography of Richard P. Feynman, offers a superb analogue of what our discussion and gedankenment above are attempting to accomplish: distinguish classical thing-king from quantum/quantonic think-king. Here is a brief quote, starting out quoting Feynman:
"'Suppose a black thread be immersed in a cube of collodion [opaque ~epoxy], which is then hardened,' he wrote. 'Imagine the thread, although not necessarily quite straight, runs from top to bottom. The cube is now sliced horizontally into thin square layers, which are put together to form successive frames of a motion picture.' Each slice, each cross section, would show a dot, and the dot would move about to reveal the path of the thread, instant by instant. Now suppose, he said the thread doubled back on itself, 'somewhat like the letter N.' To the observer, seeing the successive slices but not the thread's entirety, the effect would resemble the production of a particle-antiparticle pair:
See Genius, 1992 Vintage paperback, pages 253-4 of 531 total pages including index. Students of Quantonics might wish to view Feynman's analogy in terms of Bergsonian duration. (People who practice) Classical mechanics deny any notion of Bergson's qualitative/quantum duration! They do-/can-not see Feynman's whole collodion cube, they can only see those individual frames. (And they call their approach "enlightened." ) Feynman's cube of collodion with a black thread embedded is analogous Bergson's duration (except for its classical inanimacy — however you can imagine its quantum included-middle and potential for everywhere-associativity). Feynman's frames are analogous Bergson's cinematography. Here is a recent graphic we did on How Classicists View Reality. It shows how SOMites place a wall twixt frames and collodion | duration, thus conventionally and conveniently tossing out most of quantum reality. |
If you have been reading our review of Bergson's Creative Evolution, you will recognize Feynman's "motion picture" use of Bergson's Chapter IV — 'The Cinematographical Mechanism of Thought and the Mechanistic Illusion — A Glance at the History of Systems' analogue. Feynman and Bergson both show how classicists see reality as stoppable frames in a cinematographical side-by-side unitemporal series. Feynman's "instant by instant" is classical state by state. Without any apparent quantum knowledge Bergson quantum intuitively shows us why this 'stoppable' classical 'reality' is unreal.
T¤ comtinue ¤ur discussi¤n ¤f n¤vel ways t¤ perceive tihmings which we call n¤nrelativistic Quantonic tihmings, we want t¤ distinguish, uniquely, facets ¤f classical time which are omnifferent fr¤m Quantonic tihmings.
Notice how our circle and wave in Figure 1 carry classical but variegated, implicit, innate semantics and appearances (based upon SOM CTMs, assumptions, and legacy):
Appraise our last line above in light of previous material on Einstein's relativistic time. Only that one line changes in moving our list of classical assumptions from classical to classical-relativistic time. It may be more apparent to you now why Einstein insisted that quantum science's "...action at a distance was absurd." We infer he was using a list of implicit personal assumptions much like our list above to apply his CTMs to space-time relativistic science.
Distilling our whole list of classical time's aspects we arrive at a tired, worn, old classical idea: control. Classical time, just like classical objectivity is about control. "Control over what?" you ask? First an attempt to place sentients in a position to control nature. Second, in order to accomplish that goal, to control how sentients think. If classicists can control how sentients think and assure themselves we are thinking their way, i.e., objectively, they can apparently control nature, but byproductively they control us too (we are part of nature). CTMs are about control! CTMs are about controlling and limiting what sentients think^{2}. CTMs are about keeping sentients in SOM's box, SOM's church of reason.
