Quantum Essence issi Quantum Flux:

Richard P. Feynman said, "Nobody understands quantum mechanics." Note: He was speaking present tense.

It is worth your while to really think (n¤t thingk) about what Feynman said. In Quantonics, following David Bohm's prescient lead, we concur with Feynman's statement. However, we do n¤t concur with what we believe was his intent: that quantum mechanics is understandable, but humans have 'not' yet Platonically noodled a means of understanding it. We disagree with that view. In its stead we offer: quantum mechanics is n¤t understandable because 'mechanics' is n¤t valid as a tool for investigating quantum reality. Bohm said it like this (paraphrased), we need, "a non mechanics of quantum reality." Quantum Theory, Chapter 8, Sec. 26. What is n¤t understandable about mechanics? Classical mechanics is generally invalid! Classical mechanics is generally incoherent (see Stein)! Classical mechanics manufacture paradice: classical culture, classical philosophy, classical science, classical language, classical reason/logic, and classical mathematics. Classical notions, in many cases, are just plain wrong, e.g., objects, objective properties, point objects, objects as independent, objects as solid 'substance,' gravity as acceleration, time as space using homogeneous space as a proxy for time, uni-time as universal and independent, reality as closed and analytic implying stoppability and infinite divisibility and integrability, motion as uni-temporal change, and so on... One of our goals in Quantonics is to provide foundation for n¤vel quantum hermeneutics, semiotics, language, modes of thought, and modes of work which do allow us to better understand quantum reality.
Doug - 8Jun2002.

We decided to ignore Feynman's edict and try to answer a question, "What is quantum science?" Our hope, like Irving Stein's in his search for a new ontology, is this brief effort will help readers begin a journey of understanding quantum~scihænce.

Recently, you may have read where we had a stroke of insight, here, in Quantonics. See Have A DQ Moment!

We want to use results of our insight — plus Pirsig's new MoQ philosophy — to show you in just a few lines of text what we think quantum~scihænce is all about. Before we start, let's take a look at our MoQ philosophical underpinnings and compare them to two other major philosophies gripping Western culture today. We assume what each culture treats as absolute and what it treats as relative are key facets necessary to 'di' stinguish (rather, quantum~omniscriminate) its philosophies:

Using our above comparisons among three major philosophies, two gripping Western culture today and one candidate (MoQ), we want to select MoQ as our chosen parent philosophy for quantum~scihænce. We cannot arrive at our answer below using either of our other two philosophical foundations (without denying their own foundation; note Stein did this in his work referenced here). They lack key philosophical foundation assumptions. However, MoQ contains foundation we need to give our answer to our question: "What is quantum~scihænce?" MoQ's key foundation element is Dynamic Quality. Dynamic Quality is a phrase Pirsig uses in MoQ. We want to use an analogue of it in our answer to our question. We want to substitute a n¤vel term flux. In quantum~scihænce, we are saying  flux is absolute! In a Gödelian dual we can say, absolute flux always changes and changes all. Indeed, flux (undefined) is analogous perceptually to Pirsig's Dynamic Quality!

One more thing, before we condense our description into a nice clean list: As we relayed to you in our review of Irving Stein's book, The Concept of Object as the Foundation of Physics—to leave our classical world and enter a n¤vel quantum realm requires an act of faith. For over 2500 years Western culture taught all of us classical objects could only be in one place at one time (this is a very simple description of what we now call "classical analytic excluded-middle stoppability"). SOM's absolutes, especially dialectic truth, depend on this one philosophical foundation element. To enter a n¤vel quantum realm, you must experience a quantum epiphany: flux is everywhere associative simultaneously! Quantum flux is absolute and everywhere—simultaneously! (Elsewhere in Quantonics we call this ubiquitous, compenetrating Bergsonian perpetual and durational flux, "reserve energy." See our novel web page How to Tap Into Reserve Energy.)

We looked for words which say "simultaneous quantum everywhere association" in a single term, and our closest match is isotropic. I.e., absolute quantum flux is isotropic. This term is inadequate to our need, but it results from our best efforts to find one, and we satisfy ourselves to its local use here in this document [which we have since extended to general use, Quantonics-wide; we still seek a better word and it appears we will have to invent one]. A [classical] definition of isotropic is: equal values for 'properties' measured, 'independent' of measurement orientation or technique. See our added comment on quantum isotropic flux appended to this document.

