Review of Banesh Hoffmann's The Strange Story of the Quantum (TSSoTQ) _____________________________________________________________1947 Harper and Bros., 1959 Dover, latter paperbound, 285 pages including preface, prologue, text, epilogue, postscript, and index. _____________________________________________________________6Feb2007 - Aug-Sep2007 draft; continuing evolution through 2009. _____________________________________________________________By Doug Renselle
Our bold and color highlights follow a code:
The Strange Story of the Quantum Intermezzo and Act II HotMemes -
HotMemes are visible tips of quantum~memetic~icebergs: said as only part of what is unsaid.
HotMeme™ Classical notions applied to quantum reality dredge paradoxical vertigo!™ HotMeme™. HotMeme™ If past predicted future, reality would not change.™ HotMeme™ HotMeme™ "How does one reembody concrete, if concrete is concrete?"™ HotMeme™ HotMeme™ "Quantum comtextings, in general, may never be restored."™ HotMeme™. HotMeme™ "What is unsaid is radically more important than what is said."™ HotMeme™ . HotMeme™ "Flux is crux and flux — in all possible manifestations of cohera and entropa — embodies, disembodies, and reembodies flux!"™ HotMeme™ HotMeme™ Classical mathematics is dead!™ HotMeme™ Dugger HotMeme™ "Quantum~flux isn't concrete, and to treat it as though it is concrete garners fools' errands in all one does."™ Dugger HotMeme™. This one is new 16Mar2009. HotMeme™ Simply, then, any simultaneity measurement we attempt is always quantum~uncertain!™ HotMeme™. Quantonic HotMeme™ "Quantum uncertainty invalidates all classical 'proofs,' ad occulos." Quantonic HotMeme™. HotMeme™ added by Doug - 13Apr2008. If you thinkq about it you will see that Quantonic HotMeme™ "Quantum~evolution invalidates all classical 'proofs,' ad occulos." Quantonic HotMeme™. HotMeme™ "Dynamic hologramings offer plural and evolving always~partial~both~symmetric~and~asymmetric~hermeneutics."™ HotMeme™. HotMeme™ Thought generates (issi genera of) ought.™ HotMeme™. HotMeme™ "Principle rules something not itself."™ Chaldæan HotMeme™ Quantonics HotMeme™ "Logic governs objects, without ruling itself." Quantonics HotMeme™ HotMeme™ "...classical monism is deceit!"™ Chaldæan HotMeme™ Quantonics HotMeme™ "Those who try to govern reality lose."™ Quantonics HotMeme™ HotMeme™ "Affect flux, tunnel stux." HotMeme™. HotMeme™ Known doesn't pull, and only weakly pushes! Unknown pulls massively!™ A Quantum~Dugger HotMeme™. TSSotQ HotMeme™ We cannot measure frequency in an instant.™ Hoffmann TSSotQ HotMeme™. HotMeme™ All kinds of flux always have evolving EIMA holographic quantum uncertainty interrelationshipings. HotMeme™.
Our review:
Use these intrapage links to access Part 2 of Hoffmann's The Strange Story of the Quantum chapters:
Prologue and Act I: Prologue & Chapters I-VI (Part 1 of 4 - A separate web page. You are in Part 2 now.)
Intermezzo & Act II (Part 2 intrapage links.)
Intermezzo: Chapter VII - Author's Warning to the Reader: Chapter VIII - The Exploits of the Revolutionary Prince: Chapter IX - Laundry Lists Are Discarded: Chapter X - The Asceticism of Paul: Chapter XI - Electrons Are Smeared: Chapter XII - Unification: Chapter XIII - The Strange Denouement:
Chapter VII - Pages 70-71 - Intermezzo - Author's Warning to the Reader —
"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 green to highlight Hoffmann's quantumesque memes. Our bold violet to highlight classical problematic terms: thelogos, objective-negation, either-or, cause, rationale, where as Cartesian locus, con as objective join 'con job,' etc. See our "whatings happenings nextings." Do not take Hoffmann's use of 'vertiginous' lightly. As we have warned countless times prior, when classicists use dialectic to noodle quantum reality they dredge nearly unlimited paradice. Why? Mainly due long-lived dogma of 1-1 correspondence, ideal contradiction of either-or, and strict mechanical causation. HotMeme™ Classical notions applied to quantum reality dredge paradoxical vertigo!™ HotMeme™.
A Doug comment on rationalism: You might ask, "Is Quantonics rational?" Simply, rationalism classically 'opposes' empiricism. Why do we say "classically opposes?" If we rationally start with a theory and then try it, we often fail. If we empirically practice we find it is easier to adapt to uniqueness of contexts. Aside 14Dec2012: There is a very old yet useful term for what Doug just wrote. Aristotle called it "praxis." Today we call it "pragma," and it means "to do," to do due," "to act," to "practice." Pragma (praxis) is about empirical "doing." Eventually, via quantum~evolution, it works. But theory, when applied dialectically, formally, objectively, mechanically, seldom works. Why? Theory is classical. When classical theory is tried it fails, in general. Why? "There is n¤ try, just do!" Yoda teaching Luke Skywalker. Blackburn, in his Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, writes that theory always generates classical 'contradictions.' Yet that classical theory isn't general enough to 'explain' those contradictions (paradice). Enter Kurt Gödel's "All consistent axiomatic classical formulations include undecidable propositions." (Doug Renselle - paraphrasing Doug Hofstadter's paraphrase of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. See Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach.) Whereof Qabala's, and many Gnoses', "...embrace indetermination." Thus Blackburn explains why many philosophers claim that theory is subordinate to practice. Now...when one realizes that quantum~reality is complementary, and when one grasps how quantum~complementarity eliminates contradictions it becomes relatively easy to say, "Quantum~philosophy" is more general than 'classical-philosophy.' That's a good, a very G¤¤d Value~exegesis of why Doug recommends that students of quantonics, "embrace quantum~theory." End aside 14Dec2012. When we take our empirical results and transform (reify) them into immutable (i.e., ideal classical) theory we find, in general, they do n¤t 'work.' (Notice that 'locally working' laboratory experiments are notoriously n¤n-, un-portable. To make them classically 'general' and apparently 'portable,' one must radically mechanize (reify) them, and in that formalizing procedure many 'quality' (real) features are lost. In this aside Doug uses vav in place of vis-à-vis (i.e., Latin for "as compared to"). Begin 29Feb2009 Aside on classical vav quantum empiricism: Classical reality is 'state.' Classical empiricism is, as static, except for unitemporal y=f(t) objective motion, passive. Quantum reality is absolute flux. Quantum æmpihrihcism is, as flux, active. Quantum flux is action is pragma. Doug's quantum~æmpihrihcism AKA empiritheory is quantum~prægmatism, a very, very, very active æmpihrihcism. Classical anything, e.g. empiricism, is 'dead,' 'state,' 'stopped,' 'stoppable,' 'zero momentum-able,' Planck's clock halted, etc. Passive! Not evolving! Stuck! Quantum~gnosis omnistinguishes, omniscriminates classical as 'dead' vav quantum as living. End 29Feb2009 Aside on classical vav quantum æmpihrihcism. We quote Heisenberg, "But through this process of idealization [Platonization] and precise 'formal' definition the immediate (living) connection with reality is lost (dead)." Physics and Philosophy, 'The Revolution in Modern Science,' Page 200 of 213 total pages (no index). Doug's brackets - 12Apr2007. Doug's parentheticals 29Feb2009.) See a similar quote, more poetically given "Once the apple has fallen from the tree," of D. H. Lawrence. Classical-reification's SOM-knife cuts — cuts reality as and — via excluded-middles, excommunication (independence) of reified and h-bar zeroed, "dead" objects. That is what Doug intends by "theory classically opposes living~empiricism." Said very notion even classically, of theory, is nonadaptability in a sense of predicable expectation a theory always works if it is canonically orthodox, always DIQheaded, always 'right.' As practiced empiricism is innately adaptive. We see dichon(adaptive_classical_empiricism, nonadaptive_classical_theory) as EOOO 'opposition.' Again, "Is Quantonics rational?" If we use quantum~reality as our best current (c. 2007) m¤dal of Nature, we must say, "N¤!" Quantonics is an animate, EIMA, and thus h¤l¤graphic, æv¤lutæ~quantum~æmpihrihcism. A good example here of a n¤n scientific juxtaposition of rationalism and empiricism is public accounting. To become a CPA, what do you have to learn and master? PLAT! Practice (empiricism; begging a kind of pragmatism, an almost quantum~actionism, of 'what w¤rks n¤w') Law (dialectism; axiomaticism; power~hegemonism; sovereignism; robo zombie classically stultifying automatism) Audit (verificationism; recursionism; recapitulationism; tautology by extreme iterationism) Theory (rationalism; hinting at a possibility of radically final 'truth') It is 'reasonable' in accounting to do a kind of double-entry verification of one's skills and know-ledges through a classical conjunction of dichon(classical_empiricism, classical_rationalism). Engineer-physicists (and lots of 'scientists') do this too as we shall see. But isn't theory (rationalism) problematic if it is like a 'plan,' i.e., some set of orthodox 'what worked previously, historical' axioms which we then assume shall funda mental-inertially 'predict' future events? See! Even classical empirical practice doesn't d¤ that! Classical empiricism looks back, a posteriori, but it checks now, a iami (present borne of past), to see if what has just 'finished,' and just as suddenly has become a posteriori, is 'reasonable.' But classical theory wants to impose itself almost habitually: what previously worked, in practice, classical theory believes can be reused reliably to make it happen again: 'theoretical' classical certainty attempting to induce itself from empirical practice! And that is classically 'true' if we constrain ourselves to classical reality and stay inside SOM's Box. Classicists stay in their cave and eat mushrooms, and classico-acculturate their children to stay in the cave and eat mushrooms. Bu()sh()! Pink Floyd, "Tear down that wall!" Tear down Parmenidian, Aristotelian, Platonic, Thomist rationalism's wall... Pirsig has shown us to at least consider situations like this hierarchically. Is theory above empiricism? Is empiricism above theory? What have we affirmatively shown? Latter! Classical empirical induction, in our example here, appears to want to invent a rational theory of induction. Where's the rub? Doug thinks it is a classical Platonic belief that ideal forms exist, and we must find them. But reusing theory demands its own meta empiricism. Why? A formal theory is never general. How can Doug say that? Kurt Gödel in his Incompleteness Theorems showed us that no theory can both be classically true and classically state all truths. In a sense Gödel showed us Plato was wrong, in general. But theory as a notion seeks generality of OSFA formal immutability. Practice doesn't demand immutability. Empiricism abides emergent mutability and change. Theory denies them. Theory demands inductive adherence to history. Empiricism demands adherence to now with an expectant eye of future. Latter is what both William James and Charles Sanders Peirce (Purse) meant by abductive (n¤t inductive) pragmatism. As you can see, we have generated some potentia for novel pondering of empiricism's and rationalism's innate optimisms and pessimisms. (See Doug's use of quantum Poisson Brackets, PBs, to Quantonically treat pessimism vis-à-vis optimism quantumly~stochastically.) To good, we see even classicists needing a balance of both — though their equilibria appear surmised dialectically. Toward worse we see past, by direct experience, as incapable of engendering reliable outcomes. Of course, if you read Peirce's abductive link above you will find that deduction, in general, is n¤t necessary (most classicists assume that deduction is 'necessary.'). HotMeme™ If past predicted future, reality would not change.™ HotMeme™ Essence? We cann¤t, in general, predict. That is what Dirac meant by his, "...we must revise our ideas of causality. Causality applies only to a system which is left undisturbed." Why might one believe classical science and philosophy have insisted deductively that classical reality is concrete? In general, classical rational theory is inutile. Classical pessimism. (But most classicists do 'not' believe this! Classical science is still 'optimistically' looking for a GUT: Grand Unifying Theory and ToE: Theory of Everything. Ponder Twin Towers, Challenger, Columbia, Shoemaker Levi, weather, etc.) In general, classical empirical practice is often viable. Classical optimism. (Artists, sculptors, musicians, etc., do this. Peirce and James' a priori empirical pragma as that which abductively works and plausibly, more often than n¤t, leads to success, but with quantum~caveat: "N¤ pr¤cæss ahlways w¤rks! Quantum~umcærtainty ræihgns!")
A Doug comment on rationalism:
You might ask, "Is Quantonics rational?" Simply, rationalism classically 'opposes' empiricism. Why do we say "classically opposes?" If we rationally start with a theory and then try it, we often fail. If we empirically practice we find it is easier to adapt to uniqueness of contexts.
Aside 14Dec2012:
There is a very old yet useful term for what Doug just wrote. Aristotle called it "praxis." Today we call it "pragma," and it means "to do," to do due," "to act," to "practice." Pragma (praxis) is about empirical "doing." Eventually, via quantum~evolution, it works. But theory, when applied dialectically, formally, objectively, mechanically, seldom works. Why? Theory is classical. When classical theory is tried it fails, in general. Why? "There is n¤ try, just do!" Yoda teaching Luke Skywalker. Blackburn, in his Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, writes that theory always generates classical 'contradictions.' Yet that classical theory isn't general enough to 'explain' those contradictions (paradice). Enter Kurt Gödel's "All consistent axiomatic classical formulations include undecidable propositions." (Doug Renselle - paraphrasing Doug Hofstadter's paraphrase of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. See Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach.) Whereof Qabala's, and many Gnoses', "...embrace indetermination." Thus Blackburn explains why many philosophers claim that theory is subordinate to practice. Now...when one realizes that quantum~reality is complementary, and when one grasps how quantum~complementarity eliminates contradictions it becomes relatively easy to say, "Quantum~philosophy" is more general than 'classical-philosophy.' That's a good, a very G¤¤d Value~exegesis of why Doug recommends that students of quantonics, "embrace quantum~theory."
There is a very old yet useful term for what Doug just wrote. Aristotle called it "praxis." Today we call it "pragma," and it means "to do," to do due," "to act," to "practice." Pragma (praxis) is about empirical "doing."
Eventually, via quantum~evolution, it works.
But theory, when applied dialectically, formally, objectively, mechanically, seldom works. Why? Theory is classical. When classical theory is tried it fails, in general. Why? "There is n¤ try, just do!" Yoda teaching Luke Skywalker.
Blackburn, in his Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, writes that theory always generates classical 'contradictions.' Yet that classical theory isn't general enough to 'explain' those contradictions (paradice).
Enter Kurt Gödel's "All consistent axiomatic classical formulations include undecidable propositions." (Doug Renselle - paraphrasing Doug Hofstadter's paraphrase of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. See Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach.)
Whereof Qabala's, and many Gnoses', "...embrace indetermination."
Thus Blackburn explains why many philosophers claim that theory is subordinate to practice.
Now...when one realizes that quantum~reality is complementary, and when one grasps how quantum~complementarity eliminates contradictions it becomes relatively easy to say, "Quantum~philosophy" is more general than 'classical-philosophy.' That's a good, a very G¤¤d Value~exegesis of why Doug recommends that students of quantonics, "embrace quantum~theory."
End aside 14Dec2012.
When we take our empirical results and transform (reify) them into immutable (i.e., ideal classical) theory we find, in general, they do n¤t 'work.' (Notice that 'locally working' laboratory experiments are notoriously n¤n-, un-portable. To make them classically 'general' and apparently 'portable,' one must radically mechanize (reify) them, and in that formalizing procedure many 'quality' (real) features are lost.
In this aside Doug uses vav in place of vis-à-vis (i.e., Latin for "as compared to"). Begin 29Feb2009 Aside on classical vav quantum empiricism: Classical reality is 'state.' Classical empiricism is, as static, except for unitemporal y=f(t) objective motion, passive. Quantum reality is absolute flux. Quantum æmpihrihcism is, as flux, active. Quantum flux is action is pragma. Doug's quantum~æmpihrihcism AKA empiritheory is quantum~prægmatism, a very, very, very active æmpihrihcism. Classical anything, e.g. empiricism, is 'dead,' 'state,' 'stopped,' 'stoppable,' 'zero momentum-able,' Planck's clock halted, etc. Passive! Not evolving! Stuck! Quantum~gnosis omnistinguishes, omniscriminates classical as 'dead' vav quantum as living. End 29Feb2009 Aside on classical vav quantum æmpihrihcism.
In this aside Doug uses vav in place of vis-à-vis (i.e., Latin for "as compared to").
Begin 29Feb2009 Aside on classical vav quantum empiricism:
Classical reality is 'state.' Classical empiricism is, as static, except for unitemporal y=f(t) objective motion, passive. Quantum reality is absolute flux. Quantum æmpihrihcism is, as flux, active. Quantum flux is action is pragma. Doug's quantum~æmpihrihcism AKA empiritheory is quantum~prægmatism, a very, very, very active æmpihrihcism. Classical anything, e.g. empiricism, is 'dead,' 'state,' 'stopped,' 'stoppable,' 'zero momentum-able,' Planck's clock halted, etc. Passive! Not evolving! Stuck! Quantum~gnosis omnistinguishes, omniscriminates classical as 'dead' vav quantum as living.
Classical reality is 'state.' Classical empiricism is, as static, except for unitemporal y=f(t) objective motion, passive.
Quantum reality is absolute flux. Quantum æmpihrihcism is, as flux, active.
Quantum flux is action is pragma.
Doug's quantum~æmpihrihcism AKA empiritheory is quantum~prægmatism, a very, very, very active æmpihrihcism.
Classical anything, e.g. empiricism, is 'dead,' 'state,' 'stopped,' 'stoppable,' 'zero momentum-able,' Planck's clock halted, etc. Passive! Not evolving! Stuck!
Quantum~gnosis omnistinguishes, omniscriminates classical as 'dead' vav quantum as living.
End 29Feb2009 Aside on classical vav quantum æmpihrihcism.
We quote Heisenberg, "But through this process of idealization [Platonization] and precise 'formal' definition the immediate (living) connection with reality is lost (dead)." Physics and Philosophy, 'The Revolution in Modern Science,' Page 200 of 213 total pages (no index). Doug's brackets - 12Apr2007. Doug's parentheticals 29Feb2009.) See a similar quote, more poetically given "Once the apple has fallen from the tree," of D. H. Lawrence.
Classical-reification's SOM-knife cuts — cuts reality as and — via excluded-middles, excommunication (independence) of reified and h-bar zeroed, "dead" objects. That is what Doug intends by "theory classically opposes living~empiricism." Said very notion even classically, of theory, is nonadaptability in a sense of predicable expectation a theory always works if it is canonically orthodox, always DIQheaded, always 'right.' As practiced empiricism is innately adaptive. We see dichon(adaptive_classical_empiricism, nonadaptive_classical_theory) as EOOO 'opposition.'
Again, "Is Quantonics rational?" If we use quantum~reality as our best current (c. 2007) m¤dal of Nature, we must say, "N¤!" Quantonics is an animate, EIMA, and thus h¤l¤graphic, æv¤lutæ~quantum~æmpihrihcism.
A good example here of a n¤n scientific juxtaposition of rationalism and empiricism is public accounting. To become a CPA, what do you have to learn and master? PLAT!
It is 'reasonable' in accounting to do a kind of double-entry verification of one's skills and know-ledges through a classical conjunction of dichon(classical_empiricism, classical_rationalism). Engineer-physicists (and lots of 'scientists') do this too as we shall see. But isn't theory (rationalism) problematic if it is like a 'plan,' i.e., some set of orthodox 'what worked previously, historical' axioms which we then assume shall funda mental-inertially 'predict' future events?
See! Even classical empirical practice doesn't d¤ that! Classical empiricism looks back, a posteriori, but it checks now, a iami (present borne of past), to see if what has just 'finished,' and just as suddenly has become a posteriori, is 'reasonable.' But classical theory wants to impose itself almost habitually: what previously worked, in practice, classical theory believes can be reused reliably to make it happen again: 'theoretical' classical certainty attempting to induce itself from empirical practice! And that is classically 'true' if we constrain ourselves to classical reality and stay inside SOM's Box. Classicists stay in their cave and eat mushrooms, and classico-acculturate their children to stay in the cave and eat mushrooms. Bu()sh()! Pink Floyd, "Tear down that wall!" Tear down Parmenidian, Aristotelian, Platonic, Thomist rationalism's wall...
Pirsig has shown us to at least consider situations like this hierarchically. Is theory above empiricism? Is empiricism above theory? What have we affirmatively shown? Latter!
Classical empirical induction, in our example here, appears to want to invent a rational theory of induction. Where's the rub? Doug thinks it is a classical Platonic belief that ideal forms exist, and we must find them. But reusing theory demands its own meta empiricism. Why? A formal theory is never general. How can Doug say that? Kurt Gödel in his Incompleteness Theorems showed us that no theory can both be classically true and classically state all truths. In a sense Gödel showed us Plato was wrong, in general. But theory as a notion seeks generality of OSFA formal immutability. Practice doesn't demand immutability. Empiricism abides emergent mutability and change. Theory denies them. Theory demands inductive adherence to history. Empiricism demands adherence to now with an expectant eye of future. Latter is what both William James and Charles Sanders Peirce (Purse) meant by abductive (n¤t inductive) pragmatism.
As you can see, we have generated some potentia for novel pondering of empiricism's and rationalism's innate optimisms and pessimisms. (See Doug's use of quantum Poisson Brackets, PBs, to Quantonically treat pessimism vis-à-vis optimism quantumly~stochastically.) To good, we see even classicists needing a balance of both — though their equilibria appear surmised dialectically. Toward worse we see past, by direct experience, as incapable of engendering reliable outcomes. Of course, if you read Peirce's abductive link above you will find that deduction, in general, is n¤t necessary (most classicists assume that deduction is 'necessary.'). HotMeme™ If past predicted future, reality would not change.™ HotMeme™ Essence? We cann¤t, in general, predict. That is what Dirac meant by his, "...we must revise our ideas of causality. Causality applies only to a system which is left undisturbed." Why might one believe classical science and philosophy have insisted deductively that classical reality is concrete?
In general, classical rational theory is inutile. Classical pessimism. (But most classicists do 'not' believe this! Classical science is still 'optimistically' looking for a GUT: Grand Unifying Theory and ToE: Theory of Everything. Ponder Twin Towers, Challenger, Columbia, Shoemaker Levi, weather, etc.)
In general, classical empirical practice is often viable. Classical optimism. (Artists, sculptors, musicians, etc., do this. Peirce and James' a priori empirical pragma as that which abductively works and plausibly, more often than n¤t, leads to success, but with quantum~caveat: "N¤ pr¤cæss ahlways w¤rks! Quantum~umcærtainty ræihgns!")
Doug - 13May2007. It offers an approach which says, "In anticipation of novel outcomes keep expectantly trying memes which might work better than any memes we are currently using: quantum~uncertainty!" Endless emergent, Maheresque "new rules" evolving, memetic-adaptive, memeotic, æmpihrihcism. QTMs' quantum strategy is a quantum~æmpihrihthæ¤ry of radical and relentless change and emergence. ("empiritheory" - Doug coined this word 11May2007; quantum~theory issi empirical; animacy, EIMA~animacy demands a radical QTMic empiricism whose 'mæta~ana~thæ¤ry: mætanathæ¤ry:' recapitulates at each tick of Planck's clock!) Recently we wrote in TQS News about a fungus (C. Albicans) which is currently doing just what Doug is describing. Medical physicians are using fungicides in humans to try to 'kill' C. Albicans. We might call it "medical anti fungal terror." C. Albicans is adapting its own chromosomal 'structure,' quantum~strategically two ways: aneuploidy (both mono- and tri-somy, but especially trisomy on chromosome 5) and isochromosomatism (primarily palindromic duplication of select "location-location-location" and "timing-timing-timing" chromosome sequences). In those quantum~lightings ponder pessimism and optimism medically and fungally. Does a fungus act a priori, strategically? Does a fungus act a posteriori, strategically? Both? Why? Why n¤t? Does a fungus want physicians to have predicable qua in assessing their behavior? If not, why would a fungus choose a priori over a posteriori? Let's make it more interesting: Why is our fungus analogy valuable from a business strategic perspective? Which approach is intrinsically more secure and ultimately, then, survivable? Does survival require your competition should know what you will do next, hmmmm...? Should you, like Michael Jordan, feign a predicable and perform a novel uncertainty? Shades of 911? Nature necessitates strategic evolution as trial and error, uncertain empiricism. Do you see why we say 'science' is silly for trying to axiomatize nature? Do you see how dialectical 'law' is a height of predicate arrogance and hubris? Thus quantum~reality, and so too, Quantonics are animate~EIMA~emergent(OEDC)~EEE: i.e., quantum~empirical. See Doug's 1999-2000 September, QQA on Pirsigean empiricism. Classical empiricism is classically pragmatic: "If you try something and it works, you may say retrospectively you achieved success." Most classicists refer that 'pragmatism.' It is inductive-historical pragmatism: looking back as a means of predicting 1-1 correspondently, single root cause, which effect happens next. Classical engineering-physics is classically pragmatic: it state-event-ically tries approaches until (like Thomas Edison and his light bulb filament: "98% perspiration and 2% inspiration") it finds a material and-or method which appears to work. Rationalism then would say, "If you really could reason well, then you should be able to figure out what to do in your mind without any empirical 'testing.'" But note and observe how an engineer-physicist's work is an evolutionary process (almost endless cycles of livings and dyings of ideas; crucifixion and resurrection of ideas; endless formal improvement of dialectical ideas, mechanical products and formal designs: applied 'classical evolution') and it assumes retrospective 'probability' plays a large role in discovery. Quantonics' philosophy is much like an engineer-physicist's evolutionary process. How is it omniffering? Most engineer-physicists today, c. 2007, use classical dialectical 'tools' (most of them declared "classically rational") of 'reason.' Yes, Doug just showed you how classical engineer-physicists encapsulate hermetically rationalism contradictorily in their practical empiricism. We call CTMs, "rational reason," which engineer-physicists irrationally use in their classically-empirical work. Quantonics uses QTMs! QTMs are c¤mplæmæntar¤~pr¤spæctivæ, forward~looking, expectational, anticipating, open to surprise and even awe,... (i.e., a priorai; if you study: William James' (individual, gn¤stic) pragmatism, and Charles Sanders Peirce's (social, mostly classically dialectical) pragmatism you will find that theirs is a priori pragmatism...) ...absolutely fluxing~animate~empirical heuristics of quantum~evolute empirical~pr¤cæss pragmatism. Easy way to say it is, "Flux is crux," and "QTMs remove CTMs' classical blinders." A Key Quantonics Enabler™, which we seldom mention, and which you must grasp, is that quantum a priori pragmatism both expects and anticipates what Doug calls a quantum~unsaid. QTMs expect an unknown, even a plethora of unknowns. From whence Doug's quantum~unsaid? Robert M. Pirsig's DQ! Quantum isoflux! CTMs deny 'the unknown.' Classical 'science' falls apart when it is forced to fathom 'the unknown,' so classical 'science' denies it. Pirsig's DQ is all reality(ies)'s unknown(s) and unknowable(s). Classically, expecting and anticipating reality's unsaid, "is irrational." Quantumly, quanton(unsaid,said) is real! A Key Quantonics Enabler™ If you want to pursue issues of James vis-à-vis Peirce pragmatism see Durant on James' Pragmatism. Browser search there for 'pragmatism.' End Doug comment on rationalism - Doug - 6Feb-6Apr2007.
It offers an approach which says, "In anticipation of novel outcomes keep expectantly trying memes which might work better than any memes we are currently using: quantum~uncertainty!" Endless emergent, Maheresque "new rules" evolving, memetic-adaptive, memeotic, æmpihrihcism. QTMs' quantum strategy is a quantum~æmpihrihthæ¤ry of radical and relentless change and emergence. ("empiritheory" - Doug coined this word 11May2007; quantum~theory issi empirical; animacy, EIMA~animacy demands a radical QTMic empiricism whose 'mæta~ana~thæ¤ry: mætanathæ¤ry:' recapitulates at each tick of Planck's clock!)
Recently we wrote in TQS News about a fungus (C. Albicans) which is currently doing just what Doug is describing. Medical physicians are using fungicides in humans to try to 'kill' C. Albicans. We might call it "medical anti fungal terror." C. Albicans is adapting its own chromosomal 'structure,' quantum~strategically two ways: aneuploidy (both mono- and tri-somy, but especially trisomy on chromosome 5) and isochromosomatism (primarily palindromic duplication of select "location-location-location" and "timing-timing-timing" chromosome sequences).
In those quantum~lightings ponder pessimism and optimism medically and fungally. Does a fungus act a priori, strategically? Does a fungus act a posteriori, strategically? Both? Why? Why n¤t? Does a fungus want physicians to have predicable qua in assessing their behavior? If not, why would a fungus choose a priori over a posteriori? Let's make it more interesting: Why is our fungus analogy valuable from a business strategic perspective? Which approach is intrinsically more secure and ultimately, then, survivable? Does survival require your competition should know what you will do next, hmmmm...? Should you, like Michael Jordan, feign a predicable and perform a novel uncertainty? Shades of 911?
Nature necessitates strategic evolution as trial and error, uncertain empiricism. Do you see why we say 'science' is silly for trying to axiomatize nature? Do you see how dialectical 'law' is a height of predicate arrogance and hubris? Thus quantum~reality, and so too, Quantonics are animate~EIMA~emergent(OEDC)~EEE: i.e., quantum~empirical. See Doug's 1999-2000 September, QQA on Pirsigean empiricism.
Classical empiricism is classically pragmatic: "If you try something and it works, you may say retrospectively you achieved success." Most classicists refer that 'pragmatism.' It is inductive-historical pragmatism: looking back as a means of predicting 1-1 correspondently, single root cause, which effect happens next. Classical engineering-physics is classically pragmatic: it state-event-ically tries approaches until (like Thomas Edison and his light bulb filament: "98% perspiration and 2% inspiration") it finds a material and-or method which appears to work. Rationalism then would say, "If you really could reason well, then you should be able to figure out what to do in your mind without any empirical 'testing.'" But note and observe how an engineer-physicist's work is an evolutionary process (almost endless cycles of livings and dyings of ideas; crucifixion and resurrection of ideas; endless formal improvement of dialectical ideas, mechanical products and formal designs: applied 'classical evolution') and it assumes retrospective 'probability' plays a large role in discovery. Quantonics' philosophy is much like an engineer-physicist's evolutionary process. How is it omniffering? Most engineer-physicists today, c. 2007, use classical dialectical 'tools' (most of them declared "classically rational") of 'reason.' Yes, Doug just showed you how classical engineer-physicists encapsulate hermetically rationalism contradictorily in their practical empiricism. We call CTMs, "rational reason," which engineer-physicists irrationally use in their classically-empirical work.
Quantonics uses QTMs! QTMs are c¤mplæmæntar¤~pr¤spæctivæ, forward~looking, expectational, anticipating, open to surprise and even awe,...
(i.e., a priorai; if you study:
you will find that theirs is a priori pragmatism...)
...absolutely fluxing~animate~empirical heuristics of quantum~evolute empirical~pr¤cæss pragmatism.
Easy way to say it is, "Flux is crux," and "QTMs remove CTMs' classical blinders."
A Key Quantonics Enabler™, which we seldom mention, and which you must grasp, is that quantum a priori pragmatism both expects and anticipates what Doug calls a quantum~unsaid. QTMs expect an unknown, even a plethora of unknowns. From whence Doug's quantum~unsaid? Robert M. Pirsig's DQ! Quantum isoflux! CTMs deny 'the unknown.' Classical 'science' falls apart when it is forced to fathom 'the unknown,' so classical 'science' denies it. Pirsig's DQ is all reality(ies)'s unknown(s) and unknowable(s). Classically, expecting and anticipating reality's unsaid, "is irrational." Quantumly, quanton(unsaid,said) is real! A Key Quantonics Enabler™
If you want to pursue issues of James vis-à-vis Peirce pragmatism see Durant on James' Pragmatism. Browser search there for 'pragmatism.'
End Doug comment on rationalism - Doug - 6Feb-6Apr2007.
If you are curious about Quantonics English Language Problematics (QELP) see here. Re where?
Chapter Index
Chapter VIII - Pages 72-83 - The Exploits of the Revolutionary Prince —
We have already commented on first part of this chapter in our February, 2005 TQS News. Please read that text and return here. That text sets up what is to follow in this chapter. Much of that referred text, from our February, 2005 TQS News, depends upon quantum~scintillation which Doug covers quite adequately, much later in this text. If you wish to jump ahead and delve more deeply into Doug's Quantonics version of quantum~scintillation now, see Chapter XIII below on this page. Doug - 12May2008.
Hoffmann begins Act II, "As Bohr well knew, not all the early successes of his theory could hide its insufficiencies, for he had poured the new wine of the quantum into bottles that were old. Because it was a heady wine, men did not resist it, but drinking deep strode forth to conquer realms where once they had feared to tread. Far they went on their path of conquest, reckless of their resources. And when at last the bottles broke, they found themselves deep in alien land, confused, leaderless, and without inspiration.
"The confusion was vividly expressed by the German physicist Max Born. Toward the end of 1924 he completed a book on atomic theory. Though all he had to tell was contained within it, he called it Volume I. Now, why should he call it Volume I when there was nothing to be put into Volume II? Because he was so sure the Bohr theory was doomed and some entirely new system must arise to take its place he proposed to devote Volume II to this as yet unborn [i.e., yet unsaid] theory — provided he was still alive when it appeared!
"It did appear, and he did write his Volume II — much sooner than he expected. [Readers, please be aware that this 'new system' was yet and still only mechanical. Both matrix and wave versions of quantum theory during first third of Earth's 20th century were mechanical. See Quantum Interpretations. Doug - 8Feb2007.] Not only was a large portion of the new theory to originate within the year right under his nose, and not only was he to be a significant contributor to its growth and interpretation, but even as he was yet engaged in writing his Volume I the first shot was fired in the wild rioting that heralded the new age of physics.
"It was to Prince Louis de Broglie, member of an old noble French family, that the honor fell of ushering in the ["matter as waves"] revolution. His work had its roots in ideas he had published as early as 1922, and his fundamental manuscript was submitted to the scientific press in December of 1923, almost a year before the appearance of Born's Volume I. But de Broglie's work was then unrecognized. [Classical 'science' denies material is, as, can be animate. Why? Animate material reality violates Aristotle. Doug - 9Feb2007.] Nor was it to form the basis of Born's Volume II. What went into Volume II must wait till a later chapter. For, as we have warned, the story is about to become [classically] complex.
"While scientists were still struggling ahead under the leadership of the ailing Bohr theory, de Broglie chose to rummage quietly among the ideas of Einstein's theory of relativity. His primary interest was with light rather than matter, but in the course of his reflections he had had the idea of endowing the photon with intrinsic mass. Though the concept of a photon possessing such mass is not now accepted, it led de Broglie to a discovery of the first magnitude, for such a photon has kinship with a particle of matter and its mathematical development suggested important parallels.
"In view of the accumulation of evidence, argued de Broglie, it would be stupid to pretend there are no [apparently corpuscular, apparently particulate] photons in light. Nor can one deny that there is also a wave. The two must coexist. [Be careful! A photon can never be an ideal object as classical science requires! Classical dichon(wave, particle) is a classical lie. Quantum reality shows us quanton(wave,only_apparent_particle). Classicists believe reality is objective and thus force objectivity upon all, but reality is not objective. Reality is mostly quantum~subjective while only apparently objective. Doug - 7Jun2007.] Moreover, in relativity light and matter are linked together, for both appear therein as forms of energy. Bearing these things in mind, we can make a little chain of relations [see our 'that text' link above] which carries curious implications. According to relativity, mass is one of the embodiments of energy..." Pp. 72-74. Our brackets, links, bold, and color.
