This is our February, 2005 editorial
Go directly to 2005 February News
Doug's Movie List
Banesh Hoffmann's Warning to his Readers -
Ahll¤w Quantonics t¤ set ¤ur tehmp¤ral comtetings at ab¤ut 1924qings...
"So far, at least, our story has preserved some semblance of orderliness. We have seen the stately rise of classical physics, culminating in Hertz's complete vindication of Maxwell's theory; the beginning of the revolution instigated by Planck; its ominous spread under the leadership of Einstein; and the unprecedented stalemate which it degenerated. Meanwhile we have followed the fortunes of the Bohr theory of the atom from its meteoric rise to its swift decline, dragging science down with it into chaotic uncertainty.
"If, however, all this has seemed to be the opposite of progress, if it has seemed to be more a headlong succession of patchworks and contradictory theories built upon shifting quicksands than a serious and continued advance in our understanding of nature, if it has seemed to destroy forever all faith in the sagacity and rationality of scientists, and in all reliance on a scientific method leading to such gross contradictions, then indeed will the events to come seem at times utterly grotesque and fanciful. For now the pace suddenly quickens. Not the atom but the theory of the atom is about to explode.
"What happens next is so fast and furious that for a time all continuity is lost and physics becomes a boiling maelstrom of outlandish ideas in which only the keenest minds can distinguish the gold from the dross. Professional physicists, swept off their feet by the swift currents, were carried they knew not where, and it was years before the survivors recovered sufficiently to see, with the beginnings of perspective, that what had so overwhelmed their science had been the convulsive birth pangs of a new and greater era.
"If you have read this far, there is no dignified way of escape left to you. You have paid your fare, and climbed to the highest peak of the roller-coaster. You have therefore let yourself in for the inevitable consequences. It is no use trying to back out. You had warning in the preface of what to expect, and if contemplation of the heights there described now makes you giddy and apprehensive, I cannot accept responsibility. The going will be rough, but I can promise you excitement aplenty. So hold tight to your seat and hope for the best. We are about to push off into vertiginous space." Pp. 70-71. (Our bold.)
The Strange Story of the Quantum
"Quantonics c'est mot à beaucoup ententes. Juste mot."
Doug - 30Jan2005
December, 2004 through November, 2005
You are here:
|global warming rant,
what is democracy?,
fav flicks list & why?
our fav TV ad,
Apple's Itunes & IPod,
Banesh on de Broglie,
Who likes Quantonics?,
|why we cannot
on Where Is
|Relook at EU,
A sound track,
Quantonics OS X,
|A silly GW fix,
|Doug rants on
Doug offers his best
expectation of global
warmings' current cyclings
|Russert, Katrina, &
|Murtha gets it, Libby's foot?,
Why WJS hated religion,
Still a Republican?
A Sting WinWinWin,
Admin calls US 'the people,'
Talk/Walk vis-à-vis Walk/Talk,
Confidentiality of News: Society vis-à-vis Individual?,
Technologies vis-à-vis Quantologies,
Can meaning be unambiguous?, and
February, 2005 News:
More of Doug's opinions on global warming...
Now that US' Iraq 'War' is winding down in 'world social and political importance,' Blair, McCaine, and unbelievably Lieberman are pushing for US to cooperate in a "Kyoto protocol."
We thought Lieberman was more intelligent than that. McCaine is simply less than a scientific SOMwit when it comes to global weather. But we can say that about those 'environmental scientists' which put their accord together several years ago.
Blair is a huge disappointment for us on this issue, but British folk predominately still reside in a Newtonian cultural and scientific Babel, so what can we expect?
Does anyone believe that we can, with current technology and cultural beliefs, stop a volcano erupting? An earthquake? A tsunami? If not, how can anyone believe we can stop global warming?
To stop global warming we would have to literally alter our solar system's evolving behavior. Ditto our Milky Way! Who knows what else? Any attempts like that are out of any human scope of understanding let alone being able to act if we knew what to do.