Here we go — quantum~scihænce is...:

1. flux — two kinds:
   1. unlatched, flux_u (quantum unknown, unlimited potential, all possibilities, a c¤mplement of Reality unactualized, "reserve energy")
   2. latched, flux_l (quantum known and actualized c¤mplement of Reality—to help you novices, visualize objects and everything you know as latched flux)
2. everything we know (classical and nonclassical) can be redescribed (see classical 'define') in terms of mixtures of these two kinds of flux:
   1. masses = f(flux_l)
   2. energies = f(flux_u)
   3. lengths = f(flux_l)
   4. times = f(flux) (It is crucial to understand that a classical space-time identity, using a time proxy as space/space, is fundamentally invalid here; we do n¤t yet k-now how to n¤n-classically accomplish any hermeneutic of this most fundamental of quantum memes; Bergson and Pirsig suggest that time is n¤nconceptual; this is a very (apparently) difficult issue in Quantonics; Bergson has shown, and we agree, that a classically spatial concept of time is wrong! See his Time and Free Will Topics 16, 17, 18, 19.)
   5. phenomena = f(flux)
   6. ideas = f(flux)
   7. archetypes = f(flux)
   8. stereotypes = f(flux_l)
   9. anything we know or invent or may learn in future = f(flux)
   10. etc.
3. but all known and unknown Reality—that complement which we call actual/classical—are some form (emerqancy) of quantum flux, and we describe them as both-and, commingling combinations thus:

   1. fluxu	— pure, unlatched flux (represents quantum unknown c¤mplement of Reality, & commingles actuality)
   2. quanton(fluxu,fluxu)	— unlatched flux in quantonic interrelationships with unlatched flux
   3. quanton(fluxu,fluxl)	— unlatched flux in quantonic interrelationships with latched flux
   4. quanton(fluxl,fluxu)	— latched flux in quantonic interrelationships with unlatched flux
   5. quanton(fluxl,fluxl)	— latched flux in quantonic interrelationships with latched flux
   6. fluxl	— separable latched flux (we doubt this classical concept occurs permanently in Reality)
   7. and systems of 1-6

4. flux changes, latches and unlatches relentlessly at massively parallel asynchronous Planck rate ævents

In our illustrated flux interrelationships shown above, latched flux appears as classical reality. Unlatched flux is quantum unknown, or un-actualized part of quantum Reality. Classical reality assumes quantum unknown does not exist. So quantum reality is both quantum actualized and un-actualized commingling/compenetrating c¤mplements of Reality in one open holistic system.

Note: Our phrase above, "in quantonic interrelationships with," we represent elsewhere with '.' Quantonic interrelationships are asynchronous, omni-comtextual, omni-spatial, omni-valent, comcurrent, parallel, commingling, interpenetrating, co-within-it-ness, and (rev. 17Jun99, add one more term) - omnicodependent interrelationships. Some of these result in events which depend on omni-comtextual comditions at each event for change, latch, or unlatch outcomes at each event. Latched flux represents what is normally called classical reality, but you can see above we assume all latched flux is 'in quantonic interrelationships with' (inseparable and non-isolable from) other latched and unlatched flux via quantum reality's ubiquitous, unlimited pure flux. Also, a la Pirsig's MoQ, phenomena and other 'subjective' stuff are (more highly evolved) latched flux, too.

There are some problems remaining with our n¤vel quantum Reality:

1. How do quantum flux changes described above in item 4 occur (AKA "quantum measurement problem")? Note Measurement

2. Why do there appear to be an unlimited number of valid possible descriptions of quantum~scihænce (AKA "quantum interpretation problem")?

Simply, we do not know an answer to either question. (Those of you who have pondered question two much and often might see glimmer of light in this n¤vel way of asking a question. E.g., if flux is crux, all good interpretations should lead to crux! )

We finally answered both problems 1 and 2 above to our own satisfaction within Quantonics and our local Quantonics perspectives. See these links for more information on how we solved these problems:

Recommended Reading - see comments at page bottom
Problematic Pirsigean Memes - see Problematic - Is Quality an (classical) ævent?
Quantum Interpretations - see red comments in Definitions at page bottom

But time itself has reared its animate/heterogeneous head as a new quantum/quantonics problematic. See our comments above under item 2.4.

You may argue our tentative answer oversimplified, but here in Quantum Essence, simplification is our goal. We want a lay public to grasp an essence of quantum~scihænce. We propose this, or something very close to this, is Quantum Essence!

Possible philosophical implications of these few Quantum essentials are massive and profound. Perhaps you may see why we consider Millennium III as a new Emergent Quantum Systems epoch.