A major disadvantage of CTMs and their classical time perspectives is that they are blind to most quantum phenomena which bec¤me m¤re apparent t¤ us in ¤ur real experiences when we leave CTMs behind. One excellent example is h¤w we "l¤se track ¤f timæ," when we bec¤me tranced in a task. Pe¤ple wh¤ paint, sculpt, write mathematical pr¤¤fs, play music, daydream, etc., ¤ften refer t¤ their j¤y at escaping any awareness ¤f 'timæ'. 'Time,' as a homogeneous concept, f¤r them, ¤ften appears t¤ 'stand still.' Classical memes insist that time continues despite us, yet th¤se ¤f us wh¤ experience affective trances, well...we w¤nder... A recent, superb m¤vie starring Sidney Poitier, titled The Simple Life of Noah Dearborn, sh¤ws s¤me p¤sitive ¤utc¤mes ¤f alm¤st an entire life in a l¤ve-trance ¤f dedicati¤n t¤ ¤ne's ch¤sen v¤cati¤n. Noah extended his l¤ngevity amd y¤uth in remarkable ways which recent science dem¤nstrates as actual phen¤mena. Perhaps a more classically scientific, yet Noahesque, example is a lowly photon. As Fred Alan Wolf showed us in his book, Parallel Universes, (p. 128, 1st edition, Simon and Schuster, 1988) a photon^{3} is 'born' at light speed and it 'dies' at light speed, thus it is classically obvious that from a photon's perspective it has no life 'time' because it spends its nonlife (from photon's classical perspective time stands still; unless it is watching a Planck rate clock ) at light speed. Here we can classically think of photon as "extreme Noah." Few share this classical epiphany, probably because of relativistic time's intransigent noodleability when we ponder it using CTMs.
Aside:
But what happens if/when we ponder Wolf's photon using QTMs? What clock is standing still in our Gedankenment? Isn't it a classical time clock which makes an assumption that time stands still at light speed? What happens if our photon can look at and read its own internal quantum Planck rate clock? Such a clock will be changing at a vastly faster rate than Einstein's presumed Earth clock (or analogously Earth's rotation). Won't that photon see changes in its Planck rate clock, even though its samples are taken at light speed? Or does a photon's internal Planck rate clock 'stop' at light speed too? Or is our photon traveling (rather tunneling) in VES? We know that a photon, tunneling in VES takes n¤ timæ (i.e, 'folds space') to tunnel from point A to arbitrarily distant point B. But that is n¤t what Einstein's relativity is about. Indeed, Einstein's light speed dependency denies any such quantum notion as superluminality and action at a distance. Doesn't this expose a major problem in Einstein's assumption about light speed and relativity? Is Einstein's version of light speed only a classical delusion? Only a classical apparency based upon classical axiomatics and mathematical/mechanical assumptions?
A key enabler to understanding and resolving these issues requires that we discard a classical Einsteinian assumption of a space-time identity. We must realize that classical space is a state-ic plenum, and that real, quantum tihmings are heterogeneous and animate and everywhere-associative. We can locate stationary points in classical space, but we cann¤t locate stationary points in quantum tihmings. Tihmings are quantum c¤mplementary n¤nanalytic n¤nsynthesizable pr¤cesses, and as Henri Louis Bergson shows us, pr¤cesses are n¤nanalyzable: tihmings are n¤nanalyzable. See our recently completed review of Bergson's Time and Free Will, especially Chapter III.
But Einstein, et al., have assumed that time is identical to space, thus forcing time into classical analyticity. If, indeed, timæ is n¤nanalyzable then Einstein's relativity, and his calculations based upon 'temporal' light speed are problematic — since they are n¤t quantum tehmp¤ral 'calculations!' Einstein's speed of light, assuming time identical space, isspace/space, n¤t space/timæ. With space as a denominator, space-proxied time as an independent variable classically 'stops' and 'holds still.' (See our discussions on classical 'stoppability' at Zeno's Paradice.) With quantum heter¤gene¤us anihmatæ tihmings as selectable ensehmble-c¤dependent variables, genuine quantum tihmings n¤ longer 'hold still,' and, light speed itself then is relative depending upon which sensory bandwidth ensehmblings of anihmatæ tihmings one chooses as an everywhere-associative (EIMA) c¤mplementary reference, e.g., light's relative (quantum-, n¤t classical-) velocity at Planck's rate would appear almost imperceptibly slow. See our 6Sep2002 Quantum Sensory Bandwidth Perspicacities and Perspicuities.
We must learn to begin think-king of heter¤gene¤us tihmings as pr¤cesses and 'stop' thing-king of unilogical time as space!