A "Pound this Into Your Head" aside: Quantum~Avatars of Flux By Doug Renselle — ©Quantonics, Inc., 2007-2029 Means: New~Revised Emergence~Immergence loop's left-handed flux chiralty appears arbitrary; physical reality as we are k~n¤w~ings it is 'opposite' shown, e.g., sugar vis-à-vis nutra-sweet: N¤nActuality Fathom: partially b¤th k~n¤w~able, amd umk~n¤w~able N¤n Apparent Actuality Fathom: partially b¤th k~n¤w~able, amd umk~n¤w~able Apparent Actuality Fathom: partially b¤th k~n¤w~able, amd umk~n¤w~able Description, Comments Evolution Complementings This is essence, quintessence of quantum reality. This is where our quantum memeos of "meaning as flux," and "flux is crux," arise and emerq. This is what gives quantum~change a omniphasial islandic omnipartial coherence which is missing in classical ontologies. Every quanton, every quanton ensemble, regardless how 'small,' regardless how 'large,' has its own local temporalings, its own pastings, nowings, futurings: PNFings. Imagine our EmergenceImmergence loopings at left running perpetually for each quanton. That ensemble of endless change is quantum reality. All Avatar classes shown below, for each quanton, and each ensemble, EIMA immerse into and EIMA emerse from their own temporalings borne on countless OEDC evolutiondevolution omniphasial loopings. What we can learn to fathom here, simply is quanton(Evolution,Devolution). Quantum reality's BAWAM complementarity of many loops comtrarotating as shown is what drives classicists 'mad' trying to fathom it using SOM's EOOO dialectic. In quantum reality evolutionary~absoluteness is: Comsistency as always changings, and C¤mpleteness as changings allings. N¤nactuality Actuality Devolution Complementings In Quantonics' version of quantum reality, quanton(evolution,devolution) issi endless, up to Planck rate, loopings of re~birthings and re~deathings, endless loopings of resurrectionings and re~self~euthanisings. ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~ ...N¤ncon(m)ceptual Reality, Isoflux, Quantum~Vacuum~Flux, Hidings... ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~ 800 500 200 (cosmic_n¤nexistence,cosmic_grail,cosmic_plenum)notnauq (finalPhay,finalKhaf,Raysh)notnauq Doug is using 'quanton' here as a means to illustrate 'what is projected' vis-à-vis its 'projection.' quanton (projection) vis-à-vis notnauq (projected) Compare and compare. vis-à-vis rakrak (projected) vis-à-vis kirker (projection). Quantumly, projected quantum~linguistic~flux is a quantum~complementary~antinomial of its projection. So, you ask, "Doug why is this a big deal? What does this have to do with Hoffmann's The Strange Story of the Quantum?" This: light (projected) and scintillation of light (projection). It shows us just another of many incredible quantum~phenomena which are embraced not just by quantum~philosophy as Doug promotes it, but in Qabala and its Sepher Yetsira. Quantum~philosophy (Doug's version) benchmarks both Qabala and Sepher Yetsira evidenced by languages which describe these quantum~phenomena. In this case, most amazing, is quantum~complementary~antinomialism of quantized~light~flux and its quantum~optical~phenomena and Qabala's showing us that it understood and exegetized this long before (millennia prior) Abraham! To Doug, perhaps not to you, but to Doug that is a Miracle!!! Doug - 31Dec2014. Coherence Class isocoherence coherence decoherence See quantum coherence. See cohera. See our Quanton Complementary Interrelationshipings. Entropy Class negentropy zeroentropy posentropy We call this, perhaps naïvely, "quatroentropy." I.e., three shown and mixturings of those. See entropa. Reality Class Reality Class Reality Class isons isons isons bosons bosons bosons fermions fermions fermions We show isons as isospin AKA n¤nspin AKA apparent absence of spin, bosons as integer spin, and fermions as spin 1/2. All actuality (including kn¤wable, n¤n~known, and n¤n~kn¤wable) emerges from isospin. Immaterial bosons, like photons (which may travel billions of light years, 'stably') are stable, until they have opportunity to QED~interrelate with an atom's electron shell(s). Material fermions like electrons and protons are stable and essentially perpetual. Some quark fermions like top, bottom, charmed and strange are much higher energy and quantum~relatively 'unstable' and provide an ontological 'pathway' to much lower energy up and down quarks which emersce protons (UDU), and neutrons (UDD). See QCD. Some of you are aware Doug has been using quantum~cuneiform to assist clarification of issues regarding quantum~equilibria and quantum~chaos. In that process Doug has been omniscovering how Gnosis and Qabala co benchmark Doug's rendition of quantonics' quantum~reality. Let's apply some of that here. Allow Doug to use QCD script to show: proton as UDU and neutron as DUD. Two palindromic tri~codons. Allow Doug and you to view 'U' as an upright grail cup AKA chalice. Allow, further Doug to use 'V' in place of 'U' (up quark) and a inverted 'V' in place of 'D' (down quark). Doug's actual quark semiotics look like this: When we do that we can replace, using cuneiform, DUD with 'M' and UDU with 'W.' Like this in pure tricodonic~cuneiform: and . This is quite profound con(m)sidering its manifest simplicity. If we smooth those cuneiform 'symbols' they may appear as sinusoidal quanta. They, ostensibly, represent quantum~flux! In gnosis, when you put them together as shown above, M on top of W, two stones emerge. does this sema this? (Is that a fermion, anyone? Show how... Higgs, baby? ) Like this: View four peaqlos as Us and Us inverted Vs and Vs inverted. View double-pointed arrow as affectation of Higgs' boson. When we put W on top of M, we see XX. Latter are degenerate vertical grails absent any | AKA pipe. We may choose to thinkq of this degeneracy as quantum zero latency, i.e., perfect 'folding' in chaos theory. And what happens when we superpose w and m? Double~helix? Cancellation anyone? Nature hiding, anyone? A dark energy avatar anyone? A zero point energy metaphor anyone? True female genome hermaphrodicity anyone? See Pagels' Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis for a grail graphic analogy. An important issue in quantum~reality is one of representing 'energy,' quantum vis-à-vis classical. Classicists represent energy as a flatland 'area under a 2D curve' metaphor. In quantum~reality energy is flux: higher rate is higher energy and lower rate is lower energy. Latter is crucial to understanding quantum~equilibria and quantum~chaos! Implication? If we quantum~relatively 'squeeze' 'M' and 'W' their quantum~energies (flux rates) increase. If we stretch them their quantum~energies (flux rates) decrease. Just something to ponder, a crucial quantum way of thinkqing, for your edification. Doug - 8,10,13,31Aug,3Sep2012. Spin Class absence of spin (unsaid Potentia, pneuma, to become any actual spin...absence of mass, space, time, energy, gravity, etc.) integer spins (Gluons, gravity, phoxqons, BECs, partiality of superconduction, partiality of tsunamis, partiality of hurricanes, etc.) 1/2 spins (Revolutionary Prince de Broglie's matter waves.) Isospin is [only classically apparent] absence of spin: absence of all classical measurables due isoflux' comtrar¤tati¤nings, for lack of better wordings. Bosons, c¤mdænsates, and gluons have integer spins, usually spin zær¤ and spin ¤næ. Gravity is, presumably, spin 2 integer apparently in quantum~c¤mplæmæntation of fermions' spin 1/2 rotational n¤n symmetries. Fermions and quarks have fractional, "classically rotationally asymmetric" Möbius 720o 1/2 spins. Isoflux Class Isons, isobs, isoVs... ...\\\\\\Isots\\\\\\\\... ...///////////////////////Isops///////////// See ison, isob, isoV, isot, and isop. See AH and Doug discussion of these ontological stagings. OEDC QCD Class quantons(nonactuality,actuality) quantons(TBCS,UD) See OEDC. See QCD. Wobble Class n¤n conceptual n¤ wobble wobble Richard Feynman viewed 'wobble' as a tell of material reality. Read Gleick's Genius. Mass~Energy Class 'hidden energy' immaterial energy matter~mass If you are asking "What can turn matter~mass into immaterial energy," we answer, for example, fire. Over simply, fire may turn matter~mass into (light, heat, sound, pressure, etc.) bosons, fermionic gases, and matter~mass 'oxide' ashes. Space Class Time Class Gravity Class isoentropy AKA negentropy at best ethereally mediates fermionic energies in quantum~actuality zeroentropy offers n¤ "wobble rate," therefore n¤ gravity A strictly Quantonics Heuristic: posentropic quantum~gravity issi proportional aggregate wobble rates of quanton(fermionic_entity_1,fermionic_entity_2) which we may also narrate as gravityquanton(fewr™_1,fewr™_2) note how any mixentropic entity which is partially posentropic will adhere our gravity script to extent of its posentropy; that entity's zeroentropy complements will offer n¤ gravitational affectings there is huge reward in grasping essence of Doug's words here; ask yourself this query, "what is a hurricane's mixentropy?" how to mitigate hurricanes and tsunamis is implicit in your quantum~answær (n¤t like Bill Gates' approach which will work, however, its qua issi n¤ where near as affective as what Doug is describing here; also his approach has horrendous unintended environmental consequences) Doug - 10Aug2009 Where fewr™ issi an acronym for "fermionic entity wobble rate." Also fwr™ issi an acronym for "fermionic wobble rate," and wr issi an acronym for "wobble rate." What is wobble rate? See this short movie clip. This Quantonics heuristic is going to take a lot of work to bring to full exegetic fruition. Doug is working on that. Mean time, it helps those of you entrepreneurs commence fathoming approaches to real antigravity appliances during MIII. Doug - 10Aug2009. See entropa and cohera. Qua Class hides all potential actualityings coheres 'spacings' con(m)denses 'spacings' correlates 'spacings' entangles 'spacings' middle~includes 'spacings' superposes 'spacings' etc. uses 'spacings' creates 'spacings' Discussion here is a whole library of hypertext... Holograph Class "implicate order" everywhere~associative animate included~middlings "explicate order" This is Quantonics' version. It omniffers Bohm's version. Quantonics' "explicate order" is quantum~n¤nmechanical, and its explicate~implicate orders' middles include one another. For an overview see our recently (2006-2007) updated Nonclassical Philosopher Comparisons. Stochastics Class n¤n statistics Bose statistics Fermi statistics Stochastics: probabilityings (pastings), plausibilityings (nowings), likelihoodings (futurings). Gnosist Class (topos) pneumatic psychic hylic See Appendices, topos, in Elaine Pagels' Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis. N¤nActuality N¤n Apparent Actuality Apparent Actuality Description, Comments By Doug Renselle — ©Quantonics, Inc., 2007-2029 — Rev. 31Dec2014 PDR — Created: 14Jun2005 PDR (12Sep2008 rev - Add 'time class' and 'gravity class.') (15Jan2014 rev - Add 'uses' link to Finding One's Inner aside: 'Using Reality to Know.') (31Dec2014 rev - Major revisions to Avatars, adding chiralty and its complementary~antinomialism.) (2Jan2015 rev - Add QVH Table link to 'vertical' Emergence~Immergence graphic.) Means: New~Revised We have already done a similar table, much simpler classically (i.e., Ockhamistically minimal), years ago on our 'Stairs' page. Here it is: quantum_youquanton(n¤nactuality,actuality) AKA quanton(VES,PES) AKA quanton(implicate_order,explicate_order) See our Bergson I-Cubed Quantum Dual of this Table: Quantonic: n¤nactuality actuality Quantonic: Quantum Reality Quantonic: quantum Everywhere~Included~Middle~Associative quatrotomies Classicism: (for comparison) Classical hylic 'Reality' Entropy: negentropy zeroentropy posentropy mixentropy Coherence: isocoherence coherence decoherence mixcoherence Classicism: (for comparison) classical Everywhere-Excluded-Middle-Disociative antinomies This table shows how classical thing-king omniffers quantum~think~king. Quatro memes are evident here too. Doug - 24May2007 (Table was originally created September-October, 2002 for our Quantonics 'Stairs' page.). . . . Doug also wants to offer another table which provides some quanton(unsaid,said) to above two tables. This one is from our Radiation Notes page:
A "Pound this Into Your Head" aside:
Quantum~Avatars of Flux
By Doug Renselle — ©Quantonics, Inc., 2007-2029 Means: New~Revised
N¤nActuality
Fathom: partially b¤th k~n¤w~able, amd umk~n¤w~able
N¤n Apparent Actuality
Apparent Actuality
This is essence, quintessence of quantum reality. This is where our quantum memeos of "meaning as flux," and "flux is crux," arise and emerq. This is what gives quantum~change a omniphasial islandic omnipartial coherence which is missing in classical ontologies.
Every quanton, every quanton ensemble, regardless how 'small,' regardless how 'large,' has its own local temporalings, its own pastings, nowings, futurings: PNFings. Imagine our EmergenceImmergence loopings at left running perpetually for each quanton. That ensemble of endless change is quantum reality.
All Avatar classes shown below, for each quanton, and each ensemble, EIMA immerse into and EIMA emerse from their own temporalings borne on countless OEDC evolutiondevolution omniphasial loopings.
What we can learn to fathom here, simply is quanton(Evolution,Devolution).
Quantum reality's BAWAM complementarity of many loops comtrarotating as shown is what drives classicists 'mad' trying to fathom it using SOM's EOOO dialectic.
In quantum reality evolutionary~absoluteness is:
Comsistency as always changings, and C¤mpleteness as changings allings.
~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~ ...N¤ncon(m)ceptual Reality, Isoflux, Quantum~Vacuum~Flux, Hidings... ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~
(cosmic_n¤nexistence,cosmic_grail,cosmic_plenum)notnauq
(finalPhay,finalKhaf,Raysh)notnauq
Doug is using 'quanton' here as a means to illustrate 'what is projected' vis-à-vis its 'projection.'
quanton (projection) vis-à-vis notnauq (projected)
Compare and compare.
vis-à-vis
rakrak (projected) vis-à-vis kirker (projection).
Quantumly, projected quantum~linguistic~flux is a quantum~complementary~antinomial of its projection.
So, you ask, "Doug why is this a big deal? What does this have to do with Hoffmann's The Strange Story of the Quantum?" This: light (projected) and scintillation of light (projection). It shows us just another of many incredible quantum~phenomena which are embraced not just by quantum~philosophy as Doug promotes it, but in Qabala and its Sepher Yetsira. Quantum~philosophy (Doug's version) benchmarks both Qabala and Sepher Yetsira evidenced by languages which describe these quantum~phenomena. In this case, most amazing, is quantum~complementary~antinomialism of quantized~light~flux and its quantum~optical~phenomena and Qabala's showing us that it understood and exegetized this long before (millennia prior) Abraham! To Doug, perhaps not to you, but to Doug that is a Miracle!!!
Doug - 31Dec2014.
Reality Class
isons
bosons
fermions
We show isons as isospin AKA n¤nspin AKA apparent absence of spin, bosons as integer spin, and fermions as spin 1/2.
All actuality (including kn¤wable, n¤n~known, and n¤n~kn¤wable) emerges from isospin.
Immaterial bosons, like photons (which may travel billions of light years, 'stably') are stable, until they have opportunity to QED~interrelate with an atom's electron shell(s).
Material fermions like electrons and protons are stable and essentially perpetual. Some quark fermions like top, bottom, charmed and strange are much higher energy and quantum~relatively 'unstable' and provide an ontological 'pathway' to much lower energy up and down quarks which emersce protons (UDU), and neutrons (UDD). See QCD.
Some of you are aware Doug has been using quantum~cuneiform to assist clarification of issues regarding quantum~equilibria and quantum~chaos.
In that process Doug has been omniscovering how Gnosis and Qabala co benchmark Doug's rendition of quantonics' quantum~reality.
Let's apply some of that here.
Allow Doug to use QCD script to show:
proton as UDU
and
neutron as DUD.
Two palindromic tri~codons.
Allow Doug and you to view 'U' as an upright grail cup AKA chalice.
Allow, further Doug to use 'V' in place of 'U' (up quark) and a inverted 'V' in place of 'D' (down quark). Doug's actual quark semiotics look like this:
When we do that we can replace, using cuneiform, DUD with 'M' and UDU with 'W.' Like this in pure tricodonic~cuneiform:
.
This is quite profound con(m)sidering its manifest simplicity.
If we smooth those cuneiform 'symbols' they may appear as sinusoidal quanta. They, ostensibly, represent quantum~flux!
In gnosis, when you put them together as shown above, M on top of W, two stones emerge.
does this sema this?
(Is that a fermion, anyone? Show how... Higgs, baby? ) Like this:
View four peaqlos as Us and Us inverted Vs and Vs inverted. View double-pointed arrow as affectation of Higgs' boson.
When we put W on top of M, we see XX. Latter are degenerate vertical grails absent any | AKA pipe. We may choose to thinkq of this degeneracy as quantum zero latency, i.e., perfect 'folding' in chaos theory. And what happens when we superpose w and m?
Double~helix?
Cancellation anyone?
Nature hiding, anyone?
A dark energy avatar anyone?
A zero point energy metaphor anyone?
True female genome hermaphrodicity anyone?
See Pagels' Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis for a grail graphic analogy.
An important issue in quantum~reality is one of representing 'energy,' quantum vis-à-vis classical. Classicists represent energy as a flatland 'area under a 2D curve' metaphor. In quantum~reality energy is flux: higher rate is higher energy and lower rate is lower energy. Latter is crucial to understanding quantum~equilibria and quantum~chaos!
Implication? If we quantum~relatively 'squeeze' 'M' and 'W' their quantum~energies (flux rates) increase. If we stretch them their quantum~energies (flux rates) decrease.
Just something to ponder, a crucial quantum way of thinkqing, for your edification.
Doug - 8,10,13,31Aug,3Sep2012.
absence of spin
(unsaid Potentia, pneuma, to become any actual spin...absence of mass, space, time, energy, gravity, etc.)
integer spins
(Gluons, gravity, phoxqons, BECs, partiality of superconduction, partiality of tsunamis, partiality of hurricanes, etc.)
1/2 spins
(Revolutionary Prince de Broglie's matter waves.)
A strictly Quantonics Heuristic: posentropic quantum~gravity issi proportional aggregate wobble rates of quanton(fermionic_entity_1,fermionic_entity_2) which we may also narrate as gravityquanton(fewr™_1,fewr™_2)
note how any mixentropic entity which is partially posentropic will adhere our gravity script to extent of its posentropy; that entity's zeroentropy complements will offer n¤ gravitational affectings
there is huge reward in grasping essence of Doug's words here; ask yourself this query, "what is a hurricane's mixentropy?"
how to mitigate hurricanes and tsunamis is implicit in your quantum~answær (n¤t like Bill Gates' approach which will work, however, its qua issi n¤ where near as affective as what Doug is describing here; also his approach has horrendous unintended environmental consequences)
Doug - 10Aug2009
Where fewr™ issi an acronym for "fermionic entity wobble rate." Also fwr™ issi an acronym for "fermionic wobble rate," and wr issi an acronym for "wobble rate." What is wobble rate? See this short movie clip.
This Quantonics heuristic is going to take a lot of work to bring to full exegetic fruition. Doug is working on that. Mean time, it helps those of you entrepreneurs commence fathoming approaches to real antigravity appliances during MIII. Doug - 10Aug2009.
See entropa and cohera.
We have already done a similar table, much simpler classically (i.e., Ockhamistically minimal), years ago on our 'Stairs' page. Here it is:
Classicism: (for comparison)
n¤nactuality
is¤flux
quarks:
TB
CS
Doug's Quark Emerscitected with Fuzzons. Click on our quark graphic if you cannot see wingdings arrow fonts in our HTML table above. This table also shows how classical thing-king, limited to 'yellow box-cell' above, omniffers quantum~think~king. Quatro memes are unevident here. (Table was originally created CeodE 2004-2029 for our Quantonics 'Radiation Notes' page.). Gnostically this table shows Greek topos in colors as: hylic - yellow - SOM - DIQheaded literal materialism psychic - green - CR - DIQheaded scientific relativism pneuma - burgundy - MoQ - QICheaded quantum flux If you want to understand topos in a much larger comtext see our topos table. Heliotrope is hue~symbolic, synæsthetic~fragrant of quantum~realities' included~middle. Semantic is realities' included~middles perpetually and persistently, visually and olfactorily, "turn toward Quantum~Lightings™" For Doug, being Ihn Quantum~Lightings™ is being quantum~real. Iht issi, f¤r Doug, ultimate Quantum~Gn¤sis! Pirsig might say that, "Heliotrope is a way of perpetually keeping DQ with all of your SQ." Captain, our captain, we intend n¤ offense. Doug - 5Mar2009. End aside.
hylic - yellow - SOM - DIQheaded literal materialism psychic - green - CR - DIQheaded scientific relativism pneuma - burgundy - MoQ - QICheaded quantum flux
End aside.
Let's focus attention on that last paragraph, which ended "...which carries curious implications. According to relativity, mass is one of the embodiments of energy..."
About one hundred years ago scientists predominately CTM thought of mass and energy as mathematically and dialectically formal and mechanical. In that context thought fails to describe, let alone 'define,' reality. However, if we move to a quantum~comtext, classical form (concretely-stoppable, state-ic, quantitative, and every-where-excluded-middle-dissociative) becomes quantum~emerqancy (flux~preferential, dynamic, qualitative, and every~whereings~included~middlings~associativings). Too then, in both context and comtext "According to relativity, mass is one of the embodiments of energy..." have semantic and heuristic value, but contextually their dialectical 'value' is bogus, while comtextually their complementary~Value moves closer to reality. See our isox ontology. See isox.
In all of these words, for Doug, it appears that classicists are deluded to view:
I mean, we can burn wood-coal-charcoal, but then it isn't wood-coal-charcoal anymore, is it? It will 'never' be that wood-coal-charcoal again, right? Is burning wood classical reembodiment? Break up a rock (an analogue of classical SOM's Knife 'analysis'). Is said rock reembodied? Put it back together with glue (an analogue of classical synthesis). Is it reembodied? Is E = mc2 really Einsteinian classical reembodiment of mass into energy? If that is classically 'true' then isn't m = E/c2 a reembodiment of energy into mass? Doesn't any speed exceeding light speed, i.e., e.g., c2 violate Einstein's own relativity? Doesn't c2 reembody Einstein's own notions of relativity? If light speed is a Special-Relativity and General-Relativity limit, how can Einstein declare its square as necessary and exceed his own 'canonic' limit? What is flux associated with light speed squared? Allow Doug to take a few moments to make this fairly simple:
Simple flux aside: Classically, physics says that its only proxy for flux is measurable 'change' of some parameter with respect to 'time.' Classical time is a proxy of space rate which most physicists show as x/x. Simply time is space rate of change with respect to space. Classical flux then is 'change' rate wrt 'time.' An empirical example is Earth fluxes (cyclorotates) on its axis approximately 365 times for each solar year cyclorbit it makes 'around' our Sun. Earth's day/year flux rate is 365, approximately. (If you thinkq about this, you may see how classically constant 'pi' is almost meaningless when we grasp that neither Earth's nor Sol's cyclorbits are closed, i.e., ideally, classically 'circular.') Classical physics also says that we have to think about at least two kinds of flux: flux at rest, and flux in motion. Former we refer "classical spatial flux." Latter we refer "classical velocity flux." We can imagine, for example a third, "classical acceleration flux." We can imagine too Einstein's "classical velocity-squared flux." Our last paragraph emphasizes a classical notion that an object's relative flux increases with velocity. Doppler shift from blue (apparent higher flux) to red (apparent lower flux) of a train approaching, passing and receding from you with its horn blaring makes this relative flux-velocity phenomenon apparent. We see how train's horn, locally to train, doesn't change frequency, but from your perspective it apparently does change frequency. Here we offer essene-tials of Einstein's special relativity. Simply, too! Is it OK for Doug to say "flux at rest?" Quantumly, "N¤!" Classically, "Yes!" Classicists believe that reality is at least stoppable, if 'not' absolutely 'stopped.' Quantumists believe that our multiverses are in "absolute motion." How do quantumists believe that? Pendula would not, could n¤t swing without absolute multiversal motion. Planck's constant would be 'zero' without absolute multiversal motion. Heisenberg's uncertainty could n¤t exist without absolute multiversal motion. That paragraph describes Doug's position that quantum real flux is crux! Now fathom how Einstein's special relativity requires reality be stopped, and even worse that it have an absolutely stopped and stable Cartesian reference frame to be viable. Implication? Classical real stux is crux! Doug says, "classical stux sux." Easiest classical way to view flux however, is f = 1/. I.e., frequency is reciprocal of its wavelength. What about that '1?' It classically 'normalizes' speed to classical 'zero.' If our flux is moving at some velocity 'c' we classically show it like this, f = c/. Thus, again, [apparent, quantum~relative] flux is proportional to its velocity. Our Doppler example shows that directly. End simple flux aside.
Simple flux aside:
Classically, physics says that its only proxy for flux is measurable 'change' of some parameter with respect to 'time.' Classical time is a proxy of space rate which most physicists show as x/x. Simply time is space rate of change with respect to space. Classical flux then is 'change' rate wrt 'time.' An empirical example is Earth fluxes (cyclorotates) on its axis approximately 365 times for each solar year cyclorbit it makes 'around' our Sun. Earth's day/year flux rate is 365, approximately. (If you thinkq about this, you may see how classically constant 'pi' is almost meaningless when we grasp that neither Earth's nor Sol's cyclorbits are closed, i.e., ideally, classically 'circular.')
Classical physics also says that we have to think about at least two kinds of flux: flux at rest, and flux in motion. Former we refer "classical spatial flux." Latter we refer "classical velocity flux." We can imagine, for example a third, "classical acceleration flux." We can imagine too Einstein's "classical velocity-squared flux."
Our last paragraph emphasizes a classical notion that an object's relative flux increases with velocity. Doppler shift from blue (apparent higher flux) to red (apparent lower flux) of a train approaching, passing and receding from you with its horn blaring makes this relative flux-velocity phenomenon apparent. We see how train's horn, locally to train, doesn't change frequency, but from your perspective it apparently does change frequency. Here we offer essene-tials of Einstein's special relativity. Simply, too!
Is it OK for Doug to say "flux at rest?" Quantumly, "N¤!" Classically, "Yes!" Classicists believe that reality is at least stoppable, if 'not' absolutely 'stopped.' Quantumists believe that our multiverses are in "absolute motion." How do quantumists believe that? Pendula would not, could n¤t swing without absolute multiversal motion. Planck's constant would be 'zero' without absolute multiversal motion. Heisenberg's uncertainty could n¤t exist without absolute multiversal motion.
That paragraph describes Doug's position that quantum real flux is crux!
Now fathom how Einstein's special relativity requires reality be stopped, and even worse that it have an absolutely stopped and stable Cartesian reference frame to be viable. Implication? Classical real stux is crux! Doug says, "classical stux sux."
Easiest classical way to view flux however, is f = 1/. I.e., frequency is reciprocal of its wavelength. What about that '1?' It classically 'normalizes' speed to classical 'zero.' If our flux is moving at some velocity 'c' we classically show it like this, f = c/. Thus, again, [apparent, quantum~relative] flux is proportional to its velocity. Our Doppler example shows that directly.
End simple flux aside.
Repeat, then, "What is flux associated with light speed squared?" Let's show this a couple of classical ways. English system says that one foot at light speed is a nanosecond. Metric system says that one meter at light speed is 3.27 nanoseconds. So in 1 second light travels 109 feet. And in 1 second light travels 3·108 meters.
Doug's whole point here is that classical language, formal mathematics, and Platonic ideas are just too limited to describe nature.
Aside: Allow us to use Hoffmann's English to show you what we mean. "Multiply [mass] by the square of the speed of light and, according to Einstein's law, it becomes energy." p. 75. Hoffmann's English mathematical description is predicate formal. Is it physical? N¤! Is it physial? N¤! Is it classically logical? Classicists claim "yes." But classical logic is dialectical and dialectic as we have shown over and over and over is BOGUS! Dialectic only works in a contrived, mechanical, unreal, n¤nphysial context. Formal language as used by Hoffmann simply does n¤t describe natural, quantum~reality. Physically Einstein's 'equation' means "move any mass at light speed and accelerate that again by light speed." (Doug isn't saying you/we can't do that. Doug is just saying it breaks Einstein's own canon that naught shall exceed light speed. Doug is also saying that Einstein was an idiot for claiming that light speed is fastest speed in our omniverses. Recall that at 19th century's turn, 'scientists' were saying stuff like, "Physics is complete. We have finished our work in physics. Newton's ontology explains every knowable notion in reality. Planes will never fly faster than speed of sound. Space vehicles will never achieve escape velocity required to leave Earth's gravity. There will never be more than six computers in our whole world. Why would anyone ever want to talk to someone else over two wires (let alone airwaves) to someone else remotely located." Now these classically-trained-same 'scientists' are saying, "Humans are 'causing global warming.' Humans are root-1-1-correspondent-cause of 'global warming'" Scientists hadn't, still haven't, learned to be chary of placing limits on any notions. In retrospect, literally, they were genuinely stupid fools. On top of all that, they were busy doing all in their 'power' to reject quantum theory and celebrity-worse-ship Einstein's "Invariant Geometrical Interval" relativity. Hogwash! Planck's comstant hints that there are speeds vastly above light speed, including superluminality! Superluminality? Any distance 'traveled' (we probably should use teleported here...actually it very likely will be implemented as telecorrelation: a kind of quantum duplication "at a distance" of one actuality into another...a 'blank set' of 'stem quantons' in a 'destination' locus may be 'correlated' with another 'vivo set' in a 'origination' locus...only Doug's choosings for a candidate approach...) in n¤ timings, although there likely will be latencies of telecorrelation~process, but n¤t of systemic~correlation per intera!) Physially Einstein's 'equation' means "increase any masses' energy (flux) by a very large energy (flux) multiplier (~1020 depending upon chosen change rate per unit reference)." End aside.
Aside:
Allow us to use Hoffmann's English to show you what we mean.
"Multiply [mass] by the square of the speed of light and, according to Einstein's law, it becomes energy." p. 75.
Hoffmann's English mathematical description is predicate formal. Is it physical? N¤! Is it physial? N¤!
Is it classically logical? Classicists claim "yes." But classical logic is dialectical and dialectic as we have shown over and over and over is BOGUS! Dialectic only works in a contrived, mechanical, unreal, n¤nphysial context.
Formal language as used by Hoffmann simply does n¤t describe natural, quantum~reality.
Physically Einstein's 'equation' means "move any mass at light speed and accelerate that again by light speed."
(Doug isn't saying you/we can't do that. Doug is just saying it breaks Einstein's own canon that naught shall exceed light speed. Doug is also saying that Einstein was an idiot for claiming that light speed is fastest speed in our omniverses. Recall that at 19th century's turn, 'scientists' were saying stuff like, "Physics is complete. We have finished our work in physics. Newton's ontology explains every knowable notion in reality. Planes will never fly faster than speed of sound. Space vehicles will never achieve escape velocity required to leave Earth's gravity. There will never be more than six computers in our whole world. Why would anyone ever want to talk to someone else over two wires (let alone airwaves) to someone else remotely located." Now these classically-trained-same 'scientists' are saying, "Humans are 'causing global warming.' Humans are root-1-1-correspondent-cause of 'global warming'" Scientists hadn't, still haven't, learned to be chary of placing limits on any notions. In retrospect, literally, they were genuinely stupid fools. On top of all that, they were busy doing all in their 'power' to reject quantum theory and celebrity-worse-ship Einstein's "Invariant Geometrical Interval" relativity. Hogwash! Planck's comstant hints that there are speeds vastly above light speed, including superluminality! Superluminality? Any distance 'traveled' (we probably should use teleported here...actually it very likely will be implemented as telecorrelation: a kind of quantum duplication "at a distance" of one actuality into another...a 'blank set' of 'stem quantons' in a 'destination' locus may be 'correlated' with another 'vivo set' in a 'origination' locus...only Doug's choosings for a candidate approach...) in n¤ timings, although there likely will be latencies of telecorrelation~process, but n¤t of systemic~correlation per intera!)
(Doug isn't saying you/we can't do that. Doug is just saying it breaks Einstein's own canon that naught shall exceed light speed. Doug is also saying that Einstein was an idiot for claiming that light speed is fastest speed in our omniverses. Recall that at 19th century's turn, 'scientists' were saying stuff like,
"Physics is complete. We have finished our work in physics. Newton's ontology explains every knowable notion in reality. Planes will never fly faster than speed of sound. Space vehicles will never achieve escape velocity required to leave Earth's gravity. There will never be more than six computers in our whole world. Why would anyone ever want to talk to someone else over two wires (let alone airwaves) to someone else remotely located." Now these classically-trained-same 'scientists' are saying, "Humans are 'causing global warming.' Humans are root-1-1-correspondent-cause of 'global warming'" Scientists hadn't, still haven't, learned to be chary of placing limits on any notions. In retrospect, literally, they were genuinely stupid fools. On top of all that, they were busy doing all in their 'power' to reject quantum theory and celebrity-worse-ship Einstein's "Invariant Geometrical Interval" relativity. Hogwash!
"Physics is complete. We have finished our work in physics. Newton's ontology explains every knowable notion in reality. Planes will never fly faster than speed of sound. Space vehicles will never achieve escape velocity required to leave Earth's gravity. There will never be more than six computers in our whole world. Why would anyone ever want to talk to someone else over two wires (let alone airwaves) to someone else remotely located." Now these classically-trained-same 'scientists' are saying, "Humans are 'causing global warming.' Humans are root-1-1-correspondent-cause of 'global warming'"
Scientists hadn't, still haven't, learned to be chary of placing limits on any notions. In retrospect, literally, they were genuinely stupid fools. On top of all that, they were busy doing all in their 'power' to reject quantum theory and celebrity-worse-ship Einstein's "Invariant Geometrical Interval" relativity. Hogwash!
Planck's comstant hints that there are speeds vastly above light speed, including superluminality! Superluminality? Any distance 'traveled' (we probably should use teleported here...actually it very likely will be implemented as telecorrelation: a kind of quantum duplication "at a distance" of one actuality into another...a 'blank set' of 'stem quantons' in a 'destination' locus may be 'correlated' with another 'vivo set' in a 'origination' locus...only Doug's choosings for a candidate approach...) in n¤ timings, although there likely will be latencies of telecorrelation~process, but n¤t of systemic~correlation per intera!)
Physially Einstein's 'equation' means "increase any masses' energy (flux) by a very large energy (flux) multiplier (~1020 depending upon chosen change rate per unit reference)."
Quantum~real embodiment, disembodiment, and reembodiment involve at least four (quatro) types of entropa and cohera (use our large table above to ponder this...).
But 'classical science' calls that "absurd." Yet 'scientists' like Einstein go ahead and describe posentropy-only energy reembodiments as 'classically real' while ignoring, sweeping under a carpet, quantum~cohera and ~entropa as classical "absurdities." Einstein's energy transformations show us his genuine stupidity; he does not show us his 'genius.' His use of "absurd" to disabuse his competitors is another tell of his genuine stupidity. Einstein said that subjective reality is "absurd." Guess what? Einstein, similar Aristotle, is "absurd." Only social 'politically correct' celebrity is dumb enough to encourage DIQheads like Einstein to reign for a hundred years.
