We are not yet ready to fully disclose our FTL results from our reading of Nature's 20Jul2000 two articles on this subject and our corresponding discussions about it with Dr. Stein. We need to do more work. Our ongoing effort revolves mostly around our following comments though. (However, you may see preliminary discussions twixt Stein and Renselle at our 2000News page.)
If you have a burning interest in this subject, i.e., FTL, we can direct you to Nature's articles in their 20July2000 issue and Physics Today's August, 2000 issue which has an article by Andreas Mandelis titled 'Diffusion Waves and Their Uses.' In our way of thinking these two sets of articles go together from an FTL perspective.
Why? Well, Mandelis' article shows us that (what we have been telling you for a long time) photons are quantum wave systems, what we call quantons. He tells us that quantons can behave as (ontologically 'be') many flavors of themselves and their Quantonic interrelationships with other quantons.
In particular, photons or light waves can be both diffusive and normal (usually as different cases). Normal waves are ones like radio and TV carriers with signal modulation. Diffuse waves are not like that. Where radio and TV waves are strictly limited to 'c' or light speed in a vacuum, diffuse waves are superluminal! They are not just superluminal but infinite speed waves!
Mandelis distinguishes normal waves as functions of classical time that have both first and second order terms. He distinguishes diffusive waves as functions of classical time which only have first order terms.
Mandelis also tells us that diffusive waves are a special kind of coherence. E.g., laser light waves travel at light speed or slower. However diffusive laser light travels infinitely fast! That means zero latency! No delay for diffusive waves to travel from one locus to another.
Mandelis does not say so (we think he implies this in his applied dankenments), but we intuit he is saying that diffuse waves are waves which are 'forced' to tunnel. This intuition fits with results we have seen via Raymond Chiao's table top photon racing experiments where one path's photons are forced to tunnel through an optical barrier.
So you say, "OK, Doug, What does this mean? There must be some problems here."
In terms of limitations, yes, there are some problems. One big one is that where normal waves can travel very long distances, diffusive waves cannot.
Still, Mandelis has shown us unambiguously that some flavors of waves (quantons) travel infinitely fast. Classicists will call this a 'special case,' and probably tell us that in general, "Nothing travels faster than light."
This is a notable quantum reality situation. It looks like both views are right, depending.
What's important here is to realize that quantons have an infinite range of flavors (quantum numbers), and no one knows what all those may potentially manifest.
Science has a rather conservative, conventional, dogmatic, and doctrinaire history. Too, science appears quite often immersed in its own parochial and provincial bureaucratic muck. Not long ago, or a long time ago (depending on your view of time :), when I was an adolescent, I read where no thing could exceed sound's maximum speed in Earth's atmosphere (that's ~1,000,000 meters per hour)!
Now even land vehicles approach speed of sound on Earth's surface!
I also read that no space vehicle could ever exceed Earth's gravity (no vehicle could achieve an escape velocity that great)! One nitwit said there would never be a use for more than six (yes, 6!) computers on Earth! Someone else asked Alexander Graham Bell why anyone would ever want to talk with someone else far away via a pair of wires!
So you see, I am skeptical of scientists who tell us what we can't do.
I believe we are safe in assuming that nature appears to have placed few bounds on us. We should act accordingly! Besides even scientists are becoming wary of calling someone else's ideas "absurd," now.
Science appears temporarily stuck in some ways. Quantum scientists are growing rapidly, but classicists are stuck in their same old mire. (Our children are still being taught classical concepts!)
There is a strong message here for you young folk: "Learn quantum science! Learn quantum principles. Classicism is dying. A quantum tsunami is imminent. Get ready." Doug 7Aug2000.
GRW theory countered! Schrödingers Cat does superpose! See Nature, 6Jul2000 issue, pp. 25 & 43, article titled, 'Quantum superposition of distinct macroscopic states.'
Ghiradi, Rimini, and Weber are three Italian quantum scientists who formulated a theory in 1986 which adjusts temporal aspects of Schrödingers wave equations to explicitly mark when wave function localization or collapse occurs. At micro scales of reality their temporal adjustment is in billions of years. However, at macro scales of reality we can attach a time of nanoseconds to localization. This time is what JS Bell described as time twixt measurement and perception.
There are many issues and assumptions here which trouble us in Quantonics.