Further comsiderations: quantum ph¤t¤ns aræ b¤s¤ns. Classical fermions appear to behave relativistically, as they approach light speed, as Einstein demonstrated. But classical photons do not appear to have relativistic mass. Quantum ph¤t¤ns (spin 1) are c¤herent (do n¤t wobble). Quantum fermi¤ns (spin ½) aræ dec¤herent (w¤bble). If we lived at (i.e., ¤ur l¤cal perceptual bandwidth 'centered' at) Planck's rate, w¤uld n¤t light itself appear t¤ us, t¤ classically stand still — what w¤uld we see? M¤re later...
N¤, we do n¤t have answers to these questions, yet. We shall share our memes, though, as they arise...
End aside.
Where CTMs see photons' and caterpillars' lives as uni- and homo-logical, QTMs see them as transiti¤ns/transience c¤-within an ever living, quantum abs¤lute pr¤cess reality. Reality fr¤m a QTM perspective has n¤ classical comcept ¤f 'death,' ¤nly transiti¤ns am¤ng unlimited, harm¤ni¤us m¤duli in quantum fluxings. CTMs see our ultimate imprisonment in SOM's determinate, Maxwellian spiral extinction. QTMs see ¤ur tentative, privileged comstraint (SQ) c¤within, and everywhere-ass¤ciative, endless c¤hesive freed¤m (DQ) mediating ¤ur unending self-¤rchestrating symphystic m¤dulati¤n. Where CTMs see one time and its innate end, QTMs see many endless tihmings.
QTMs are ab¤ut multiversal quantum freed¤m/Quality/fluxings. T¤ replace amd subsume antiquated CTM time concepts, we need emerging Quantonic tihmings memes as ¤ne small part ¤f ¤ur n¤vel set ¤f QTMs. N¤vel tihmings memes may help us achieve partial th¤ught ascensi¤n int¤ quantum reality's abs¤lute freed¤m/Quality/fluxings.
Emerging tihmings memes which we may easily derive fr¤m Figure 1 are memes ¤f h¤listic, but quantized tihmings. See ¤ur derivati¤n in Figure 2.
In Figure 1, ¤ur tw¤ dimensi¤nal artw¤rk was OK. CTMs limit most thinking to one, two and three dimensions, and classical time is innately one dimensional with option for two mutually exclusive directions of flow. In Figure 2, we need t¤ warn y¤u that Quantonic tihmings aræ n¤t limited t¤ ¤ne dimensi¤n ¤r directi¤n preference. Quantonic tihmings aræ n¤t ¤bjective. Quantonic tihmings aræ quantum c¤mplementary, i.e., they have many actual cl¤cks amd their n¤nactual symphystic c¤mplements. Imagine their actual amd n¤nactual c¤mplements as sh¤wn in Figure 3. This is ¤ur first Quantonic depicti¤n ¤f an (imagine it as) animate c¤mplementary m¤del ¤f heterogeneous quantum tihmings. Also be keenly aware that 'dimension,' and 'direction' are classical legacy terms (As Dirac would say, "classical notions of amplitude and direction are irrelevant in quantum reality." We add, classical notions of 'truth,' etc., are irrelevant in quantum reality too. Doug - 18Aug2004.). Quantum reality(ies) is (are) n¤t (a) classically spatial extensity(ies)! It (They) is (are) (an) ¤mniadic stindyanic is¤c¤ne(s). Their actualized comstituents (i.e., quantons) have qualitative animate phasicity rather than classical state-icity. Essentially, we may think ¤f Figure 3 as depicting tihmings quantons. Just remember that as depicted in Figure 3, we ¤nly sh¤w tihmings in tw¤ ¤f their quatr¤t¤m¤us entr¤pic phases: is¤c¤herent amd c¤herent. We d¤ this t¤ emphasize quantum realities' underlying intrinsic quantizati¤n, which is less apparent when we view ¤ur tw¤ ¤ther dec¤herent amd mixed phases.
In Figure 3, actual (c¤herent) Quantonic tihmings aræ green, amd their n¤nactual (is¤c¤nic) Quantonic tihmings c¤mplements aræ blue. B¤th aræ quantal. Our thin, black dashed lines enc¤urage y¤u t¤ visualize animate, stindyanic c¤mplementary c¤mmingling ¤f b¤th green amd blue. This tihmings quanton is b¤th timæ directi¤n fl¤w preferential amd n¤npreferential. Green tihmings fluxings aræ tentatively latched amd thus preferential. Blue tihmings fluxings aræ tentatively unlatched (is¤flux) amd thus n¤npreferential (p¤ssibly tentative).