Einstein treated all energy as objective, material, fermionic...posentropic: now that's stupid, any way you look at it! Ever heard of Bose and Fermi statistics? They both describe quantum energy di(omni)stributions of bosons (quantum~coherent zeroentropy: adiabatic; 100% efficiently carries-holds energy) and fermions (quantum~decoherent posentropy: inefficiently loses-dissipates energy). Oversimply we can view Bose-Fermi stochastics as quanton(bosonic,fermionic). That is an actual description of energy stochastics. Less simply we can view Bose-Fermi and isoflux stochastics as quanton(negentropy,quanton(zeroentropy,posentropy)). We added isons (quantum~isocoherent negentropy: isoadiabatic; gainful, unlimited isoenergy...boundless abundance of isoenergy awaiting our learning how to tap into it). Analogously, quanton(isons,quanton(bosons,fermions)).
"Doug, is there a quantum dual of your two "classical delusion" bullets? How would a dual like that help us to understand your point better?" Here it is, albeit extremely, excessively over-simplified to retain a modicum analogy:
It is shear idiocy to treat both fermionic mass and bosonic energy as posentropic! Mass to energy reembodiment, using Quantonics' m¤daling of quantum reality, is a fermionic decoherent flux potential energy to bosonic coherent flux actualized energy transemerqancy. (In our reality loop in our large table above, a study of QCD shows another story of mass~energy~fermions to mass reembodiment. TBCS quarks emersce into UD quarks which emersce~reembody into neutrons and protons: actual atomic nuclei. We mention this only as a semaphore of dangers of oversimplification: a tip of an iceberg issi n¤t the iceberg...) End of our parenthetical begs a Quantonics' HotMeme™ "What is unsaid is radically more important than what is said."™ HotMeme™ .
Compare our classical-concrete abusing HotMeme™ to our quantum HotMeme™. Classical offers no ontology; only a negative and radically final and deadly 'thermodynamic' Maxwell's 2nd 'law,' anti-gn¤stic embrace. Quantum offers an ¤nt¤l¤gy of positive, radically qualitative ever-improving renewal. Our quantum ontology needs not Einstein's c2, only quantum~squarings and ~square~rootings of flux as EEE QLOs.
Planck said E = Nih (flux). Compare that E to Einstein's E (concrete). Which is better? Which is 'reasonable' on its face and which is ludicrous on its face (i.e., self-contradictory; theory self-contradictory)?
Do you still trust Einstein? Doug doesn't! Doug gradually has come to believe that Einstein was really a social-celebrity-idiot-savant. Doug believes that Millennium III quantum~heuristics and ~hermeneutics will declare Einstein "relatively naïve."
A strong tell of that naïveté is Einstein's choice to ignore Leibnitz' caveats re: reality as subjective and reality as 'not' objective. Another is Einstein's choice to go with Leibnitz' 3D1T, call 'space-time' an identity, and ignore that declaration's demand for 3D3T. In Doug's view, Einstein made a huge number of horrendous errors. Why? Einstein was a local realist, a naïve realist, living in a concrete mythos of dialectic and radical ratiocinative reasoning called 'science.' Worse, he insisted that reality, his relativistic reality, had to be objective while claiming subjectivity as "heresy." A Fool calling reality a "fool."
Quantum reality naturally offers us a way — i.e., quantum~empirical~evolution — out of this conundrum. Imagine our quantum flux spectrum. What if fluxes' phenomenal islandic~omnipartial~omnicoherent~omniphasial~omnientropic~behaviours vary quantum~flux~relatively across that spectrum. What if, at a high rate of flux and above, said flux becomes adiabatic? (Notice how we now have a simple explanation of, for example non classically decaying, electron orbital perpetuity and perpetual motion...if we except that surmise. Also notice how that is testable and has already been demonstrated empirically.) What if at some high rate of flux when fermions form as wobbling flux said flux appears solidly massive, even though those fermions are still and yet fluxing, but their rate of flux is too high for us to sense directly? All of a sudden huge doors of thought open and they open massively and blunt force traumatically. All of those omniffering kinds and combinations of cohera and entropa of which Doug has been speaking for over 10 years acquire blunt force traumatic quantum~stage Value!
As Hoffmann does at this juncture, we can drag LaPlace... (of Beaumont de Auge, France; check your Google Maps just south of Deauville, France on English channel's French coastline) ...into our discussion. LaPlace offered a mechanical way for us to think about quantum complementarity of functional-operator per(con)spectives. If you are familiar with his LaPlacian... (Recall your elementary diffy-Q? Doug's is Earl D. Rainville, 1965...of course Rainville and his ilk wrongly believe and believed that mathematical equivalence relations: identity, reflexivity, symmetry, transitivity, etc., and linear relation properties: factorizability, distributivity, commutativity, etc., are valid and LaPlace couldn't do his LaPlacian without them...quantum animate everywhere~associative~middle~inclusion destroys classical equivalence and linearity, just as it destroys classical notions of stoppable objective independence...and so Doug offers another HotMeme™ Classical mathematics is dead!™ HotMeme™ and that is a precursor of Doug's long standing "Digital is dead!" Now perhaps you may begin to edge toward accepting Doug's latter, albeit provisional and always quantum~uncertain, declarative.) ...you can grasp immediately what Doug is saying here: quantum~complementary time domain vis-à-vis frequency domain views of flux. (Also see Fourier, for similar classical notions of objectified, reified flux.) In a time domain per(con)spective flux is shown as Bergsonian durational, classically immeasurable at a point without classically stopping quantum flux and 'curve-fitting' it transversely. Trouble is...stopping quantum flux is impossible! In a LaPlacian frequency domain per(con)spective we are looking at an end view of some 'particular' flux which appears as a singular 'post' whose amplitude may be fluxing up and down. Can you see here nascent classical notions of wavicle as either wave or particle? This is Niels Bohr's exclusive complementarity laid bare. Classicists view those two orthogonal ('normal,' 'right,' etc.) views of flux as 'opposites.' Contraria sunt complementa aperio. What does this lay bare, again? Classical exclusion! Dr. David Foulis' quantum logic paper is all about how classical exclusion evokes bad thingking about quantum reality. He shows us how those two views may not be taken as separate, let alone 'opposite.' Foulis, in our way of thinking, shows how 'either-or' thingking disables human minds from understanding, let alone accepting quantum middle~inclusion due absolute flux phenomena as real. But it is! Doug - 10Feb2007.
As Hoffmann does at this juncture, we can drag LaPlace...
(of Beaumont de Auge, France; check your Google Maps just south of Deauville, France on English channel's French coastline)
...into our discussion. LaPlace offered a mechanical way for us to think about quantum complementarity of functional-operator per(con)spectives. If you are familiar with his LaPlacian...
(Recall your elementary diffy-Q? Doug's is Earl D. Rainville, 1965...of course Rainville and his ilk wrongly believe and believed that mathematical equivalence relations: identity, reflexivity, symmetry, transitivity, etc., and linear relation properties: factorizability, distributivity, commutativity, etc., are valid and LaPlace couldn't do his LaPlacian without them...quantum animate everywhere~associative~middle~inclusion destroys classical equivalence and linearity, just as it destroys classical notions of stoppable objective independence...and so Doug offers another HotMeme™ Classical mathematics is dead!™ HotMeme™ and that is a precursor of Doug's long standing "Digital is dead!" Now perhaps you may begin to edge toward accepting Doug's latter, albeit provisional and always quantum~uncertain, declarative.)
...you can grasp immediately what Doug is saying here: quantum~complementary time domain vis-à-vis frequency domain views of flux.
(Also see Fourier, for similar classical notions of objectified, reified flux.)
In a time domain per(con)spective flux is shown as Bergsonian durational, classically immeasurable at a point without classically stopping quantum flux and 'curve-fitting' it transversely. Trouble is...stopping quantum flux is impossible! In a LaPlacian frequency domain per(con)spective we are looking at an end view of some 'particular' flux which appears as a singular 'post' whose amplitude may be fluxing up and down. Can you see here nascent classical notions of wavicle as either wave or particle? This is Niels Bohr's exclusive complementarity laid bare. Classicists view those two orthogonal ('normal,' 'right,' etc.) views of flux as 'opposites.' Contraria sunt complementa aperio. What does this lay bare, again? Classical exclusion! Dr. David Foulis' quantum logic paper is all about how classical exclusion evokes bad thingking about quantum reality. He shows us how those two views may not be taken as separate, let alone 'opposite.' Foulis, in our way of thinking, shows how 'either-or' thingking disables human minds from understanding, let alone accepting quantum middle~inclusion due absolute flux phenomena as real. But it is! Doug - 10Feb2007.
Rest of this chapter is fairly complex and covers Einstein's relativity in some detail. We are quoting those ten pages verbatim so that we can show, for benefit of readers and students, detailed commentary and responses:
But it is risky to convict on such slender suspicion alone. Assuming that a rhythmically pulsating material corpuscle is accompanied by a wave simply because it pulsates would be like assuming that a rhythmically breathing Marine corporal was accompanied by a Wave when perhaps he was only thinking of one. De Broglie must have grounds more relative than this.
Relativity can play queer tricks, and de Broglie found in it many suggestive connections between particles and waves. To follow one of his lines of reasoning we must know one particular fact about the theory of relativity, which we shall mention when the time comes. Let us forget for the moment about waves and concentrate on pulsating particles. Surprisingly enough, we can determine their exact rate of pulsation. It comes right out of our chain of relations. We know the mass. Multiply by the square of the speed of light and, according to Einstein's law, it becomes the energy. Divide this energy by Planck's constant and lo! it becomes the frequency. For all its fanciful quality, our chain of relations was a precise one mathematically. From it we have created a picture of a particle with a definite rate of pulsation.
Concentrate now on the pure pulsation [Quantonics' isoflux!]. If we write down the usual mathematical expression for such a pulsation we can [classically, only mechanically,] interpret it in two ways: either as a bottled-up heartbeat [classical view: classical object; quantum view: quantum wave~packet] or else as a spread-out pulsation [classical view: classical mechanical wave; quantum view: quantum spatially arbitrary omnifluxings]. This gave de Broglie some assurance that there would be no mathematical contradiction if he used both interpretations at once [Which by direct reflection is a quantum~both~and, a BAWAM, n¤t an classical either-or. A quanton! Doug - June 9, 2007.]. Thus he assumed that a particle at rest [Impossible in quantum reality! See rest.] not only possessed a localized heartbeat [This, dear reader, is what we mean by quanta, a quantum, a actualized packet of flux as
Mass is energy and energy is mass except for classical apparency!] but also was accompanied by a [spatially arbitrary] widespread pulsation forever in step with it [rather than "in step" we should thinkq "entangled;" both are evolving in real timings...] and extending all over the universe [From which we may choose to infer quantum~included~middle~everywhere~associationings. Too, we can infer this everywherenessing as enabler and mediator of quantum phenomena like action at a distance, cause without effect, effect without cause, quantum coobsfective affectation, superluminality, unlimited bandwidth, n¤n posentropic energy transduction, etc. Doug - 9Jun2007.]. This pulsation was as if a whole ocean were rising and falling like the floor of some vast elevator; there were no waves in the ordinary sense just a steady rise and fall. Is this fantastic? Undoubtedly! [Actually, Hoffmann offers us a mostly classical metaphor of what we today, c. 2007, call quantum~isoflux. Doug.] But no more so than the Planck-Einstein photon, or the Bohr atom, or a host of other things already met and to come. (Please do not look over the side of the roller-coaster now. It is so high up. You really must try to get used to the new sensations in physics.)
So, a particle at rest is now to be regarded as immersed in a widespread pulsation which is everywhere in step simultaneously.
Did we say simultaneously? Relativity will not like that. The first thing relativity ever did in its life was to attack the meaning of the word. It will prick up its ears. It will launch forth upon an impassioned platform speech, insisting that simultaneity is relative. "Just you start moving that pulsating particle of yours," it will say, "and then see how your simultaneity goes all haywire! Don't say I didn't tell you!"
Begin aside - 16Mar2009 - focus on that bold red penultimate sentence: I usually do n¤t place my own (Doug's) personal comment asides in author's quoted 'original text' column of our reviews, but this one is so big and so important, I decided to just do it. Hoffmann's surrogate quoting of Einstein's "Just you start moving that pulsating particle of yours," it will say, "and then see how your simultaneity goes all haywire!" almost shows, in its entirety, huge bogosity of Einstein's classical SR (special relativity) and GR (general) eidetically. Doug's interpretation of that sentence is that Einstein is saying that his dialectical scientific versions of SR and GR simply will not work (due loss of a classical notion of 'simultaneity') if we move its pulsating particle model constituent. One way to look at this is that classical dialectical mathematics cannot grasp essentials of "haywire." Classical maths can only measure stoppable, scalar values; classical maths are intrinsically incapable of measuring that which changes as Bergsonian durational processings. However, nature does it perpetually, relentlessly as evolution itself. Boundless unending change! A photon quantum~omnitors quantum~fluxings. That is its job, actually. Doug. Maths want to measure, scalarbate flux at a Decartesian 'point.' Flux is process. Flux issi n¤t stoppable and may n¤t quantum~really be 'sampled and held' state-occurrently as classicists stupidly, ignorantly, hubristically assume. Doug. Is it obvious to you, now, why classicists have to describe reality as classically concrete. Is it obvious to you that dialectical analyticity requires reality to hold still. Evidence of this most generally appears in physicists' usage of a genuinely dufus objective notion of "zero momentum." Einstein, here we see in his analog of a violation of, assumed "zero momentum" as "start moving." Classicists assume, invalidly, that reality is concrete, holds still (and in lieu of that) else is at least stoppable, all of that necessary for their dialectical maths' analytics to be viable as 'thingk-king tools' for their classical (and thus quantum~really illegitimate) gedankenments. In quantum~reality absolute motion is given. In quantum~reality n¤ thing is absolutely stoppable in any naïve-local classical philosophical and physical sense. As we can see, and Einstein says so, classical analytics depend upon, at least, stoppability. Dugger HotMeme™ "Quantum~flux isn't concrete, and to treat it as though it is concrete garners fools' errands in all one does."™ Dugger HotMeme™ Observe that 'do' issi pragma, issi quantum~flux! Doug. Thank you for reading. Doug - 16Mar2009. End aside - 16Mar2009 - focus on that bold red penultimate sentence.
Begin aside - 16Mar2009 - focus on that bold red penultimate sentence:
I usually do n¤t place my own (Doug's) personal comment asides in author's quoted 'original text' column of our reviews, but this one is so big and so important, I decided to just do it. Hoffmann's surrogate quoting of Einstein's "Just you start moving that pulsating particle of yours," it will say, "and then see how your simultaneity goes all haywire!" almost shows, in its entirety, huge bogosity of Einstein's classical SR (special relativity) and GR (general) eidetically. Doug's interpretation of that sentence is that Einstein is saying that his dialectical scientific versions of SR and GR simply will not work (due loss of a classical notion of 'simultaneity') if we move its pulsating particle model constituent. One way to look at this is that classical dialectical mathematics cannot grasp essentials of "haywire." Classical maths can only measure stoppable, scalar values; classical maths are intrinsically incapable of measuring that which changes as Bergsonian durational processings. However, nature does it perpetually, relentlessly as evolution itself. Boundless unending change! A photon quantum~omnitors quantum~fluxings. That is its job, actually. Doug. Maths want to measure, scalarbate flux at a Decartesian 'point.' Flux is process. Flux issi n¤t stoppable and may n¤t quantum~really be 'sampled and held' state-occurrently as classicists stupidly, ignorantly, hubristically assume. Doug. Is it obvious to you, now, why classicists have to describe reality as classically concrete. Is it obvious to you that dialectical analyticity requires reality to hold still. Evidence of this most generally appears in physicists' usage of a genuinely dufus objective notion of "zero momentum." Einstein, here we see in his analog of a violation of, assumed "zero momentum" as "start moving." Classicists assume, invalidly, that reality is concrete, holds still (and in lieu of that) else is at least stoppable, all of that necessary for their dialectical maths' analytics to be viable as 'thingk-king tools' for their classical (and thus quantum~really illegitimate) gedankenments. In quantum~reality absolute motion is given. In quantum~reality n¤ thing is absolutely stoppable in any naïve-local classical philosophical and physical sense. As we can see, and Einstein says so, classical analytics depend upon, at least, stoppability. Dugger HotMeme™ "Quantum~flux isn't concrete, and to treat it as though it is concrete garners fools' errands in all one does."™ Dugger HotMeme™ Observe that 'do' issi pragma, issi quantum~flux! Doug. Thank you for reading. Doug - 16Mar2009.
I usually do n¤t place my own (Doug's) personal comment asides in author's quoted 'original text' column of our reviews, but this one is so big and so important, I decided to just do it.
Hoffmann's surrogate quoting of Einstein's "Just you start moving that pulsating particle of yours," it will say, "and then see how your simultaneity goes all haywire!" almost shows, in its entirety, huge bogosity of Einstein's classical SR (special relativity) and GR (general) eidetically.
Doug's interpretation of that sentence is that Einstein is saying that his dialectical scientific versions of SR and GR simply will not work (due loss of a classical notion of 'simultaneity') if we move its pulsating particle model constituent.
One way to look at this is that classical dialectical mathematics cannot grasp essentials of "haywire." Classical maths can only measure stoppable, scalar values; classical maths are intrinsically incapable of measuring that which changes as Bergsonian durational processings. However, nature does it perpetually, relentlessly as evolution itself. Boundless unending change! A photon quantum~omnitors quantum~fluxings. That is its job, actually. Doug.
Maths want to measure, scalarbate flux at a Decartesian 'point.' Flux is process. Flux issi n¤t stoppable and may n¤t quantum~really be 'sampled and held' state-occurrently as classicists stupidly, ignorantly, hubristically assume. Doug.
Is it obvious to you, now, why classicists have to describe reality as classically concrete. Is it obvious to you that dialectical analyticity requires reality to hold still. Evidence of this most generally appears in physicists' usage of a genuinely dufus objective notion of "zero momentum." Einstein, here we see in his analog of a violation of, assumed "zero momentum" as "start moving."
Classicists assume, invalidly, that reality is concrete, holds still (and in lieu of that) else is at least stoppable, all of that necessary for their dialectical maths' analytics to be viable as 'thingk-king tools' for their classical (and thus quantum~really illegitimate) gedankenments.
In quantum~reality absolute motion is given. In quantum~reality n¤ thing is absolutely stoppable in any naïve-local classical philosophical and physical sense.
As we can see, and Einstein says so, classical analytics depend upon, at least, stoppability.
Observe that 'do' issi pragma, issi quantum~flux! Doug.
Thank you for reading. Doug - 16Mar2009.
End aside - 16Mar2009 - focus on that bold red penultimate sentence.
Doug's links, brackets: intratext Doug comments, bold and color.
Prince Louis de Broglie shows his quantum genius here.
This, bold green text (first, try reading just bold green while skipping the embedded bracket comments), is one of most eloquent exegeses of reality's wave physiality Doug has ever read. It, of course, is Hoffmann interpreting (hermeneuting) de Broglie (say "de Broy"), but still gorgeous, scrumptious in its quantum elegance.
A quanton:
Just A Just™. Doug - 9Jun2007.
Simultaneity is a problematic classical concept. Ditto instantaneity! See our QELR of instant. Both classical simultaneity and instantaneity require and imply a global, OSFA master clock. That denies quantum reality's ubiquitous heterogeneity of fluxings and all actualityings which emerge from them. Temporally, quantum~reality is MSFA.
In quantum~reality there can be n¤ simultaneity! Why? Simultaneity requires classical stoppability. Scalarbation. But we cann¤t measure change borne of flux at a stopped Cartesian 'point.' Quantum reality issi unstoppable due its absolute quantum flux.
In quantum reality an analogue of 'simultaneity' issi phasicity. Ponder photon self~other~interference issues. Only way we know how to dæscrihbæ quantum pr¤cæss interrelationshipings issi via quantum~phasicity. What classes of phasicity can we dæscrihbæ? At least these:
This page's last paragraph is very interesting in light of how Einstein based his theories of relativity upon his only remaining, reality-reifying objective option: invariant geometrical interval. Clearly, it places motion and invariant interval in a kind of mutual self-contradiction 'society.' Does not classical motion demand varying 'geometric intervals?' Isn't a varying 'geometric interval' what we mean by classical relativity? Quantum reality is absolute flux, absolute variationings of mass, space, time, gravity,..., all classical (and indefinable) 'measurables.' Doug - 9-10Jun2007.
If you believe reality is stopped, if you believe reality is stoppable...you do n¤t grasp essentials of quantum~reality. If you use tools and methods which assume stoppability as their core principles, your work, your life's opus, is naught but Babel.
Hey bro! If you are that bad off, get some gnosis dude, get some wisdom. Lyrics for this song, anyone? Now that's a song we all need nowings...at Connick's, The Corner of Close and Soon...
Doug - 16Mar2009.
We had better explain about poor old relativity. It really does feel this simultaneity business strongly. That was how it began—undermining the concept of simultaneity. If one person saw two things far apart happen at the same time, that did not mean, according to relativity, that another person would agree they happened at the same time too [Doesn't this beg heterogeneous timings? Thus, MGCs?]. In fact, if the two things were far apart, and if one of the men was moving relative to the other, then the two men would definitely have to disagree [However, wæ d¤ n¤t need Einstein's objective OGC 'invariant geometric interval' relativity to show this. Rather we can admit adeptly quantum reality's MGCs and flux heterogeneity of all quantum~happenings to show it better. Doug - 10Jun2007.]. Out of this fundamental discovery Einstein developed the whole of his theory of relativity, with all its paradoxical consequences, including the result that no signals of any sort could travel faster than light. In the old days, if a pulsation was everywhere in step simultaneously it was everywhere in step simultaneously, and no nonsense. But under relativity, as soon as either the particle or the scientist begins to move [everything is moving, perpetually; Einstein should have assumed that...Doug - 17Mar2009], the whole scheme of simultaneity becomes warped [This warping is an Einsteinian dung heap. All we need do is admit a quantum~comtext for each: 'particle' and 'scientist.' Using multicomtexts evaporates paradice. See Zeno. Doug.]. In 1905 Einstein, like Hamlet so long before him, had cried to the world:
and perturbed physicists, grumbling as they stirred from their comfort and complacency, had continued in garbled form:
De Broglie knew the idiosyncrasies of relativity. Einstein had given precise [OGC] mathematical formulas for the ['state -ic,' ESQ, scalarbative] warping of simultaneity. De Broglie could now apply them to his pulsations and find out what happened when the particle moved.
And what happened was—they turned into waves.
[Red text brackets on 'warping' added 12Oct2008 - Doug.]
Doug's brackets, links, bold and color.
Today, c. 2007, countless tests of quantum~communications belie Einstein's bogus, "...no signals of any sort could travel faster than light." Quanton zero latency correlation at unlimited omnistances is real. Managed correlation is real. That means superluminal quantum~communications are real. But if you are a classicist, a SOMite, you disable your qua to understand and believe this.
Fathom how de Broglie's page 75 "...widespread pulsation forever in step with it and extending all over the universe..." predated Doug's remarks above by nearly a century. Now put gravity as flux in those Principient Louis de Brogliean quantum~lightings. Is that a Wow, folks? Indeed. Indeed. Einstein was an objectivist die-hard. A brick-headed gudgeon who gudgeoned countless others with his objective tripe. He disabled his own mind with objective fools' tools like mathematics. Einstein just didn't "get Iht!" Doug - 9Jun2007.
Why didn't Einstein "get Iht?"
Einstein saw reality is ideally objective, material, and substantial. He denied subjective reality, and Bergsonian~Pirsigean Qualitative Value aspects of quantum~reality. His objective predilections demanded his rejection of all 'non' objective notions and 'principles.'
Einstein saw only Classical Reality and outright rejected Ihts c¤mplæmænt!
Einstein believed that what he saw happening in Classical Reality was one size fits all that posentropically, decoherently 'happened.' But our table shows us there are countless other isocoherent, coherent, and mixcoherent complementary quantum~happenings!
Einstein's view, via its objective myopia is really incomplete and decoherent!
Most classicists, in 2007, still agree with Einstein! They are already extinct! They have yet to re cognize their own self-extinction.
Doug - 10Jun2007.
Quantum~cohera enable a tentative and provisional apparition of quantum~simultaneity (AKA phasicity), miraculous quantum~coherence species of iso, co, and mix which are mostly n¤napparent in — a decoherent and posentropic only — classical reality.
Too, entanglement offers spatially~arbitrary superluminal correlation of quantal ephemera (spin, etc.), but even quantum~simultaneity of n¤nl¤cal quantum~correlation, like quantum~coherence is extremely limited in its applicability for assessing classicalesque 'simultaneity.' Why? All quanta are multitemporally, sælf~l¤cally independent while EIMA animately middle~included coherent with potentially uncountable other quantas' peaqlos. So classical notions of 'simultaneity' may be, likely will be subverted by n¤nl¤cal changes in reality. We can illustrate this using Planck's (Dirac's and Heisenberg's too...in retrospect, Planck gave this to both, gratis...) uncertainty:
Ad oculos, due quantum uncertainty, we cann¤t sustain any classical notion of a universal 'One Time Fits All simultaneity' of two or more system's quantum behaviours.
Doug - June, 2007, and red text OTFA commentary added 5Sep2012.
Perhaps we can see in a general way how this came about. To do so we have to keep in mind that, according to relativity, [OGC, OGTime] motion warps simultaneity. Naturally, merely to say that motion warps simultaneity is not to explain the inner niceties of theory of relativity, nor even to make the notion of warped simultaneity itself at all pleasant or easy to accept. Our purpose, though, is to try to see how the pulsations turn into waves. Let us therefore take the warped simultaneity on trust and see by what method it accomplishes the conversion.
Imagine a series of corks A, B, C, D, E floating at equal intervals on the heaving "elevator floor" ocean [Doug likes 'ocean' as a 'actual' metaphor of isoflux.]. Here is how they vill appear at various times:
[Is Hoffmann suggesting multiple temporalities? Perhaps 'di' fferent 'times' in a monotemporal context? But are those 'di' fferent times 'di' fferent? Are they tied to one temporal reference? Multiple temporal references? Are they synchronous? Asynchronous? What do we intend by asynchrony? Many? One? Classicist, "What do you mean?" Do Betelgeuseans use an Earth clock? Why? Explicate both genericity and specificity vis-à-vis issues of uni- and multi-con(m)textuality.]
They move up and down in step, of course, always keeping level with one another. But suppose we were so shortsighted that we had to get right up close to a cork before we could see it clearly. Then we could no longer take an over-all view of the situation. We would have to. snatch a fleeting glance at A, rush on to look at B, hasten to C, then to D, and finally to E, all while the ocean was heaving up and down. What sort of impression would we have of the disposition of the corks? We would see A as in diagram (a), B as in (b), C as in (c ).and so on. We would imagine the corks something like this:
Doug's brackets, bold and color.
Doug is unsure of quality of this description, due Hoffmann's insistence on using a OGC, OGTime notion of 'warped simultaneity.' MMC memeos erase paradice borne of such classical notions.
Doug assumes quantum~relativity is multicomtextual. Einstein (and apparently Hoffmann too) assumes classical-relativity is mono- uni-contextual.
One of us has a better meme. You have to decide and choose which. Isn't it fun?
What Einstein 'discovered' is a classical conflict twixt quantitative state-ic, i.e., Planck's constant zeroed, EEMD moncontextuality, and qualitative dynamic Planck comstant enabled EIMA multicomtextuality. Problematically Einstein ignored a real quantum reality in favor of a bogus classical reality and swept quantum reality under his "absurdity carpet" since he didn't believe in a multi- heterogeneous-reality. If this doesn't demonstrate Einstein's sheer ignorance for you, naught will. Of course, classicist, as you already know, "Status quo is the way to go." Çatholiçism, our way, is the way to go... (Latin catholicus, Greek katholikos. Kath: about; holos: whole. About wholeness as universality. Monism. Monasticism. Unitarianism. Unionism. Totalitarianism. Communism. Commonism. Commune-ism. Socialism. OSFA. GUT. ToE. Only our size, çatholiçism, fits all!)
Quantum reality provides memeos and memeotics and quantiques of quanton(wholeness,autonomy) via a long list of quantum "miracles:" Doug - 10Jun2007.
All social unions based in classical dialectical monism are only pretenders, impotent mechanical analogues, ersatz. They are all quantum unreal. Doug.
We would, in fact, picture the ocean surface as having a wavy shape.
This waviness comes, of course, from our not observing the five corks simultaneously. But what about relativity? Does it not say that, if I am moving past the corks and you are not, my idea of simultaneous observation will not agree with yours? [Reader, is it obvious to you that we have many comtexts here? But Einstein assumed one context: OGC. Let's make a list of comtexts: one for each cork, one for a 'stationary' observer, one for a 'moving' observer, and how many for a chaotic ocean? That our list is incomplete may be clear to you an understatement. Why did Einstein use-assume one context instead of many? Dealing with multiple comtexts is similar to dealing with many-body problems. Even today, physics knows not how to do it. Why? Physics focuses on objective properties of bodies instead of comtextual interrelationshipings of quantons. Doug - 10Jun2007.] It says, in fact, that you will think my simultaneous, over-all observations were performed by some shortsighted messenger rushing from cork to cork with incredible speed. The warping of time will induce a warping of shape so that what you regard as the smooth surface of the ocean will appear to me to be ruffed; covered by waves. And it turns out that these waves will actually travel over the surface.
Travel is indeed the word, for they move much faster than light. [This roughly corresponds Quantonics' version of quantum~superluminality. Isoflux can do what Hoffmann describes here. But we cann¤t see it, n¤r in any classical sense of measurement, "sense it." Too, isoflux compenetrates all reality, so we cann¤t claim that it 'travels' "over the surface."]
Did we say faster than light? Relativity will not like that.
Now what? Oh. That is not so bad. Relativity objects only if actual [From this, may we infer n¤nactual isoenergy?] energy is transmitted faster than light. Science had long known about waves moving faster than light which could not transmit energy that fast. They were called phase waves. They are quite all right. [But isoflux issi, quantumly, isoenergy...boundless isoenergy. And that is what classicists can næihthær see n¤r understand. Quantonics shows us that we can teleport mass and energy cloaked by, as, and possibly only ihn isoflux! Neutrinos do this!!! How? By oscillating their fermionicity~bosonicity. What if we can oscillate our partial_actuality~n¤nactuality?]
But energy was nevertheless being [tele]transported, for the particle itself was now moving, and mass is energy. How did this link up with the phase waves? [All students of Quantonics, now c. 2007, should have qua to answer this. What quantum phrase can we substitute for Hoffmann's "link up?"] De Broglie discovered the connection.
If we take many trains of de Broglie waves, of slightly different speeds, they will add and subtract their effects [rather, affectings] in the manner of our old millionaire friends [This statement won't hold for all classes and subclasses of entropy. Photons are an example. They won't "add up" unless they are entangled, and alternatively self~interfering. But de Broglie's waves are fermionic: decoherent posentropic, so they do classically "add up." At least their spin 1/2 comstituents do.]. Let us start them off in one direction [Quantumly any notion of classical 'direction' is ludicrous; as Dirac said, "Direction is irrelevant."], all being in step at one particular place [Ditto 'particle.' Ditto 'place.' See rest.]. There will initially be an enormous wave at that place. But it will not remain there. De Broglie proved it would move along at a dignified pace, much slower than light. In fact, this towering, majestic composite wave would move—with the speed of the [material, fermionic] particle. That was the strange link between the slow moving particle and the incredibly speedy wave. [Quantonics' analogue of that last sentence is quanton(wave,particle). We infer that Hoffmann views it as dichon(wave, particle).]
Doug's links and brackets.
If you see Doug's perspective of all this, which we agree may be as omnifficult to grasp as what Hoffmann is saying... You may comclude that warping of monotime appears a silly Einsteinian objective reality mandate. Like çatholiç 'canon.' Like orthodox 'law.' Classical objective coprolytic garbage.
Let's take another pass at this applying a less complex tack. What does quantum reality show us about all measurables? They are all only omnitorable processes. Does that resonate with you? Then, let's go another step forward. What else does quantum reality show us? That all processes have their own local clocks which run 'locally' and generally without care about someone else's clock, which locals there might then fathom socialistically as the clock of all clocks.
Perhaps "absurdly" to your possibly only classical mind, quantum reality shows us there is n¤ 'the clock!' There are multiple clocks; as many as at least one for each quanton throughout reality. Einstein's notion of One Global Clock and One Global Time for all reality is GUT and ToE crib-playing naïveté. Naïve realism. Naïve socialism. Local realism, imposed hegemonously as provincial, parochial, polemic, dogmatic, orthodox, totalitarian, OSFA universal canon.
If there are quantum~really many clocks running asynchronously in parallel, and each of those clocks is quantum~stochastic like all other quantons in quantum reality...? Can you rapidly visualize how any classical notion of simultaneity is just bogus?
All times of all clocks in quantum reality are individually stochastic. So it appears at this juncture that assessing simultaneity is 'impossible.' So doing it superluminally 'at a distance' would only allow us some probability of measuring say our simultaneity with a planet in some distant galaxy. If we somehow could use quantum spacelike correlation to omnitor a distant clock, we could have some meme, only a stochastic meme, of said clock's tracking with a local clock.
O'gadons should regard Doug's trademarked understatement as hilarious! All measurement, all monitoring, all omnitoring in quantum reality is uncertain!
Doug - June, 2007.
De Broglie found other intimate connections between particles their accompanying waves. For instance, the great French mathematician P. de Fermat had long ago reduced the laws of geometrical optics to the single all-embracing rule that a ray of light takes the path requiring the least time. Also, the laws of dynamics had been reduced to the single rule that any material system moves so as to use the least amount of a certain technical entity called action. On the one hand is a principle of least [space/space proxied] time; on the other, a principle of least [only posentropic] action. [See entropa and cohera. Some non fermionic, n¤n decoherent, n¤n posentropic quantum phenomena appear to break these antique classical OSFA 'rules.']
Now Planck's constant h happens to be a unit of this entity action. It is called, in fact, the quantum of action. De Broglie discovered that it acted as a bridge between wave and particle, the principle of least time for his matter waves being mathematically the same thing as the principle of least action for his particles.
How de Broglie's idea also gave a simple and striking picture of Bohr's rule for picking out the permitted orbits will be recounted in a later chapter.
Now, the professional physicist is a busy man. It is all he can do to keep abreast of the legitimate developments in his own special field. He is wary of cranks with worthless ideas designed to solve the universe. And there are many such. What was he, then, to make of de Broglie's suggestion? It was a pure speculation and quite fantastic for all its glib plausibility. It had no stunning triumph comparable to that which established Bohr's theory overnight: the recipe for the mysterious constant. Where was the experimental proof?
Doug's brackets and links. Doug's violet bold of Hoffmann's QELP.
Doug both likes this paragraph while finding it disturbing.