However, our main objective here is to notify you of Nature's publication of above referenced paper and to point your attention to a superb relevant text.
Jim Baggott in his, The Meaning of Quantum Theory, Oxford Scientific Press, 1992, softbound, says, "Of course, in the 55 years [then, 1992] since Schrödinger first introduced the world to his cat, no one has ever reported seeing a cat in a linear superposition state (at least, not in a reputable scientific journal). The GRW theory suggests that such a thing is impossible because the wavefunction collapses much earlier in the measurement process. However, the theory could run into difficulties if linear superpositions of some kinds of macroscopic quantum states could be generated in the laboratory." Page 180. We suggest you at least read his Chapter 5 titled, 'What are the alternatives?' In our opinion, this chapter (and his entire book) are just superb!
Experimenters Jonathan R. Friedman, Vijay Patel, W. Chen, S. K. Tolpygo, and J. E. Lukens, who wrote Nature's article at TSU NY, appear to offer evidence of difficulties for GRW. They use an r.f. SQUID (Superconducting QUantum Interference Device) and a Josephson junction to form billions of (fermionic) cooper pairs whose usually antisymmetric kets (they call them "fluxoids:" |0> and |1>) superpose or cohere. System affects, e.g., system magnetic moment (1010mB), are macroscopic. What they demonstrate is that a tunneling process between macroscopically distinct states can be coherent!
In other words, macroscopic fermion aggregations can cohere, and when they do, they manifest quantum qualitative affects macroscopically.
GRW theory claims macroscopic many fermion ensembles like Schrödingers Cat cannot do what Friedman, et al., experiment shows.
Many of us, like Brian Josephson, Mae-wan Ho, H. Fröhlich, et al., think that physical biology is impossible without macroscopic partial fermionic coherence, so this experiment is evidence which somewhat supports our views. Indeed in Quantonics we claim reality is panaware and thus capable of both local and pancohesion under a wide variety of natural conditions.
Another interesting sidelight for us here is Friedman's, et al., use of 'fluxoids' to describe fermions' apparent 'wobble' (Feynman) or 720 degree rotational nonsymmetry. Physical reality is impossible without this fermionic 'wobble,' this rotational nonsymmetry. You may wish to examine our descriptions of this wobble and some easy experiments you can use to demonstrate it.
Each 360 degree loop in Friedman's, et al., SQUID is half of a fermion's 720 degree rotation. Odd loops are one ket state. Even loops are opposite ket state. What we see is that fermions demonstrate bistable rotational nonsymmetry. Quantum numbers count these loops 1, 2, 3, ... They assign alternate quantum numbers one ket state and their counterparts another ket state. So ket states iterate thus: ...,|1>,|0>,|1>,|0>,... This is another way of showing Feynman's 'wobble.'
Consider how this wobble might affect Euler's disk as we describe below in our email to Keith Moffatt. Now further consider what might happen if we construct a macroscopic and mechanical version of a (partial/partially) bosonic Euler's disk!! See our classical quantum tell on contrarotation. Read our proposed nontrivial experiment as a footnote there.
Note that Moffatt tells us Euler's disk is not a fermion (aggregation). Note how he appears not to perceive fermionic wobble of a macroscopic system (i.e., Euler's disk) as a 'tell' of fermionic asymmetry recognized decades ago by Feynman.
Quantum tsunami's precursor waves are crashing against classical legacy's objective beach. Classicists, beware! Doug. 20Jul2000, and thanks for reading!
Some incredible Einstein-Heisenberg history from American Institute of Physics' Physics Today journal!
Physics Today's July, 2000 issue has an article by Gerald Holton titled, 'Werner Heisenberg and Albert Einstein.' Note that Holton, according to Physics Today, is Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics and professor of history of science at Harvard University.
This historical piece is just marvelous! It is worth your trip to a local library to read it and fathom aspects of both Heisenberg and Einstein you may not have known prior.
Holton tells us that Heisenberg considered Einstein his Vorbild, or model, his superior example. Amazingly we find that Heisenberg's greatest breakthroughs come from a growing technical antagonism twixt both men, and from Heisenberg's quantum interpretations of Einstein's classical verbal and written epistles. (Do a find on 'uncertainty principle,' below.)