To deal with global warming we will have to adapt to it. But how does one adapt to that which has yet to occur? We can't predict global warming, so we can't decide what to do. If you disagree with that then you have little understanding of nature and reality. We are not condescending here! We are not at such a height, ourselves, to be even slightly capable of that. What we are saying in our, "little understanding" accusation, for example, is Earth's solar 'orbit' isn't a circle! Most think that it is a circle. It isn't even a chaotic circle! Rather, it is more like a cycloid, but that is a vast oversimplification. During Earth's 365 day 'orbit' around our Sun our whole solar system has moved about 10,000,000,000 kilometers in its own cycloidal 'orbit' around our Milky Way. In that same 365 day period a photon of light travels about 10,000,000,000,000 kilometers, i.e., 1000 times farther. So in one Earth-solar year Earth travels one thousandth of a light year in its Milky Way 'orbit.' Earth does not return to its 'starting point' after a year of 'orbital' peregrination around our Sun; it never will! That shows us that our extra Solar 'weather' changes from year to year, unpredictably, even worse than chaotically.
We can make similar calculations for our Milky Way's 'orbit' in its galactic cluster, and so on... Too, our universe is (multiverses are) expanding at enormous speeds. So Earth's travel is not even close to being classically ideal. Thus as we have emphasized, nor is it classically 'predictable.' Any scientist who says to you that they "understand global warming as a scientific or political problem" is just lying, period! It is like Victorian 'scientists' believing they knew how to save the great auk . Instead they drove it into extinction. Those Victorian 'scientists' were lying based upon what they believed, not based upon what they understood. They didn't understand and acted as though they did. That is lying! It is 'scientific' hypocrisy.
Classical logic is wrong! It believes in induction. It believes in deduction. Both are failed analytic concepts. They do not work in physial reality. Classical logic only helps its practitioners accomplish their falacious lies, their great hypocrisies.
Why? Why would they lie to us? To make us afraid! Why would they want to make us afraid? So they can use our fears to control us and convince us to believe in and do what they want to do, even though they cannot know what to do, since they cannot know what is 'wrong' or if any thing is 'wrong.'
Nature changes everything, always, relentlessly. For humans to think they can assess Nature's behavior as state-ic, analytic dichon(wrong, right), dichon(bad, good), dichon(cooling, warming) is a height of ignorance nearly unexcelled. We're watching just that happen now afore our eyes. Its idiocy, and its 'scientific' and 'political' arrogance is mind-boggling. It's Chicken Little scaled globally! It's yelling "Fire!" in global theatre Earth.
These people are criminals! Why? They are liars and they are yelling lies! They are 'scientific' and 'political' terrorists!
Remember how they tried to terrorize us in late 1960s and early 1970s? Then it was "global cooling," and "global winter." It's like old and new testaments. They can't seem to get it classically 'right.' Duh, ummm, now let's see, is Earth globally warming, duh, errrr, ummm, is Earth globally cooling, duh, errrr, ummm, is it classically holding at some ideal unchanging utopian temperature?
A simple explanation is that just like Nature, weather evolves too. Every aspect of reality evolves. Game rules, basketball players' heights, food preferences, automobile designs, Titan's weather, an apple on a window sill, paint (peeling, drying, oxidizing, etc.), and so on... All of Nature evolves. Temperatures everywhere are always in flux, always changing, up and down, and sometimes apparently holding still...
One of our most notable evolutions underway now is human technological progress. In fewer than 100 years what those Kyoto protocol SOMwits want to 'fix' will have been mitigated by technological progress alone. We won't use fossil fuels anymore. We won't pollute nearly as much as we do today...
Other examples of what we know and how we react are earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, ice ages, etc.
What did we do? How did we adapt?
We moved to higher ground. We stopped building homes and hotels and schools near fault zones, tsunami zones, glaciers, tornado alleys, etc. That's adaptation. Those who refuse to adapt lose. It's that simple. Why in hell do we need any global protocol and accord to do that?