What is likable is a meme of 'least action,' and its complement 'least time.' Those are quantum tells of nature's implicit efficiency. What is a way nature achieves this efficiency? By selecting shortest 'paths' of 'travel' (AKA 'trajectories') for all fermionic quantons. Action is physically described as a 'difference' twixt potential and kinetic energies. Quantum energy equations usually express total energy of a posentropic subsystem as a 'sum' of said system's potential and kinetic energy is ('static' energy as potential and dynamic energy as kinetic). Immediately we see an analogue with Pirsig's SQ and DQ.
(Please self~appraise problematics of classical mechanical notions of 'sum,' and 'difference.' Aristotle looms ominously here. Also beware that energy isn't just JC Maxwellian 'posentropic.' Lots and lots and lots of issues here folks!)
What Doug doesn't like is how Hoffmann describes action. He appears to logically, excluded-middle separate 'particle' and 'wave.' He appears to Doug to treat them as dichon(wave, particle) and EOOO(wave, particle).
We have other issues here too. Action and time are quantum c¤mplæmæntary. Too, as Hoffmann rather eloquently described for us in Act I, classical notions of 'energy,' vis-à-vis quantum memes of ænærgy are wholly omniffering one another. Classical energy is predominately expressed as signal amplitude and area under said signal's curve. Quantum energy, simply, is flux rate. Flux rate itself manifests a wide variety of flux relevant phenomena. Light is omniffering, by flux rate, sound. Very high flux rates are adiabatic. Flux rates can cancel, superpose, entangle and manifest all kinds of cohera and entropa. Flux itself is both SQ and DQ: potential (variably and tentatively persistent) and kinetic (change itself). A classical analogue of SQ is 'standing wave.' Notice a 'standing wave' is flux, and 'change' is flux/flux. Have an quantum epiphany: space, time, mass and gravity are all quantons(DQ,SQ)!
What Doug dislikes about this paragraph is how Hoffmann apparently went back to classical thing-king methods to describe action, especially Planck's least action which should be described as quanton(DQ,SQ) vis-à-vis dichon(classical_wave, classical_particle).
This is obvious! Quantum potential energy is standing flux. Quantum kinetic energy is rate changing flux. It's all flux! Physicists have just developed a bad habit of calling standing flux 'particle,' and 'particulate.' But it's all flux! As de Broglie noodled, "matter is waves," "matter is flux."
We have a choice, a selection of which is better? Classical? Quantum?
Time for treating meso and subatomic reality quantumly and macroatomic reality classically has passed. All reality is quantum! Quantum reality is action borne of flux, at all levels of reality. N¤t one iota of reality is stable. N¤t one island of reality can hold still. N¤ 'particle' can be 'stopped.'
What shows us that by direct posentropic~fermionic~material experience? Pendula swing! Fermions wobble!
Hoffmann's classical English language problematics we highlight in bold violet. Our main concern here is 'proof.' Classicists claim that they can prove experimentally. Quantum reality denies they can do 'proof.' Quantum reality is massively, stochastically uncertain, so any classical notions of stable, immutable proof are bogus. Of course most ethical classicists claim all 'proof' is provisional based upon absence of contradiction. See our QELR of proof.
Quantonic HotMeme™ "Quantum uncertainty invalidates all classical 'proofs,' ad occulos." Quantonic HotMeme™. HotMeme™ added by Doug - 13Apr2008. If you thinkq about it you will see that Quantonic HotMeme™ "Quantum~evolution invalidates all classical 'proofs,' ad occulos." Quantonic HotMeme™. Too, see our QELR of 'proof.' HotMemes™ added by Doug - 13Apr2008.
Doug - 28-29Jun2007.
To be sure, de Broglie had been quite specific as to his waves, predicting that their wavelength must be equal to h divided by the mass and the speed of the particle. But was it likely that matter waves, if they existed, could have evaded the experimenter all these years? It was an interesting speculation, but surely nothing more. It was very pretty, and very subtle, amusing, and even striking; and elegant, and ingenious, and astounding too. But was it physics? Where was the experimental proof?
If there was one man in all the world who might have anticipated de Broglie's discovery, that man was Einstein. For de Broglie's idea was the complement of his own idea of the photon and sprang from his own theory of relativity. Einstein had shown that light, long thought to be a wave, was like a particle. De Broglie had brought the argument round full circle by suggesting that matter, long thought to consist of particles, must be accompanied by waves and thus partake of their nature. Thus it was that when Einstein came across de Broglie's work he perceived at once its possible importance and placed behind it the weight of his far from negligible reputation. But still, where was the experimental proof?
In the Bell Telephone Laboratories, in New York City, C. J. Davisson had been conducting a series of experiments ever since 1921. What they had to do with telephones I do not know. But they did have to do with the bouncing of a stream of electrons off a lump of metal. In April of 1925 came an accident. Davisson, now aided by Germer, was bouncing electrons off a lump of nickel1 in a high vacuum. While the
1 I doubt that this is the missing link with telephones! [Postscript to a footnote, 1959: This jest is a casualty of time. I leave it in as a nostalgic reminder of better days when phone calls cost 5¢.]
Hoffmann's footnote brackets. Our bold.
Hoffmann uses 'speed' correctly here, since speed is independent of 'distance.'
Though, depending upon whose views you adhere: Einstein's, Newton's, Renselle's, etc. we have to worry about Hoffmann's use of 'mass,' do we n¤t? Issues:
As we see, vividly, Einstein was extremely careless in his thing-king and his usage of terms.
Doug - 29Jun2007.
lump of nickel was very hot, a flask of liquid air exploded in the laboratory, wrecked the apparatus, broke the vacuum, and let air rush in to ruin the carefully prepared surface of the nickel. The only practical method of cleaning the surface involved prolonged heating. Fortunately, Davisson and Germer, undaunted by the setback, repaired the damage, restored the surface of the nickel, and continued with their experiment.
Unknown to Davisson and Germer, the heat treatment had wrought a vast change in their nickel, fusing it into large crystals where before it had consisted of myriad small ones. Though internal structure had thus been dramatically altered, there was no surface indication to betray the metamorphosis.
Davisson and Germer continued their interrupted experiment all unaware of the little game the gods of chance were so benevolently playing with them. With amazement they beheld the first of their new results. For here before their eyes were the typical patterns so long known to science as the diffraction patterns of X rays. But there had been no Xrays—only electrons. [Implication? Electrons are waves! Doug.] The experiments had been started years before Broglie announced his conclusions, and but for the accident of the exploded flask the experimenters would surely never have made their startling discovery. Now, Davisson was destined to receive the Nobel prize in 1937, and de Broglie before him in 1929. For these apparent X-ray diffraction patterns were the first direct experimental confirmation of de Broglie's theory. They showed that electrons behave like waves. And they showed more than this. They showed that electrons behave like the very waves de Broglie had predicted. For measurements proved that the wavelengths were just those which de Broglie had foretold. Thus was the confirmation placed upon a precise, quantitative basis. Here indeed was the inescapable experimental proof.
Our bold. Our brackets.
In place of classical 'proof,' try using Gödel's much more quantum provability. Ilities are more qualitative and hint at quantum process as stochastic.See Doug's classical and quantum Bases of Judgment.
But what a curious situation for those irreconcilable feudists, the [a] wave and the [a] particle. And what a magnificent opening for the wave. Let us recall the primary armament of the wave, the armament on which it placed its main reliance, and which even the photon had had to concede was invincible: anything exhibiting interference must be a wave—the photon itself had admitted it, however reluctantly. All this time the photon had been glibly boasting it was a particle, just like any other particle—just like an electron, for instance. And now the electron, the ultimate particle par excellence, was found to be behaving like a wave.
One wonders what the particle might have thought had it been able to foresee one of the outcomes of all this. The ability of a microscope to disclose fine detail depends on the smallness of the wavelength of light used. Therefore the most powerful microscopes employed ultraviolet light. Since the wavelength of fast-moving electrons is thousands of times smaller than that of ultraviolet light, they gave promise of revealing far greater detail, a promise later amply fulfilled with the advent of the electron microscope.
Alter all the years of slow retreat the wave was able to launch the perfect counterattack: "So you say you're a particle, do you? Why, you don't even know what a particle is, you and your wonderful new ideas. What about your pal the electron? You said he was a particle. And look at him now. If you ask us, we think he's a wave. And we think you are too. In fact we've been suspecting it all along, but you've been talking so almighty loud you almost began to get us confused. [You can easily detect fakers, deceivers, inepts and incompetents. They're ones who always try to shout us down. But only hot air 'tis.
Doug's bold, GIF, and brackets.
Simply, here, there are n¤ classical 'particles.' There are quantum (Planck's) packets of flux which singularly and as fermionic 'material' ensembles only classically appear 'particulate.' St¤p using CTMs and start using QTMs. Better, learn how to use b¤th ihn EIMA t¤ d¤ sælf quantum~c¤mprægmatihvæ ihndihvihdual ihntællectual due diligence on your own thinking and thing-king. Latter is what Doug does habitually, routinely! Doug - 30Jun2007.
And, feeling much better after this outburst, the wave could sit back and enjoy its new-found happiness. But then the wave would begin to reflect—as light is prone to do. Was it really such a perfect counterattack? It had not won the war. It had not really attacked the photon in a vital part at all. It had merely extended the field of battle from the theory of light to the theory of matter as well. Of course, everyone had always supposed that matter belonged safely in the camp of the photon, and it was staggering to find it now in the fore-front of the battle. But the citadel of the photon remained unvanquished. The wave could still not conquer the photo-electric effect. Nor could it conquer the cloud chamber tracks of the electron. Indeed, it had been a futile counterattack after all. In bringing the electron into the battle the wave had added the electron tracks to the armament of the particle. In claiming for itself the wavelike qualities of the electron, it had driven the electron's particle-like qualities into the camp of the photon, there to set up combined headquarters for all particles. The civil war was now more desperate than ever, with almost all of fundamental physics inescapably involved
Events were moving fast, however. Already diplomatic negotiations were under way in other quarters which, within a year, were to resolve the long-standing particle-wave controversy to the reasonable satisfaction of both parties.
But we must go back in time to the days when de Broglie's theory was yet an unproved hypothesis struggling for recognition. De Broglie was living in a hectic age. By the time his ideas had been vindicated by Davisson and Germer they were already known to be physically not wholly tenable.
But d' wave did win d' war!
60 years ago physicists conceived scintillation as objectively 'particulate,' and dumb, mechanically.
Quantum scintillation claims that waves and all their manifestations are macroscopic a la Philip R. Wallace's view.
Better, quantum scintillation issi coobsfective. Target's comstituent unstoppably fluxing waves (inimmotai, inimundulai) are islandically partial yet n¤nlocally macroscopic. Inbound quanton's unstoppably fluxing waves are islandically partial yet n¤nlocally macroscopic. Both 'sense,' and are coaware of each other, and interrelate superluminally during quanton's inbound path to target. What Doug just wrote conquer's any particle's unvanquished claim to objectiveness of "the photo electric effect.' And chamber tracks only uncloak a wave's mode. If we had a wider frequency bandwidth sensor besides our limited 1 octave sight, we would see other ephemeral macroscopic affectings of a wave's journey through a cloud chamber. See our QELR of effect.
Hope you enjoyed this little detail chapter review. It clarifies holographically many classical issues which beg quantum remediation.
Begin Photonic Scintillation Affectings aside 8Aug2009 - Doug:
We have new evidence that Doug's recent innovation of describing quantum~photonic~scintillation is correct, i.e., better than classical exegeses.
Two examples make it devastatingly clear. One is Einstein's bending of light by Sun's gravity. Other is Feynman's quantum photon reflection/transmission stochastics (e.g., emissions normal to glass, 1:25 reflection rate - see Feynman's text titled QED, p. 19)
Let's do these as two bullet items:
End Photonic Scintillation Affectings aside 8Aug2009 - Doug.
Thank you for reading,
With that, let's move on to Chapter IX...
Chapter IX - Pages 84-104 - Laundry Lists Are Discarded —
This chapter starts with Hoffmann telling us how Heisenberg, et al., found ways to use weaknesses of Bohr's own 'correspondence principle' to tear apart Bohr's Copenhagen I and II quantum theories.
Hoffmann describes Bohr's Correspondence Principle's problematics nicely like this, "The trouble was that the classical frequencies no longer matched the quantum frequencies when the energy jumps were large — an obvious point which was nevertheless to prove of crucial significance, as we shall see... [It may n¤t be apparent to casual observers at this juncture, but this partial~absence of 'matching' is relevant everywhere~n¤ncommutativity of Poisson Brackets of position and momentum borne of and on quantum reality's absolute flux. See Zeno's first paradox. PBs offer a mechanical, matrix operational phenomenon which uncloaks quantum reality's intrinsic underlying EIMA~coobsfective holographicity. At least three quantum~phenomena are apparent here: unstoppable observable~motion due absolute flux, evolving quantum~comtextuality of omniffering observables, and asymmetric holographic coobsfection of omniffering observables.] [We have not done enough investigation here, but it is also worth your further comsideration similarities of problematics of Bohr's Correspondence Principle when we compare memeos there to Chapter II's "violet catastrophe.' In both cases we see two levels of energy: low and high. We see lack of correspondence in both. Violet catastrophe can be explained via rather simple notions of quantized adiabaticity which show utter ludicrousness of J. C. Maxwell's classical 2nd 'law' of thermodynamics. Is some similar phenomenon occurring here? Doug - 18Jul2007.] "But Bohr managed in spite of this to set up a sort of correspondence between them through which he could take the classical results for such things as intensities and foist them on the allegedly corresponding quantum frequencies. This, in brief, was Bohr's celebrated correspondence principle. It was a most ingenious trick, and it really did work — to a surprising extent. But no one was at all deceived by it. It was a stopgap pure and simple. It was not really precise, even when expressed mathematically, and while some experiments would demand that it mean one thing, others would insist that it mean something else... [Do you detect a hint of nature's holographicity in that last sentence? Good! HotMeme™ "Dynamic hologrammings offer plural and evolving always~partial~both~symmetric~and~asymmetric~hermeneutics."™ HotMeme™. Classical science's revered cinematographic stoppability, formal analytics, and conventional Ockhamistic minimalism do much damage here manifested as genuinely "bad thing-king." See Feynman's collodion cube Flatland metaphor of that which Doug writes.] "Always its mixed parentage — part quantum, part classical — was a source of grave embarrassment. And its pathetic clinging to the irrelevant and discredited classical theory was indeed a confession of failure, or so it seemed at the time." Pages 89 -90. Doug's brackets, links, bold and underline. Doug has been con(m)cerned whether Hoffmann's words maintain a modicum of con(m)sistency with what Britannica describes as Bohr's 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. Decide for yourself. Doug thinkqs Hoffmann is clear where Britannica appears ostensibly off base (a classical thing-king malignancy of turning genericity into specificity while intending vice versa; and in attendance always: Pirsigean loss of Quality...), although we can fathom history-based predicable and supposed causal thence 1-1 root cause determinate exegetica as similarly imposing a rule that quantum frequencies must correspond classical frequencies. O'gadons are k~now~ing that classical notions find their bases in bogus dialectic. Quantum memeos belie dialectics' sheigmful deign to feign. Classical theory often is just wrong and must be discarded. Quantum is entirely n¤væl and requires us to reassess antique classical notions based in dialectic. Pursuant our own highest quantum stage qua, we must n¤t adhere antecedent intellectual garbage whose bases lie in dialectic. Locally here, in this review, Bohr's notions of correspondence are important as analogous Heisenberg's 'laundry lists.' We find that issues of correspondence and 'laundry lists' have much in a tragedy of 'common.' Your curiosity is piqued? Heisenberg found that just like correspondence, items in his double-entry list could not be state-ically identified, commuted, distributed, factored, nor reflexively-symmetrically-transitively formally-associated as classicists routinely and rotely assumed. We'll show you why classical laundry lists simply do n¤t work in quantum reality. Practical implications of this are enormous...almost unimaginable! Doug - 12,18Jul2007.
Hoffmann describes Bohr's Correspondence Principle's problematics nicely like this, "The trouble was that the classical frequencies no longer matched the quantum frequencies when the energy jumps were large — an obvious point which was nevertheless to prove of crucial significance, as we shall see...
[It may n¤t be apparent to casual observers at this juncture, but this partial~absence of 'matching' is relevant everywhere~n¤ncommutativity of Poisson Brackets of position and momentum borne of and on quantum reality's absolute flux. See Zeno's first paradox. PBs offer a mechanical, matrix operational phenomenon which uncloaks quantum reality's intrinsic underlying EIMA~coobsfective holographicity. At least three quantum~phenomena are apparent here: unstoppable observable~motion due absolute flux, evolving quantum~comtextuality of omniffering observables, and asymmetric holographic coobsfection of omniffering observables.] [We have not done enough investigation here, but it is also worth your further comsideration similarities of problematics of Bohr's Correspondence Principle when we compare memeos there to Chapter II's "violet catastrophe.' In both cases we see two levels of energy: low and high. We see lack of correspondence in both. Violet catastrophe can be explained via rather simple notions of quantized adiabaticity which show utter ludicrousness of J. C. Maxwell's classical 2nd 'law' of thermodynamics. Is some similar phenomenon occurring here? Doug - 18Jul2007.]
[It may n¤t be apparent to casual observers at this juncture, but this partial~absence of 'matching' is relevant everywhere~n¤ncommutativity of Poisson Brackets of position and momentum borne of and on quantum reality's absolute flux. See Zeno's first paradox. PBs offer a mechanical, matrix operational phenomenon which uncloaks quantum reality's intrinsic underlying EIMA~coobsfective holographicity. At least three quantum~phenomena are apparent here: unstoppable observable~motion due absolute flux, evolving quantum~comtextuality of omniffering observables, and asymmetric holographic coobsfection of omniffering observables.]
[We have not done enough investigation here, but it is also worth your further comsideration similarities of problematics of Bohr's Correspondence Principle when we compare memeos there to Chapter II's "violet catastrophe.' In both cases we see two levels of energy: low and high. We see lack of correspondence in both. Violet catastrophe can be explained via rather simple notions of quantized adiabaticity which show utter ludicrousness of J. C. Maxwell's classical 2nd 'law' of thermodynamics. Is some similar phenomenon occurring here? Doug - 18Jul2007.]
"But Bohr managed in spite of this to set up a sort of correspondence between them through which he could take the classical results for such things as intensities and foist them on the allegedly corresponding quantum frequencies. This, in brief, was Bohr's celebrated correspondence principle. It was a most ingenious trick, and it really did work — to a surprising extent. But no one was at all deceived by it. It was a stopgap pure and simple. It was not really precise, even when expressed mathematically, and while some experiments would demand that it mean one thing, others would insist that it mean something else...
[Do you detect a hint of nature's holographicity in that last sentence? Good! HotMeme™ "Dynamic hologrammings offer plural and evolving always~partial~both~symmetric~and~asymmetric~hermeneutics."™ HotMeme™. Classical science's revered cinematographic stoppability, formal analytics, and conventional Ockhamistic minimalism do much damage here manifested as genuinely "bad thing-king." See Feynman's collodion cube Flatland metaphor of that which Doug writes.]
"Always its mixed parentage — part quantum, part classical — was a source of grave embarrassment. And its pathetic clinging to the irrelevant and discredited classical theory was indeed a confession of failure, or so it seemed at the time." Pages 89 -90. Doug's brackets, links, bold and underline.
Doug has been con(m)cerned whether Hoffmann's words maintain a modicum of con(m)sistency with what Britannica describes as Bohr's 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.
Decide for yourself. Doug thinkqs Hoffmann is clear where Britannica appears ostensibly off base (a classical thing-king malignancy of turning genericity into specificity while intending vice versa; and in attendance always: Pirsigean loss of Quality...), although we can fathom history-based predicable and supposed causal thence 1-1 root cause determinate exegetica as similarly imposing a rule that quantum frequencies must correspond classical frequencies. O'gadons are k~now~ing that classical notions find their bases in bogus dialectic. Quantum memeos belie dialectics' sheigmful deign to feign.
Classical theory often is just wrong and must be discarded. Quantum is entirely n¤væl and requires us to reassess antique classical notions based in dialectic. Pursuant our own highest quantum stage qua, we must n¤t adhere antecedent intellectual garbage whose bases lie in dialectic.
Locally here, in this review, Bohr's notions of correspondence are important as analogous Heisenberg's 'laundry lists.' We find that issues of correspondence and 'laundry lists' have much in a tragedy of 'common.' Your curiosity is piqued? Heisenberg found that just like correspondence, items in his double-entry list could not be state-ically identified, commuted, distributed, factored, nor reflexively-symmetrically-transitively formally-associated as classicists routinely and rotely assumed. We'll show you why classical laundry lists simply do n¤t work in quantum reality. Practical implications of this are enormous...almost unimaginable! Doug - 12,18Jul2007.
It is mostly historical reading, enlightening and fun. After significant study one will find that Hoffmann's description of Bohr's 'correspondence principle' omnisagrees with our linked version from Encyclopedia Britannica. We will attempt to show you how they omniffer in subsequent paragraphs, later, in this chapter.
Begin Doug's String Opus:
(Do yourself a big favor here. Before you read this segment, view Tous Les Matins Du Monde. Its English title is All the Mornings of the World. This entire video is about vibrating strings! It is about a Maestro's need to use music to directly experience Value, and to escape his dialectical actualities' detention centers of state-ic funda mentality. Then read Doug's text here and watch that video again. Now, are you flux? Are you 'state?' Are your strings vibrating? Is life endless music? Is life resonance and dissonance in endless phasistic and phasemental juxtaposition? Hmmm...? Doug - 6Oct2007.)
Hoffmann then builds some foundation describing how mechanics can 'analyze' music into its sinusoidal constituents. How? Fourier analysis.
Have you ever painted a picture by dots? Have you ever done cross stitching? Fourier analysis is mathematical cross stitching of sound (n¤t just sound; in general, flux). It is like taking many "movement by immobilities" stopped mechanical 'Flatland' cinematographic single frame slices of an animate Hilbert~spatial hologram.
To offer Pirsig's analogue we might say, "Reconstituted synthesis of any Fourier 'analysis' of music is a 'map' of said music." And, "No map is its territory." Clearly a score, a Fourier transform, isn't the music itself as (i.e., each instance as it is) originally performed by humans on percussion, wind, and string instruments. Played music is an emergent phenomenon of its score, always omniffering and never played 'identically' again, ever. Indeed Pirsig made this point in two of his books, ZMM and Lila, how a recorder and its record playback only offer a 'map' of what was originally recorded. Some philosophers claim this is why humans can never sense 'reality' given their sensory qua imposes only a mechanical mapping of what is sensed. Their assumption? Humans are machines. Only idiot dialecticians assume humans are machines! Our husb qua's bandwidth is extraordinarily limited to 'one part' in about 1022 actual 'parts' of quantum reality. So our apparent natural conscious human~sensing capacityings and capabilityings are intrinsically and grossly incomplete. (Doug's heuristics include memeos of wider bandwidth qua availability, but only c. 2007 available empirically at 'subconscious' molecular and nuclear levels. Doug's heuristics also infer that extra~bandwidth affects our beings phenomenally and explains partially our enhanced qua to tap into reserve energy, etc. Doug experiences this routinely.) Even with scientific adjunct accoutrements we are still and yet, as systemically conscious 'whole' humans, due mainly classical cultural limitations — ostensibly sensory-incapable. Our major disagreement here is that humans are n¤t classically mechanical — n¤t dichons(subconscious, conscious), rather, we are quantum beings. We middle~include our environmentings to greater and lesser extents via relentlessly changing quantum~fluxings ¤f us coinsiding ihn amd ¤f our quantum~environmentings. Each of uhs issi quanton(DQ,quanton(Our_SQ-Actual-Reality_Quantum_Complement,Our_Individual_Islandic_Quantum_Partiality_of_SQcareful). As quantum beings our actual and n¤nactual quantum~bandwidths are much broader and much more sensorially affective than classicists' mechanical notions of their classical analogues. Quite apparently that is a tell of quantumists' increased qua and their manifest abilities to tap into reserve energy.
But there is more. Mechanical analysis allows us to actuate sine waves: reification of music as ensemble 2D sinusoids which may be reconstructed as imitations of an original. We have to, again, recall how quantum reality isn't ideally and classically mechanical. Quantum reality issi at least quatro~entropic and quatro~coherent.
In quantum reality fermions are incapable, lack qua, to generate mechanically ideal sine waves: they even self~modulate and other~modulate cowithin their environment. Bosons and in this musical-instrument-string~audio case phonons, since they are coherent, in a sense are what classicists mean by sine wave: and like light photons we cannot see them or hear them until-when they modulate...
(quantumly, modulation is quantized absorption of boson quanta by fermions...compare this to Mae-wan Ho's descriptions of n¤n posentropic energy transduction...demodulation is quantized emission of boson quanta by fermions...these are Doug's heuristics of quantum m¤d~dæm¤d...)
...vision and audio sensory fermions. Trouble with classical 'sine waves' is they are conceived as classicallyc objectivec: borne of mechanical-materialc vibrationc and mechanical~electronicc oscillationc. Classical sine waves are dichons, formalc Platonically idealc platypusean constructs. Quantons as quantum~waves are subjectiveq and qualitativeq due their intrinsic holophonicq powersq of coobsfectionq. Objectsc cann¤t, are canonicallyc prohibitedc from any qua of coobsfectionq. As such, objectsc and objectivec 'sine waves' are n¤n holophonicq. So any methodsc of thoughtc which use objectac as incipientc and nascentc primitivesc are ineptc from any quantum complementarospective. Make sure you grasp what Doug just wrote. See cohera and entropa. Review our tables just above. See Photonics.com on a single photon as a quantum~holographic qubit: that photonq complementaroceivesq holographicallyq itselfq and its environmentq at its emissionq.
What is a detended under-tension-tuned string in a violin, a piano, any stringed instrument? Quintessentially it is an ensemble attraction, a strange ensemble of fermions, a string. Bosons are coherent. Fermions are decoherent. Bosons are adiabatic spin 1 flux. ('Elemental,' n¤n ænsæmblæ~wh¤læ~systæmihc,) Fermions are adiabatic spin 1/2 flux. Ensemble fermionic systems like a golf ball or an Euler's-disc, are posentropic at ambient temperatures (their composite is a n¤n adiabatic ensemble of atomic adiabaticities...we see a quantum~both~all~while~and~many enthymeme of partial presence of adiabaticity and partial absence of adiabaticity...quanton(adiabaticity,posentropy). CTMs blinder themselves by focusing on posentropy as a logically 'whole' notion. Doug has just shown you that it is n¤t 'whole' and another 'reason' why classicism is dead! Doug - 13Apr2008.
Allow Doug to use that sextuplet of sentences to express — what classical notions of quantum physics use to describe — photon~electron 'particle force interactions:' QED - Quantum Electro Dynamics. We can use that way of pondering reality here. First, phonons are audio analogues of photons. Atoms when vibrated at audio frequencies may emit phonons. [Ponder momentarily how these phonons might lase, say supersonically and thence emerq sonoluminescence...] Quiescent atoms may absorb phonons. How? For example in an instrument's string, when it vibrates its atoms emit quanta of varying harmonic energyings called "phonons." A quiescent instrument string can be made to sympathetically vibrate by absorbing sound energyings from its environment. Below we show a graphic of a string's flux shown as a string monotone with its timbresome harmonics. That flux represents, classically and transversely, phononic energy emitted by a string which is vibrating. Doug wants you to visualize that string as an ensemble of atoms whose electrons are being jostled by said string's vibrations. Some of said string's electrons give up quanta of energy and emit them as both string-monotone and its subharmonic phonons. Our graphic's flux is a synthesis of all those phonons shown as a single transverse 2D waveform, however, as we just described that isn't real, is it? What is real is a massive ensemble of phonons attracted to and by their string's monotone and its subharmonics.
Let's use that popular graphic again to illustrate ensemble AKA crowd attraction of which we write:
In our graphic that top curve is a monism dual of our classical transverse 2D monotone. Our bottom set of QLOs is a metaphor of Doug's "...massive ensemble of phonons attracted to and by their string's monotone and its subharmonics." There is n¤ monotone, though, is there? It is actually a massive ensemble (Hoffmann refers these ensembles classically as "crowds" and "crowd-effects.") which our ears and minds quantum~synthæsizæ.
Key here is that classically n¤ Fourier transform can really represent that massive ensemble! To do so, a Fourier transform would have to represent every phonon. It physically is incapable of that, so any transform is just an Ockhamistic simplification of our vibrating string's reality. Just like our cross stitch picture is only a map, a crude approximation, of what it attempts to depict. Yet nature just does it...with ease... Amazingly, s~he allows us to resemble he~r opus with relative homo Sophial ease... Wæ aræ ihn Nature amd Nature issi ihn uhs! A real phasement of EIMA quantum~partiality. Except when we objectively use mechanics' great reifier: classical analytics, then we blatantly abuse and disgrace he~r. Doug.
Similar Fourier transforms other classicists have attempted to use classical fractals to mechanically map nature's flux onto static, often digital, 'forms.' One example is Cantor dust.
Classically Cantor dust is a very rough approximation of Doug's graphic above. Quantumly Cantor dust is a very good way to emulate 1/N cut omnistributionings where N is two and greater. Why does Doug omniscriminate classical and quantum versions of Cantor dust? Let's compare them using these classical fractal notions and quantum fractal memeos:
Begin 2Nov2008 Cantor's Dust Aside - Classical Fractal Recursion vis-à-vis Quantum Fractal Recursion:
Classical Fractal Notions —
Quantum Fractal Memeos —
Readers should be aware that today's classical computers have a maximum of 64 bits memory and data bandwidth. Nature has a minimum of 143 octaves! So, for a computer to even begin to represent nature's bandwidth classically it would need at least 192 bits, especially for numerical integer and floating point computations. Even better, 256 bits! A 64 bit computer can only represent numbers lower than 2•1019! That is about 23 orders of magnitude less than a minimum depiction of nature's Planck~rate spectrum viewed classically, transversely. Again, our graphic becomes crucially important here: See Doug's now ancient Fractal Connection. Doug - 2Nov2008.
Readers should be aware that today's classical computers have a maximum of 64 bits memory and data bandwidth. Nature has a minimum of 143 octaves! So, for a computer to even begin to represent nature's bandwidth classically it would need at least 192 bits, especially for numerical integer and floating point computations. Even better, 256 bits!
A 64 bit computer can only represent numbers lower than 2•1019! That is about 23 orders of magnitude less than a minimum depiction of nature's Planck~rate spectrum viewed classically, transversely.
Again, our graphic becomes crucially important here:
See Doug's now ancient Fractal Connection.
Doug - 2Nov2008.
End 2Nov2008 Cantor's Dust Aside.
Let's estimate how many atoms are in a violin string. Using iron (Fe) as an mass estimator for string's material Doug calculates a 30cm violin string weighing 2 grams would have about 2x1022 atoms.
In this case our phonons are bosons and our atom's electrons are fermions. Too, atoms of gas which compose what we call "air" have absorbing and reemitting electrons which 'transmit' audio phonon quanta spatially. We just described quantum sound generation and quantum sound propagation.
Aside - 27Dec2009: Doug probably should have taken our violin string description a tad further. Let's talk about said string's number of electrons, only an estimate, for a variety of 'reasons.' If we look in our periodic table for Fe, we find its atomic number is 26. If you read details there, you will omniscover how 26 is iron's atomic number for a 'neutral atom.' That means said iron atom has one electron in its 'electron shells' for every proton in iron's nucleus. Thus charge of said atom is neutral. Changes in iron's nucleus (count of nucleons) take us into iron's land of self isotopicity. Iron isotopes may be both naturally occurring and radioisotopes. Isotopes of iron are shown, for example, like this 58Fe: that is, "isotope 58 iron." What if we want to talk about steel? Steel, typically, is iron with carbon added (but there are countless other additives which can change steel's quantum~coobsfective~interrelationshipings). In that case, our violin string would have mostly iron atoms and some carbon atoms. We can still classically assess roughly how many atoms are in our violin string. Doug uses 'roughly' since macroscopic quantum~uncertainty reigns, always. So how many electrons are, approximately, in our 2 gram iron violin string? All we have to do is multiply atom count by atomic number (26): 5.2x1023 electrons. We can do other calculations here too. Phonons likely affect only iron's outer shell electrons (it would take very high audio energy levels to affect all electrons in any iron atom's shells; there is much to ponder here in terms of other 'boundary' atoms like hydrogen, helium, argon, and uranium, etc.). So total number of electrons which typically participate in our string's audio behaviorings is smaller than our total electron count estimate. Another example of quantum~partiality. End aside - 27Dec2009.
Aside - 27Dec2009:
Doug probably should have taken our violin string description a tad further. Let's talk about said string's number of electrons, only an estimate, for a variety of 'reasons.'
If we look in our periodic table for Fe, we find its atomic number is 26. If you read details there, you will omniscover how 26 is iron's atomic number for a 'neutral atom.' That means said iron atom has one electron in its 'electron shells' for every proton in iron's nucleus. Thus charge of said atom is neutral. Changes in iron's nucleus (count of nucleons) take us into iron's land of self isotopicity. Iron isotopes may be both naturally occurring and radioisotopes. Isotopes of iron are shown, for example, like this 58Fe: that is, "isotope 58 iron."
What if we want to talk about steel? Steel, typically, is iron with carbon added (but there are countless other additives which can change steel's quantum~coobsfective~interrelationshipings). In that case, our violin string would have mostly iron atoms and some carbon atoms. We can still classically assess roughly how many atoms are in our violin string. Doug uses 'roughly' since macroscopic quantum~uncertainty reigns, always.
So how many electrons are, approximately, in our 2 gram iron violin string? All we have to do is multiply atom count by atomic number (26): 5.2x1023 electrons.
We can do other calculations here too. Phonons likely affect only iron's outer shell electrons (it would take very high audio energy levels to affect all electrons in any iron atom's shells; there is much to ponder here in terms of other 'boundary' atoms like hydrogen, helium, argon, and uranium, etc.). So total number of electrons which typically participate in our string's audio behaviorings is smaller than our total electron count estimate. Another example of quantum~partiality.
End aside - 27Dec2009.
Quantum reality issi relentlessly retuning all fermions. How? DQ! Plus other bosons and fermions in our actual environment! Earth's rotation subtly changes tuning of any string under tension (and vice versa). Temperature. Gravity. Time. Humidity. Moon. Milky Way. Jupiter. An endless list. A great example is: when you stir a cup of coffee it heats up. How could you cool it? Fermions are intrinsically, due their pendular fermionicity, their self~other affective and qualitative 'wobble,' incapable of long-maintaining sinusoidal coherence (partial fermionic coherence we sometimes call "solitonicity;" full fermionic coherence we call "condensation," and "Bose-Einstein condensation" AKA BEC; magnets are examples of partial AKA solitonic coherence; all fermions cooled to 'absolute zero' become BECs; we can oversimply think of latter as 'reversal' of our fuzzons to fermion ontology: partial unbecoming...). (Sinusoids AKA sine waves are generated from ideal classical circle rotation. N¤ ideal classical 'circles' exist in quantum reality! Quantum reality issi at least cyclorbital: cycloidal due absolute, but variable comtextual rate, peregrination of quantum 'motion.')