Heisenberg sought Einstein's approval, but seldom got it. Heisenberg was 22 years Einstein's junior and saw Einstein somewhat as his adopted but unofficially unacknowledged mentor. As such, he studied Einstein's works carefully and adopted Einstein's methods without anticipating they might evolve within Einstein's own mind.
Over many years, Heisenberg's own ideas clashed dramatically with Einstein's. Einstein could not accept Heisenberg's and others' quantum theory/mechanics' "absurdities:"
Holton's excellent article contains some terrific Einstein quotes and much fascinating history on Nazis, German anti Semitism, Jews' importance to German technology and development of atomic technologies, historic scientific meetings and showdowns, references to historical information and biographies, pictures, and much more. It is tantalizing to see raw German hypocrisy when they use, without reserve, Einstein's E=mc2, but declared his "Juden Wiffenfchaft" special and general relativities unacceptable Deutsch-think.
However, our main interest here is some writing by Holton in just a couple of paragraphs which we quote here:
In a walk (troubled Einstein asks Heisenberg to walk home with him) after a 1926 meeting...reported by Heisenberg in 1969...
Page 40, 4th full paragraph, Holton writes: "In the discussion with Einstein, Heisenberg once more tried to draw attention to his having dealt not with unobservable electron orbits inside atoms, but rather with observable radiation. He said to Einstein: 'Since it is acceptable to allow into a theory only directly observable magnitudes, I thought it more natural to restrict myself to these, bringing them in, as it were, as representatives of electron orbits.' Einstein responded, 'But you don't seriously believe that only observable magnitudes must go into a physical theory?' Heisenberg goes on, 'In astonishment, I said, 'I thought that it was exactly you who had made this thought the foundation of your relativity theory...' Einstein replied, 'Perhaps I used this sort of philosophy; but it is nevertheless nonsense.'' And then came Einstein's famous sentence: 'Only the theory decides what one can observe.'" (Our bold and color.)
Holton makes a cogent observation which is worth our consideration in addition to words written and quoted above. Holton says in closing his next paragraph, "Einstein, whose development away from positivistic instrumentalism to a rational realism had escaped Heisenberg's notice, went on to explain at length how complicated any observation is in general, how it involves assumptions about phenomena that in turn are based on theories. For example, one almost unconsciously uses Maxwell's theory when interpreting experimental readings involving a beam of light." (Our bold and color.)
Glaringly, there is much to ponder in both Heisenberg's and Einstein's words above. We want to focus on words, phrases, and sentences which we highlighted in bold. Our focus is not from Holton's historical perspective, but from philosophical and quantum science perspectives.
Let's use a table to capture our bold highlights and comments associated with them.
Whew! I'll bet you are bushed.
Thanks for reading, and be sure to get a copy of Holton's article if you can, and read it.
More Quantonics conjecture on antigravity!
Using recent input from Nature Magazine (see our 25May2000 entry below), and our own heuristic of quantum gravity as an artifact of partial quantum coherence we may imagine a new antigravity heuristic.
Prior to reading Nature Magazine's 25May2000 issue, 'letters to nature' titled, A triplet of differently shaped spin-zero states in the nucleus of 186Pb. See p. 430, Vol 405, our conjecture of gravity as a partial quantum coherence phenomenon arose mainly from our perception of gravity as superluminal and as exemplified by several other recent (e.g., APS' 27Dec99 PRL, Rongjia Tao of Southern Illinois University at Carbondale describes an experiment) and not-so-recent experiments which, in our perception and intuition, manifest gravity as a partial coherence phenomenon (e.g., BECs, or condensation (as a coherent gravity phenomenon) of 'low energy' atoms or quantons).
In Nature's recent partially coherent 186Pb nuclei article, again from our own intuitive perspective, another foot drops. We see that article as partial affirmation of our conjecture. But before we bottom line this, we need another meme. This other meme is fairly recent, and a good example of it appeared in another Nature news feature article titled, Meet the Spin Doctors, p. 918, 27Apr2000, Vol. 404.
This meme is one of selective doctoring or manipulation of a quanton's quantum numbers, in this case 'spin.' We need that capability to further our latest conjecture. OK, let's take an inventory of ingredients we have and need to continue our conjecture:
Our provocative and classically "absurd, unreasonable, and nonsensical" conjecture is that if we decohere (i.e., 'doctor') (any)some atom'(s') zero spin nuclei, it(they) will lose their partially coherent gravity! Doug 21Jun2000. (Well, at least it is an interesting idea, isn't it?)
