This is our March, 2005 editorial Go directly to 2005 March News

The Asceticism of Paul1 Banesh Hoffmann's Account of Dirac's Abstraction of Poisson's Bracket - Ahll¤w Quantonics t¤ set ¤ur tehmp¤ral comtetings at ab¤ut 1925qings... "With this promise of clarity to come, let us here take note, however sketchily, of the sort of ideas Dirac was already thinking in those early days. Though our outline must be sketchy, it may at least indicate the peculiarly astringent flavor of Dirac's early discoveries. "The announcement of Heisenberg's theory struck immediate fire in the mind of Dirac. Independently of the researches of Born, Heisenberg, and Jordan even then under way, he undertook to create out of Heisenberg's idea a new theory of mechanics. If x times y was not the same as y times x [what we call "noncommutativity;" this quantum phenomenon broke classical mechanics' 'law' of commutatitvity; assuming both classical and quantum notions and memeos of operators, we can also show that quantum noncommutativity allows us to infer quantum nondistributivity also; Hoffmann discusses latter in some depth without associating its requisite noncommutativity linguistically-explicitly: i.e., he does not call [x,y] "noncommutativity"], then Dirac must somehow discover what was the difference between them, and using the indispensable correspondence principle ("Philosophical guideline for the selection of new theories in physical science, requiring that they explain all the phenomena for which a preceding theory was valid. Formulated in 1923 by the Danish physicist Niels Bohr, this principle is a distillation of the thought that had led him in the development of his atomic theory, an early form of quantum mechanics." Encyclopedia Britannica, 2003 CDROM version.) he sought an analogue in the classical mechanics. In the classical theory there existed certain mathematical quantities, denoted by the symbol [x,y], which, having been discovered by the Frenchman Poisson, were known as Poisson brackets. Dirac, to his intense joy, discovered a relationship of extraordinary simplicity: calculate the value of the Poisson bracket [x,y] according to the classical theory, multiply by Planck's constant and the square root of minus one, and divide by twice . Then the result will be the proper value to assign to the difference between x times y and y times x. [Text added by Doug to show Hoffmann's classical math:     ih  [x,y] —     2 Classically, h = h/2. This is what we call Heisenberg's quantum uncertainty, which we usually show classically as [p,q] ih. We can also show Heisenbergian quantum uncertainty in quantonics script as examples like this: quanton(positionq,momentumq) quanton(energyq,timeq) quanton(massq,energyq) quanton(gravityq,massq) quanton(waveq,particleq) quanton(subjectq,objectq) etc.  Nqiqhq     where N is usually thought of as a wave number amd as a quantum n¤mbær iht issi ihndææd t¤¤ a quantum pr¤cæss; recall that classically, h = h/2; this notation cloaks a normalized radius, 'r,' of '1;' when we decrease 'r,' frequency and energy go up; N represents increases in actual~energy~mass (including memeos of system composites and aggregates; n¤nactuality's isoflux manifests real quantum complementation) due increases in frequency (decreases in wave length); also recall that bosons are 360° (2·r) rotationally symmetric and fermions are 720° (4·r) rotationally n¤n symmetric. Fermions wobble. Bosons do n¤t wobble. In quantum reality flux is crux. Classical 'transverse' wave amplitude and direction are quantumly~irrelevant. Hope this helps. Doug - 19Feb2005.  ] "Does this perhaps seem a rather arid discovery? Dirac once said the most exciting moment of his life was the moment of its revelation. In one swift, dazzling leap, Dirac had surmounted the innumerable obstacles and difficulties impeding Born, Heisenberg, and Jordan in their efforts to fashion the new matrix mechanics in the image of the classical mechanics, and actually published his results a little before they could publish their equivalent, though less elegant, discoveries. "Dirac's initial discovery led him further, along a path of deep abstraction. Contemplating Heisenberg's theory, he now realized that its emphasis was misplaced, that it hid the forest with the trees...As the Curies extracted a minute speck of radium from a mountain of ore, so did Dirac distill from Heisenberg's enormous square tabulations their ultimate essence, their one essential concept, that x times y may differ from y times x." Pp. 105-107. (Our non Poisson brackets, italicization, bold, color, and light blue table insert. Our thelogos link.) The Strange Story of the Quantum by Banesh Hoffmann 285 pages including index; Dover General Publishing Co., Ltd., 1947 and Dover, 1959 reprint. Re: mechanics and difference - quantum reality, in Quantonics, is not classically mechanical, and we replace~remediate 'difference' with Quantonics' 'omnifference.' Faithful readers may recognize genuine quantum essence here. Heisenberg 'discovers' uncertainty and its Bell Inequal non commutativity. Dirac discovers a mechanical way to calculate it (a single classically mechanical Einsteinian "invariant metrical interval" 'instance' of it)! He uses, indirectly, a Feynmanian, and apparently Dirac did not, nor Feynman, realize it at that time, also a Riemannian 1/2 critical line, exciter ("The most remarkable formula in math." See James Gleick's Genius, pp. 35-36, Vintage paperback, 531 pages including index, 1992.): i.e., -1 = ei! But Dirac, Heisenberg, Born, Jordan, nor Feynman see quantum reality as absolutely~quantum~flux~animate and radically heterogeneous~ensemble QLO REIMAR stochastically, thus quantum~subjectively, 'dependent:' what we in Quantonics mean when we say, "coinsident, compenetrating, interpenetrating, interfusing, commingling, cowithin, reserve~energy~coherence, rhetorical subjectivity, quantum~fractal recapitulative recursion, etc." Why? To Dirac's, et al's., ways of thing-king reality has to be (a) classically 'holds-still (stoppable),' 'monolithically objective,' 'lisr,' 'objectively state-ic, singular-instantial,' etc.: indeed mathematics are classically objective — unremediated English, et al., OGC in OGT dialectical languages too. That flat classical thing-king blinded them to a Quantonics' epiphany of: i   That is, quantum reality as quantum~complementarily~subjective, with i  as quantum~recursive and ~BAWAM. That Quantonics' quantum epiphany ¤pæns a d¤¤rway t¤ n¤nahctualihty as is¤ræcursihve isoflux!!! Wæ sh¤w that wihth ¤ur anihmatæ comtrar¤tating d¤tted blue is¤cihrcles:  "The ket |Q> represents a state for which there are no photons, electrons, or positrons present. One would be inclined to suppose this state to be the perfect vacuum, but it cannot be, because it is not stationary." (Our bold violet color of classical concepts. Our italicization of Dirac's thelogos.) PAM Dirac, TPrioQM, 4th ed., Ch. 12, Sec. 81, 1957. Awesome, eh? Hoffmann goes on to say, paraphrased-summarized, that Dirac showed that we can only make quantum reality go away by zeroing 'h.' Dirac admits this to us in his lectures at Yeshiva University (click on animation just above and read page top text). We can say this very simply: classical reality is certain, amd quantum ræhlihty issi umcærtain. Classical reality is ideally objective amd quantum ræhlihty issi mæmætihcahlly subqjæctihvæ. (see subjectiv and subjective; quantum~comclusions? classically ideal objective