1. Copenhagen-I Interpretation

2. Copenhagen-II
Interpretation

3. Bohm Whole Interpretation

4. Many Worlds Interpretation

 1.

2. 

3. 

Entangled quantons manifest in both configuration space and real space.

Their phase entangled interrelationship attributes manifest in n-dimensional configuration space.

Their 3-dimensional (e.g.) amplitude interrelationship attributes manifest separated by arbitrary distances in real space.

Their amplitude interrelationship attributes remain superluminally connected via their entangled interrelationship attributes in configuration space.

4. 

5. 

Conjecture:

requires a recording, or

requires a mind-consciousness

Measurements create and change the multiverse.

All quantons are ‘aware’ via their own M-Recording waveform correlate.

(If this should be plural, experts please send comments below - thanks! Intuition says this should be plural.)

6. 

7. 

Most serious deficiency of CI-I is its classical version of complementarity; in CI-I, quantum complements are exclusive, thus their middles are excluded; this is Bohr's means of retaining Aristotle's classical, logical syllogisms. Rev - 11Jan2002 - Doug.
Special role of measurement devices

Non-quantonic measurement devices

Limited to scrutiny of sub-atomic realm

  Both CI-I and CI-II suffer a major classical epistemological delusion: i.e., Protagoras' assumption that "...man is the measure of all things." We deny Protagoras' assumption. Instead, in our Quantonics' view of quantum reality, nature measures he-r self. Humans do n¤t have to look at reality (i.e., 'measure' it) in order for reality to 'exist.' Reality 'observes he-rself,' and has done so for an eternity before humans emerged. Key to our assumption here is that reality's most fundamental quantons, including photons, nucleons, electrons, etc., coobsfect reality. That is our basis for an assumption that nature observes he-rself.

See our note on Anthropocentric Observation near bottom of this page.

5. Quantum Logic Interpretation

6. Neorealism Interpretation

7. Conscious Creation of Reality

8. Heisenberg’s Duplex World

 1.

2. 

Quantonic interrelationship attributes are of two types:

 

 - Boolean logical,

 

 - quantum logical.

 

See logic.

All logical measurements in reality include both types, but for unknown reasons we can only see directly the Boolean measurements and results.

 

See our graphic of the two logics at:

Quantum Logic MoQ

Wavefunction collapse.

Co-awareness or -consciousness of quantons causes their wavefunctions to collapse into one of many reality possibilities.

3. 

Measured Boolean logical attribute interrelationships are real.

Measured quantum logical attribute interrelationships are wholly unreal, but may appear as Boolean logical islets of reality within a quantum logical sea of attribute interrelationships.

Unmeasured Boolean and quantum logical attribute interrelationships remain unreal.

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

Aristotelian syllogistic logic principles fail in quantum reality.

Boolean logic principles fail in quantum reality.
Formal radical mechanism, and all related predicate logics fail in quantum reality.

Rev 8Jan2001 - For an applied example of what we mean here, see our recent Bell's Theorem Study.

It is essentially untrue as proven by progress in quantum science.

Those who adhere to neorealism appear stuck in the past.

9. Cramer's Transactional Interpretation

10. Stein's New Ontology Interpretation

11. Anton Zeilinger's Interpretation

12. Renselle's Quantum
Heuristic

 1.

Reality is a SOM dichotomy of either space or nonspace. Quantons are either in space or nonspace. QEs may elicit no change, change in nonspace only, change in both nonspace and space.

In momentary equilibrium, evident classical objects (actualized quantum objects, AQOs) exist in space between QEs.
Too, infinite nonapparent possibilities (nonactualized quantum objects, NQOs), nonpreferentially random walk in nonspace between QEs.

2. 

NQO-NQO measurement: nonspace NQOs co-restrict their own nonpreferential random walks.

NQO-AQO measurement: space AQO restricts nonpreferential random walk of nonspace NQO(s).

For more detail see Stein's measurement axioms in our review of his 1996 book.

Wavefunction collapse.

Co-awareness or -consciousness of quantons causes their wavefunctions to collapse into one of many reality possibilities.