N¤t so intuitive from a legacy SOM perspective, eh?

Classicists simply will 'not' believe (can'not' suppose) in any reality which isn't concrete, immutable, and remains in 'perpetual state.' But quantum reality evolves. Its mandate is change. That which always changes and changes all is always partially what it will be, what it will become. Latching is tentative, n¤t final. Since all in quantum reality is changing, always in fluxing~absolute motion, its coquecigrues is always partial. What is partial coquecigrues? Enthymeme and enthymemeticity. Partial logic is a quantum~holographically 'simple' logic which changes, always evolves and evolves all. Quantum reality is intrinsically enthymemetic, its 'logic' is intrinsically quantum~fluxing~coquecigrues, n¤t classical immutably-stopped concrete. Doug - 28Apr2009.

Doug.

Note: Measurement - Revision 28Apr1999 PDR. Recent nexuses (Hans Christian von Baeyer in The Sciences, 'Catch the Wave,' pp. 10-13, May/Jun, 1999 issue, and Izo Abram in Physics Web IoP magazine) to a concept of solitons offer some heuristic insights on quantum measurement. To state a n¤vel quantum measurement meme simply, latched quantum flux (flux_l), is nonlinear excitation of quantum vacuum flux (flux_u)! That is our conclusion, our own Quantonic heuristic! Somehow, coherent quantum vacuum flux experiences nonlinear rectification and latched (mixed) quantum flux arises.) Subsequent this 1999 effort we have more recently c. 2004 invented a fuzzons to fermion ontology which, we believe, nicely illustrates this a Higgs boson nonlinear rectification and mixing m¤dal of our 1999 words here. See our 3D Fuzzons too. Doug - 1Jun2008.

Quantum Isotropic Flux:

On 10Jun1999, I was reading a recent book we just purchased from amazon.com. It is Physics in the 20th Century, by Curt Suplee, ed. by Judy R. Franz and John S. Rigden, Harry N. Abrams, Inc., Publishers, 1999, ©AIoP, APS.

Moments ago, I viewed pictures on page 74 and was about to turn a page. But something said, "Wait. Take another look. Allow these four pictures to topomentally coalesce." So I paused. I stared at each of four pictures, sequentially. I did it again. Something was telling me to grasp essence, but I wanted to read and started to turn a page. Wham! It came like a sledge-hammer blow. I quickly turned a page back and looked again at the bottom picture on page 74. I looked at the center of the STM interference diagram. Egads! Yikes! Wow! Mom! Never before did skin's goosebumps dance like this.

At times like this you K-NOW how comnected you are to both actual and n¤nactual c¤mplements of our multiverse. I chilled! I chilled even though I was sitting on our deck in stifling heat (over night low in Indiana was 73F/23C) reading our book and watching our visiting birds and squirrels.

There in picture's center appeared a quanton. It is a quanton I first imagined in May, 1996 when I first started a comcerted effort to find as many duals as I could twixt Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality (MoQ I) and quantum~scihænce's 'Mechanics' of Quanta (MoQ II). I drew this quanton many times in many ways. I do n¤t k-now why. I am obsessed, for n¤ apparent reason, with this symbol. It haunts me. To see what I am talking about, see a 2D version of it which I did for our Quantonics, Inc. top page. See it there, upper right corner and use your back button to return here.

In early 1996, I perceived a Tao symbol as both particle and wave (I am n¤t unique. Others have seen this nexus too.). Circle represents particle/object. S represents wave/subject. Two together are a quanton, a wave-particle. Here was a symbol unique to quantum~scihænce, but ancient in origin. For me it stood for nMoQ II. Later in October, 1996 on a trip to Madeira, Portugal on a Boeing 757 I was reading Fritjof Capra's, The Tao of Physics, and discovered Niels Bohr used a 2D Tao symbol in his coat of arms combined with an appellation, 'contraria sunt complementa,' (i.e., 'opposites are complementary.') (Readers, ponder this: Bohr's version of complementarity is "exclusive!" Bohr's complementarity is Aristotelian!) My obsession deepened. Again, there was n¤ provocation, just a feeling that my mind was n¤t wholly my mind but interpenetrating in a c¤mplementary way a larger quantum mind. You see, I have similar experiences to what Boris Sidis describes in his works, especially those about his prodigious son William James Sidis.