negation does not 'exist' in quantum reality! quantum reality will n¤t even begin to allow us to objectively negate any actuality, since we have n¤ means of negating quantum waves AKA QLOs, see positive). Take a look at this graphic which classically, analytically shows what we mean. It is memeotically like our contra-rotating blue dotted circles above: Our top sine 'wave' exhibits 'positive' energy flux when we disregard its 'zero reference.' If diffracted, it will show a light-dark interference pattern similar that which appears to its right. Our bottom waves classically cancel and classically we see 'no' apparent wave energy. This is what classicists intend, delusionally, by ideal negation. What we have here is a graphic which exhibits, for example, noise cancellation in audio waves. Quantumly, though, no energy is 'negated.' Both 'sets' (i.e., quantonic REIMAR quantum QLO ensembles) of waveform energy are still there! What we see here is quantum reality as genuinely affectational, classically 'subjective.' If we remove ordinate and abscissa in both graphics, we come closer to seeing a quantum wave immersed in a classically nonapparent quantum~isoflux AKA Diracian quantum vacuum. Which of those would you say most closely represents 'dark matter?' There are many other issues here comparing classical and quantum. See a few more at our QELR of rectify. For some superb textual and pictorial (tympani with iron filings: with and without above 'energy' cancellation, string instrument body quantum localization of surface vibrations, water quantum tunneling a concrete sea wall, etc.) examples of what we are showing here, see Hey and Walters' The Quantum Universe. Our bottom graphic is an quantum~actual exemplar of what happens in Dirac's quantum vacuum and we illustrate as contrarotating dotted blue flux. Doug - 11Jun2005. Now we may answer another very simple quantum~question: "Which is better?" What are our data? Classical reality denies quantum reality via its attempts to, "zero h-bar." Quantum reality says that, "classical reality is naïve." Study Dirac's revised fourth edition (1957) Chapter 12 of his The Principles of Quantum Mechanics on QED. Similar his discovery of a simple description of a Poisson Bracket (and thus quantum uncertainty and its quantum bedfellow Bell 'Inequality'), Dirac discovered a Quantonicsesque m¤dæling ¤f quantum ræhlihty, but he c¤uld n¤t bælihævæ iht c¤uld bæ p¤ssible. His |Q> ket ræpræsænts Quantonics' n¤nahctualihty ecæpt he classically di stinguishes it from what he calls a "vacuum state." Hermeneuticized in Diracese, our Quantonics' n¤nactuality issi an apparently n¤nexistent is¤flux quantum vacuum which also exhibits his |Q> 'state' absolute animacy and absolute parthæn¤fluxati¤n (coined here for this editorial, i.e., absolute emerqancy of is¤flux; see our recent, 2004, fermionta; 18-20Feb2005 - Doug). See esp. sec's. 80 and 81 of ch. 12 of TPrioQM, 4th ed., 1957. Much of Dirac's problem, which he — as an objectivist — was unable to see, surrounds his belief in classical methods including dialectic, analyticity, and vocabulary like: '(stoppable) state,' '(ideal objective) negation,' 'exists,' 'di fferent,' 'generality as specificity,' 'stationary (ideal 'zero' momentum),' 'same,' 'equal,' 'identity,' 'observe,' etc. (see omnifferent, identity, animacy, stindyanicity, coobsfect) If you grasp massive import of this, you probably cannot wait to go back and redo all classical works while embedding genuine quantum essence... Don't let any doors... If you enjoy reading this kind of material, you may enjoy reading Doug's reviews of Hoffmann's The Strange Story of the Quantum, ACT I and ACT II. Above is from ACT II. Doug - 16Mar2008.   Doug 16-28Feb & 1Mar2005