Imagine a piano. Pretend each string, say, has a dynamic variable tuning affector which minutely alters string's tunedness (tension, say) relentlessly. Randomly. Chaotically. Stochastically. That, reader, is quantum reality affecting fermionic reality. Now imagine said piano's music as analogous Earth's weather. It is another analogue description of why quantum reality issi macroscopically uncertain! What is valuable here is how Quantonics teaches its students how we can apply and use quantum uncertainty to intentionally perform wMBU™, waveManagement By Uncertainty. See our Quantonics' Bergsonian Duration as Uncertainty. See Quantonics' Poisson Bracketings. Doug - 30Jun2007-18Jul2007.
"But Doug, is said original music multi~coherent?" Yæs! Music, what we hear, is quantized phononic energyings (spin 1 bosons) which are emitted, as long as string is vibrating, by some fermionic (e.g., a string as an ensemble of spin 1/2 fermions) sound 'generator,' in this case a, for example, plucked string in a musical string instrument. When a decoherent string vibrates at its 'natural' frequency it, like a radio transmitting antenna, emits packets, quanta of coherent energy called phonons. Each of those is sinusoidally quantum~coherent, but packet sizes are relatively tiny (as many as one per atom's outer-most electron-fermion, repeatedly, while string vibrates; observe how a given fermion's emitted phonons will vary in energy (monotone and subharmonic frequencies) with said fermion's 'local' flux rate in said string...now, ask yourself which atoms in string travel farthest each cycle of said string's vibration? So, then, which atoms will be emitting highest...what should we use here? Energy? Intensity?...and n¤ two packets from any intra wire fermion ensemble, in general, will have 'identical' quantum energies AKA frequencies based upon local velocities of intra wire fermionic waves emitting them.
Allow a tad of review from Act I:
But Einstein had to have some 'reason' for his confidence that light was particulate, didn't he? Yes, and at that time early in Earth's 20th century, it was , though oxymoronically, a "good 'reason.'" Hoffmann tells us eloquently, what Einstein's 'reason' was, using the photoelectric 'effect,' "If Maxwell's theory could be trusted [from retrospect 2007, it couldn't], when the intensity, or amount, of light was increased the speeds of the electrons [classically] should be increased too. But what the experimenters found was something different. The speeds remained just the same as before. It was the number of electrons that increased. To increase the speeds the experimenters found they must increase not the intensity of the light but its frequency." Page 28. Simple summary:
But Einstein had to have some 'reason' for his confidence that light was particulate, didn't he? Yes, and at that time early in Earth's 20th century, it was , though oxymoronically, a "good 'reason.'"
Hoffmann tells us eloquently, what Einstein's 'reason' was, using the photoelectric 'effect,' "If Maxwell's theory could be trusted [from retrospect 2007, it couldn't], when the intensity, or amount, of light was increased the speeds of the electrons [classically] should be increased too. But what the experimenters found was something different. The speeds remained just the same as before. It was the number of electrons that increased. To increase the speeds the experimenters found they must increase not the intensity of the light but its frequency." Page 28.
Simple summary:
So, in our vibrating string, atom's electrons at peak of our wave are moving faster than atoms nearer wave's node, ad oculos, right? Faster intra wire atoms' fermionic electrons mean higher energy phonons! Slower electrons mean lower energy phonons! You really didn't thingk sound is like that, did you? Yep! Sound is quantized! Quantum~quantized! Just like heat, e.g., black body radiation, and Planck's coming to grips with said "violet catastrophe." Doug.
Simply, any intra wire fermion ensemble's phonon emissions' energies are quantum~stochastic (a quantum~plausible ensemble omnistribution of monotone and its subharmonic phononic frequencies). But which complement of our phonons' energies are stochastic? Each phonon issi quanton(kinetic_energy,packet_flux_energy). (Be aware that Doug could write a library here and still have an incomplete description of a simple vibrating string...read Heald and Elmore's Physics of Waves...and that is their classical version!)
A great question for students of Quantonics to ask here is, "But Doug, how does a boson emitted from a vibrating fermionic string acquire its packet flux rate?" We leave that as an exercise...
Classically physicists describe flux AKA frequency like this: f=c/.
We must keep in mind that quantumly flux rate is energy. Compare classically (area under) wave amplitude is energy. This is one of our most prominent atlantes of comparison: quantum vis-à-vis classical. A great analogy, just to give one which may grab your pneuma, is that classically saying "amplitude is energy" is like Einstein saying classically that "acceleration is gravity," and mathematicians saying classically "proof is truth." Doug - 19Sep2007.
Quantumly 'amplitude' is quantized stochastic PPL velocities of phonon quantal emissions. That classical 'c' is speed of sound propagation through air, though. In our string~local example, here, there are many 'cjs.' Alternatively we can show ensemble phonons issi quantons(cj,). That ensemble represents stochastics of all of string phonons' harmonics and subharmonics. We can grasp rather easily then cj (bosons' string~emission velocities) is whole string stochastic and 1/ (per boson packet flux quantum) is whole string boson~coherent. We have described, somewhat naïvely, quantum~c¤mplæmæntati¤n of both loudness (stochastic PPL intensityings: stochastic quantity of phonons) and harmonic and subharmonic (20Oct2007: omnirectionally red and blue kinetically~shifted bosonic) tones (c¤hærænt flux energyings: subjective Quality of phonons). See our vibrating string graphic, here:
Our graphic is 2D so it does n¤t show reality's omnimensional emission of phonons. Ditto absorption. In a sense this is a metaphor of dialectic as (imposing) 2D making classical direction relevant, whereas quantumly, "direction issi irrelevant." Doug - 21Jul2007.
Right now, O'gadon's are asking, "Why did Doug underline 'velocity,' and 'speed?'" Stochastically, vibrating strings' standing wave velocities amount to zær¤. Total distance of string's vibrating motion amounts to n¤ l¤cal displacement of said string. Velocity classically integrates all distances both plus and minus (classical velocity of driving in a circle and returning to origin is 'zero'). Speed integrates all distance traveled as positive. Compared classically and quantumly these two notions-memeos harbor incredibly omniffering semantics. Quantumly, a vibrating string creates emitted energy and discreates absorbed energy. Compare that to J. C. Maxwell's 2nd 'law.' Do you sense a memeotic of tapping reserve energy here? Classically such is verboten! Quantumly, it's real! Now fathom your quantum~stage as almost unlimited 'vibrating strings.' Wow Mom! 19Jul2007 - Doug.
Regular readers may recall how Quantonics solved Feynman's "...insoluble, put my foot in a swamp and it came up muddy, How does wind make water waves?" problem. Above graphic is analogous our water wave graphic affected by wind quantons. What is omnifferent about our above graphic is we see phonons superposing their energies upon air (wind) fermions so that air fermions can 'wobble~' carry string's emitted coherent quantas' soundings. We see energy transduction as a stochastic process of fermionic string emitting bosonic phonons which impart their coherent energies to air fermions affectively~importuning them to paddle~wheel at sonic rates which we can hear and instruments can record. Wind and water is fermion~fermion transduction of energy. Sound is fermion~boson~fermion transduction of energy. Notice how Doppler red and blue shifting is fermionic speed 'c' modulation of quantized coherent phononic energy.
Begin 18Mar2009 aside - A Doug Gauntlet to Quantonics Students: That paragraph makes Doug thinkq. We have shown you, now, How Wind Makes Water Waves. This page's effort on Doug's Sound Opus shows how strings make waves and how waves can make strings vibrate. So we have two examples of quantum~waves empirically applied to two kinds of energy transduction: Fermions-fermions, and bosons-fermions. What is interesting here is that both of these examples are about air (fermionic) vav water (fermionic) and metal string (fermionic) vav air (fermionic). What is missing? One example is metal to metal transduction. What would be a great exemplar? @Quantonics, Inc., 2009-2029 — Rev. 18Mar2009 PDR — Created: 18Mar2009 PDR gas fermionic to fermionic liquid wind making water waves gas fermionic to fermionic metal vibrating string metal fermionic to fermionic metal, glass Euler's disk @Quantonics, Inc., 2009-2029 — Rev. 18Mar2009 PDR — Created: 18Mar2009 PDR As we can see, countless others are possible. We have a lot of work to do, do we n¤t? Doug's fav is Euler's disc (fermionic metal) dynamically spinning on a parabolic metal mirror. In this case we have metal-metal (possibly metal-solid (e.g., glass)) transduction. Doug wants to throw a gauntlet down to students. Describe Euler's disc dynamic behaviourings using quantum memes and memeos and enthymemes similar two examples already given. When you have your answers please send them to Doug for review and possible publication in Quantonics. We will link to best solutions from this page. Email: dpellesner$$$AT$$$indy$$dot$$rr$$dot$$com. If you want an example of a classical 'solution' to this problem see two starter links in next line of text. Your solutions should be able to make Moffatt's approach look, in retrospect, like sheer classical idiocy. See Doug's criticism of Keith Moffatt's classical solution to Euler's disk. See one example page about Moffatt and Euler's disk. You will see classical bogosity ubiquitously on most Moffatt pages re: Euler's disk. Classicists cannot describe an Euler's disk behaviour well for several reasons: An Euler's disk behaviour is quantum~evolution. (Maths have no nascent means of describing self~directing processings.) An Euler's disk involves quantization of all energy transductions, dynamically. Many bodies are involved and classical maths-physics haven't learned how to deal with ensemble fermions and all their countless holographic quantum~interrelationshipings. Etc. Doug. (Good luck on your gauntlet.) One more quickie...how is scintillation involved in energy transduction via quanta? We describe Quantonics' version of scintillation below. End 18Mar2009 aside - A Doug Gauntlet to Quantonics Students.
Begin 18Mar2009 aside - A Doug Gauntlet to Quantonics Students:
That paragraph makes Doug thinkq. We have shown you, now, How Wind Makes Water Waves. This page's effort on Doug's Sound Opus shows how strings make waves and how waves can make strings vibrate. So we have two examples of quantum~waves empirically applied to two kinds of energy transduction: Fermions-fermions, and bosons-fermions. What is interesting here is that both of these examples are about air (fermionic) vav water (fermionic) and metal string (fermionic) vav air (fermionic). What is missing? One example is metal to metal transduction. What would be a great exemplar? @Quantonics, Inc., 2009-2029 — Rev. 18Mar2009 PDR — Created: 18Mar2009 PDR gas fermionic to fermionic liquid wind making water waves gas fermionic to fermionic metal vibrating string metal fermionic to fermionic metal, glass Euler's disk @Quantonics, Inc., 2009-2029 — Rev. 18Mar2009 PDR — Created: 18Mar2009 PDR As we can see, countless others are possible. We have a lot of work to do, do we n¤t? Doug's fav is Euler's disc (fermionic metal) dynamically spinning on a parabolic metal mirror. In this case we have metal-metal (possibly metal-solid (e.g., glass)) transduction. Doug wants to throw a gauntlet down to students. Describe Euler's disc dynamic behaviourings using quantum memes and memeos and enthymemes similar two examples already given. When you have your answers please send them to Doug for review and possible publication in Quantonics. We will link to best solutions from this page. Email: dpellesner$$$AT$$$indy$$dot$$rr$$dot$$com. If you want an example of a classical 'solution' to this problem see two starter links in next line of text. Your solutions should be able to make Moffatt's approach look, in retrospect, like sheer classical idiocy. See Doug's criticism of Keith Moffatt's classical solution to Euler's disk. See one example page about Moffatt and Euler's disk. You will see classical bogosity ubiquitously on most Moffatt pages re: Euler's disk. Classicists cannot describe an Euler's disk behaviour well for several reasons: An Euler's disk behaviour is quantum~evolution. (Maths have no nascent means of describing self~directing processings.) An Euler's disk involves quantization of all energy transductions, dynamically. Many bodies are involved and classical maths-physics haven't learned how to deal with ensemble fermions and all their countless holographic quantum~interrelationshipings. Etc. Doug. (Good luck on your gauntlet.) One more quickie...how is scintillation involved in energy transduction via quanta? We describe Quantonics' version of scintillation below.
That paragraph makes Doug thinkq. We have shown you, now, How Wind Makes Water Waves. This page's effort on Doug's Sound Opus shows how strings make waves and how waves can make strings vibrate. So we have two examples of quantum~waves empirically applied to two kinds of energy transduction: Fermions-fermions, and bosons-fermions. What is interesting here is that both of these examples are about air (fermionic) vav water (fermionic) and metal string (fermionic) vav air (fermionic).
What is missing? One example is metal to metal transduction. What would be a great exemplar?
As we can see, countless others are possible. We have a lot of work to do, do we n¤t?
Doug's fav is Euler's disc (fermionic metal) dynamically spinning on a parabolic metal mirror. In this case we have metal-metal (possibly metal-solid (e.g., glass)) transduction.
Doug wants to throw a gauntlet down to students. Describe Euler's disc dynamic behaviourings using quantum memes and memeos and enthymemes similar two examples already given.
When you have your answers please send them to Doug for review and possible publication in Quantonics. We will link to best solutions from this page. Email: dpellesner$$$AT$$$indy$$dot$$rr$$dot$$com.
If you want an example of a classical 'solution' to this problem see two starter links in next line of text. Your solutions should be able to make Moffatt's approach look, in retrospect, like sheer classical idiocy.
See Doug's criticism of Keith Moffatt's classical solution to Euler's disk. See one example page about Moffatt and Euler's disk. You will see classical bogosity ubiquitously on most Moffatt pages re: Euler's disk.
Classicists cannot describe an Euler's disk behaviour well for several reasons:
Doug. (Good luck on your gauntlet.)
One more quickie...how is scintillation involved in energy transduction via quanta? We describe Quantonics' version of scintillation below.
End 18Mar2009 aside - A Doug Gauntlet to Quantonics Students.
There are unlimited comments to make here. One is how bosons are 100% energy efficient due their intrinsic zeroentropic quantum~coherence. Readers please observe how coherent energy transactions at least partially explain otherwise inexplicable efficiency of all bionons. Young quantum biologists are making hay with this quantum miracle. If you want an recent example, see Science, Vol. 316, 8Jun2007, p. 1438, Titled 'Long Live Electronic Coherence.' Before and after, you may wish to brush up via Mae-wan Ho's the Rainbow and the Worm. Fermionic ensembles are less than 100% efficient due their posentropic decoherence. That explains quite simply why class 8 ~15 litre diesel engines have a theoretical maximum efficiency of about 53%. If a diesel's reciprocation somehow could be made more bosonic (with a goal of increasing an engine's overall adiabaticity; one might imagine as an mechanical example and similar jet engines, a contrarotating crank shaft in a 15 litre engine...thence transmissions capable of putting contrarotating torque into a more mechanically bosonic drive train...?), its efficiency would-could jump to over 90%. But there is a classical tradeoff. Fermions can, via their momentum, generate durational torque. Bosons cannot do that, except by transduction of their energy to fermions! Our approach would have to be partial, but it already is! Heat is photonic! Class 8 and smaller diesel engines radiate muchas photons (smaller combustion engines are less 'thermodynamically' efficient than larger diesel engines; room sized diesels may be 85% or more efficient...). So, as today, we would have to find better ways of turning all photons into torque! So each phonon interrelationshiping with any fermion loses energy due fermionic transduction and wobble 'loss.' So, sound dissipates with 'distance.' Sound would n¤t dissipate if its medium were coherent and possibly isocoherent. Compare much higher energy (flux rate; n¤t classical wave amplitude!) photons and neutrinos which appear to porpoise (verb) porcus~piscis cohere and isocohere, decohere (pig) and isocohere (fish), in and out of isoflux. Lots of issues here...
Another comment perhaps worthy of mention is that coherencies of sound described above are n¤t lased: each is locally both islandically autonomous amd coherent! They can be lased, however! Military uses latter as a nonlethal weapon technology. Too, they use sound flux in water jets to precisely measure machined parts, like jet engine fan blades. Too, we can use coherent sound lased in high pressure water to cut very strong, tough and hard materials. Quantum thæ¤ry blows classical matrix and wave 'mechanics' into d' bit bucket, really! Surely, if you disagree, you are already extinct! Good for rest of us!
Another interesting meme which we should fathom, and hinted by link attached to our graphic, "What is ontology of those dotted arrows? Are phonons emitted directly from electron shells in string's atoms? Or do vibrations emersce an (porpoiseful) interrelationshiping with isoflux which makes it appear that phonons quantally emersce when an electron drops back into a lower quantized shell?"
Another is to compare our vibrating string to a ~1 bubble of argon in deuterated acetone sonoluminescently vibrating at about 20kHz. When that puppy emits, its peak energy which lasts femtoseconds is in terawatts! Doug sees vast similarities in those two, except he visualizes a fuzzon of peaqlos inside that argon bubble. A great question here is, "How do we represent high flux rates as peaqlos?" That one isn't too bad to at least begin to answer: waves are flux and flux has stochastic omnistributionings. Bosonic flux might be unimodal. Fermionic flux might be trimodal (fluxoid 0, then fluxoid 1, then fluxoid 0, then...half that frequency as a kind of pendular Gestalt: quantum~Gn¤stic~S¤phial~hærmaphr¤ditic (w)h¤lism...1, 2, 3...). Latter might appear as two frequencies, a double rate one embedded in a unirate one. Those two make what we refer as "fermionic wobble," which we show using a Quantonics convention in graphic just above. Let's look at Schrödinger's hydrogen atom as an exemplar, again (we see now in this review venue, notably, how DIQheads like Jacques Maritaine, similar Irænaeus, — a topos' bottom-dwelling, bottom-feeding hylic, a died in wool SOMitian Thomist (Aquinas, that is) — who stupidly, arrogantly and narcissistically abused Bergson's intuitive quantum~genius, will simply never grasp deeper quantum tells of reality):
Now put all of this in Riemann quantum~comtextings.
There are countless more fabulous memes to discuss here, and we hope some of you young folks will chase them down. Free energy abounds and this is an approach to figuring out how to access it. Keep in mind graphic cancellation of isoflux which Doug shows quite apparently in our above graphic. Studying that graphic and trying to describe what you thinkq is happening will reap you huge rewards! Doug - 1-7Jul2007.
Many packets as a ensemble mapped synthesis is what becomes Fourier 'analyzed' into classical sine waves. N¤ Fourier analysis has qua to capture and record all phonons emitted by a vibrating string. That is why a recording never sounds as good as an original theatre's performance. Too, sound is holographic. N¤ Fourier transform ever captures quantum holographicity (boundless self~other networking interrelationshipings) of sound. Indeed, classicists claim 'notes' are objective. Phonons, like photons, carry qubital hologra regarding their environment at time they were emitted!!! N¤ decent classical object would ever declare itself a hologram!
Doug can write a whole textbook just on this material alone, but this is a review...
End Doug's String Opus.
So, dear reader, what does Hoffmann mean by "Laundry Lists?"
Doug has read and reread this text about (at least) three times. Two were prior Doug's work on Bohm's hologramic universe, a kind of quanton(implicate_order, explicate_order). Notice Doug's comma-space. SOM's wall. That, simply, is Doug's major problem with Bohm's model of reality. His two orders are Bohresque 'middle-excluded.' Compare Doug's quanton(n¤nactuality,actuality) vav Bohm's quanton(implicate, explicate).
Hoffmann does not say this, but his 'square,' and 'rectangular' laundry lists are 2D classical models of holograms! Recall that all elements in a hologram quantumly~interrelate all elements in said hologram. Excluded-middle objects simply cann¤t do that! A clear tell that reality isn't classical, rather, it's quantum, quantum~holographic. Too, all interrelationshipings in a h¤l¤gram, taken in pairs...DO NOT COMMUTE interrelatively. Use a mirror to demonstrate this for yourself, ad oculos, thibedir~directly.
Hoffmann's "Laundry Lists" show that! When you read Hoffmann's The Strange Story of the Quantum, pay close attention to his Laundry List descriptions of map mileage rectangles. Notice how driving from Baltimore to NYC omniffers driving from NYC to Baltimore. Fathom how any trip in either 'di'rection is always omniffering (weather is always changing chaotically, ensembles of vehicles are always omniffering: never same, seasons are always changing, construction and natural landscape evolution morphs all proximate landscape, similar a violin's played string, your vehicle's speed Fourier-wave varies st¤chastically~n¤nduplicably, etc.) and always macroscopically uncertain! See? Macroscopic quantum~uncertainty is obvious, isn't it? You do n¤t have to be a quantum genius to "get it," do you? Actually, it's easy, it's quantum flux simple!
A most simple example of this is one of classical science's first tells of quantum reality: position and momentum of a quanton do not commute. That is Heisenberg's definition of quantum uncertainty which classicists usually show as p• ≥ i•h. Fathom deeply how commutation can be relevant any dyadic operator. In Heisenberg's use it is multiplicative commutability. Poisson's bracket offers a 'di'fferencing commutativity of commuted products, like this from our What is Wrong with SOM Logic? page:
p•m omnifferencings m•pquanton(p,m)
Classically, in that first line, what we show as "p•m - m•p = [p, m]" is called a "Poisson bracket" AKA PB. Quantonics quantons have qua as PBs since their comma~nospace issi an EIMA interrelationship. Quantonics' EIMA interrelationships are innately quantum~holographic! Any quantum~interrelationshipings' nexi in any quantum~hologram issi a PB! Quantonics calls them more generally "quantons." Ensembles of them we call "partial quantum~reality." PBs have application in nearly all disciplines. Just now MBAs are learning to dump classical objectivism in favor of wqMBU™ using PBs. Doug - 3Jul2007.
As a result of all this Heisenberg found, using his own sensibilities that he could not use laundry lists to do quantum mechanics. Sadly, he chose to go even more minimalistic and objective in his approach. He dug in even deeper in SOM's mythos, SOM's cave, SOM's detention center of mind.
What is most remarkable about this chapter for Doug is that it apparently isn't obvious to physicists that if you drive same route to work and home every day, it never is! All trips whether an hour apart, a day apart, either direction are always macroscopically quantum~uncertain: When we PB their bountiful ephemera n¤ne will ever commute! Reality, simply, is quantum. Reality, simply, is n¤t classically mechanical. Previously, n¤w, amd nævær.
There is a great paragraph, which Hoffmann refers "Heisenberg's portent of success," near this chapter's end. We leave it to you to read on your own. Hint: "residual energy" is a Planck least action divided by 2. But that is subatomic uncertainty, isn't it? Imaginatively try macroscopically mapping that memeo onto one of quantum "reserve energy..."
Chapter X - Pages 105-108 - The Asceticism of Paul —
We already covered this short chapter, quite excellently in retrospect, here.
Chapter XI - Pages 109-123 - Electrons Are Smeared —
This chapter is mostly historical and shows how Schrödinger's wave theory emerged and held its own against matrix theory, at least initially.
Good history on Newton, William Hamilton (1788-1856 - a prodigy similar William James Sidis), and others.
Hamilton was brilliant, but he treated light as particulate and believed that a 'beam' of light was much like a one dimensional ray (in classical physics a ray is a particulate temporally and positionally analytic trajectory; classical rays are n¤t PPL~stochastic; in quantum reality quantons' peregrinations are PPL~stochastic...). Said ray could be bent (lensed) but its emission and absorption scintillation 'points' are specific-stabile Cartesian locus objectively-substantially particulate. Thus its travel consumes a definite path which is classically analytic, and this would fail Feynman's Hoffmann-described subsequent approach using multipath integrals and J. C. Maxwellian arrow of unitemporality plus-minus time violations.
Hamilton's view is Newtonian, classical and locally (SOM mythos) naïve. This chapter's title partially explains why, but Hoffmann doesn't appear to leverage such valuable intuitional understanding. Classicists have made a celebrity of Hamilton via his (their conceptions of his) socially-approved 'genius.' One of his greatest socially-appraised celebrity accomplishments was to develop simple mathematics for treating many body systems as 'mathematically simple' Ockhamistic unit systems. (See Doug's Chapter XII beginning comments below re: Wrong! Bogus! and Error! Classical 'simplification,' 'minimalism,' etc. removes Quality by turning off h-bar. Throw away Ockham's razor! Throw away SOM's Knife! Doug.) Nearly two hundred years later it is now apparent an approach like that is too simple: it turns off quantum reality, and as a result, it denies (tries to ignore) dynamic many-body evolving, EIMA, sorso, SOrON interrelationshipings.
Hoffmann writes about that...
"Newton's mechanics was built on his three laws of motion. But beneath these laws lay a deep foundation of numerous fundamental concepts which, though once revolutionary, came to be so unthinkingly taken for granted that Einstein's relativity amendments to them at first seemed highly unnatural. These underlying concepts, the Newtonian philosophy of space and time and matter, were essential preliminary assumptions without which the laws of motion could not be formulated, nor mathematics take hold to convert them into equations. When Lagrange and Hamilton made their great contributions to the development of Newtonian mechanics they did not call its philosophy into question, for in those days it was not fashionable to tamper with fundamentals; the aim was rather to develop them to their mathematical utmost in the sure belief they would then explain the universe." Page 119 of 285 total, including index. Doug's bold and color highlight science's habits of running on automatic and its deep errors of classical thought which then and now encumber progress in describing reality.
In Quantonics, based upon Philip R. Wallace's decades later efforts in his Quantum Paradox, we view emitters, absorbers and emitted~absorbed quantons as all macroscopic: to use Hoffmann's word "Smeared." Simply, scintillation of quantons involves enormously macroscopic processings. Another way of saying this is that all quantons have arbitrary (macroscopically quantum~uncertain) quantum~PPL omnistributionings of their being in Hilbert spatial quantum~reality. Implication? We may n¤t treat them as Newton and Hamilton, et al., did, as 'particles.' Rather, we must treat them as quantum~wave peaqloings.
Doug - 19Jul2007.
Chapter XII - Pages 124-139 - Unification —
To make this chapter review easier to grasp, readers should realize that Doug is comparing classical EEMD unification...
...with quantum EIMA omnification (quantum~coherent holographicity). Two graphics side-by-side may illustrate, better, what Doug is comparing:
EEMD Unification
Classical Dialectical Analyticity
Concrete's State, Stux
Quantity
EIMA Omnification
Quantum~Coherent Holographicity
Interrelationshipings' Phasicityings, Flux
Quality
Hoffmann's title for this chapter disturbs (omnisturbs) us. He is saying that 'science' seeks unification as a 'crown jewel' of OSFA "catholic" purity. He is saying that positive social concord is humanity's best means of fathoming reality.
Wr¤ng! Ærr¤r!
There is a name for this tiny mindedness: monism. Monism is essence of dialectic. Monism says "Our monism is the monism and that's all there is. If something 'exists' it is in our monism. And if something does not 'exist' then it is not in our monism." So a monism begs dialectic 'reasoning' of either "in our monism" or "not in our monism." Some views of Islam are like that, monistic. Some views of Christianity are like that, monistic. Mohammed's Islam is a monism: "There is but one God, Allah!" Aquinas' Christianity is a monism: "Catholically, there is but one God, Jesus!" Aquinas said "Muslims are infidels." Mohammed said "Roman inane social Christians are infidels." (From a Muslim or Christian 'unified' monistic conspective, you are either an infidel or you are not an infidel.)
Quantonics' interpretation of quantum reality says, "Ahll ¤f uhs, Muslims, Buddhists, Gn¤stics, Sikhs, Taoists, Christians, everyone, etc., aræ ihn G¤d amd G¤d issi ihn ahll ¤f uhs." Sihnce wæ aræ ahll ¤mnihffering ¤næ an¤thær, wæ sææ a vahst hærmænæutihc ¤f G¤dlihnæss as a plauhsihblæ quantum~ænsæhmblæ ¤f ¤mnihffering c¤mplæmænts ¤f G¤d's quantum~cræati¤n.
Doug isn't attempting a stature of orthodox preaching here. Doug is only attempting to show how religion, interpreted quantumly, becomes a viable metaphor for science which can also be interpreted quantumly. It's just, in Doug's view, easier for lay people to grasp a religious description vis-à-vis a 'scientific' description.
Classical science claims that its disciplinary matrix is a 'unified' monism: you either practice "real science" or you practice "pseudo science." Trouble, right here in River City, just like rope a dope popes, only scientists 'know' what 'real science' is. Classical science orthodoxy: quintessence of religion! Won't you agree, we can see that rather lucidly-easily and eidetically, ad occulos,..., right? Doug.
Doesn't this dialectical BS just make you want to gag? Doug's guess is that most people of Western culture probably are dialecticians and really believe monism is OSFA's status quo way to go. Probably 99% of all 'scientists' are dialecticians. Probably 99% of all religionists are dialecticians. Probably... Gag, gag, gag...
Without a putative presumption of monism, dialectic fails. Multiplicity, plurality, quantum~flux and their attendant animate~interrelationshiping~ensemblings' incessantly~evolving~adapting relativisms simply destroy stoppable-state-ic dialectic and its dogmatic 'holds still' thing-king. Som[it]e[s] call it "genius," like Porculus Pigulus calling Bu()sh() "a genius."
Quantonics demonstrates thoroughly H5Wings SOM is retarded, massively and globally retarded. Classical 'genius' is actually retarded. Worse, classical 'genius' does n¤t yet realize it is retarded!
Throughout this chapter on monistic (and monastic) unification, you will see 'scientists' and pseudo philosophers attempting to achieve monism via formal, mechanical, mathematical EEMD 'unification.' Is it apparent to you that EEMD 'unification' is an oxymoron? How can a everywhere-excluded-middle-dissociative reality be 'unified?' Not only is it stupid, it is evil, d' evil. ESQ! Why? A major trouble with monisms is that we have to use SOM's knife to cut them up, to 'differentially' analyse them, Cuisinart them, to lisr them, to reduce them to nonsensical yet psychically 'intelligible' Ockhamistic (hylic) minimalistic objective 'parts.' Once we learn to do that, we start believing that we can analyse all in reality. However, we cann¤t!
All we can classically 'do' is pretend to analyse Newtonian-immutable classical illusions called 'objects.' And when we analyse those objects' mechanical motion, we do that using impossible analytic stoppability and restartability like this:
Now for comparison, ask yourself "Is EIMA omnification an oxymoron?" Isn't it apparent now that analytic EEMD 'unification' is BAD (Worse) News: malspel? Isn't it apparent that coherent EIMA omnification is GOOD (Better) News: gospel, euangel?...
... We have quantum emerscenturing coherence over manufactured mechanical assembly:
Perhaps most exciting for Doug, here, is a nexus with Robert M. Pirsig's opus re: MoQ, Metaphysics of Quality. Pirsig claims and Doug agrees that the ancients, e.g., (Doug's tentatively chosen example:) Iraqi Chaldæans (today's c. 2007 Yazidis AKA modern Essenes...), understood...
hylic and psychic monism:
...monism as an archetype is ESQ, is evil: essence of naïve and trivialized hive-drone SOM thing-king. Chaldæans believed social hylic-psychic thought is inferior. They believed individual coherent pneuma is superior. They wrote about those comparisons and issues surrounding them. They tried to live individual~pneumatically and they wrote messages of G¤¤d news to their flocks about it. If you want to sample this ancient social-unification-antithetical way of think~king a good place to start is The Chaldæan Oracles I. It illuminates how Pirsig's ancients saw middle~included complements (they intuited plural subjunctive complementarospectives) of both monism and pluralism. Of course, to Doug, those ancient intuemes are precursive and progenitive of what Earth's early third Millennium intelligentsia refer "Quantum." We regard this as an important and evocative ancient metaphor of a Næw Way of Thinkqing.
An easy juxtaposition here is:
Among Hume's Law issues of was, is, and should (ought) we find subjunctive tense ensconced in ought as: 'science's' missing bridge ("...where's the bridge?") twixt 'fact' and Value described by Pirsig as, "science has no Value, and science drives Value out." Of course, this is pragma of quantum~potentia, James and Peirce's pragma of looking forward, pragma of stochastic PPLings' quantum~expectation. Science wors(e)hips was as its source of historical induction: a tool of definite predication. Science can barely grasp is, unless it is predicable on was. Science is deathly afraid of any subjunctive ought unless it is strictly and ideally causal and 1-1 correspondingly y=f(t) determinate. Science is (and orthodox religion is) deathly afraid of Quality and Value as subjunctive a priori expectation based upon th~¤ught and emotion. Consider how Quantonics thrives on subjunctive th~¤ught...it's how we tap into reserve~energy, folks! Quantonics Quantum HotMeme™ Th~¤ught gænæratæs (issi gænærah of) ¤ught.™ HotMeme™.
(Perhaps mental~inertially, Doug for some mysterious set of yet unfathomed holographic energy~wellings' nexi here always thinks of Led Zeppelin's Stairway to Heaven.)
See Doug's QELR of positive too.
If humanity continues that 'scientific' fact without Value orthodoxy, humanity is headed for neo~sapien replacement and a genuinely stupid kind of voluntary self-extinction (a mental picture here is 'uniform' social labeling and Jews cooperatively, volitionally boarding trains to Auschwitz...). (As a companion observation, classical 'religion' may be fathomed similarly too: social excommunicative labeling and voluntary self-extinction via unintended consequences of socially-volitional self-euthanasia. When you approve socially-excommunicating and -destroying your own people as anti-society, your 'local' society is already dead. Heads up, folks! Doug - 25Jul2007.)
Classical reality is canonically, by humanist anthropogenic-social 'authoritative' design, 'unique.' Accordingly, all in classical reality may be (should, orthodoxically, be) unified. Quantum reality is hermeneutically, pluralistically omnique. In place of classical unique and unify, Quantonics c¤¤pts wihth c¤ihnagæ ¤f "quantum~¤mnihquæ" amd "quantum~¤mnihfy:" quantum~h¤l¤grams ¤f plurahl amd c¤hesihve wavihc~ænærgy~wællings' PPL aut¤n¤myings. Quantum~ømnihfihcati¤n uncloaks, unshrouds a massively heterogeneous~multiplicate included~middle quanton(Value,fact) heterodoxy of islandic, c¤hærænt, autonomies. See Mae-wan Ho's the Rainbow and the Worm. See Doug's epiphany of quanton(Bergsonian_Monism_Pluralism,Pirsigean_Pluralism_Monism).
Reality, simply, is n¤t classically 'scientific.' Reality, simply, is n¤t classically 'religious.' Reality, simply, is n¤t:
'Classical science' is about what is socially-consensually 'true.' 'Classical philosophy' is about what is socially-consensually 'truth.' Classicists conventionally, conveniently, and socially-consensually ignore pluralistic individualities' howings, whyings, whereings, whenings, and whoings and almost entirely lose their bearings when others start speaking about real quantum~processings in nongrammatical present~participle~plural. Nearly universal classical orthodox convention — dogmatically and canonically abides singular, state-ic, active-passive voice. B¤gus! Ærr¤r!
Doug's usage of 'socially' in that last paragraph begs n¤væl semantic when one has qua to grasp Hamilton's convenient solution to many~entity problems by naïvely treating many as one. Classical society ineptly does that to nearly all its problems. OSFA! Singularity of society (and any quantum system) cann¤t efface multiplicity of con(m)stituent individuicity, regardless Hamilton's mathematical toy box toddling. Dialectic imposes either society or individual (systemic unification vis-á-vis heterogeneous individuation) with society above individual. Again, B¤gus! Ærr¤r!
Social unification inactivates deactivates disables perverts misrepresents distorts corrupts degenerates reduces obliviates obviates proscribes attenuates subverts falsifies belies equivocates prevaricates warps debauches degrades expunges obliterates excises eradicates effaces scalpels confines detains imprisons scalarbates specifies standardizes etc. Value. Quantum Value appears when h-bar is enabled. Social unification zeroes, disables h-bar! Social unification inactivates deactivates disables perverts misrepresents distorts corrupts degenerates reduces obliviates obviates proscribes attenuates subverts falsifies belies equivocates prevaricates warps debauches degrades expunges obliterates excises eradicates effaces scalpels confines detains imprisons scalarbates specifies standardizes etc. quantum~reality. Social unification does its best to make Value disappear. "Just the facts, Ma'am, only the facts."