Later, in January and February of 1998 I saw an enormous comnection to Pirsig's MoQ I hinting another strong duality. Tao is n¤t just a particle and wave unified, Tao is an S and an O unified. Pirsig's MoQ I unifies SOM's Subject and Object and inverts their philosophical hierarchy.

I took symbol Tao and made its wave three dimensional so I could imagine it everywhere associatively comnected to all of reality's other quantons via n-dimensional quantum flux, isotropic quantum flux.

Now you might imagine how I felt chills when I saw my 3D Tao quanton in a silver electron's interference diagram as a quanton.

How could this happen? I do n¤t know. But I know it means I am following a Dynamic Quality path. I am headed in a good direction, and as long as I am able, I shall comtinue.

Well, you say, "What does all of this have to do with quantum isotropic flux?" OK, let's see what it does have to do with QIF. (I conjectured VES is isotropic flux. By that I mean unlimited energy undetected and yet (until Casimir) unmeasured by Homo sapiens. Philosophers and scientists argued whether VES is part of reality. Michelson-Morley (in 1887) did experiments and proved it: 'no' VES, 'no' ether. We could rest assured. And, indeed, Einstein did!)

In my euphoria, I called Beth to tell her my astounding news. But she was busy and I had to leave a message. Calmer, I returned to this marvelous book and for some reason felt an urge to back up instead of proceeding forward. I flipped back to page 72 and re-read, this time more carefully. Again, this is unusual for me, and I do n¤t understand why I backed up. I read, starting at top:

"A plucked guitar string, for example, can vibrate at one lowest, 'fundamental' frequency or at various higher frequencies called harmonics whose wavelengths are simple fractions of the string's length. At any other wavelengths, the vibrations will cancel each other out and not resonate." (our italics)

I recalled de Broglie's metaphor of a violin for subatomic quantum particles. Here, our authors are using a guitar. N¤ problem.

Aside:

Chapter one, page one, paragraph one, 'Transverse Waves on a String,' Physics of Waves, Elmore & Heald, Dover, 1969:

"It will be found impressive to view in retrospect the rather formidable theoretical structure that can be based on a study of the motion of such a simple object as a flexible string under tension." (Our italics.)

As you may intuit from their grammar Elmore & Heald are pure SOMites; however, they ponder (perhaps without knowing it) waves' philosophical omnivalence, especially quantum~waves.

This little related quote, relevant to our talk about VES, made us query: How can n¤n-wave classical objects, wave? Answer: there are n¤ n¤n-waves! I.e., there are no classical objects/particles. More epiphany! Think about it...

But our last entirely italicized sentence grabbed me for some reason: "At any other wavelengths, the vibrations will cancel each other out and not resonate."

The conjecture of VES as isotropic (comtrarotationally self-canceling) flux may be a good one, but as always one must ask, "How did it get here and how is it isotropic?"

Are unseen, canceled-out vibrations in our guitar string a metaphor of isotropic flux? That was an intuition which came from n¤where. Is VES' isotropos like engine exhaust noise canceled by an inverse ~zero latency fidel generator? Unlimited comtrapuntal energies present, yet undetectable in presence of each other? What happens if we block or take one away temporarily? Sonoluminessence? Casimir effect? Unlimited energy? Supernovae? Is it possible for Homo sapiens to tap, to rectify VES?

How could that be? What if we view our multiverse as a huge guitar? Part fretted and part unfretted. Fretted is what we see as actuality and unfretted is unlatched isotropic flux in n¤nactuality. But what makes it isotropic to us? Why is this potentially unlimited energy n¤t apparent? Is it really unfretted?

There is an equation for harmonic frequencies of a resonant cavity or 'string.' n = n ´ ( ´ c)/l. n is a list of fundamental frequency of wavelength 'l' and its 'n' harmonics. Our quote above tells us all non-n frequencies will (isotropically) cancel. That is a key insight, if I am right.

What if n¤nactuality has n¤ fundamental wavelength? What if n¤nactuality is as some speculate unbounded, open? If it were filled with unlatched quantum flux, would it all self-cancel? To me, now after an experience I describe here for you on 10June1999, this seems reasonable.

So now, I am even more comvinced VES is isotropic and we have 'one' candidate description of how it may be so.

Note: if we try another extreme, i.e., assume n¤nactuality has 'zero' fundamental wavelength, then all harmonics would be present (nonisotropic) and measurable and n¤nactuality's boundless VES energy would comsume all of us (we would n¤t exist in our present form to begin with).

I hope you enjoyed my little diversion. It was fun, and certainly made this day for me.

Doug Renselle, 10Jun1999

Return