Just because Japan is probably in Earth's worst locale re: all those Natural threats, doesn't mean all of our globe has to join in with her concerns. It is a truism that Japan may end up under water within Earth's next several millennia. Our protocol, locally, here in Quantonics, is that if you are Japanese you probably should be looking for a new colony in Africa or South America. But do you really want a union of nations telling you how and when to do that? No! Why? You'll end up in d' drink! Unions are socially state-ic. Unions cannot think as a coherent group: only one or a few can make decisions for any union. Is that what you want? Doug sure as hell doesn't and won't.
Japan's and her signatories' accord is for socially objective SOMwits. If that's what you are and what you believe, then suffer your own nonadaptive choosings. It will be fine with us to see you evolve yourselves out of existence.
A much bigger threat, one which we are incapable of gradually adapting to, is an asteroid striking Earth. That one may destroy us all in less than a day.
If we seek cooperation on something which really needs attention re: survivability of our entire human species, that's it.
For USA a much more immediate threat, a real threat, centers around a huge lava dome in Wyoming's Yellowstone Park. When that puppy goes, it will probably take out most of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana, totally! It will probably kill everyone in middle third of USA! But what can we do about it? Only action we are aware of is to move all those affected to areas outside an expected deadly zone. But we do not know when it will occur, and we do not know how large an area will be affected to what affects.
Now scale that up to a Kyoto protocol and you get some sense of what is at stake. USA's administration finds 'war' with terrorists much more significant and important than any natural threats. USA is already bankrupt, so how in hell are we going to come up with $ for a Kyoto protocol when we do not even understand what global warming is?
Scientists similar those who joined in Kyoto's protocol have 'explained' how silly (because it's "impossible to do") it is for US to invest dollars in a national defense shield. Well if they think a missile defense shield is "impossible," then a Nature defense shield against global warming is at least 10 orders of magnitude more difficult and "impossible."
If politicians think they can induce global fear via this kind of unadulterated BS, then we need to put them out of business. Stop listening to these charlatans! Don't vote for them! Stop paying their salaries to ineptly represent us! Kyoto accord and protocol is out of their scope. It is out of 'environmental scientists'' scope!
What is democracy, really?
We portrayed democracy last year and prior as dichon(majority, minority). Majority wins. Minority loses. Dichon(win, lose).
What else is democracy? Really?
Democracy is a political pyramid scheme. Democracy is multi level politicking! MLP!
You know of evils of pyramid schemes...
Have you been watching Imus?
Beth and Doug have. His show, for entire month of January has just been a riot. He takes a little getting used to, but he is just an excellent entertainer. We like him most for a simple quantum entendre: he is extraordinary! His cohorts too! Just extraordinary!
Imus calls VP Cheney "pork chop." Now isn't that calling a spade a spade?
Like us, Imus (a NYC conservative, whatever that means) voted for Kerryon as a grievance against Bush and his doltish and doddering administration.
Imus endlessly adjectivally abuses almost everyone. Sort of like we do watching telly...
As they say, Imus is a NY icon and yet you wonder how that could be since he is an essential conservative with only minor streaks of social weakness.
Speaking of 'telly,' wouldn't we all be better off without it? Isn't it just awful. Except for a few shows, like Imus, some A&E, Discovery, History Channel, and their ilk almost all of it is just junk. Leading news, Fox, is for fundamentalist crib-huggers. MSNBC is much better, but their line up is not what we would call "strong."
We are evolving a real sense that TV is in a major cyclic decline.
Except for our few favorites, Beth and Doug do not watch telly much. We use it for movies, mostly. Beth likes Turner Classics, and we borrow endless BBC, et al., series from our local public library.
Commercial TV is gonna have to become a lot better before we return to it.
Satellite radio makes us wonder when some entrepreneurs will start fee only, incremental delivery satellite video.
Apple appears to be working on their vPod. Many say their MAC Mini is a precursor. It has HDTV-DVI ports.
Video compression technology is a huge issue here due bandwidth requirements and delivery time of a two hour HDTV video.
Folk at MAC OS X Hints recommended this link which is really good: I, Cringely. He writes about this stuff and does so very well. We think he is based in Oregon too! Yeah! Be sure to check out Bob's multi year archive!