2005 TQS News December, 2004 through November, 2005

Month:

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

You are here:

Topics:

tsunamis, Goldsworthy, ESS, Scorsese, Stronach, Marthas, quantum WJS, Forrester, etc.

global warming rant, what is democracy?, Imus, TV, fav flicks list & why?   & vPod, our fav TV ad, Apple's Itunes & IPod, Quantonics'   gravidation videos, Banesh on de Broglie, Who likes Quantonics?, etc.

why we cannot  fix global  warming,

euthanasia, etc.

Michael Lynch on Where Is Liberal Passion? etc.

Relook at EU, Cuneiform, & Questions from Mitch...

Tea, A sound track, Whitepaper stuff, Quantonics OS X, Inflation, etc.

A silly GW fix, computer pathologies,

Doug rants on Intelligent Design, Status on Quantum Holography, Doug offers his best quantum~affective expectation of global warmings' current cyclings

Russert, Katrina, & Dialectical Christ

Libby indictment

Murtha gets it, Libby's foot?, Why WJS hated religion, Still a Republican? "Rewrite History?," 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 Our Earthshaker!,

March, 2005 News:

We had full intentions of doing coverage on recent news re: cell chips and social security. However, unexpectedly we have been struck with illness which requires strong pain killers. Trouble is, those pain killers (narcotics) disable our abilities to think well and tap into reserve energy as we usually do. They've really messed up our sleeping patterns, et al.

So, instead, we shall postpone those two topics to next month and briefly continue our global warming rant, but with some coquecigrues applied.

Let's assume that global warming scientists could decide, really, what is 'causing' global warming. That is, envir-no-mental 'scientists' can — they are capable and competent to — assess what global warming threats objectively 'exist.' Further, let's say that they have picked five classically 1-1 correspondent 'causes' in following order top down:

1. fossil fuel burning
2. methane gas due organics' flatulence (~six billion humans are much less than 1 part in 2000 of total organic life mass on Earth)
3. herbicide pollution of estuaries, lakes and oceans
4. deforestation due human territorial expansion
5. land fills

Keep present on your quantum stages that classicists believe one cause causes one effect with '1-1' correspondence and probability 'one.' They also assume that classical context is stable. It "holds still." Classical physicists call it "zero momentum." If classical context holds still, then we may further assume that objective parameters in any classical context, measurably and scalarbatively, "hold still."

Classicists also assume that reality is locally commutative, distributive, factorizable, etc. Classicists assume that classical reality is modularly analytic and synthetic: ideally reproducible, manufacturable.

That set of classical assumptions allows classical 'scientists' to believe that any fixes may be applied predictably too. Cause-effect assessment is classically determinate and so is repair assessment, in general. It does not matter which repair we choose to do first, nor does it matter what order we choose to complete subsequent repairs. Any repair is objectively independent of all other repairs by a classical axiom of objective independence. So we can eliminate land fills first and arbitrarily postpone doing anything about fossil fuel issues, plus a litany of other issues they have yet to invent which they will invent once they feel they have total control of our fears. (Notice how Bush's 'administration' does essentially just this with their, approaching $500 billion, 'Iraqi War against terrorism.' We cannot trust dialectical 'scientists' any more than we can trust dialectical 'theologians,' and dialectical 'politicians.' Their methods are similar!)

Of course if what classicists believe and practice were true, there should only be one item on our list. (That is, they should be capable of 'predicting the cause.' That's a very good question to ask by any means, "But, envirnomental 'scientist,' what is the cause of global warming? Are you saying it's humanity?" Should we be forming any accords before we know what the cause is?)

What do our studies in quantum science teach us? Cause-effect is a failed classical concept! Quantum reality is an animate ensemble REIMAR~affective reality. Further, quantum comtext is always changing and may exhibit patterns of fractal similarity, though it never can exhibit any classical notion of 'contextual stability.'

From our Quantonics quantum perspective (also see percept), ensembles of current(ly) affecting quantum processings are affectings ensembles of whatings happenings nextings. And they all interrelate one another both locally and nonlocally, plus they are wholly EIMA~dependent upon quantum~comtextual issues including timings, loci, and all other quantum~comtextual ensemble~affectorings.

What are we saying here? Let's try to make it simpler, perhaps more striking, more apparent.

We are saying that when we ponder any system which is a (quantum) heterogeneous process system, from a classical conspective we find we actually have less 'classical' information, in terms of specific "what to do next capability!"

Animate ensembles are not (cannot be) measurably state-ic. We cannot collect 'state' data, about complex animate processes, and put that data on classical know-ledges.