One catholic, unified Size does not Fit All!!! Monistic, monastic unification of individuicities is B¤gus! Ærr¤r! Said classical dialectical method reifies reality by removing Value from fact through a dogmatic disciplinary matrix pogrom of dialectical reduction called Ockhamistic minimalism. Classical unification is radical reduction to achieve socially tragedy of commons sense minimalist simplicity. "Goodbye Value, hello stupid." See Doug's efforts on simplicity. Doug - 28Jul2007.
To ameliorate that vulgi opinio social Error, Quantum~coquecigrues proffers both quantum~societyings and quantum~individualings with individualings above societyings.
Quantum reality issi an evolutionary emersos, of Mae-wan Hoean quantum~c¤hærænt autonomies, which is always changing and always evolutionarily creating quantum~n¤vel quantum~ihndihvihdual ¤mnihquænessings via quantal change and often via wholly unpredictable emerqancies of proemial, incipient, and nascent quantons.
Up to this stage of Doug's review of Chapter XII he has, arguably, fairly well developed a social metaphor of Unification and several of its implicit troubles.
Hoffmann is writing, though, about a scientific unification of Einstein's Relativity and its beastly and gargantuan counterpart Quantum Mechanics. They just do not want to unify...and that is our problem here.
A major problem is that 'ethical science' has accepted mechanised Relativity, while mechanical versions of quantum reality are many, er, um four (wave: de Broglie (1) and Schrödinger (2), matrix: Dirac (3) and Heisenberg (4)), and all four are new kids on science's block. But both Relativity and Quantum Theories are presumably 'mechanical — dialectical.' Theoretically mechanical models should offer means to demonstrate uniform compatibility with and among one another. For some 'reason,' these two resist unification! Why?
©Quantonics, Inc., 2007-2029 — Rev. 7Aug2008 PDR — Created: 5Aug2007 PDR. Begin - Why Quantum-Mechanics and Einsteinian Relativity may 'not' be classically unified: You want a hint? Quantum Mechanics (QM) is stochastic. Relativity (R) is, by Einsteinian stalwart wholly objective 'intelligent design,' 'classically-not' stochastic, indeed rejects all probabilities which are 'not' ideally either one ('unity') or zero ('not unity'). Guess what? Hoffmann didn't understand that, so his chapter peregrinates piles of classically ill-conceived issues of unification. Einstein saw unification as a EOOO dichon(not_unity, unity). (By way of comparison, quantum~st¤chastihcs ¤ffer qualihtatihvæ ¤mnihty. Bohm amd wæ ræfer "quantum~st¤chastihc qualihtatihvæ ¤mnihty" quantum~n¤n~mæchanihcs amd nMoQ, N¤Q, amd OEDhP. Zær¤nessings~¤nænessings aræ anihmatæ quantum pr¤cæssings: quantum~flux.) Who did understand that? Two n¤n exclusionary examples are F. S. C. Northrop and P. Suppes. On latter link see Jammer's The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, 1st edition, Section 8.2, p. 359. Excellent! Worse, none of them understood a shallower yet even more problematic issue: All reality, at all scales is st¤chastic (i.e., abs¤lutæ~quantum~flux vis-à-vis classical-dialectical-either-event-or-state) and thus micro(QM)~, meso(QM)~, and macro(R)~quantum~uncertain! From whence that quantum~uncertainty? Quantum reality issi absolute flux: animate, EIMA, ensemble PPLings' phasistic interrelationshipings (see QVI graphic just below). Einstein's relativity outright rejected that quantum~truthing. Quantum mechanics partially accepted it, however, only by applying stochastically incomplete classical notions of 'probability' at atomic and subatomic scales of reality. That pretty much explicates why formal unification of classical relativity theory and quantum atomic theory shared no crucial bases for unification. What has to be done to rectify this situation? First, admit that all reality is uncertain at all scales. Then apply that to both quantum~mechanics and to relativistic-mechanics. What we shall find, however, is that when we admit macroscopic uncertainty into quantum~theory it becomes quantum~relativistic! Our need for Einstein's bogus classical-mechanical-relativity simply evaporates. Quantum reality is from getgo intrinsically relativistic since all quantum flux is intrinsically phasistic: intrinsically phase~interrelative. Reality is quantum~flux, period! Doug - 5Aug2007. Marked surrounding text red re: new link to predecessor, 'Quantum Relativity Breakthru.' Doug - 7Aug2008. End - Why Quantum-Mechanics and Einsteinian Relativity may 'not' be classically unified. ©Quantonics, Inc., 2007-2029 — Rev. 7Aug2008 PDR — Created: 5Aug2007 PDR.
Begin - Why Quantum-Mechanics and Einsteinian Relativity may 'not' be classically unified:
You want a hint? Quantum Mechanics (QM) is stochastic. Relativity (R) is, by Einsteinian stalwart wholly objective 'intelligent design,' 'classically-not' stochastic, indeed rejects all probabilities which are 'not' ideally either one ('unity') or zero ('not unity'). Guess what? Hoffmann didn't understand that, so his chapter peregrinates piles of classically ill-conceived issues of unification. Einstein saw unification as a EOOO dichon(not_unity, unity). (By way of comparison, quantum~st¤chastihcs ¤ffer qualihtatihvæ ¤mnihty. Bohm amd wæ ræfer "quantum~st¤chastihc qualihtatihvæ ¤mnihty" quantum~n¤n~mæchanihcs amd nMoQ, N¤Q, amd OEDhP. Zær¤nessings~¤nænessings aræ anihmatæ quantum pr¤cæssings: quantum~flux.) Who did understand that? Two n¤n exclusionary examples are F. S. C. Northrop and P. Suppes. On latter link see Jammer's The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, 1st edition, Section 8.2, p. 359. Excellent! Worse, none of them understood a shallower yet even more problematic issue: All reality, at all scales is st¤chastic (i.e., abs¤lutæ~quantum~flux vis-à-vis classical-dialectical-either-event-or-state) and thus micro(QM)~, meso(QM)~, and macro(R)~quantum~uncertain! From whence that quantum~uncertainty? Quantum reality issi absolute flux: animate, EIMA, ensemble PPLings' phasistic interrelationshipings (see QVI graphic just below). Einstein's relativity outright rejected that quantum~truthing. Quantum mechanics partially accepted it, however, only by applying stochastically incomplete classical notions of 'probability' at atomic and subatomic scales of reality. That pretty much explicates why formal unification of classical relativity theory and quantum atomic theory shared no crucial bases for unification. What has to be done to rectify this situation? First, admit that all reality is uncertain at all scales. Then apply that to both quantum~mechanics and to relativistic-mechanics. What we shall find, however, is that when we admit macroscopic uncertainty into quantum~theory it becomes quantum~relativistic! Our need for Einstein's bogus classical-mechanical-relativity simply evaporates. Quantum reality is from getgo intrinsically relativistic since all quantum flux is intrinsically phasistic: intrinsically phase~interrelative. Reality is quantum~flux, period! Doug - 5Aug2007. Marked surrounding text red re: new link to predecessor, 'Quantum Relativity Breakthru.' Doug - 7Aug2008.
You want a hint? Quantum Mechanics (QM) is stochastic. Relativity (R) is, by Einsteinian stalwart wholly objective 'intelligent design,' 'classically-not' stochastic, indeed rejects all probabilities which are 'not' ideally either one ('unity') or zero ('not unity'). Guess what? Hoffmann didn't understand that, so his chapter peregrinates piles of classically ill-conceived issues of unification. Einstein saw unification as a EOOO dichon(not_unity, unity).
(By way of comparison, quantum~st¤chastihcs ¤ffer qualihtatihvæ ¤mnihty. Bohm amd wæ ræfer "quantum~st¤chastihc qualihtatihvæ ¤mnihty" quantum~n¤n~mæchanihcs amd nMoQ, N¤Q, amd OEDhP. Zær¤nessings~¤nænessings aræ anihmatæ quantum pr¤cæssings: quantum~flux.)
Who did understand that? Two n¤n exclusionary examples are F. S. C. Northrop and P. Suppes. On latter link see Jammer's The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, 1st edition, Section 8.2, p. 359. Excellent!
Worse, none of them understood a shallower yet even more problematic issue: All reality, at all scales is st¤chastic (i.e., abs¤lutæ~quantum~flux vis-à-vis classical-dialectical-either-event-or-state) and thus micro(QM)~, meso(QM)~, and macro(R)~quantum~uncertain! From whence that quantum~uncertainty? Quantum reality issi absolute flux: animate, EIMA, ensemble PPLings' phasistic interrelationshipings (see QVI graphic just below). Einstein's relativity outright rejected that quantum~truthing. Quantum mechanics partially accepted it, however, only by applying stochastically incomplete classical notions of 'probability' at atomic and subatomic scales of reality. That pretty much explicates why formal unification of classical relativity theory and quantum atomic theory shared no crucial bases for unification. What has to be done to rectify this situation? First, admit that all reality is uncertain at all scales. Then apply that to both quantum~mechanics and to relativistic-mechanics. What we shall find, however, is that when we admit macroscopic uncertainty into quantum~theory it becomes quantum~relativistic! Our need for Einstein's bogus classical-mechanical-relativity simply evaporates. Quantum reality is from getgo intrinsically relativistic since all quantum flux is intrinsically phasistic: intrinsically phase~interrelative. Reality is quantum~flux, period! Doug - 5Aug2007. Marked surrounding text red re: new link to predecessor, 'Quantum Relativity Breakthru.' Doug - 7Aug2008.
End - Why Quantum-Mechanics and Einsteinian Relativity may 'not' be classically unified.
Even more troubling is that Hoffmann (1906-1986) didn't understand that mechanics and dialectic together as soulmates are an even deeper trouble which will take at least another century for 'scientists' to begin to fathom. First non mechanical light was brought to us by David Bohm (1917-1994) both concurrently and subsequent Hoffmann's The Strange Story of the Quantum. Too, initially, Bohm's theory was rejected out of hand by a community immersed in a mechanical mythos. What does Doug mean by mythos? "Applied to the world as representative of all the world, facts become superstitions." Julian Jaynes. A mythos, e.g., classical science, is a belief system of "...facts applied to a world as representative of all the world." 'Scientific facts' have become superstitious myth. Jaynes shows us why Geertz said, "Scientism is mostly just bluff." Ditto dialectical religionism. (See Doug's coined emersos. Doug - 16Mar2008.)
Begin aside "But Doug, what about superstition?": (Much more re: 'mythos...') Jaynes dropped a metaphysical-philosophical bombshell, didn't he? What do we mean by 'superstition?' Simply, supernatural cause. That is what most people mean by destiny. Some intend "God's - Allah's plan for me-us." Muslim terrorists use their Quran-hylic-interpreted superstitions to kill as many of those, who do not share their beliefs, as possible. Encountered? A huge issue: if superstition is divine causality, and almost all of us on Earth believe reality is causal, are we not all superstitious? Classical reality is causal, is it not? Almost all of us adhere GMT as ideal causality do we not? (Do you believe that, i.e., ideal causality, rational? What about Betelgeuseans? Alpha Centaurians? Rigelians - with two suns...?) Is not causality what y=f(t) means? But what if there are many timings? What if all timings are n¤n deterministic, uncertain, ephemeral periodic flowings? Can we now write y=f(t) without falling into paroxysms of turbulent laughter followed by ihndihvihdual immensities of self-doubt and -humility borne of real quantum~uncertainty? Unfortunately, classical dialectical, mechanical, formal, mathematical, unichronic reality is causal. More unfortunately, nearly all folk on Earth believe that. Wr¤ng! Error! Why? Supernatural cause is only possible in an ideally stopped, ideally state-ic, ideally stoppable mechanical reality whose objects can only move y=f(t) 1-1 correspondent-determinately... (...ideal, strict causality precludes any stochastic ensemble~determinism AKA "wave~likelihoodings" as plural and anti-monistic and 'not' unifiable, thus 'not' reifiable...) ...in ideal y=f(t) predicable curves and orbits. 'No' ephemera, 'no' perturbations, 'no' mechanical aberrations, 'no' uncertainties, 'no' chaos, 'no' apocrypha allowed. But reality isn't ideal superstitious state! Reality is absolute quantum flux. All quantum flux are ephemeral, even h~bar. Perhaps Doug should write, "Especially h~bar." What does that mean? Ephemera are boundless other faster and slower fluxings which affect flux of interest like: planetary orbits, paths of comets, paths of asteroids, solar cycles, planetary orbital-rotational-precessional and other sometimes themselves ephemeral patterns, appliance operating cycles, tooth decay, bowel movements, general health, hunger, bug behaviours, worm behaviours, microbe behaviours, virus behaviours, fungus behaviours, phage behaviours, eukaryote behaviours, prokaryote behaviours, atomic interrelationships [e.g., QCD and QED]...in general all evolutionary behaviours in reality. Reality issi fluxings: both comsistent and complete fluxings which always flux and flux all. Red text update - Doug -16Mar2008. Fluxing reality is uncertain, n¤t superstitious, since all quanta in all reality make both coherent and autonomous quantum~CH3ings about their individual affectings regarding whatings betterings might be happenings nextings. Superstition is antithetical quantum~flux. Why? Superstition, in a real sense, is ideal dialectic! Amazing, eh? Isn't it timings for you to cease your classical dialectical superstitions? Doug - 11Aug2007. End "But Doug, what about superstition?" aside.
Begin aside "But Doug, what about superstition?": (Much more re: 'mythos...')
Jaynes dropped a metaphysical-philosophical bombshell, didn't he? What do we mean by 'superstition?' Simply, supernatural cause. That is what most people mean by destiny. Some intend "God's - Allah's plan for me-us." Muslim terrorists use their Quran-hylic-interpreted superstitions to kill as many of those, who do not share their beliefs, as possible. Encountered? A huge issue: if superstition is divine causality, and almost all of us on Earth believe reality is causal, are we not all superstitious? Classical reality is causal, is it not? Almost all of us adhere GMT as ideal causality do we not? (Do you believe that, i.e., ideal causality, rational? What about Betelgeuseans? Alpha Centaurians? Rigelians - with two suns...?) Is not causality what y=f(t) means? But what if there are many timings? What if all timings are n¤n deterministic, uncertain, ephemeral periodic flowings? Can we now write y=f(t) without falling into paroxysms of turbulent laughter followed by ihndihvihdual immensities of self-doubt and -humility borne of real quantum~uncertainty? Unfortunately, classical dialectical, mechanical, formal, mathematical, unichronic reality is causal. More unfortunately, nearly all folk on Earth believe that. Wr¤ng! Error! Why? Supernatural cause is only possible in an ideally stopped, ideally state-ic, ideally stoppable mechanical reality whose objects can only move y=f(t) 1-1 correspondent-determinately... (...ideal, strict causality precludes any stochastic ensemble~determinism AKA "wave~likelihoodings" as plural and anti-monistic and 'not' unifiable, thus 'not' reifiable...) ...in ideal y=f(t) predicable curves and orbits. 'No' ephemera, 'no' perturbations, 'no' mechanical aberrations, 'no' uncertainties, 'no' chaos, 'no' apocrypha allowed. But reality isn't ideal superstitious state! Reality is absolute quantum flux. All quantum flux are ephemeral, even h~bar. Perhaps Doug should write, "Especially h~bar." What does that mean? Ephemera are boundless other faster and slower fluxings which affect flux of interest like: planetary orbits, paths of comets, paths of asteroids, solar cycles, planetary orbital-rotational-precessional and other sometimes themselves ephemeral patterns, appliance operating cycles, tooth decay, bowel movements, general health, hunger, bug behaviours, worm behaviours, microbe behaviours, virus behaviours, fungus behaviours, phage behaviours, eukaryote behaviours, prokaryote behaviours, atomic interrelationships [e.g., QCD and QED]...in general all evolutionary behaviours in reality. Reality issi fluxings: both comsistent and complete fluxings which always flux and flux all. Red text update - Doug -16Mar2008. Fluxing reality is uncertain, n¤t superstitious, since all quanta in all reality make both coherent and autonomous quantum~CH3ings about their individual affectings regarding whatings betterings might be happenings nextings. Superstition is antithetical quantum~flux. Why? Superstition, in a real sense, is ideal dialectic! Amazing, eh? Isn't it timings for you to cease your classical dialectical superstitions? Doug - 11Aug2007.
Jaynes dropped a metaphysical-philosophical bombshell, didn't he?
What do we mean by 'superstition?' Simply, supernatural cause.
That is what most people mean by destiny. Some intend "God's - Allah's plan for me-us." Muslim terrorists use their Quran-hylic-interpreted superstitions to kill as many of those, who do not share their beliefs, as possible.
Encountered? A huge issue: if superstition is divine causality, and almost all of us on Earth believe reality is causal, are we not all superstitious? Classical reality is causal, is it not? Almost all of us adhere GMT as ideal causality do we not? (Do you believe that, i.e., ideal causality, rational? What about Betelgeuseans? Alpha Centaurians? Rigelians - with two suns...?) Is not causality what y=f(t) means? But what if there are many timings? What if all timings are n¤n deterministic, uncertain, ephemeral periodic flowings? Can we now write y=f(t) without falling into paroxysms of turbulent laughter followed by ihndihvihdual immensities of self-doubt and -humility borne of real quantum~uncertainty?
Unfortunately, classical dialectical, mechanical, formal, mathematical, unichronic reality is causal. More unfortunately, nearly all folk on Earth believe that.
Wr¤ng! Error!
Why? Supernatural cause is only possible in an ideally stopped, ideally state-ic, ideally stoppable mechanical reality whose objects can only move y=f(t) 1-1 correspondent-determinately...
(...ideal, strict causality precludes any stochastic ensemble~determinism AKA "wave~likelihoodings" as plural and anti-monistic and 'not' unifiable, thus 'not' reifiable...)
...in ideal y=f(t) predicable curves and orbits. 'No' ephemera, 'no' perturbations, 'no' mechanical aberrations, 'no' uncertainties, 'no' chaos, 'no' apocrypha allowed.
But reality isn't ideal superstitious state!
Reality is absolute quantum flux. All quantum flux are ephemeral, even h~bar. Perhaps Doug should write, "Especially h~bar." What does that mean? Ephemera are boundless other faster and slower fluxings which affect flux of interest like: planetary orbits, paths of comets, paths of asteroids, solar cycles, planetary orbital-rotational-precessional and other sometimes themselves ephemeral patterns, appliance operating cycles, tooth decay, bowel movements, general health, hunger, bug behaviours, worm behaviours, microbe behaviours, virus behaviours, fungus behaviours, phage behaviours, eukaryote behaviours, prokaryote behaviours, atomic interrelationships [e.g., QCD and QED]...in general all evolutionary behaviours in reality.
Reality issi fluxings: both comsistent and complete fluxings which always flux and flux all. Red text update - Doug -16Mar2008.
Fluxing reality is uncertain, n¤t superstitious, since all quanta in all reality make both coherent and autonomous quantum~CH3ings about their individual affectings regarding whatings betterings might be happenings nextings. Superstition is antithetical quantum~flux. Why? Superstition, in a real sense, is ideal dialectic! Amazing, eh?
Isn't it timings for you to cease your classical dialectical superstitions?
Doug - 11Aug2007.
End "But Doug, what about superstition?" aside.
Bohm's approach as we know in retrospect now is a huge and dramatic departure from those four earlier wave-matrix mechanical approaches. All of them were (are) mechanical, and Bohm is some kind of strange antithesis of mechanics, or at least many thought so. When we look closely Bohm achieved a unification of a non mechanical "implicate order," and a more mechanical "explicate order." His approach saved, tentatively, science's mechanical 'laws,' the mythos. Quantonics teaches us that we cannot even preserve Bohm's explicate order as mechanical! All of reality issi Bohmian n¤nmechanical! But Bohm's approach offered us a way of innovation, a new pathway, an introduction to memes and memeos of real n¤n mechanics in reality. Quantonics has taken that pathway, to some levels of success, closer to a wholly n¤nmechanical quantum reality. Our biggest missing piece now is genuine qubital ømnihtøring via quantonic quantum~computing. Meanwhile, our approach has no alternatives of which we are aware to doing quantum~simulations in mechanical languages and computing machines. What is Good is that we can simulate much of quantum~reality's enigma and do it fairly well. Here is a state-ic glimpse of an approach Quantonics is evaluating mid-August, 2007:
Hoffmann hints at his own deeper grasp that some memes similar what we describe are imminent, "It is not natural that two such plausible offshoots of classical mechanics, neither one able to out achieve the other, should be so distinct as their outward appearances pretend." Page 125. Doug just described for you why they will never meld: one is stochastic at its roots and other, via Einstein's own edicts, will never be stochastic. Hoffman calls it "war" similar his particle and wave "war."
What is this war ugliness, at its root? Dialectic. Relativity is dialectical. Quantum theory, to work, must reject dialectic (Bohm would describe it as a rejection of mechanics). Duhrati¤nal wave stochastics are inexplicable using dialectical mechanics! Dialectic hates waves and all their dynamic phenomena. Dialectic wants 'state' not 'waves.' But reality is dynamic and by direct experience and direct observation n¤t 'state-ic.' Did unification ever occur? No! Are you surprised? Did Doug give you enough information to allow you to grasp why they would never unify?
Is n¤n mechanical quantum reality relativistic? Yæs, but its relativity is n¤n mechanical. Durational waves, of which reality is, both n¤nactually (durational isoflux) and actually (durational latched flux), are intrinsically relative...ubiquitously. All flux is relative all flux. Einstein, via his dialectical naïveté blew it, in spades, big time!
Check this out, "The ideas of Heisenberg and Dirac stem from the particle dynamics of Hamilton, those of Schrödinger from Hamilton's wave dynamics." Page 125. Recall that de Broglie's "matter waves" emerged from his supposition that if photons were wavic, then electrons should be too. But photons are bosons and electrons are fermions. Louis de Broglie's surmise was a heuristic stroke of genius which admits all reality is wavic. To this day, c. 2007, most of 'science' still rejects this actuality as de rigueur. Most 'scientists' today believe that Einstein was 'right' and de Broglie was 'wrong.' We have on our hands a quantum~tsunami, a quantum~Katrina crisis of almost unimaginable proportions and consequences!
Hoffmann offers this on pages 126 and 127, "As early as March of 1926, a brief three months after the appearance of his theory, Schrödinger took a decisive step toward unity. Once again the secret lies with Hamilton, whose creation of optical dynamics was more than the pointing up of an analogy. The ordinary dynamics required many equations of motion. But Hamilton could write a single equation to govern his pseudo waves, just as a single wave equation governs genuine waves. Thus Hamilton could now reduce the whole science of classical dynamics to a single equation, truly a momentous and monumental achievement [pure social HyperBoole].
"Schrödinger had endowed Hamilton's pseudo waves with the power of interference. Surely, then, there must be some connection between Hamilton's equation and the wave equation of Schrödinger.
"Yes, to be sure, there was a vague sort of connection. Enough of a connection to still further inquiry. But one day there flashed upon Schrödinger a far deeper relationship, a relationship that was enormously exciting. He found he could convert the first equation into the second by a superbly simple mathematical trick. Wherever p occurred in Hamilton's equation it must be replaced by a certain mathematical entity called an "operator." Never mind what the precise operator was. The important thing was that the step from classical to quantum mechanics could be made by replacing p by an operator. You want to see the operator? It really is not necessary. You want to see if it is pretty, like that Bohr orbit thing? Yes, it is pretty. Take a look:"
"
There is much to discuss here, so our frugalness must limit us to our view of most interesting issues. First we may notice that Hamilton's entire mathematical approach is one of its own frugal minimalism: removing real Quality from reality in order to mechanically make minimalist maths represent and reduce 'scientific' models to their barest funda. In place of many equations, Hamilton offers a single one and society prominently celebrates and views that as "...a momentous and monumental achievement." Classical exemplar? Clarity via reductionist simplicity. It's like saying it's good to be ignorant: less you know smarter you are...
Quantum reality issi holographic. How do we make holograms clearer? By adding nexi and interrelationshipings, not by Ockhamistically minimizing them!
A second simple issue is how Hoffmann, et al., thingk of p and q. Recall p represents Cartesian locus AKA 'position.' Recall q represents smeared flux AKA momentum and thogonally~AKA wave number. Latter is what Hoffmann refers elsewhere in this text as "One may not measure frequency in an instant." In Quantonics we say, "One may not scalarbate flux." Flux and all its phase~interrelationshipings are quantum~process and that begs an inference of quantum ever~absence of classical 'state.' Classical mechanics and mathematics and scalarbation all depend radically upon perpetual, ever-presence of 'state.' Without 'state' classical mechanics fails. Monism fails. Dialectic fails...
Those two paragraphs distill essence of what Hoffmann is palavering here, in retrospect, almost incompetently. But it was only 1926, and Hoffmann was writing about it only 2-3 decades subsequent. We have another sixty to seventy years of exponentially growing insight which Hoffman and his four quantum Musketeers lacked. And none of them is telling us they have a good and real and complete solution as Einstein and his celebrity wors(e)shiper's arrogance permitted them to do with Einstein's bogus, classically mechanical Relativity. Einstein was even nutty enough to declare, using classical matrix mechanics, quantum theory "incomplete." See Doug's review of EPR. Doug offers a decent exegesis of Einstein's mental disabilities with mechanical (in)validity of simultaneous measurement of position and momentum.
A most dangerous third issue is more subtle, philosophically subtle...especially. It is one of classical science's greatest faults, greatest mistakes, greatest deigns to feign: a scientific 'state' edict that maths and logics govern physial reality. Chaldæan gnosis warned us of this issue millennia ago, but said gnosis was ignored. They wrote, and Mead paraphrased, Chaldæan HotMeme™ "Principle rules something not itself."™ Chaldæan HotMeme™ Shades of Kurt Gödel! Recursion gone begging! Felix' famish, toothless.
We can paraphrase a similar notion Quantonics HotMeme™ "Logic governs objects, without ruling itself." Quantonics HotMeme™ Doesn't govern carry an implicit semantic of causal determinism? Guaranteed behavior? But is that society? ("Dost all of thou wish ye act alike, one size fits all bequiets our unayikes1?") But is that of self? ("Dost thou wish oneself an automaton to be?") Other? ("Do others wish thou a robot to be made?") Isn't that what 'scientists' intend when they say a theory isn't any good if it cannot predict, automate, roboticize, thus govern, "what happens next?"
1 - That is, unalikes as unayikes where yikes' surprise is unsocial, unvulgate, consensus absconditus, omniscriminatingly individuate: unalike individual 'yikes.'
But we must exercise due diligence in our own personal, individual antisociotic understanding of quantum reality! Quantum reality is 'socially' OSFA ungovernable due its implicit animate, evolving, pluralistic, EIMA, holographic, radically stochastic quantum uncertainty. We can 'predict' (actually "anticipate") stochastics, but we cann¤t predict 'states' and unique 'events.' We cann¤t predict 'state' since there are n¤ 'states' in quantum reality. Only way we can 'predict' and 'govern' state classically is via perpetuity of suppositive 'state.' Now think carefully about this: "Is governance perpetuity of state?" That is what statesmen and politicians believe, isn't it? We cann¤t quantumly 'predict' unique 'events' since that requires a state-ic probability of one, ideal classical one: absolute certainty! Ideal and contextually global 'ones' do n¤t, cann¤t 'exist' ihn quantum reality. All issi pr¤cæss, un(m)st¤ppable pr¤cæss. We cann¤t make a 'one' from pr¤cæss. We cann¤t make a 'state' out of pr¤cæss. We cann¤t make unique events out of pr¤cæss in any sense of being able to classically predict them with a probability of 'one.' See Doug's paper on What is Wrong with Probability as Value? See Doug's coquecigrues. See an example of a classical state-event ontology.
Of all quantum mechanics, especially wave mechanics, Doug betterships de Broglie and Schrödinger. Too, Huygens whom Hoffmann fails to acknowledge. Huygens' wave theory of light opposed Newton's objective corpuscular theory of light. Wave vis-à-vis particle is where lines were drawn and even in 2007 that remnant, antique division still holds sway, unfortunately.
Hoffmann betterships Schrödinger too and goes on to show how Schrödinger's opus subsumes key breakthroughs of both Dirac and Heisenberg's theories. Again, though, and mayhaps n¤t surprisingly, there is more trouble in River City!
Hoffmann explains quite well what happens next in these brief words, "Schrödinger's theory, with its familiar picture of waves, far easier to manipulate mathematically than the theories of Heisenberg and Dirac, has now completely gobbled up its rivals. Those theories were its skeleton, so to speak. No wonder the Schrödinger theory was easier to visualize. Who would now want to go back to the matrices or the q numbers? They were but fossils, evidences of the intermediary stages in the evolution of the quantum. Now the theory at last is fully revealed. Schrödinger is the victor, and all is well. Here is the ideal place to end the chapter. An era of tumult has ended. Peace is at last at hand.
"But no! The story of the quantum is not so simple as this. The last paragraph is sadly mistaken. It is premature in its jubilation. The chapter must go on." See p. 129.
What you just read is how it is in math, science and physics. Just when you think you have all figured out, you discover you don't. Loop on that and you have Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions! Now do you understand why ethical practitioners always say "Science is provisional; science will always be provisional." Provisionality is a 'scientific' code word (and a pretty g¤¤d ¤næ, at that) for uncertainty. Perhaps most enlightening of all: scientific provisionality issi macroscopic uncertainty! We can phasement lucidly now Heisenberg's •mh. That greater-than-equal symbol offers, up to and including, an unlimited macroscopic scale! N¤ thought method, n¤ reasoning process, n¤ classically-contrived-manufactured...
...logic will ever have qua to guarantee classical certainty! That is reality, dear reader. Therein lies quantum theory's great strength: it uses stochastics (i.e., quantal wave flux) to 'predict' QLOs.
What all four approaches unfortunately harbored is formal, dialectical, dogmatic, canonic, two-valued, 1-1 correspondent, n¤n stochastic mechanics. But aren't waves QLOs? Yæs! And can't we predict QLOs? Yæs! But, and we must acquire enough qua and its attendant humility to admit and abet adeptly this, "We can nævær predict 'state,' n¤r 'unique, temporally-stopped events.' Weigh how uni-que implies a static monism! But... Chaldæan HotMeme™ "...classical monism is deceit!"™ Chaldæan HotMeme™ A classical deign to feign! Simply all issi pr¤cæss, all issi quantum~waves, all issi always changing and changing all. Symbols are processings, words are processings, Dawkins' memes are processings, William James' "Truth is a process happening to an idea," etc. We c~all iht "evolution," and this evolution of animate quanta is "self directed," thus self~other~referent~sophist~networked and fractal. Quantum~h¤l¤gramings! H¤l¤graphic quantum (r)evolution has islandic quantons((is¤)c¤hæræncæ,aut¤n¤my) ensemblings of free~will ubiquitously on all scales of reality. Evolution is (both l¤cally and n¤nl¤cally) self~directing and thus ungovernable! Quantonics HotMeme™ "Those who try to govern reality lose."™ Quantonics HotMeme™ Those who act~pragma as co-advising-co-guiding-co~obsfecting agents of Nature's unstoppable evolution win! Doug - 26Jul2007 thru 2-6Sep2007.
Allow Doug to further distill next few pages... Hoffmann shows us that if we use any language to describe any part of reality, no matter how carefully we attempt our description, our language can never be said portion of reality described. Statemental language always applies to that which has already classically-happened, and of course that is already classically-dead! This is Pirsig's "The map is not the [evolving] territory," parable reformulated. State-mental language is antique-logically powerful but it is helplessly and hopelessly static and always incomplete regardless what we do to change it. How does one describe a dynamic, wavic reality using state-ic language? Voila! We have impetus for Doug's Quantonics! Real qubits, represented as quantons, are as close to accomplishing animate omnitoring omniscriptions of reality as we may hope, at least near term.
Recall Philip R. Wallace's now even more prescient, "Interpretation involves according primacy to subjectivity (living, alive, beings and becomings: nowings and futurings) over objectivity (dying and dead has-beenings: pastings)." (paraphrased for local semantic and simplicate con(m)venience; Doug's parentheticals) Let's evolve it to superpose our local and current tenor even more coherently, "Quantum hermeneutics involve according primacy of quantum~subjectivity above classical-objectivity." Stochastics are subjective, always, even their pastistic probabilityings since latter attempts a peek at reality's edgings of now~ings. Classical 'state' and 'event' are antiquely objective, by monistic, formal, dialectical canon and dogma.
This begs a novel mantra which is illusive but it suggests some lyric like, HotMeme™ "Affect flux, tunnel stux." HotMeme™. If we were to offer that in a more classic vein it would read somewhat, "Make waves, while assiduously avoiding any attempts at making (con ceiving) objects." Notice how latter affirms our mildly extended subjective~negational paraphrase of William James' "Truth is n¤t made, rather truth is a process happening to an idea." See James' Pragmatism, Chapter VI. He is saying that we cannot manufacture process. He is suggesting that reality isn't objectively given, rather reality is process which is evolutionarily happening(s) and anticipating(s). Actually, James said "Truth is made." But he did not intend classical, objective, construction. He meant somewhat closer memeos of truth as quantum evolution. James was saying somewhat similar Doug, "Truth issi an agent of ihts ¤wn changæ." Latter is Gn¤stic in its individuicity, in its defiance of monism, its outright quantum~gn¤stic (n¤t Irenæun-Constantinian çatholiç 'christian') antinomianism, and in its effacement of classicism's debased and debasing "...other governance absent self governance," AKA "...principle governs [subjects treated as] objects, without ruling self...," as state and statutory 'principle.'
This notion (memeo) is so simple as to appear obvious. Do you intuit it? If you do intuit it, then you reject both monism and its spawn, dialectic, out of hand...
We should worry, as James did, that mechanics intentionally, formally and canonically obviates that obvious. Mechanics is about making that which is made (mechanically con structed vis-à-vis physially evolved). Mechanics kills subjectivity. Mechanics kills h-bar. Mechanics kills Dynamic Quality. Mechanics is stillborn and those who 'made' it and use it are monists pushing dialectic.
Hoffmann summarizes: "But what did it all really mean? What sort of mental picture could one form of it? For all its eloquence and incomparable achievement, it still remained somehow remote, obscure, and unfriendly."
On 23Feb2005 Doug wrote in page 133's margin, "Enter Quantonics!"
Schrödinger's waves were non relativistic and Einstein's invariant geometrical intervals were mechanistic. Big trouble in River City. Wave mechanics meet matrix mechanics. Ultimately both lose, but none of them, including Hoffmann, can nor will know that...most do not know that now c. 2007.
Bohm suspected it and made partial progress...Doug suspects all of us are relegated to Nature's partial~progress bronze medal humility. Nature offers none of us Nobel, even Noble Prizes. Only celebrity-hugging socially-arrogant humans might even attempt that. And we hear, those of us who have qua, "Laughter of Gods." Laughing at what, you query? What's unsaid! Doug - 26Jul007. Compare, linguistically, laughing at what unsaid, whats unsaid, whats' unsaid, whatings unsaidings, whatings' unsaidings. G¤d, there is a lot to laugh about, isn't there? "Oh! Goethe, Goethe, make them stop laughing. My ears are exploding in pains of too much laughter." Doug - 16Mar2008.