The Register has spent time on this topic recently, too. It's fascinating. Evolution will radically alter our current viewing habits.
Doug's metric for trash TV is three undelayed zapper cycles through all channels with nothing found. We either turn it off, or put in a tape or DVD.
Content is king. Ads sting. So we see downsizing just ahead for content providers.
Countless folk are learning how to make their own fluxies. We anticipate OSF: Open Source Fluxies, soon.
Commercial stuff is so damn contrived and predictable. Don't suppose academia has dumbed down script writers too?
Timings for some extraordinary individualism!
Beth found another, for us, quantumesque flick titled, Rigoletto. It is called a "musical fantasy." As we interpret it, Rigoletto shows dialectic's extreme evil (i.e., ESQ). It shows quantum~sophism's extreme coquecigrues goodness. If we had our way, we would assure that every citizen of USA could view this movie. Trouble is, from our unique quantum perspective, we are unsure whether any ideal dialectical (retro)conspective can fathom Rigoletto's memeotic quantum sophism.
Let's start a list here, in no particular order, of our fav quantum~similar flicks which you may be interested in watching (credit is due Beth who has brought many of these, especially more recent, videos to Doug's attention):
We'll update that list and reproduce it in toto as apropos.
Anyway, if you can find a copy of Rigoletto, watch it and if you have time let us know what you think. Even fundamentalists should enjoy this due its ending's very quantum resurrection.
If you are asking, "Doug why are you showing us this list?" then we offer a tad of 'splain.
It fascinates us. To great extents it obsesses us.
Probably our best quantum~entendre is real cyclical biological metabolisis as both anabolisis (~creation; synthesis "up;" quantum~squaring from DQ to SQ) and catabolisis (apoptosis, death; analysis "down;" quantum~square~rooting from SQ back to DQ). Similarly cellular~molecular meiosis~mitosis. (Re our use of entendre, see our QELR of understand.)
Each second of your entire life ~1000000
of your body's cells die and are resurrected [That estimate by
Doug is incorrect! It assumes a human body has 1021
cells. As of early 2006 a human body apparently has about 1014
cells. Now we have to restate our apoptosis cycle estimate as
106 cell apoptosis cycles per second. Still high, but
nowhere near as many as Doug originally estimated. See our OEDC
link below for detail.]! Quantumly you are a quanton(living,dying)!
That metaphor scales, similarly, to reality, both up and down.
Notice an unending cyclicity. An ontology.
Quantum c¤mplementary self~other~referent absolutely recursive
emergent evolution. AH's OEDC.
Now what fascinates Doug about this? Simply, stories, movies, documentaries, etc. of that ontology described as happening at a human, individual sentient, level. Why? It is a huge quantum tell. It 'splains quantum reality in ways that n¤ course in quantum~physics n¤r quantum~biology can explain. Now, open your quantum stage a tad, and see that your actual being depends upon unending quantum~c¤mplementary cycles of death and resurrection, a quanton(resurrection,death).
Just imagine being able to have all these and others instantly, randomly frame by frame accessible on your Apple vPod! Imagine taking all similar frame sequences and being able to composite them!
Our fav current TV ad: Quizno's "looking hunky" Bob.
Those of you who have Apple's MAC and IPod equipment just love what we can do with our CDs now.
We've been archiving all of our CDs on our Titanium. Album name, Artist, Tune. Essentially we have a data base of all CD music we own.
Randomly, by play list, by single choice, as we work, we can play our tunes and albums of choice.
Doug has an entertainment center in his lab area. He put it together with some old stuff. He has Jensen 15" speakers with mid and tweet. Those are his 'front' speakers. He has two smaller Pioneer speakers with a low budget 10 year old Pioneer combo system. He uses those smaller Pioneer speakers as his 'back' speaker pair. He routs TV (with DVD), video tape (separate unit), and a DVD read-write unit, plus any MAC's or IPod's audio out to that Pioneer combo unit. This is not nearly as sophisticated as some systems we read about every day, but it works incredibly well and easily. From one chair we can listen to TV (DVD read internal, DVD read-write external, and tape read-write), MAC (CD and DVD sound and video), IPod, FM, AM, six CD cartridge (which is now obsolete due IPod and MAC CD archive), and cassette tape (usually recorded books). Awesome capability and awesome sound, really.