Classically more 'state' data set represents 'more information.' But it does not! Why? How? State-ic data changes, as soon as we classically 'measure' it! And worse, we have no means of 1-1 cause-effect correspondently single cause, single effect predicting 'what happens next.' We can probabilistically guess about quantum ensemble processings, but we cannot classically predict specific state-ic cause and specific state-ic effect.

In computing lingo "bits and bytes" stux-sux measure scalar magnitudes. Qubits flux~crux monitor (omnitor; see omnitor) ensemble quantum processes.

• Scalars:
  • to classicists look like more information
  • to quantumists look like less information
• Process ensembles:
  • to classicists look like less information
  • to quantumists look like more information

We are attempting to show you H5W classical CTMs are worse and quantum QTMs are better.

All of those affectorings and their interrelationshipings with global warming are noncommutative, nondistributive, nonfactorizable, etc. Quantum~comtext and our order of selection of any 'fix' matters. What seems like a least affector may be like a "butterfly affector." It may be one which would actually help, but how could we choose it above others using classical thing-king methods? We're going to choose classically that one which appears to us as classically most important, i.e., burning fossil fuels. But fixing that one first may (shall) have unanticipated consequences. So how do we know what order to apply our fixes? We do not. We cannot. Quantum reality is uncertain. It is uncertain at all scales of reality! Why?

Comtext and procedural order plus countless other quantum affectors are absolutely sensitive to commutativity, distributivity, factorizability, etc. Doing a fix on Monday has an omnifferent outcome from doing it on Wednesday last and Friday next. Challenger launch may have been successful if launch itinerary mandated ambient launch temperatures above 40 degrees F. Just like position times momentum doesn't 'equal' momentum times position, 'fix' itineraries procedural steps are noncommutative, nondistributive, and nonfactorizable. (a good example here is doing any global warming fixes 100 years from now would be more sensible just on bases, exegeses, and exoterica available in that more highly evolved environment)

Even if we know | knew what to do to fix global warming, we are deprived any means of k~nowings which procedural commutation~, distribution~, and factor~sequencings to use. We have to quantum~uncertainly guess. But that is problematic. Why? We can make whatever we are trying to achieve worse! We simply do n¤t know, and we have no current means of gaining any abilities of k~nowings. We can use probability. But probability does not, cannot predict a single effect from a single cause! Probability can only quantum~likelihood anticipate and expect a quantum~likelihood~omnistribution of affectorings!

What if a combination of Earth's orbital eccentricity and its locus in our solar system's Milky Way orbit are really what is, from a classical conspective, 'causing' our current global warming? We cann¤t do anything about either one of those!

What if emergency stoppage of fossil fuel burning upsets Earth's local evolutionary processings? We promise you it will have Earth-bound affectings which are unanticipated, both better and worse.

And that brings up another query: why can we procrastinate fixing an asteroid strike on Earth but we cannot procrastinate fixing global warming? If you knew an asteroid were going to strike Earth in two weeks with devastating results would you rather we focused on that or global warming? Which really is more urgent? Is global warming an urgent issue? Prove it. Prove it. But you cann¤t can you? What are your bases of judgment? Are you going to use classical notions of proof? They do not work!!! They find their bases in invalid classical assumptions.

It just seems to us we would all be better off to try our individual best to do what we individually believe is better. Cease using unthinking societal patterns of value to impose will of a few on everyone else. Societies' performance records based on classical judgment simply aren't good, folks. As individuals, we simply can no longer trust society, and classical Demos will edicts like Kyoto Accord.

When someone says we need to do something about global warming now, say, "Prove it." When they say, "Earth's temperature is rising now." Explain to them that there are countless precedents for Earth's temperature rising (and falling, and stabilizing, etc.). Do you really believe that fossil fuel burning 'caused' Earth's latest emergence from it's latest ice age? Hmmm...?

Doug's opinions...

...

See you here again in early April, 2005!

Doug.

Index

Notes -

Note 1 - [Adrien Maurice Dirac, that is...]

Note 2 -