If we were t¤ r¤tate these 2D timæs in a plane ¤f their cl¤ck vect¤r we w¤uld see a n¤ti¤n ¤f 3D Quantonic tihmings. It w¤uld appear s¤mething like ¤ur 3D sinus¤ids in ¤ur Quantonic Art which we call Quality Waves, e.g., Quality Wave Frame 10. In that artw¤rk, ¤ur center 'spike' w¤uld appear as a separate sphere. Wavings, emanating fr¤m ¤ur 'spike' w¤uld be undamped. N¤te h¤w in ¤ur 1998 depicti¤ns ¤f Quality waves, we captured essence ¤f c¤mmingling amd c¤withinitness amd everywhere-ass¤ciativity (EIMA). Using ¤ur Quality wavings as metaph¤rs ¤f Quantonic tihmings we can visualize h¤w hypertihmings might als¤ c¤mmingle amd 'interfere' ¤r n¤ninterfere with any l¤cal Quantonic tihmings. Even m¤re, n¤w, we view quantum fluxings as cruxings. They are cruxings t¤ heter¤gene¤us tihmings!
S¤, y¤u say, "D¤ug, h¤w can we use Quantonic tihmings n¤tati¤n amd semi¤tics t¤ describe nature?" G¤¤d questi¤n. First, let's just all¤w en¤rm¤us freed¤m in ¤ur assumpti¤ns. We d¤ n¤t kn¤w what ¤ur ¤utc¤mes may be, s¤ we sh¤uld defer comstraints f¤r n¤w.
We explain elsewhere in ¤ur web site that reality is Quantonic. By that we mean all patterns ¤f Value in actual reality are quantons. Thus Figure 3 may be th¤ught ¤f as a quanton. We might state it like this: tihmingsquanton(,). Our blue quantized n¤nactual c¤mplementary cl¤ck is left ¤f c¤mma amd ¤ur green quantized actual heter¤gene¤us cl¤ck is right ¤f c¤mma. N¤te h¤w this script m¤dals Figure 3, amd vice versa. [See Doug's 10Jul2001 QELR of 'model.' Doug - 21Mar2015.] In lieu ¤f ¤ur cl¤cks we c¤uld have used an ensehmble blue quantized sine wavings left ¤f c¤mma, amd an ensehmblings of green quantized sine wavings right ¤f c¤mma. Semantic, f¤r n¤w, w¤uld be analogous. Remember, there is n¤ space after ¤ur c¤mma. Please refrain fr¤m visualizing ¤ur tw¤ quantized cl¤cks as objectively lisr fr¤m ¤ne an¤ther. Y¤u sh¤uld visualize and thibedir ¤ur blue amd green cl¤cks as quantumly c¤mpenetrating as we sh¤w in this (inanimate) I-cubed flux¤r graphic:
An¤ther questi¤n, y¤u say? "But D¤ug, what d¤es all this QTM stuff buy us c¤mpared t¤ CTM notation?" This answer is pretty easy, and telling. Classical time notation using our dual classical semiotics could show: time = dichon(, ). (Space after comma — SOM's wall. Now revert to CTM lisr thing-king!) Observe distinctions in this notation: classical '=' sign, dichon functor, crossed-out subjective reality, and a non-quantized homogeneous classical time clock. By now, you might be saying to yourself, "Wow! Classical time is naïve! Even inept!" We concur your tentative assessment. You may choose to interpret our red, crossed-out 'S' in multiple CTMs: nonsubstantial reality does not exist, subjective reality does not exist, subjective complementarity does not exist, etc. Again, we see SOM's arrogance. SOM knows what does not exist, but it does not recognize easily novel stuff which already exists (e.g., platypi). Since SOM knows what does not exist, it can declare anything based on its indoctrinated 'nonexistence,' "absurd, unreasonable, nonobjective, emotional, anecdotal, incomplete, paradoxical, irrational, insane, etc." Practicing this 'scientific' anti-subjective, anti-sophist psychological denigration, SOMites guarantee eventual loss of their own personal reputations!