Our near term goal is to archive all our videos, similarly and be able to play any selection just by pointing to a file in a video data base.
On that note, if you have a MAC, you probably will want a copy of VLC. We use it to watch some home videos we have produced.
Too, you should be expecting Doug to do some Quantonics gravidation videos within next couple of years. We have a learning curve here. We have one ad hoc video we made with Doug in "grunge mode." What we like about it is that it tells, in Doug's own animate language and body motions a Quantonics' quantum story. We think you will like these, but they will not be free... We will probably do these by topic, e.g., coherence, uncertainty, causality, correspondence, superluminality, and so on... You will see Doug sitting, standing, pointing at AVs, using MAC multimedia, etc. We want our initial cuts to be casual and quasi amateur to eliminate usual formalities accompanying oft stilted quantum materials.
Banesh Hoffmann reconstructs Prince Louis de Broglie's 1924 matter wave chain of thought:
Photons are (appear to be) both chunky and wavy and waves and chunkiness are (quantum~) relativistically c¤mplementary. Photonsquantons(wavenessings,chunkinessings).
Doug aside on quantum~awareness as intrinsic in quantum~reality:
Classicists view reality as objective. Objective reality's constituents are presumed lisr and insensate. Material objects may only experience 'mechanical interactions.' Mechanical objects are ideally substantial and Newtonian-impenetrable.
Ideal classical mechanical objects only interrelate according dogmatic, provincial, parochial, canonic 'physical laws.'
In quantum~reality those last two sentential paragraphs are classical thingk-king garbage: bogus.
In quantum~reality all quantons are intra~reality~network co~self~other~aware. Evidence? One of quantum~reality's most primitive and perpetually-lived quantons, a photon, selects quantum~l¤cally whatings happenings nextings. Photons, in a very primitive sense, are nascently, proemially aware and make comtext~dependent a priorai choices. Example: which slits to transit and which (of abundantly many) islandic attraction ensembles with which to quantonically interrelate? Note how said "islandic attraction ensemble" is coobsfecting and coselecting said photon, too.
We may offer many quantum tells of quantonic co~awareness, but photons are superb examples.
Quantum complementarity of photon 'particlenessings' vis-à-vis photon 'wavenessings' offer prescient exegesis.
When reality isn't omnitoring a photon, it appears primarily wavic (for example, as a wavic photon travels billions of light years from a distant galaxy and arrives at Hubble's camera systems). As soon as any other quanton in reality commences omnitoring a photon (e.g., Hubble), it co~self~other~awareness increases its apparent particularity, its apparent chunkiness.
But what Doug just wrote is a classical 'statement.' A 'statement' whose bases lie in classical mechanical conceptions of reality. (Classical mechanical thing-king is conventional, convenient, contrived, etc. It has little to do with nature and quantum reality. It has more to do with human naïveté.)
Now this is key: photonic chunkiness is an apparition borne of phase interrelationshipings among photon and its local network environs. In a sense, apparent chunkiness is a quantum qualitative manifestation of photon wave behaviour phase~selection. Let's make it simple: Photon wave 'particularity' manifests as phase~interrelationshipings of photon scintillation with its 'target's' waving ensemble network. Why? Photons are wave quanta, flux packets as quanta.
In this case though, we are showing how photons tell us that quantum reality is quintessentially, intrinsically co~self~other aware. Classicists respond by saying, "That's absurd."
What Doug just described is Quantonics' way of saying what Kafatos and Nadeau mean by their book's title, Conscious Universe.
End Doug aside on quantum~awareness - 7Feb2007.
"Bearing these things in mind, we can make a little chain of relations which carries curious implications. According to [classical, Einsteinian] relativity, mass is one of the embodiments of energy [i.e., e.g., e = mc2].