Hoffmann exhibits humility imposition on Dirac's Herculean efforts to unify Quantum and Relativity. After beau coup incremental achievements, Dirac's unification failed... O'gadons grasp why!
We offer, additionally, a Pirsigean nexus. Pirsig teaches us that Quality issi Value issi "direct experiencings at nowings edgings." Doug, after much thought would also add that quanton(humility,boldness) helps all of us at quantum~reality's edgings of nowings (qreon). Why? Each of us at qreonings was, is, and ought; wasings, isings, oughtings. We have achieved a partiality of our potential; there is much unsaid which we do n¤t grasp and may n¤t grasp until we make choosings, chancings changings which incrementally (up to Planck rate granularly) advance us into our own plural futurings' potentia. See Doug's recent CeodE 2011 QELR of chance. Now imagine if you could really have hubris and know your potentia. What would happen to you psychologically, mentally, emotionally if you could possess said hubris? You likely would fathom how Lilliputian your qua currently is. If Doug did that, he can show you right now, here, what would happen to him: he would lose his fire, his impetus of enigma, to continue his work. A Quantum~Dugger HotMeme™ Known doesn't pull, and only weakly pushes! Unknown pulls massively!™ A Quantum~Dugger HotMeme™. (Unless you are afraid of it. "The only thing to fear...," et al.)
Doug runs gedanken stories (sort of quantum fantasies) almost comtinuously in background. One of his stories has a spiritual advisor (in this case Maggie is Doug's Juno; most men have a Genius advisor and most women have a Juno advisor) who always refuses to assist by just giving Doug direction or answering questions. Maggie makes Doug work for every increment of his own personal, individual understandings. Maggie never told Doug this, but somehow a reserve~energy message eked its way through: "Every potentia you need to grasp is there, but it is your individual responsibility to innovate it. As your innovation~interrelationship ensemble hologram grows, your need grows and subsequent innovations will happen faster and faster and faster..." Guess what? It works! "Unknown pulls massively," and adding Paul Pietsch, "Uncertainty is the principal feature of intelligence." If you are similar Doug, your hubris will evaporate when you genuinely grasp what Doug just wrote. Another guess what: Maggie just being there is almost incentive of its own. Doug k~now~ings you are curious who; re: whom Beth refers her Juno, Beth's 'Maggie' Juno is Opal. Opal's pull is almost wholly fermionic. Maggie pulls quantons(cohera,entropa).
Chapter XIII - Pages 140-173 - The Strange Denouement —
Hoffmann quotes Polonius:
"Though this be madness, yet there is method in't." Hamlet, Act II, Scene II. Page 140, TSSotQ.
In other words...though quantum theory appears as madness, there is method (actually modalityings) in't.
There are several topics, topics in quantum~metaphysics, quantum~philosophy, and quantum~science about which Doug has spoken and written little. Rather than 'several,' perhaps there are boundless topics; however, Doug, right n¤w~ings fathoms two as important and one of them is more relevant to Hoffmann's 'The Strange Denouement.'
For this chapter, latter is more significant, and that may only be apparent to Doug.
[Doug believes that classical notions of 'charge' are simply misnomers for more general quantum phenomena which we are developing qua to omniscuss. For example a neutron is an uncharged atom whose nucleon has tentative locus correlation with an electron; however, left alone said neutron after about 15 minutes will lose its electron and gain a positive charge phlux~borne of its loss of prior phase~encoding electron. This is why protons are classically stable and neutrons are n¤t classically stable. After loss of its electron a neutron becomes a proton and becomes classically stable. Neutron instability is a crucial aspect of quantum reality's intrinsic self~directed evolution. Ditto phoxons' absolute dynamicity. And spontaneous radiation, et al. See our Notes on Radiation; focus on Beta radiation. It is Doug's view, that herein lies quantum esoterica and enigma of free energy actualized: in Doug's view this breakthrough is imminent...during Earth's 21st century. See a more rudimentary, more classical approach which Doug has suggested.]
Doug has started a white paper on scintillation, but it borders on textbook and perhaps a library order of effort. So rather than offering that, we feel a need to, as we covered classical notions of unification in previous chapter, cover classical notions and more quantum memeos of 'scintillation' at this chapter's beginning.
Why?
Hoffmann, in this chapter, deals in depth with quantum vis-à-vis classical problematics. His concerns center around notions of why classical 'science' is so easy and apparently 'natural' to understand compared to quantum 'theory.' Doug's approach is to claim that a classical view of scintillation is simply wrong, and that blinds classicists. It literally prevents them from understanding quanta and quantum reality. Doug will remind you of this as we proceed through balance of pages in this chapter.
Let's ask a question "What is scintillation?" in two con(m)texts: classical and quantum. Former is a disabler. Latter is an enabler.
First, a little classical background.
Before that let's examine general tenor of this chapter as Schrödinger's wave mechanics vis-à-vis other quantum mechanics' dialectically preferred matrix mechanics. Latter, matrix mechanics, views reality as particulate, objective. Schrödinger threw out particles and said simply waves are flux and flux may be simply represented in classical formal notation as probability. See Walter Moore's Schrödinger, on probability. Page 435, paperback, 513 total pages including index, Cambridge UP, 1989. So as Hoffmann continues his story an ongoing Huygens vis-à-vis Newton battle continues... Schrödinger is a wave mechanic. Most others are matrix mechanics. (Schrödinger originally hated probability. Subsequently he attempted to mechanise it. Ultimately, he used it subjectively. Doug - 20Sep2007.) Just a reminder, Doug, Robert Pirsig, John Forbes Nash, Valentinian and Chaldæan Gnostics, and David Bohm have tried to warn us that dialectical mechanics are bogus. Why? Classical mechanics find their bases in monism: Parmenidean, Platonic, and Aristotelian dialectical monism. But ancient gnostics have shown us that "monism is deceit." And surely it is, surely it is. Monism's deceit always commences: "Monism exists. What is not monism, doesn't exist or is evil. You are either for monism or you are against monism, and if you are against monism we shall either assimilate you or destroy you. It doesn't matter which, to us monists." As you may grasp, dialectic produces itself mechanistically in monism's local and naïve hylic-psychic 'mechanical design,' 'intelligent design' linguistics. You may even fathom terrorism's prokaryotic emergence from basal notions, primal notions of monism. In that light mechanics is dead, and that is why many of us are now saying 'classical science,' and even 'science' itself are dead. Any hypotheses whose bases are rooted in dialectically 'perfect' monism, simply, are dead. Quantum Round Up™ is wilting monism's and dialectic's leaves, stems and roots. See Doug's Quantum 'C,' sea? All sea? Alsea, ORegon? Sææ? Most 'see.' Quantumists sææ.
Before that let's examine general tenor of this chapter as Schrödinger's wave mechanics vis-à-vis other quantum mechanics' dialectically preferred matrix mechanics. Latter, matrix mechanics, views reality as particulate, objective. Schrödinger threw out particles and said simply waves are flux and flux may be simply represented in classical formal notation as probability. See Walter Moore's Schrödinger, on probability. Page 435, paperback, 513 total pages including index, Cambridge UP, 1989. So as Hoffmann continues his story an ongoing Huygens vis-à-vis Newton battle continues... Schrödinger is a wave mechanic. Most others are matrix mechanics. (Schrödinger originally hated probability. Subsequently he attempted to mechanise it. Ultimately, he used it subjectively. Doug - 20Sep2007.)
Just a reminder, Doug, Robert Pirsig, John Forbes Nash, Valentinian and Chaldæan Gnostics, and David Bohm have tried to warn us that dialectical mechanics are bogus. Why? Classical mechanics find their bases in monism: Parmenidean, Platonic, and Aristotelian dialectical monism. But ancient gnostics have shown us that "monism is deceit." And surely it is, surely it is. Monism's deceit always commences: "Monism exists. What is not monism, doesn't exist or is evil. You are either for monism or you are against monism, and if you are against monism we shall either assimilate you or destroy you. It doesn't matter which, to us monists." As you may grasp, dialectic produces itself mechanistically in monism's local and naïve hylic-psychic 'mechanical design,' 'intelligent design' linguistics. You may even fathom terrorism's prokaryotic emergence from basal notions, primal notions of monism.
In that light mechanics is dead, and that is why many of us are now saying 'classical science,' and even 'science' itself are dead. Any hypotheses whose bases are rooted in dialectically 'perfect' monism, simply, are dead. Quantum Round Up™ is wilting monism's and dialectic's leaves, stems and roots. See Doug's Quantum 'C,' sea? All sea? Alsea, ORegon? Sææ? Most 'see.' Quantumists sææ.
Back to our background... Classicists believe, yet have never adequately 'proved,' that reality is objective and particulate. They have been monistically deceived. Worse, they used that basic assumption to claim that reality is mechanical and may be modeled mechanically. Again, monistic nomos deceit. Error!
So from two con and per spectives of scintillation one classical view of scintillation is particulate. Other quantum view is wave~stochastic. We should not have to remind you but we see here a classical dichon(wave, particle), won't you agree? That dichon is problematic when applied to scintillation. It blinds and disables those who attempt to understand quantum reality using monism's method.
What do we know about particles? They are finite objects whose motion may be described by unique (mon ique; one ique; cathol ique; universal ique) discriminant and determinate trajectory AKA path. And velocity. One particle may only have one path and one velocity. Monism! You will seldom hear any scientist describing one particle's motion as multiplicately pathed and velocitied. (Feynman did use stochastic classical paths to help describe quantal motion classically. It is well here to rethink, say, Earth's trajectories through our multiverses. What is it? At best it is open, and it is a very, very compound multiflux cycloid. What about that? There is no inertial reference frame. There are no ensemble inertial reference frames. We can never assume 'scientific' 'zero momentum.' Earth nor reality are stoppable. Earth's velocity is multirectional flux compounded. That affects every process on Earth, real timings! No process on Earth may be assumed ideally, classically, particulately 'linear.')
What do we k~now about wave~stochastics? They are quanta and attracted ensembles of quanta of subatomic, atomic, microscopic, mesoscopic, macroscopic up to cosmic and multiversal proportions. And their waves flux over physis' 143 octaves of "generated cosmos."
However, classical particles do not flux! H-bar is classically disabled due classicism's canonic dialectical monism and nomos. Particles are stable, separable (independent), and dialectically exclusive (lisr) under an assumption that Newton's 'matter' is impenetrable and middle-excluded from other particles due Aristotle's third 'law.'
Quantum waves are macroscopic (in cohera, in entropa, in 'spacings,' in 'timings,' in massings, in energyings, in gravitationings, etc.) with unlimited and arbitrary stochastic spatial, temporal, et al., omnistributions. Wavings middle~include. Waves cohere. Waves may interfere self and interfere other if self and other have prior 'been entangled.' In classical radio 'signal' theory 'modulation' is one class of entanglement. Any non linear transform (lensing, reflection, refraction, diffraction, rectification, common source radiation, absorption~emission, BEC~on~off transitions, list appears endless...) can entangle two otherwise unentangled waves. Photons may always interfere with themselves. Any quanta may always interfere with themselves.
To make this more simple, get this: a classical photon is an object and it travels a determinate path. Therefore locus of scintillation is classically ('catholiquely') determinate in both space and time. [This is Einstein's, Podolsky's and Rosen's view of classical reality which they used in their 1935 EPR paper to assess "Quantum Theory Incomplete."]
Trouble is, right here in River City, quantons (quanta), say a photon as a quantum, are arbitrary stochastic spatial, temporal, et al., quantum~stochastic~omnistributions. We could say "quantum~PPL~omnistributionings."
Philip R. Wallace in his Paradox Lost said it even more simply, "Photons are macroscopic."
Too, keep in mind that photons are bosons just as Doug described under Chapter IX on Laundry Lists. Recall Doug's description of phonons as agents of QEDesque vibrating audio string (de)modulation. You need that whole chapter's metaphors to grasp what Doug describes here. Also, do not forget how quantum memeos of intensity (quantum: an empirical actuality that higher energy photons impinging a photoelectric 'target' affect higher velocity emitted electrons) omniffers vastly classical bogus notions of intensity (classical: a belief that with more photons impinging a photoelectric target elicits a deluded expectation of higher velocity electron emissions). Simply classical believes more photons means increased intensity, rather quantum shows increased photon energy means increased intensity (as electron velocity) of electrons emitted in photoelectric affect. Most of that is covered to some extent in Chapter IX. Our modulation link is a subset of Chapter IX. Just for a quick brush-up see QED, too.
As you read Hoffmann's text below which Doug transcribed (portions of pp. 151-172; all of some latter pages...) so you can understand classical vis-à-vis quantum problematics, assiduously keep this in forefront of your quantum~stagings: Classicists view scintillation as a finite determinate object in motion objectively striking a specific target location on some mathematical plane of a larger material object. In one example below, Hoffmann even refers scintillation as particulate "bouncing."
Let's all give Hoffmann a BIG UGH! Total SOMitic blindness, personified, in his adherence to classical scintillation particulateness as wave's companion! Yux! If you thingk like that, you will never understand memeos of quantum~scintillation.
In a few following paragraphs Doug uses Hoffmann's classical notion of 'crowd effects,' quantumly as crowd~affectings, to introduce you to an alternate, quantum, way of thinkqing about wave stochastics (as quantum memeos of both individual and social crowds) in place of particle crowd 'trajectories.'
Quantumists view scintillation as macroscopic quantum ensemble (we call them quantons) wave~st¤chastic~interrelative pr¤cæssings. Again, QED, let's assume a photon interrelating with a macroscopic target of atoms all of whose stochastically macroscopic electrons, as a crowd and each electron is st¤chastically ihtsælf a 'crowd,' (crowds of electrons, with each electron ihtsælf a st¤chastic crowd) are candidates for quantum comjugation with said photon. Said photon, ihtsælf a st¤chastic crowd, is essentially everywhere and everywhen until it and some target's everywhere and everywhen complicit electron (an electron crowd ihtsælf, in a larger 'material' atomic 'crowded' plane) coobsfect and coselect one another. We see Philip R. Wallace's macroscopicity as crowds of crowds evolutionarily interrelating among themselves. We see Mae-wan Ho's both social~coherence (a photon crowd attempting to find 'one' electron crowd in a material atomic target crowd) and individual~autonomy (a photon's individuate crowd). But photon is its own locally coherent 'society:' both individual and social. Target is a more massive society of individual nuclei and their electrons. We see quantons(society,individuals). A sociological (sociocoquecigruecal) m¤dal for Millennium III.
There is a lot of detail missing here. E.g., which electron is complicit? In a way, it is a becoming~like pr¤cæss. As photon's m¤dal proximity closes (...approaches scintillation~selection threshold...Doug - 8Oct2012.), its coobsfecting ensemble of complicit electrons (a crowd of crowds) evolves; even photon and electrons are n¤t k~n¤w~ings which pair will con(m)verge; Doug has n¤ idea, n¤ meme, n¤ memeo of what thresholdings are involved here. (For a similar memeo of what we are describing here, see our discussion on Wheeler's 'Delayed Choice' gedankenment.) At some close proximity said photon and its comjugal and complicit partner CH3ings modulate. Electron quantally moves (absorbs: zær¤~latæncy jumps, leaps...) to a higher shell based upon photon's energy. In Chaos Theory we must refer this (in this case, an electron's quantum~) increase in energy as a "quantal increase in chaos." When electron decays back (emits: again, zær¤~latæncy falls, drops...) to a lower shell — In Chaos Theory we must refer this (in this case, an electron's quantum~) decrease in energy as a "quantal decrease in chaos." — a photon of energy corresponding that level drop is emitted: we have a scintillation of a photon which may appear as light... Obtain here, please obtain how classical bogosities of 'cause-effect,' and certainty of precise 'particle detection' are absent here. Our phasement of quantum uncertainty hermeneuts among a plurality of quantum absorption, emission, and absorption~emission viewpoints (a kind of quantum~gn¤stic topos...). Monism, when applied here, is simply classical deceit: a deign to feign. Iraqi Chaldæans warned us of this millennia ago. But Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Maritain, et al., hated them, as they do today, and tried to wipe out their quantum~gnosis. Doug - 9Sep2007. Also, obtain issues of classical 'negation' vis-à-vis quantum~cancællati¤n of photons' ensemble phasicityings. Doug's additions of two phasementings regarding Chaos Theory and quantal increases and decreases in chaos itself offer us quantum~nexi to better exegetics of evolving~quantum~equilibrium. An assumption Doug makes here is that all quantum~systems are in quantum~relative chaos. Equilibrium of systemic quantization~scintillationings exhibits relatively "low quantum~system chaos." Doug shows how large systems evolve to higher and higher complexity and energy levels of quantum~omnisequilibrium via increasingly chaotic systemic complicity~attraction~scintillation phase~changings. Doug wants to call this "Quantum avalanche chaos." Please review Doug's recent (CeodE 2011) coinings of avalevita and avasupera. See also analanche. Perhaps we may refer it "quantum cascading chaos." It is what Keynesian critics refer "domino 'effect'" and "Black Swan" events. A key aspect of this systemic quantum~avalevita change of large systems is that those large systems abduce (n¤t induce n¤r deduce) quantum~leaps of equilibrium. They leave old 'levels' of energy and complexity behind, and enter novel more highly evolved and higher energy (autsimilar Peircean abduction toward) levels of equilibrium with tentatively ordered systemic (reduced relative systemic chaos) equilibria. Old systems, simply, are replaced by newer more highly evolved systems. We might describe this as, "Systemic failures of old being ontologically 'replaced' via systemic chaotic evolution of new." This description shows what Doug means by Thomas Kuhnesque Quantum Pragmadigm Shiftings (QPSings). Doug has just explained general quantum~system ontology of cyclic equilibriumchaos. Essential to understanding this quantum~ontology is grasping how increasing quantum Value's proemial nascence emerges from ubiquitous quantization~scintillation of all quantum~reality. As a system grows and evolves its scintillationings increase. Quantonics HotMeme™ "Increasing scintillation increases system energy, complexity, and chaos."™ Quantonics HotMeme™ Eventually chaos avasuperas (i.e., analanche) into hyper omnisorderings. This 'disorder' is needed, is necessary to grow any evolving system's qua. Humans tend to fear this rapid change. Best advice we have heard which is gn¤stic and at least millenially old, "Do n¤t be afraid." There is enormous opportunity in this classically apparent 'disorder.' We must learn to embrace its quantum~uncertainty, its "indetermination." Yes, I understand: "Easy to say, tough to do." Value is n¤t fiat! Value is evolution via scintillation with a focus on durational equilibrium punctuated by n¤n durational chaos. Now ask yourself a question, "Which periodic table elements have higher durational equilibrium?" (Note that all elements scintillate. If they didn't scintillate we couldn't detect their presence.) Compare how fiat desires order, but 'order' dogmatically requires classically deluded determination (absence of scintillation). Fiat's delusion of canonic 'determinism,' and its attendant delusion of dialectical monism denies quantum reality's ubiquitous scintilla and said denial self~extinguishes all fiat. Fiat is suicide by deceit. Scintillation lives perpetually. While quantum~scintillation's beat goes on... Doug - 11Oct2011, 4Jan2012. ...Another example, apropos Hoffmann's remarks below, is that we may view any quantum, any quanta as wavings, thus stochastic "crowd affectors" in themselves. Hoffmann requires 'crowds of particles' to achieve stochastic ensembles, however, wavings are already crowded stochastic ensembles. In this Quantonics sense, then, individual photons and electrons are 'crowds.' Classicists due their insistence on a 'particulate' reality were blinded to this very quantum phenomenon. This is exquisitely important in Doug's assisting our readers to omnistinguish classical notions vis-à-vis quantum memeos of scintillation. Doug wants to call this quantum~process, perhaps too simply, "complicity attraction." Doug - 7Sep2007.
There is a lot of detail missing here. E.g., which electron is complicit? In a way, it is a becoming~like pr¤cæss. As photon's m¤dal proximity closes (...approaches scintillation~selection threshold...Doug - 8Oct2012.), its coobsfecting ensemble of complicit electrons (a crowd of crowds) evolves; even photon and electrons are n¤t k~n¤w~ings which pair will con(m)verge; Doug has n¤ idea, n¤ meme, n¤ memeo of what thresholdings are involved here. (For a similar memeo of what we are describing here, see our discussion on Wheeler's 'Delayed Choice' gedankenment.) At some close proximity said photon and its comjugal and complicit partner CH3ings modulate. Electron quantally moves (absorbs: zær¤~latæncy jumps, leaps...) to a higher shell based upon photon's energy. In Chaos Theory we must refer this (in this case, an electron's quantum~) increase in energy as a "quantal increase in chaos." When electron decays back (emits: again, zær¤~latæncy falls, drops...) to a lower shell — In Chaos Theory we must refer this (in this case, an electron's quantum~) decrease in energy as a "quantal decrease in chaos." — a photon of energy corresponding that level drop is emitted: we have a scintillation of a photon which may appear as light...
Obtain here, please obtain how classical bogosities of 'cause-effect,' and certainty of precise 'particle detection' are absent here. Our phasement of quantum uncertainty hermeneuts among a plurality of quantum absorption, emission, and absorption~emission viewpoints (a kind of quantum~gn¤stic topos...). Monism, when applied here, is simply classical deceit: a deign to feign. Iraqi Chaldæans warned us of this millennia ago. But Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Maritain, et al., hated them, as they do today, and tried to wipe out their quantum~gnosis. Doug - 9Sep2007. Also, obtain issues of classical 'negation' vis-à-vis quantum~cancællati¤n of photons' ensemble phasicityings. Doug's additions of two phasementings regarding Chaos Theory and quantal increases and decreases in chaos itself offer us quantum~nexi to better exegetics of evolving~quantum~equilibrium. An assumption Doug makes here is that all quantum~systems are in quantum~relative chaos. Equilibrium of systemic quantization~scintillationings exhibits relatively "low quantum~system chaos." Doug shows how large systems evolve to higher and higher complexity and energy levels of quantum~omnisequilibrium via increasingly chaotic systemic complicity~attraction~scintillation phase~changings. Doug wants to call this "Quantum avalanche chaos." Please review Doug's recent (CeodE 2011) coinings of avalevita and avasupera. See also analanche. Perhaps we may refer it "quantum cascading chaos." It is what Keynesian critics refer "domino 'effect'" and "Black Swan" events. A key aspect of this systemic quantum~avalevita change of large systems is that those large systems abduce (n¤t induce n¤r deduce) quantum~leaps of equilibrium. They leave old 'levels' of energy and complexity behind, and enter novel more highly evolved and higher energy (autsimilar Peircean abduction toward) levels of equilibrium with tentatively ordered systemic (reduced relative systemic chaos) equilibria. Old systems, simply, are replaced by newer more highly evolved systems. We might describe this as, "Systemic failures of old being ontologically 'replaced' via systemic chaotic evolution of new." This description shows what Doug means by Thomas Kuhnesque Quantum Pragmadigm Shiftings (QPSings). Doug has just explained general quantum~system ontology of cyclic equilibriumchaos. Essential to understanding this quantum~ontology is grasping how increasing quantum Value's proemial nascence emerges from ubiquitous quantization~scintillation of all quantum~reality. As a system grows and evolves its scintillationings increase. Quantonics HotMeme™ "Increasing scintillation increases system energy, complexity, and chaos."™ Quantonics HotMeme™ Eventually chaos avasuperas (i.e., analanche) into hyper omnisorderings. This 'disorder' is needed, is necessary to grow any evolving system's qua. Humans tend to fear this rapid change. Best advice we have heard which is gn¤stic and at least millenially old, "Do n¤t be afraid." There is enormous opportunity in this classically apparent 'disorder.' We must learn to embrace its quantum~uncertainty, its "indetermination." Yes, I understand: "Easy to say, tough to do." Value is n¤t fiat! Value is evolution via scintillation with a focus on durational equilibrium punctuated by n¤n durational chaos. Now ask yourself a question, "Which periodic table elements have higher durational equilibrium?" (Note that all elements scintillate. If they didn't scintillate we couldn't detect their presence.) Compare how fiat desires order, but 'order' dogmatically requires classically deluded determination (absence of scintillation). Fiat's delusion of canonic 'determinism,' and its attendant delusion of dialectical monism denies quantum reality's ubiquitous scintilla and said denial self~extinguishes all fiat. Fiat is suicide by deceit. Scintillation lives perpetually. While quantum~scintillation's beat goes on... Doug - 11Oct2011, 4Jan2012.
Obtain here, please obtain how classical bogosities of 'cause-effect,' and certainty of precise 'particle detection' are absent here. Our phasement of quantum uncertainty hermeneuts among a plurality of quantum absorption, emission, and absorption~emission viewpoints (a kind of quantum~gn¤stic topos...). Monism, when applied here, is simply classical deceit: a deign to feign. Iraqi Chaldæans warned us of this millennia ago. But Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Maritain, et al., hated them, as they do today, and tried to wipe out their quantum~gnosis. Doug - 9Sep2007.
Also, obtain issues of classical 'negation' vis-à-vis quantum~cancællati¤n of photons' ensemble phasicityings.
Doug's additions of two phasementings regarding Chaos Theory and quantal increases and decreases in chaos itself offer us quantum~nexi to better exegetics of evolving~quantum~equilibrium. An assumption Doug makes here is that all quantum~systems are in quantum~relative chaos. Equilibrium of systemic quantization~scintillationings exhibits relatively "low quantum~system chaos." Doug shows how large systems evolve to higher and higher complexity and energy levels of quantum~omnisequilibrium via increasingly chaotic systemic complicity~attraction~scintillation phase~changings. Doug wants to call this "Quantum avalanche chaos." Please review Doug's recent (CeodE 2011) coinings of avalevita and avasupera. See also analanche. Perhaps we may refer it "quantum cascading chaos." It is what Keynesian critics refer "domino 'effect'" and "Black Swan" events. A key aspect of this systemic quantum~avalevita change of large systems is that those large systems abduce (n¤t induce n¤r deduce) quantum~leaps of equilibrium. They leave old 'levels' of energy and complexity behind, and enter novel more highly evolved and higher energy (autsimilar Peircean abduction toward) levels of equilibrium with tentatively ordered systemic (reduced relative systemic chaos) equilibria. Old systems, simply, are replaced by newer more highly evolved systems. We might describe this as, "Systemic failures of old being ontologically 'replaced' via systemic chaotic evolution of new." This description shows what Doug means by Thomas Kuhnesque Quantum Pragmadigm Shiftings (QPSings). Doug has just explained general quantum~system ontology of cyclic equilibriumchaos. Essential to understanding this quantum~ontology is grasping how increasing quantum Value's proemial nascence emerges from ubiquitous quantization~scintillation of all quantum~reality.
As a system grows and evolves its scintillationings increase.
Eventually chaos avasuperas (i.e., analanche) into hyper omnisorderings. This 'disorder' is needed, is necessary to grow any evolving system's qua. Humans tend to fear this rapid change. Best advice we have heard which is gn¤stic and at least millenially old, "Do n¤t be afraid."
There is enormous opportunity in this classically apparent 'disorder.' We must learn to embrace its quantum~uncertainty, its "indetermination." Yes, I understand: "Easy to say, tough to do." Value is n¤t fiat! Value is evolution via scintillation with a focus on durational equilibrium punctuated by n¤n durational chaos.
Now ask yourself a question, "Which periodic table elements have higher durational equilibrium?" (Note that all elements scintillate. If they didn't scintillate we couldn't detect their presence.) Compare how fiat desires order, but 'order' dogmatically requires classically deluded determination (absence of scintillation). Fiat's delusion of canonic 'determinism,' and its attendant delusion of dialectical monism denies quantum reality's ubiquitous scintilla and said denial self~extinguishes all fiat. Fiat is suicide by deceit. Scintillation lives perpetually.
While quantum~scintillation's beat goes on...
Doug - 11Oct2011, 4Jan2012.
...Another example, apropos Hoffmann's remarks below, is that we may view any quantum, any quanta as wavings, thus stochastic "crowd affectors" in themselves. Hoffmann requires 'crowds of particles' to achieve stochastic ensembles, however, wavings are already crowded stochastic ensembles. In this Quantonics sense, then, individual photons and electrons are 'crowds.' Classicists due their insistence on a 'particulate' reality were blinded to this very quantum phenomenon. This is exquisitely important in Doug's assisting our readers to omnistinguish classical notions vis-à-vis quantum memeos of scintillation.
Doug wants to call this quantum~process, perhaps too simply, "complicity attraction." Doug - 7Sep2007.
Classically what we just described is Doug's macroscopic EIMA quantum~scintillation version of QED. What is interesting about quantum~scintillation is that classical uni-path uni-target determinism is wholly absent in both time and space. Classical determinism canonically rules out, 'principles' out, "complicity attraction." See our QELR of 'law,' and 'canon.' In place of classical determinism we can anticipate temporal and spatial probabilities where a photon will choose (With quantum~complicity of one of an ensemble of electrons in an ensemble of atoms making up said target plane's "field of animate EIMA stochastic opportunity.") its target electron. What we see in quantum scintillation is vast ensembles of dynamic EIMA interrelationshipings among each candidate target electron and an 'inbound' photon's stochastic and macroscopic everywhereings and everywhenings quantum~partial 'presence.'
I have tried to make that clear, at least quantum~simple. Some of you may omnisagree as to its clarity. You can help many other readers and students if you will share your own memes and memeos. Doug - 1Sep2007.
A real world macroscopic uncertainty exemplar may assist. Have you heard about a lightning bolt originating in sky 20 miles from a stadium with 10s of thousands of people, and said bolt staggers stochastically, laterally to a single individual in that stadium. Macroscopic quantum~scintillation aperio. A Not So Strange Denouement!
As you can see these two classical vis-à-vis quantum~scintillation world views are radically omniffering one another. We can eschew that classical version simply due its classical foundations, nearly all of which are demonstrably bogus.
Doug's quantum approach is likely incomplete and in need of better minds than Doug's for improvement. But it is a start and it helps us to see why Schrödinger was so hell bent on waves. Retrospectively, it is omnifficult for Doug to grasp how matrix mechanics could even begin to support any objective approach.
What we actually experience in real experiments, even though they are classically contrived, is that scintillation is stochastic. Scintillation is n¤t determinate.
Let's go on with our review with that modicum of background...
Now Doug will take some simple quantum~scintillation innovations from above and apply them to balance of Hoffmann's text in this chapter.
"It was the unparalleled harmony between theory and experiment that forced the new ideas upon a none too willing science." Page 141.
Hoffmann gives the reason why we (earth societies) have to adapt to and learn quantum theory! Notice he also proclaims, "empiricism reigns." That, dear reader, is but another benchmark of Pirsig's MoQ! Adaptive empiricism of absolute change. If you are adept as a student of Quantonics, you grasp that is what Doug means by QTMs and their quantum~ømnihtørings.
Hoffmann discloses a view of de Broglie (say "de Broy") prior which Doug has been unfamiliar. Prince Louis de Broglie viewed a particle's wave as said particle's companion. Until just now Doug did not grasp that, but it reminds Doug of some theories which attempt to describe a guiding wave transactional theory. John Cramer's theory runs along these lines. Imagine an objective, ideally classical particle with its attending quantum 'companion wave.' Sort of like a catholically SOM knife "walled off" Just Colleague. Doug loves Dr. Cramer's graphics, but detail descriptions carry too many classicisms for Doug's tolerance. De Broglie offers an obvious one: doesn't he describe a classical schism of wave and particle? A piece of steel is fermionic waves, folks! Is steel sometimes wavic and sometimes particulate? Classicists say "Yes."
Dirac stayed with and abided his mathematical q numbering of waves approach.
"Schrödinger snatched the de Broglie waves from their playground in space and time, removing them to the remoteness of fictional space and abandoning their former playmate, the particle. His electron was now smeared out and lacked location even in fictional space." Page 141. Doug's bold.
In general, Schrödinger's wave packet approach failed. Hoffmann writes, "But there is more to this at present than meets the eye, and we shall return to it later...How many more of these fanciful ideas must we hear before we get to the right one." Page 142. Doug's bold and color. Hoffmann omniscloses his own dialectical objectivism. "The right one?" But we've been telling and writing that quantum reality issi hermeneutic, subjective. Hoffmann's words take us back to SOM! There is n¤ 'the right one.' That is another way of saying, "Quantum reality is uncertain at all scales."
On pages 144-145 Hoffmann introduces Heisenberg's uncertainty and issues of noncommutativity of p and q. Hoffmann asks cogent questions, "What did the inequality of p times q and q times p mean in terms of actual position and momentum? What did it mean in terms of experiment?" Doug's link. Pages 146-149 go on and on and on about how, below a certain size, we can no longer use photons to 'look' at reality. To do so requires photons whose energies are so high they wholly distort any reality we are attempting to observe. It's a little like using photon torpedoes to count microbes in a gnat's stomach!
Simply, seeing, in any optical sense tends to lose viability as necessary bandwidths and wavelengths exceed human qua. A Moore's 'law' of optical limits.
Worse than that, all these experiments assume reality holds still! In reality, whatever you wish to call it, all is ihn abs¤lutæ quantum~flux m¤ti¤n. Pendula would n¤t swing otherwise, gravity would n¤t 'exist' otherwise, quantum phenomena would n¤t play Jekyll~Hyde with our senses otherwise. Without pendula, there are no fermions! Without absolute multiversal motion, there is no cycloidicity of systemic orbits. Reality cannot exist without absolute motion. Yet all these folk are pretending that reality holds still and loci of 'zero momentum' may be established. Hog wash! Doug - 6Sep2007.
They assume that photons bounce off electrons! Ugh! Photons modulate electrons (absorption) and demodulate electrons (emission). We can use that to describe what classicists mean by 'bounce,' trouble right here in River City though, is our version isn't a 'bounce.' It's an acausal middle~including absorption~emission process, n¤t an objective mechanical interaction. And now you see why Doug spent some efforts above to clarify what quantum scintillation really is all about. Net of scintillation described classically is a photon causally 'bouncing' off an electron in an determinately localable atom in a spatially extensive target. Unfortunately this is just garbage offered to us by folk who thought and believed classically. Sad, sad, sad...
Then Hoffmann sets us up with another classical dichon: either a particle "...cannot be regarded as a minute lump moving in a definite way..." or a particle "...can be regarded as a minute lump moving in a definite way...but not as both at once." Page 151.
If Doug has done his exegesis well, up to this stage of our omniscussion, O'gadons should be able to assess Hoffmann's last two quoted sentences (state ments) as "...ludicrous dialectical bilge." Doug - 13Sep2007. (It is worth your effort to take time to explain to yourself, then others, why.)
Then on pp. 151-152 Hoffmann writes some empirically sensible notions,
Page 151-152:
"Meanwhile there is another aspect of the present situation to be considered, for science has suddenly become more humble. In the good old days it could boldly predict the future. But what of now? To predict the future we must know the present, and the present is not knowable, for in trying to know it we inevitably alter it. If we know the airfield from which an airplane starts, and also its speed and direction, we can predict where it will be in the immediate future. But if we can know only the particular airfield, or else only the direction and speed of the plane, but not both together, then prediction becomes mere guesswork. That was the situation with the electron. Science had suffered a drastic and fundamental change without at first perceiving it. It went all the way from Planck to Heisenberg before realizing fully what had occurred; before realizing that the whole structure of scientific thought had been transformed. Its proudest boast, its most cherished illusion had been taken away from it. It had suddenly grown old and wise. It had at last realized it never had possessed the ability to predict the detailed future. [Doug's bold and color.]