As we generalize ¤ur Quantonic script, we will gradually assume blue (DQ) is always present, always c¤mmingling ¤ur quantons. This habituati¤n will all¤w us t¤ sh¤w green/actual/SQ ¤n b¤th sides ¤f a quanton's c¤mma. Unsure n¤w, but we intuit that habit will ¤ffer greater efficiency in ¤ur use ¤f Quantonic script. Tw¤ great examples ¤f that c¤mmingling we describe in ¤ur Making Water Wave amd Waves ¤f Th¤ught. A third example, which recently became apparent is a pendulum. See our comments under our animated Planck Quanton.
Als¤ n¤te that all reality is a quanton. All its comstituents (b¤th actual amd p¤tential) are quantons. Our script comventi¤n is n¤t sacred. Any quantonic n¤tati¤n is fine, amd we expect s¤me ¤f y¤u will inn¤vate n¤vel, better r-ev¤luti¤nary quantonic n¤tati¤n. What is imp¤rtant is n¤t which n¤tati¤n, but underlying value omnifferences amd advantages ¤ffered t¤ QTMs ¤ver CTMs by inn¤vative quantonic n¤tati¤n.
Current mathematical notation, in our view, is almost purely objective and Aristotelian/Platonic. In its current form it is useless (in our view) for expressing tihmings comcepts we exposed for your comsideration here. Indeed, we see (much as Bohr and Feynman did) how comstraining mathematics' objective classical notation is for expressing natural physical comcepts. You ask, "Doug, can you explicitly identify a most fundamentally deficient mathematical meme?" Yes, we can, and again I emphasize, this is opinion and heuristic. What is most fundamental to classical mathematics? What resides as its keystone of infrastructure? In a word, "one." I.e., '1.' Relentlessly, y¤u ask, "But D¤ug what is wr¤ng with '1?'" Easy answer f¤r an M¤Qite! Easy answer if y¤u use QTMs. Can y¤u guess what it is?
Answer: To a classicist, '1' is a classical object. To a classicist, '1' is n¤t a quanton. (Assuming CTMs used by classicists.)
When mathematics re-engineers itself with '1' as a quanton, we will be on a better, quantum/MoQ/Quantonic track. Classical "one is the oneliest..." (Also consider doing a search something like this: Quantonics quantum_2 quanton. You will find at least one page which shows a quantum_2.) We cann¤t pr¤ve this, ¤ther than with all ¤ur evidence/heuristics pr¤vided here in ¤ur Quantonics site, but we are s¤ comfident ¤f it that we stake ¤ur careers amd reputati¤ns ¤n it. (T¤¤, comsider what zer¤, '0,' means when we attempt t¤ intuit it as a quanton. Do classicists see 'zero' as an object? Is 'zero' classically objective or quantum subjective? )
As very strong anecdotal evidence we offer you this quote from James Gleick's, Genius, a biography of Richard Feynman, where Feynman is talking with Freeman Dyson about Einstein's loss of productivity after a certain point in his career, "Feynman said to Dyson, and Dyson agreed, that Einstein's great work had sprung from physical intuition and that when Einstein stopped creating it was because '...he stopped thinking in concrete physical images and became a manipulator of equations...'" Page 244 out of 531 total pages, in a first Vintage paperbacks edition, October, 1993.
Aside:
Dirac says something very similar in his The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, "All the same the mathematics is only a tool and one should learn to hold the physical ideas in one's mind without reference to the mathematical form." See p. viii, 1st ed. preface, TPoQM 1988 paperback edition, OxfUP. Students must be careful of other sources' depictions of what folk like P. A. M. Dirac write. There are many distortions, mostly based upon SOMitic and dialectical predilections. An example that we just found is in Encyclopedia Britannica where Barbara Lovett Cline completely distorts what Dirac wrote by summarizing thus, "In his own work Dirac avoided using any pictorial model or mental picture of the phenomena described by his mathematical symbols." Be careful what you read by quantum-mechanical-ologists. Most of them do not realize, as Dirac was beginning to learn, that quantum reality is non-mechanical.
End aside.
A classical gedanken space travel experiment using Einsteinian relativistic time:
Keep in mind that we are thinking classically in this brief discussion on relativistic time.