Quantonics note: What Einstein should have said here, is that mass, energy, space, and time (all classical indefinables, with gravity as a meta-notion of mass and space) are quantum avatars of quantum absolute flux! Doug - 5Feb2005.
"According to Planck's rule, energy is h times frequency usually shown as e = hv.
Quantonics note: Students may fathom a only-classically-ostensible manifestation of Quantonics' assertion that quantum uncertainty is also macroscopic! We can show this rather simply by putting Einstein and Planck together like this: e = mc2 = Nhv! Of course we show it in Quantonics like this: e mc2 Nhv! Students of Quantonics should also weigh here whatings happenings nextings when we "zero h (and thus h-bar)." We, as Dirac showed us when we zero h, we turn quantum flux ¤ff and return to Einstein's 'ideal classical state-ic" 'naïve realism' AKA 'local realism.' Forcing e to classical 'zero' returns us to a classical, dialectical, ideally analytic and thus state-ically 'simple,' n¤ flux, n¤n quantum reality. What Einstein assumed is that m and c are classical, dialectical, analytic, objective embodiments absent any notions of flux. He assumed, naïvely that mass and light velocity are objective measurables which absolutely "hold still." He was and is just wrong! Doug - 5Feb2005.
"Here, then, is our chain:
"So, catching our breath for a moment, we conclude that particles have pulsation [quantum flux]
"Let us proceed:
From pp. 73-74 of Banesh Hoffman's The Strange Story of the Quantum, 285 pages including index; Dover, General Publishing Co., Ltd., 1947 and Dover, 1959 reprint. [Our brackets.]
This was, at that time unrecognized, a breakthrough by de Broglie. As students and readers can see vividly here, de Broglie intuited quantum essence of quanton(flux,matter~energy) c¤mplementarity.
But did he see its quantum included~middle? Does this chain mandate an quantum included~middle? Can matter~wave be Aristotelian 3rd 'law' excluded, using thoughts which emerge from this chain? Can energy~time be classically middle-excluded? Can space~time be classically middle-excluded? Gravity~time? Gravity~space? Gravity~energy? Gravity~gravity?
Is complementarity a mechanically relative excluded-middle interaction? Or is complementarity a nonmechanically relative included~middle interrelationship?
Middles cannot relatively-interaction-exclude objectively unless they are stopped, right? Middles cannot interrelationally~include~co~in~side unless they are animate, right?
Yes, in Quantonics, and we believe in Reality, flux can and does quantum~animately EIMA interrelationally~include~co~in~side all flux including decoherent flux, coherent flux, and isocoherent flux. Too gravity issi flux, time issi flux, space issi flux, and mass issi flux, so now you can grasp how de Broglie was so incredibly prescient, even metaphysical, and now you are k~nowings howings to be answerings all Dougings' questionings...
All of Einstein's work and most other physicists' work depend upon a flux-antithetical of state for their viability. That, folks, is harbinger and precursor of a global crisis in thought.
Students and readers, as of February, 2007...Doug has picked up his review of Hoffmann's fine text, The Strange Story of the Quantum. If you want to continue where this text leaves off, go here.
Here is a list of top ten countries who 'like' Quantonics (i.e., "hit interest" week ending 30Jan2005); we excluded *.com, *.net, * and *.edu hits which are all large (>>) compared to these.
1.00 us United States normalized reference for ratio comparisons. This US appellation mostly applies to K-12 hits from primary and secondary US academies. Embarrassing, isn't it? No wonder US rates so low as a nation compared to other countries' academic performances.
If you calculate product of multipliers you should find slightly less than 7.5 as UK over US multiplier. Who would have imagined CZ above IT and IT above JP? Norway didn't even register, which is another huge surprise for us.
Lots of organizations used to be able to hide behind firewalls with numeric URLs. Now it is easy to just do http://www.whois.sc/iii.jjj.kkk.lll/ to find which institution is hitting your site.
We aren't bragging here... just sharing. Those of you who visit,
we appreciate you mightily and we appreciate your interests in
Quantonics with deep sincerity. You are our weekly uppers!
See you here again in early March, 2005!