More on Faster Than Light (FTL). Matt Drudge provided a 4Jun2000 link to a London Times article by Jonathan Leake, Science Editor, titled Eureka! Scientists break speed of light . (Thanks Matt!) This article mentions Raymond Chiao and quotes him on this recent progress made in 'measuring' superlight speeds. You may see our prior references to Chiao's formidable and prior FTL breakthroughs.
Leake tells us that scientists have demonstrated 300x FTL speeds!
He also tells us what we already knew: that classical causality is a major philosophical and scientific faux pas. Gradually, these classicists will have to admit that their Aristotelian nostrums are no longer generally valid.
Here are a few select quotes from Leake's article:
On our Quantonics site, we have been telling readers for almost three years now, that classical causality is a non-starter. Ditto induction, determinism, monism, substance-based objective reality, etc. It is time to dump classical philosophy and science!
Watch for our review of this Nature Magazine letter/report when it arrives. Nature editors are reviewing it now. (Might be a good time to subscribe to Nature, eh?)
It is well to realize that 'light' is (photons are) a quantum bosonic phenomenon! It is also well to realize that most scientists will tend to observe this phenomenon classically. Bosons are integer spin quantons! As a result they are quantum coherent and quantum reversible. (They are not classically unilogical, unitemporal, unicontextual, unidirectional, etc. They are not lisr! They must be obsfected, not classically 'observed!' ) They manifest coherent wave-particle behavior. Most classical scientists want to see only bosons' particulate (objective) nature and ignore their wave (subjective) nature. Bosons are not just particles! Bosons are complementary Quantonic Value interrelationship quantons(wave_subjective,particle_objective)! (Next topic below shows similar quantum holistic nature of coherent nuclei in atoms.) Quantum quantons are, as Mae-wan Ho has taught us, both cohesive and individually autonomous. We can show light photons that way using quantonic notation:
A whole new world awaits those who depart classicism and its ills and enter a new Millennium III MoQ/Quantonic/quantum reality! Doug (4Jun2000).
Nature Magazine's 25May2000 issue has a 'letters to nature' titled, A triplet of differently shaped spin-zero states in the nucleus of 186Pb. See p. 430, Vol 405.
We are amazed! Twenty-six separate scientists contributed to this article!
We have conjectured multiple times here in Quantonics that gravity is partial quantum coherence. Now this article provides even more evidence that our heuristic may be somewhat well-guided.
What scientists have found is that atomic nuclei are not particulate in their quantum behaviors. Atomic nuclei appear to manifest multiple coherent quantum numbers or what classicists call spin states. They found in lead (186Pb) three partial quantum modes each of which is spin-zero. To say that in local Quantonics lingo, we would say each mode is "partially coherent."
Perhaps even more jarring to classicists but resonant with our Quantonics Thinking Modes, scientists say these partial quantum modes of coherence appear superfluidic.
Scientists use this large lead atom because of an improvement in statistical ensemble size of its nucleus. But we may infer that other atoms' nuclei also manifest superfluidic (spin-zero) modes and thus partial quantum coherence.
Enter our gravity heuristic. Imagine all fermionic reality partially coherent via these superfluid modes of all atomic nuclei. That ubiquitous cohesion, we think, is what classicists call "gravity." Now we can see how gravity's affects are superluminal!
These following links are examples of our prior conjectures on gravity as partial quantum coherence:
Godel aside in our Decidable Godel Meme
Page 95 comments in our Mae-wan Ho Raw Quotes
Classically Perceived Quantum Tells - notes at top of page
Partial Coherence comments last page - James' Some Problems of Philosophy
A Map of Millennium III Reality discussion on Isoflux_Gravity
An Euler's Disk tête-à-tête with Dr. Moffatt:
Doug read a classical physicist's description of Euler's disk behavior, and sent him an email with a simpler, Quantonic description. Below are Doug's email and Dr. Moffatt's response:
Doug's email to Dr. Moffatt:
Dr. Moffatt's (immediate) response to Doug:
We leave assessment of this brief tête-à-tête to you, reader. You may easily imagine our own.
Nature magazine has not yet published this correspondence.
|13Jan2000||See Doug's caveat re: a heuristic of quantum gravity as quantum isoflux mediation of coherence in mixed quantum systems.|