Let's assume Earth has a twin one light year distant. From local perspectives let's assume all time is synchronous^{1} on both twins. Further, let us assume that we can make a complete trip at jump light speed from Earth to its twin. We have nine classical time domains to consider in our gedanken experiment:
Einstein tells us that observers on our pretend vehicle, when they observe a clock (assume a 24 hour clock) on Earth as they move away from it at light speed will see time standing still. Why? Vehicle speed is aligned perfectly with propagating light from Earth's clock. Sort of like a plane racing our Sun around Earth. So, relativistically, we say vehicle time relative to Earth is "standing still."
But what do observers on our pretend vehicle see when they turn around and look at a 24 hour clock on Earth's twin planet? To most thinkers, unused to considering relativistic affects, our answer seems 'unreasonable:' It stands still! But how can that be?
At the moment we departed Earth, if we could have frozen all light between us and our destination, Earth's twin, as we move through that frozen light we could watch Earth's twin's 24 hour clock rotate backward so that after one year of travel at light speed, that clock would have rotated backward 365 days. But light coming from Earth's twin is not frozen. Instead it is moving toward us at light speed. Using classical calculus we can show that for every increment of space-time we move toward Earth's twin, its light moves toward us a similar amount. Net result is its clock, from our vehicle perspective appears to stand still.
Actually when we observe our twin's clock from Earth its time is one year old. So when we jump to light speed and travel toward our twin, we see its one year old time stand still until we arrive and drop out of light speed.
It is useful to make one more class of observation at this juncture: imagine a fourth timelike (below lightspeed) perspective from a vehicle or planet equilateral from Earth and its twin. From that perspective both Earth's and its twin's clocks appear identical in time. Both observations are equidistant so both delays are identical. We mention this because some authors when discussing superluminal action (refer to Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen, EPR, gedanken experiment and paper of 1934-5) between Earth and its twin would call state change at Earth's twin "retroactive" relative to Earth's perspective. You can see that superluminal action occurs simultaneously at both Earth and its twin when you consider our exemplified fourth perspective. (25Nov2001 rev - We assume here, what an observer would see if Earth and its twin were performing a Zeilinger/Gisinesque superluminality experiment with entangled/correlated nodes one light year separated from one another.)
So when our vehicle arrives at Earth's twin, and drops out of light speed, from perspectives of both Earth and its twin, one year has passed, but from our perspective, no time has passed. If we make a return trip, our same description applies with reversals of departure and destination, and at end of our return, our friends and relatives on Earth will have aged two years and we will not have aged (except for transition latencies jumping to and leaving light speed and time spent on Earth's twin).
We give you this relativistic sample so that you may consider our discussion of nonrelativistic Quantonic time somewhat less intellectually challenging, and perhaps even easy to grasp. Also we awaken you to our need to do more work on relativistic Quantonic time. You may expect to see other primers on classical relativistic time and quantonic relativistic time.
Footnotes:
1. Synchronous Earth-twin times: Assume both have Suns, 365 day years, 24 hour days, twin's noon at its 'Greenwich' is synchronous with our noon at Greenwich, etc. Assume both planets if observed from a third equidistant sub light (timelike) motion reference would have identical observed times.
2. If you want to see objective control at its worst, you may wish to see this movie about Ayn Rand's Objectivism, The Passion of Ayn Rand. This movie is about objective thought control. It exposes SOM's anthropocentric, innate control better than any words we can say here.
3. Our de facto perspective of a photon in our previous paragraph is sadly classical, or at best invokes classical thinking limitations. Photons are not classical objects. They are quantons. As such they are (until measured) n¤npreferential in b¤th space amd time. Life as a time concept is mostly an innate classical meme. Classical 'life' has a beginning and an end, and usually carries a definitive, singular, and inarguably final demise. To speak of a photon thus is to uncloak one's extreme quantum ignorance. That's like a classicist saying that a caterpillar's 'life' "ends" when it liquefies in its chrysalis. Ph¤t¤ns are more like caterpillars than they are like classical objects. Y¤u may just n¤w have made a comnecti¤n that this might be interrelated t¤ Mae-wan Ho's inn¤vati¤n ¤f her title f¤r her 1993 b¤¤k, the Rainbow and the Worm.