"Yet science still predicts the future; and with more success than ever, thanks to the quantum. We shall clearly have to return to this matter too." Doug's bold color.
Hoffmann's penultimate sentence is misleading. There is no 'the future.' There are ensemble futurings. We may, perhaps, anticipate some futurings' stochastics if we have adequate flux ensemblings for their (residual) pastings and (fleeting) n¤w~ings. Now we are in real trouble, right here in River City, since we have to choose ("But that's heresy!") which ensembles to use to attempt our faux 'predicationings.' Managing by Uncertainty is no trivial pr¤cæss. Its most endearing feature is how it improves with accumulating experience. Its next most endearing feature is that it humbles all rogues and those who would presume to 'predict' the future. Doug - 7-14Sep2007.
We need to pound this point home: We cann¤t predict 'the future.' We can 'predict' (Doug prefers anticipate and expect) a stochastic ensemble of possibilities, an ensemble of potentia, and we can do CH3ings on that ensemble (which is, up to Planck rates, evolving in real timings) re: which choice 'appears' most likely to succeed. That's all! We are (enormously bandwidth) limited by our partial(presence,absence) of ephemeral qua to choose relevant stochastic ensembles. We are limited to stochastics, period (I.e., we are limited to which QLO selectionings of which wave functionings we observe and use to anticipate "whatings happenings nextings."). You may choose to call that 'prediction' if you wish, but to Doug that is misleading. Quantum computing will help us enormously here since natural quantons have qua for ensemble selection. That is what they do! Doug - 13Sep2007.
...
Page 152-153:
"One final item and we may continue with our story. Just as momentum and position are paired, so too are energy and time, as Hamilton well knew. But notice now what a tremendous thing it was when Planck linked energy to frequency. Hoffmann TSSotQ HotMeme™ We cannot measure frequency in an instant.™ Hoffmann TSSotQ HotMeme™. We have to wait a little while, to watch an oscillation or two, at the least. [Do you see a direct implication of stochastics here? We have to ømnihtør an ensemble of wavings! Crucial here, too, is to intuit Hoffmann's "pairing" as genuine quantum~c¤mplæmæntarity. Doug.] Thus if energy is akin [c¤mplæmæntary] to frequency we may not measure energy in an instant but must spend a little time in doing so. Compare this with what Heisenberg discovered about [c¤mplæmæntarity of both] momentum and position and we have a perfect parallel. [Due their [c¤mplæmæntarity... ] If we know the momentum we cannot know the exact location in space, if we know the energy we cannot know the exact location in time. [Is it apparent to you, O'gadon, how Hoffmann's "exact location" is a classical oxymoron? All loci in quantum reality are in motion, so all loci are wave function processings themselves! See Zeno's first paradox and Doug's A Quantum Pendulum.]"
Doug's brackets and added bold and color HotMeme™. Hoffmann shows us without telling us that all is flux: mass, space, time, momentum, position, energy, gravity, etc., all are quantum flux phenomena! Vastly more valuable to grasp is how c¤mplæmæntarity is but one of an almost unlimited list of omniffering yet interrelated quantum flux phenomena (absolute~change, genuine~enthymemeticity, intrinsic~ubiquitous~evolution, ubiquitous~quantum~uncertainty, superposition, entanglement, cohera, entropa, tunneling, spin polarization, action-at-distance, causeless affectings, affectless causings, middle~inclusion, flux~phasicityings~and~partial~cancellation, absence~of~negation, partial~presence~absence~of~locus, partial~presence~absence~of~gravity, etc.)! His first sentence in next paragraph acknowledges our claim, again, by showing us without telling us. HotMeme™ All kinds of flux always have evolving EIMA holographic quantum uncertainty interrelationshipings. HotMeme™. Doug - 7-15Sep2007.
"The parallel is indeed perfect. [Another show without tell... Quantum uncertainty is ubiquitous in actuality. Doug.] But there is a special interest for us in this [inter]relationship of time and energy, for no hypothetical microscope is needed to discover it. See how obvious it had been all along had we but the wit and courage to recognize it[?] There it was, crying out for recognition, as soon as Planck gave birth to the quantum; a discovery of tremendous proportions simply begging to be discovered. [In Doug's view, Planck was a tad late. Zeno of Elea (and Heraclitus and Cratylus; possibly Bruno and Hypatia too) already grasped essence of basic quantum issues. Of course, also in Doug's view, Zeno of Elea was a Gn¤stic. Gn¤stics appear to have intuited quantum Sophia of reality. Just keep reminding yourself how classical dialectical Greeks, Romans and some Israelis and Judaics hated sophists and Sophia's gnosis. Aristotle and Plato did their best to destroy sophism and gnosis! Doug.] Anyone might have walked off with incredible scientific glory by merely pointing it out vigorously — except that no one would have taken him seriously before 1925 or thereabouts, a momentous quarter century late. Who knows but that there are similar things today, just as obvious, staring us in the face, their message disregarded because men lack the requisite daring and gallantry. For daring and gallantry are needed in science as in battle." [Doug's brackets. Students please notice that this is another way of saying "Bell's Inequalities are ubiquitous," which Doug enunciated elsewhere at least several years ago.]
Hoffmann's last paragraph above begs further and extreme attention. Therein lies essence and quintessence of many issues 'quantum.' If he were to allow us, we might put these words in Bergson's mouth, "Both energy and time are durational." And by intuition, "Least Planck quanta, then, are durational." See our reviews of Bergsons Creative Evolution, Time and Free Will, and An Introduction to Metaphysics. See Bergson's TaFW indices on duration.
You may recall Doug's long ago Have a DQ Moment.
If we use de Broglie's relation ( = h/p; lambda is wavelength, h is Planck's constant, and p is momentum) we find that h may be described in terms of several 'leasts.' Let's show them:
When all of those are viewed — as Doug views them — as flux, we see least dura of several fluxings mixed to describe what we call "Planck's constant."
So, as our words in Bergson's mouth suggested, we may refer Planck's constant as durational, indeed "least quantum duration."
Now it may be clearer why Schrödinger saw, imagined, a "packet of flux." For more, see Chapter 3 of Tony Hey and Patrick Walters' excellent, The Quantum Universe.
What Doug wants to leave you with here, though, is that h = h/(2•). As shown, then, h is Planck's constant spread over one cycle of flux whose projected cylorbital 'radius' is h. (Pi itself may only be thought of as a constant when it is classically-stopped via projection into (as) an ideal classical 'circle' on a piece of paper.) We can be happy, and topos sated to...
Why limits on classical uncertainty? Dialectic! Analytics! Formalisms! Those notions are what classicists use. Those notions are what classicists do. However, Planck's least action issi flux itself. It can interrelate other least actions and engender phasicityings smaller than Planck's least action. Now fathom how valuable such a quantum memeo is in terms of ømnihtørings (see our QELR of monitor) amd phasæmæntings. "But Doug, it isn't obvious how they, how phasæmæntings and ømnihtørings and mæmæ¤s) are valuable." OK, in a sense, this is where success, rewards and qua really commence flowing toward and for those who proceed with Quantonics as their guide. We can learn howings to beings doings ømnihtørings and then we can (have qua to) beings doings ømnihtørings and then we can evolve our ømnihtørings to make them better and better and better... We can use phasæmæntings (see our coining of phasement) to describe what we are doings. Isn't that what you do to live among us? Isn't that what you do to have a successful enterprise, a successful work product, a successful life? What changed? We left a classical mythos and we entered a quantum emersos! We left state and entered process. We left superstitious classical 'fact' and entered quantum flux. We quantum innovated a Pirsigean SQ~DQ bridge across Hume's 'there is no bridge from fact to value:' quanton(fact,Value).
Why positive? All quantum flux is positive. Thus all stochastics are positive. Why did Doug write stochastically? Simple: Planck's least quantum of action is itself stochastic: a wave (better: a wave function).
Doug, so far, has tried and failed to characterize each flux component of a least dura quantum in terms of spin. Doug lacks that qua just now... Magic and great success resides therein for those who venture forth...
Page 155:
"What does it mean, for Heisenberg's electron, that p times q is not the same as q times p? We are at last in a position to answer."
Allow Doug to ask a simple question here. When? Another. Where?
In order for Hoffmann to even ask his question, does he n¤t, must he n¤t presume reality is stopped? At least stoppable?
But p and q are always changing. That was Zeno of Elea's main point in his first paradox.
Also, we already discussed this above under laundry lists. In general, due absolute motion of reality, matrix (laundry list) operations which depend upon 'state' are bogus. To see this macroscopically, keep a matrix of your daily trip to and from work-school-whatever. Does your trip take 'same' place in reality from day to day? What changes from day to day? Clouds? Weather? Is trip describable in terms of 'state?' How far has Earth moved in its cyclorbit around Sol in one day? Would you believe 2.6 billion meters (about 1,600,000 miles). So is your trip 'taking same place' from day to day? Classical 'science' acts as if it is 'same place,' even though that assumption is (should be) now lucidly bogus. Actually you have moved farther than that due Sol's cyclorbit around Milky-Way, and so on, and so on... Anyone who believes absolute 'position' may be assessed is just and simply deluded, massively. Doug.
Now, what do you say when you hear or read someone saying some words about "zero momentum?" Einstein assumed analytic stoppability. Newton, Parmenides, Aristotle, Plato, et al., did too. Zeno of Elea did n¤t! Heraclitus did n¤t. Pirsig does n¤t. Bergson did n¤t. Doug does n¤t. Chaldæan gnostics did n¤t. Essenes did n¤t! Quantonics versions of quantum metaphysics, philosophy, and sciæncæ do n¤t! Now, dear reader, with which minds do you wish to associate? It's up to you. (It is n¤t up to society, since society is incompetent. Were society competent Doug would n¤t have to be doing all this work to move all us Gn¤stic individuals closer to a better quantum reality!) What will you do? For hylics and psychics it matters little. They and all their classical ideas concepts and notions are 'zero momentum, analytically' dead: already extinct, without yet realizing it. For you O'gadons it is important to align quantum memeos, but that is only Doug's opinion. Doug.
Simply 'position' is in absolute, perpetual quantum flux. E.g., Earth is rotating at about 500 meters per second at its equator. Earth is traveling around (cyclorbiting) Sol at about 30,000 meters per second, and our solar system is cyclorbiting Milky Way at about 300,000 meters per second. Perpetually! How does one attain science's 'zero momentum' in order to measure position? Momentum?
Easy answer: Even though classicists assume and presume stoppability, it is a bogus assumption. Reality is unstoppable! Believe it. Analysis believes it can stop reality with reference frames, but that is only an analytical delusion. Believe it!
Reference frames are perimeters of SOM's Box!
Doug - 13,21Sep2007.
Page 158:
"Now we must remember that Dirac's sign-language rules were distilled from the successful theories of Heisenberg and Schrödinger. One of these rules, perhaps the most important, is the rule of superposition. We have not mentioned it before. It tells us we could have a state of motion consisting of a combination of the two states above, so much of the first and so much of the second. This is something utterly radical. It does not mean a classical motion intermediate between the two, simultaneous motions north and east combine classically to form a single northeasterly motion. It does not mean anything so convenient and snug as that. It means both motions at once." Doug's bold color.
And if motion is naturally perpetual then absolute 'state' is an inappropriate word. We suggest in 'state's' place, phase. Pendula ømnihtør nature's absolute perpetual motion. Doug - 13Sep2007.
Hoffmann hints at Buridan's Ass. Recall Irving Stein's fabulous way of assisting his readers into this quantum~epiphany.
Page 160:
"This idea that a combination state represents a lack of information may be illustrated by the hunting of a submarine without benefit of radar or other instruments of detection. An aviator observing a submarine just as it completes the act of submerging, knows its position, but not how it is moving. Therefore, for him, the submarine is in a combination state comprising all possible motions away from the point of submersion. [Take time and reread this several passes and allow it to soak into your quantum stage's local hologram. Doug - 15Sep2007. Essence of quantum n¤n directionality (i.e., omnirectionality) resides here.]
"We can push this last analogy further. The submarine, in submerging, has merged itself with the waves in a double sense. It has become a Schrödinger wave packet. [Compare Doug's enthymemetic quantum partial~presence, ~absence of an iceberg's tip. Now view self as iceberg's tip and y~our local modicum of reserve~energy as rest of iceberg~sælf which is classically 'unseeable.' Doug.]
"When Schrödinger formed his electron waves into a wave packet [recall Doug's comments above...] he [apparently] managed to give the electron [classical] location. But the wave packet would not stay together. It spread out and flattened. Why? Because, according to Heisenberg's principle, as soon as Schrödinger gave his electron location he lost information as to its motion. This all ties in with Born's idea that the Schrödinger waves are waves of probability. For where was the electron a few moments after it was located if its motion was unknown? In a sense. it was nowhere in particular. It might be almost anywhere, though most likely somewhere in the vicinity of the original position. Its position was now little more than a rapidly spreading probability. Its probability wave packet was spreading. As time went on, the ignorance of its position increased. Its wave packet spread further." Doug's link, brackets, bold, and color. We think Hoffmann should have used farther in place of further. "Yes Jamal..."
Page 161:
"It is the same with the submarine. When it is observed in the act of submerging its wave packet is at its peak. If the plane reaches the spot quickly it can drop depth charges with a good chance of success. But should the plane delay, its chances of scoring a hit become less and less, for as time goes on the "position" of the submarine spreads out as an ever-widening circular region of probability, just as the ripples on the surface of the ocean spread out from its point of submersion. The submarine's wave packet, originally at its peak, spreads rapidly apart [...but only from the complementarospective and complementaroception of the plane...sub's actual loci have a tighter packet of flux than what plane can 'see'...but sub's actual [p,q] is still a quanton(p,q) of quantum flux...notice how airforces using sonobuoys, et al., and navy using echoloc, et al., have to ømnihtør said sub to improve their likelihood of targeting it well...] as precious time speeds on." Doug's bold color.
"We shall return to the wave packets. We have not done with them yet. But there are other aspects and analogies to consider; such as the tossing of a coin. When we flip a coin, it is neither heads nor tails until it actually lands. While it is in the air it is twirling rapidly. But now suppose we could have no knowledge at all of what occurs between the tossing and the final landing. Suppose the world were so constituted that no observation of the intermediate motion was possible. Suppose some pigheaded principle of perversity prevented any such observation. What sort of theory would we form of the flipping of a coin?"
Page 162:
"Surely one thing would strike us at once as of outstanding importance: the coin could be only heads or tails, and nothing else. There were only two possible results to an observation.
"And we would soon find there was no way of telling beforehand which result would turn up. If we decided to confess our ignorance on this score in the language of the new physics we would say that the state of the coin was a combination of heads and tails. Since a long series of observations would show that the coins came down heads about as frequently as they came down tails, we would say that in the combination state the coin had a fifty per cent probability of being in the heads position and a fifty per cent probability of being in the tails position. [Clearly, here, we see monism's deceit of bimodality. A coin in air, by observation, is not bimodal. It is durationally in a multiplicity of angular potentia: a wave, a qlo of angular potentia. Hoffmann's bimodes are only classical notions of what a coin's state has to be when it "comes to rest" on a plane. What if said coin lands on a tilted surface or a vibrating surface? What if it is spinning in 'zero' (maintained librational vacuum) gravity? Fathom earth, Sol and Milky-Way's affectings on coin's 'rest state.' This brings another fascinating question which offers huge potential for that next science project: How may a pendulum ømnihtør gravity and its partial~presence~absence, quanton(absence,presence)? Can NASA demonstrate your theory well? Why? Why n¤t? Doug - 21Sep2007.] As soon as the coin came to rest on the table, of course, we would know quite definitely which it was: either leads or tails. The state would be changed from a combination of a pure state, and it would be changed by the very act of observation; all of which we could express in mathematical [bogus classically stoppable event-state] sign language." Doug's brackets.
"Suppose we were of a visual turn of mind. Then we would try to imagine what was going on in pictorial terms. We would try to imagine some intermediate mechanism or process. If we were really clever we might even imagine the coin could be twirling. That would be a satisfactory picture, and certainly would not contradict any of the known effects which the principle of perversity permitted our observing. The only trouble would be that we had no way of observing the actual twirling itself. But we could bolster our confidence with a the quantum theory. For we could note that energy was imparted to the coin to make it twirl. Energy is allied to frequency and the frequency could well be the rate at which the coin was turning, the greater the energy the higher being the rate of turning." [A twirling coin is quantum fermionic (very high rate) flux frequency~modulated by its spin energy flux.]
"With this picture in mind we would suddenly have a flash of inspiration. Why did we never find actual evidence of the twirling? Obviously, because the only mode of observation permitted us was to let the coin come to rest on the table. The act of observation thus gave the coin an undetermined jolt. The motion of the coin was perfectly free; we ourselves were responsible for making it appear to have only two possible positions. It was letting the coin fall on the table that forced it to be either heads or tails and nothing in between. If we had let it continue falling it would have continued twirling-though, of course, the principle of perversity would then not let us observe it at all." [Need to thinkq about that last sentence more... Doug.]
@Quantonics, Inc. and Doug Renselle, 2014~2027
Begin Notice: A anti~Gravity Solution Possibility - Doug - 4,6Jul2014
Doug has had several quantum~epiphanies rereading above text today.
Said space craft's science fiction saucer shape takes on added semantic and heuristic Value, doesn't it?
Bubble in center of saucer modalsq our encapsulated gimbal~mounted inertialc platform.
Saucer peripheryq, surrounding gimbaled centerc, houses con(m)tra rotating high spin rate, torque~cancelingq discs (n¤n inertial flightq platform).
Said craft's n¤n inertial platform must have enough spin 1 qua to hide inertialc platform's spin 1/2 fermionic torque, as Doug described just above using Euler's disc as a fermion~fermion exemplar.
Energy sources for craft operation, spin 1 torque~cancelingq~energies, and propulsion will require some rather phenomenal innovationq, methinks.
This is a first cut stream of comsciousness. It may experience near term evolutionq.
End Notice: A anti~Gravity Solution Possibility - Doug - 4,6Jul2014
(Doug's opine: we must change 'title' of 4Jul 'holiday' from "Independence Day," to "Dependence Day." Why? Our globe is now 'dependent' upon Keynesians' fiat financial-economic tyranny.)
Page 163:
"Soon, however, we would come to realize that all this was only a picture designed to make us feel comfortable. It left out the one thing above all others which must be retained. It left out the very principle of perversity itself. The twirling was not [classically, stoppably] observable. For all we know, it did not really take place. If it did take place, the principle of perversity effectively prevented our seeing it. If the principle of perversity was anything more than a coincidence, and its malign persistence could certainly indicate it was something far more potent and fundamental, then we must be wary of introducing the twirling motion it persisted in hiding from us, for perhaps here was no such motion after all. Though we could explain why the jolt of observation would always mask the twirling, that did not mean the twirling actually existed. [Is Pirsig's quanton(DQ,SQ) apparent to you here? Twirling as macroscopically apparent DQ and stopped as macroscopically apparent SQ 'state.' But said coin itself isn't ideally 'stopped' 'state.' It is ensemble very high rate fermionic flux aggregated as what we call a physical object "coin." All is flux. Real DQ and apparent SQ. All is flux!] To argue like that would be like asserting there was maybe a lovely design in red and green on the coin, but unfortunately it so happened we were red-green color blind. [Very analogous n¤t having qua to view SQ as flux. Doug.] Until some experimental way round the principle of perversity was discovered, the twirling would not be a reliable object of scientific thought. [Is Hoffmann calling flux "perversity?" It appears so. Clearly we may no longer choose to view flux as objective. Clearly flux is subjective and when we describe it mathematically we 'define' it and it loses its Quality. Doug.] We must play safe or we might be misled. [Classically playing safe by thingking objectively is what Gn¤stics intend by "deceit," and what Doug refers as classicism's sheigmful "deign to feign."] We already have a perfectly adequate theory [Classical quantum mechanics is bogus, due its use of mechanics to attempt to 'define' a subjective perpetually quantum~fluxing reality.] which covers all the observed facts [See our QELR of fact.]. Why should we wish to go further? We must return to the austere point of view, and not attempt to picture a twirling motion or any other such intermediate mechanism. We must go back to our idea of the coin being in two states of position at once, part heads and part tails, and of the state being changed by the observation." Doug's brackets.
Hoffmann's last few sentences are just and plainly terrible advice. Classical mechanics are a monistic deceit which has crashed in utter failure. Classical science based in classical mechanics is, as Horgan wrote, dead.
Page 164:
"Naturally we part with our mental picture of a twirling coin with considerable reluctance and regret. It was such fun while it lasted. Perhaps we retain a lingering hope that it is not gone forever. Who knows but that some great scientific advance may some day make the twirling visible for all to see? But until that hypothetical day, all this is whimsey—perhaps even dangerous whimsey. For the joke is that we really do not know whether the coin was twirling at all. [Doug finds classical 'perversity' in Hoffmann's apparent claim that coin really is not twirling.] If perversity prevented our observing it, why could it not also prevent the twirling itself? Our sign-language theory would still apply, twirling or no twirling, for it was based only on known results. Our picture of a twirling coin, however, is obviously a pure conjecture." Doug's brackets. This whole paragraph is classical bilge.
"Do we still wish to cling to the twirling? Do we think there is no other possible explanation that would make sense? Does it seem that we have been splitting philosophical hairs to pretend the twirling might be illusory? Then let us think of a commonplace occurrence with which we can hardly fail to be familiar. When we get a busy signal from a pay telephone and our nickel is returned, do we really think there was a twirling all the time the coin was in the box? We could make quite an ingenious theory connecting the twirling with the ringing sound we heard through the receiver. It would account nicely for the fact that the ringing ceased when the coin reappeared. It would be wrong, nevertheless. Why, for all we now, it was not even our own nickel that was returned. It would not be hard to imagine within the phone a reservoir of nickels from which one was dropped when the receiver was replaced. We have to be careful about jumping to conclusions. Though they may seem perfectly obvious they may none the less be wrong. The twirling was pure conjecture after all."
Page 165:
"We must look on Heisenberg's principle of indeterminacy in this light. For all that that principle makes the particle seem a genuine old-fashioned particle by placing the full blame for its idiosyncrasies upon the unavoidable clumsiness of the experimenter, it does not validate the old idea of a particle. On the contrary, the fact that the clumsiness is unavoidable and indeterminate points up the ubiquity and power of that spirit of perversity which dogs our attempts to observe the full attributes of the particle, if old-fashioned particle it really be, and casts grave doubt on its old-fashioned pretensions. Much mental confusion can arise from not heeding this.
"The time has now come to leave our comfortable steppingstone. The final straw must now be gently added. When we say we have an electron in a combination state, going both north and east simultaneously, we would like this to be a simple [yet highly intelligent] confession of ignorance. We would like it to mean that the electron is really going due north, or else due east, but all we know for certain is that there is such and such a probability of its doing the former and such and such a probability of its doing the latter. We know these probabilities from having performed the identical experiment many times before. But no matter how carefully we work, the experiments do not yield an unequivocal answer [unequivocal classical answers to queries are unavailable in quantum reality...]; only the two probabilities. A single electron, we would like to say, is performing only one of these two [actually many, many, many,...] possible motions, there being, however, no way of telling which one without performing another, different experiment and thus changing the state." Doug's bold and brackets. Hoffmann appears here as a bivalentist. Ugh!
Page 166:
"Alas, it will not do. We have to spoil it all. We cannot maintain our convenient fiction against the pressure of experimental facts, for there is still the wave-particle battle to be resolved.
"Let us look once more at the basic armaments of the wave and particle. Do we wish to prove the electron a particle? All right. We let it strike a fluorescent screen and observe its tiny scintillation; or we watch its slender track in a cloud chamber; or we let it fall on a photographic plate and note the small spot that appears on development. Behold, we have a particle. [OK, now it is timings to review what Doug wrote above on Quantonics' version of quantum~scintillation. Clearly, according our version of scintillation, said electron is a wave packet, n¤t a particle. It only appears as a particle. How? Its wave packet energy m¤dæ appears material when it moves through vapor. It does not 'strike' its photographic plate target, it tentatively modulates (an) atom(s) in said target. That modulation energy 'develops.']
"Do we wish to prove the electron a wave? All right. We set up a screen with two pinholes in it close together, we let electrons stream through them from a single source, and we point with pride, not unmixed with smug self-satisfaction, to the characteristic interference pattern on the photographic plate beyond the screen. Behold, we have a wave." [Agree.]
"To add to the interest, let us combine two demonstrations so that at the same time we prove the electron a wave we also prove it a particle. That will give us something really worth thinking about. All we need to do is send electrons from a single source through two pin holes in a screen and allow them to fall on a scintillation screen on the other side. Then the scintillations show we have particles while the interference patterns show we have waves; a quite fantastic situation." Doug's link and brackets.
If you agree with our extended effort on quantum~scintillation, you may arrive at Doug's response to Hoffmann's last paragraph. Quantum flux may appear as particle and it may appear as flux. Very high rate quantum flux fermions feel substantial, they feel like material objects. However, they are just and only very high rate quantum flux. Doug - 15Sep2007.
We need a remediated way of thinkqing about reality which admits and adheres that! Doug.
Page 167:
"But something begins to excite our suspicions. The waves seem to come from crowds of electrons rather than from individual ones. Don't let the crowds of electrons confuse us. Let us watch carefully what one single electron does. [Hoffmann makes a typical classical mistake here. In quantum reality, no such memeo as 'one single' any stuff 'exists.' Classically 'one single' is monism, isn't it? But now we grasp, quantumly, with a little help from our Gn¤stic friends, that monism is deceit! We already mentioned this under our crowds discussion above, an electron is a crowd. All waves, even most primitive ones we can imagine, are stochastic ensembles.] If it ultimately produces a scintillation it is surely a particle. [Our previous pair of brackets offer exegesis how Doug can call Hoffmann's last sentence "bogus." N¤ quantum may ethically be called "particle." There are n¤ particles in quantum reality! Doug - 15Sep2007.] How can it then also be a wave? Because it produced an interference pattern? What interference pattern? One solitary [again, 'one solitary' is a bogus dialectical classicism...] scintillation is not an interference pattern. The interference patterns produced by a vast crowd of scintillations. It is an effect [rather, affect] pertaining to the multitude. The individual scintillations pile up in some places and not in others, that is all. When artillery lays down a barrage pattern, the pattern is not discernible in a single shell burst, but only in a group of them. We could easily lay down a barrage that would give the appearance of an interference pattern; yet it would not mean the shell was a wave. [said shell is an ensemble of fermionic waves which appear objective, particulate, material, substantial due their extremely high quantum flux rates...] When breezes blow over a field of wheat we have all seen the speeding waves course over its surface. Yet the wheat is not a wave. At last we have solved the problem of wave and particle. The electron is after all a particle, and so is the photon. It looks like a wave only when observed in enormous crowds." Doug's brackets. Hoffmann almost got there...we have to give him that...but we have shown how his classical thoughts blindered his thing-king in his Chautauqua's last few steps. But then, maybe...maybe he isn't blindered...perhaps he does see Quantum Lightings™.
"But this will not do. We are only misleading ourselves. We are still trying to escape the inexorable conclusion. Already we are heading in the wrong direction, and we are in danger of making the fatal blunder of underestimating the subtlety of our problem. It is not of so naïve a sort as this, else it would have been solved long before. True, the interference pattern is manifest when we have a crowd of electrons. But there must be some cause of the interference pattern even so. And its cause must lie within each single electron. The pattern not just a crowd effect. The crowd is merely what makes it easy to see. Somehow the pattern is latent in each individual electron. If we fire our artillery shells one after the other, instead of many at a time, we can still produce the same pattern of shell craters as before." Doug's bold color.
Hoffmann gets it. He got it over sixty years ago! Bravo Hoffmann! Bravo!
Page 168:
"That is because a human agency directs the firing. If we send our electrons out less and less frequently and take note of their individual scintillations, falling one [a classical problematic if we view it as a 'particle'] at a time, we also find them still conforming to the proper interference pattern, but this is much harder to understand than the artillery pattern, for there is no obvious external agency directing the electron gunfire according to preconceived pattern. Though each individual scintillation seems to fall at random, there is a subtle architecture [wave interference manifested as compound phasicityings...] in this randomness, for the scintillations gradually build up to the characteristic pattern of interference.
"How does the electron do it? Which hole in the screen did any particular electron go through? [another degenerate and naïve classicism...] The interference pattern is a two-hole pattern, quite different from a one-hole pattern. There is no possible escape. The grim conclusion is unavoidable. Whether we like it or not, if a single electron somehow contains within itself the two-hole interference pattern, that single electron must have passed through both holes; [since, as we said, it itself is an ensemble...] and after passing through both holes it must have interfered with itself. [Yæs!] That is the revolutionary and well-nigh intolerable conclusion which experiment forces upon us.
"Is it too much to swallow? Is it incredible? Is it against common sense? Perhaps. Yet it is based on the strongest scientific evidence.
"Wait! We will fool it. We will make it confess its own falsity. We will place a recording device at each hole in the screen. Then if we send out one single electron from our source and it passes through the screen we must surely detect it going through one or the other hole and not through both, for we know we never observe a fraction of an electron. That way we will prove definitely it went through only one of the holes, and will even name which one it went through. We are not ones to be so easily fooled with impossible theories. We are not children, believing in fairy tales. Enough of all such nonsense." Doug's brackets, bold and color.
You may now realize why Doug insists that all students of Quantonics must make TSSotQ a dog-eared favorite. Doug.
Page 169:
"Yes, it is true that we can discover in this way which hole the electron went through, and can even show that it went through one hole only and not both. But that would be an entirely different experiment. It would not contradict what we said above, for we would no longer be passing electrons through a screen with two simple holes in it. The spirit of [only classically apparent] perversity is always on the job. It never sleeps. Let us watch it at its fascinating work here. Suppose we find that the electron went through the lower hole. Since the recording instrument at that hole was affected by the electron, the electron must have been affected by the instrument, the precise effect on the electron being indeterminate. What hope is there of obtaining an interference pattern with a crowd of electrons if each electron is affected differently and arbitrarily as it goes through the screen? If we cannot now produce a two-hole interference pattern, what need is there now to claim that each electron went through both holes? The whole [Is he implying 'monism' in his use of 'whole?'] situation is vastly different from before. In closing one door of our trap we have had to open another. The very device that shows that no single electron went through both holes at once itself destroys the two hole interference pattern, thereby letting the electron escape the trap.
"Or look at this from another point of view. When both holes are unencumbered, any electrons [keep in mind that we must view them as ensemble 'crowd affectings' in themselves...] which traverse the screen must be in a combination state of motion, going through both holes at once. The two motions interfere with each other to produce the interference patterns. What happens when we introduce our recording devices? Any electron which now traverses the screen is fixed in a pure state of motion, passing either through one hole or else through the other. We may no longer expect a two-hole interference pattern, for we have made additional observation and thus altered the state of motion so that it no longer pertains to two holes."
Try this yourself. Using a bright single source light with a shroud, punch a pinhole in a piece of cardboard and put a screen on other side of shroud from light. Try one pinhole, then two...
Page 170:
"Is all this difficult and discouraging? Does the idea of an electron in several places at once or with several states of motion at once give us pause? Does it revolt our sensibilities? We have been too particular. We have leaned too heavily on the particle image. Let us not imagine that scientists accepted these new ideas with cries of joy. They fought them and resisted them as much as they could, inventing all sorts of traps and alternative hypotheses in vain attempts to escape them. But the glaring paradoxes were there as early as 1905 in the case of light, and even earlier, and no one had the courage or wit to resolve them until the advent of the new quantum mechanics. The new ideas are so difficult to accept because we still instinctively strive to picture them in terms of he old fashioned particle, despite Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle. We still shrink from visualizing an electron as some thing which having motion may have no position, and having position may have no such thing as motion or rest. We still try to blame the clumsiness of the innocent experimenter for this fundamental characteristic of the electron, or the photon.
"We have not abandoned our former steppingstone in all this, but rather have made it a base for further advance. We may still look on a combination state of motion ['state of motion' is an oxymoron - Doug -15Sep2007] as a confession of our ignorance as to the precise outcome of an observation, and may still regard it as listing various probabilities. The interference patterns, embodiments of these probabilities, are still discernible only as crowd effects. It is the mental picture that has changed. We have learned at last the sheer impossibility visualizing atomic processes except in terms of the most grotesque images. We have seen what fantastic shapes our mental images must take if they would spy on that which the principle of indeterminacy veils." Doug's brackets.
Page 171:
"It was Bohr who realized these things most surely and profoundly. He it was who finally resolved the wave-particle conflict, and first delineated with fundamental clarity an outline of the puzzling new era in science. He it was who saw that the wave and particle were but two aspects of the same thing. They were not enemies. Their whole battle had been a sham. Their persistent warfare had been one long fraud, a superb example of the power of classical propaganda. If the wave collared a piece of territory, the particle never really disputed it, but opened up a new region of its own. If the wave explained interference, the particle took no serious counteraction but consoled itself with staking a claim to the photoelectric effect, a claim never contested by the wave. It had been the most polite type of pseudo warfare imaginable, but done up with such bellicose classical trumpetings as to give the false impression of terrible battle. What happened, for example, when we placed indicating devices at the holes in the screen? Did they force the wave and particle into genuine battle? Not at all. The particle politely found a way for the wave to escape the trap without embarrassment.
"When scientists at last suspected the true nature of these antics they devised sterner, more devilish tricks to make the wave and particle join battle. But Bohr and others were able to prove in detail that the gentle spirit of perversity, Heisenberg's principle of indeterminacy, was ever alert to prevent even the beginning of strife. If we try to regard the wave and particle as two entities, we must think of them not as implacable feudists but as professional wrestlers putting on a show. But they are really not distinct. They are alternative, partial images of the selfsame thing."
Page 172:
"This complementary aspect of particle and wave is a central feature of the new physics. It is inescapable; part of the very fabric of quantum mechanics. The sign-language rules require it, and Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle offers a pictorial justification. Some pages back we pretended that the Schrödinger wave packets were no more than a superficial analogy of the mixed states of Dirac. It was Bohr, primarily, who revealed that they are far more than an analogy. They are, in fact, an exact counterpart, but expressed in the language of waves rather than in that of particles. From them one may readily extract the indeterminacy relation of momentum and position, or of energy and time. Indeed, we have already indicated as much, for, having discussed the indeterminacy of momentum and position from the particle aspect, did we not play fair inferring the indeterminacy of energy and time from the point of view of the wave? Just as the theories of Schrödinger and Heisenberg merge into the single theory of Dirac, do the wave and particle merge into a single self consistent whole; an entity for which Eddington aptly proposed the name 'wavicle.'
Doug's final comments as queries in Act II.
"Is it a wave or particle? Is a mermaid a woman or a fish?"
Is the chimera a mouse or a human?
Is nature's genetic code human or animal? Plant or animal?
In quantum reality, as we have been telling you and writing for you, dialectic works n¤t. ..."
Doug will add to this page with additional comment. There is much here, yet, waiting to be mined...
Thank you for reading.
Doug - 7Jul-15Sep2007.