Ubiquitous, superluminal Planck rate reality loops (flux):
  ² Creation
  ² Change/Stasis (see stindyan)
  ² Discreation
elicit QEs.

Assume:
1) Measurementings are anihmatæ ensehmble process interrelationships between/among quantons.
2) All quantons are aware (intrinsically capable of observation-like ensehmble interrelationships; i.e., coobsfection).

Becoming:
Unknown quantons (fluxors) latch (arise/emerse/create into known quantons).
Change/Stasis:
Known quantons may change - via combinations of both latching and unlatching - or remain unchanged.
Unbecoming:
Known quantons unlatch (demise/demerse/discreate into unknown quantons/fluxors). See our isoflux ontologies.

Latching and unlatching (creation-discreation measurement via quantonic co- or self-observation) remain undefined, but appear to be a metaphor of n¤nlinear rectification (latch) to actual persistence from ~isotropic flux, or a metaphor of n¤nlinear diffraction (unlatch) back to ~isotropic flux. All actual physica and physi phenomena are manifestations of reality's flux both latching and unlatching.

Now, at beginning of 2006, USA and nearly all Earth's countries are in crisis: our largest problem as we in Quantonics see it is energy. Oil has had it!

Our last paragraph above on "Latching and unlatching..." carries a powerful clue as how to provide unlimited energy at, compared to oil at $70 a barrel, low cost.

What we want to do, using Quantonics' quantum metaphors, is latch isoflux into quantum actuality! It's that simple!!! Really! "So, Doug, how do we do that?"

We are already doing it, however, we do not perceive these examples that way:

• nuclear bombs,
• water-argon based sonoluminescence, and
• deuterated acetone-argon based sonoluminescence,
• some 'cold fusion' approaches,
• propeller cavitation (similar sonoluminescence, but offers an omniffering metaphor of approach to this 'problem,' (view prop rotation as energy pulse renewal methodology...)
• etc.

"Explain how those are examples."

Each of those examples (language is omnifficult here) spherically, multimensionally omnirectify isoflux!

When we use a diode to rectify transverse frequency in a power supply, we are rectifying actual flux unimensionally. We view frequencies in actuality as transverse, e.g., a sine wave.

But quantum isoflux is non transverse and omnimensional. Sonoluminescence and nuclear implosions offer classical metaphors of multimensional non transverse isoflux rectification. Both approaches rectify quantum isoflux into quantum actuality! We, prior, just haven't viewed it that way, but Quantonics is saying we should.

We like sonoluminescence as a table top approach for obvious reasons when compared to nuclear implosions.

Here is a very rudimentary quantum meme:

Using water initially, deuterated acetone later, put a buckyball (BB) in said fluid. How many BB facets? Have to try various. Facet count increases need for lasers, one per facet.

Inject said BB with argon. We are assuming that BB and surface tension will somewhat facetize argon bubble, enhancing ignition energy implosion of BB. Aim lasers normal to facets. Pulse lasers synchronously. May need audio flux for context similar to earlier non BB approaches. Average diameter of BB should, from prior experience, be about 1 micron. Need to vary this parameter.

Note that an BB free argon bubble has, comparatively, unlimited facets. So using BB facets may actually be a worse approach. But we can learn a lot from it, we believe. Question: How would we laser implode a BB free argon bubble? Also, "What parameter variations affect control of power attenuation and amplification?

Imagine replacing a 200 kg gas engine with a 20kg SL box and 20kg electric motors at each wheel?!! (We are assuming a 'big' car, say, 1600kg gross weight.) And we refill our argon bottle and water supplies once, say, a year. Wow!

For each BB vary laser intensity (any laser is uniphotonic, so intensity implies iterative presence~absence (beam on, beam off) of and perhaps multiple beams), energy (i.e., frequency of uniphoton), and pulse rate.

Experiment: See what happens. Compare to standard SL approaches. Improve. Ponder alternate approaches. Develop means to (e.g., gatlin, register, array, holographic, multiprocessor, etc. BB) stack pulses for durational performance with an SL pedal; and do we need 'coasting' to store energy (with such abundance, storage may no longer be such a big issue; cold starting is an issue however which mitigates that comment; perhaps like our PCs we never turn it 'off,' now how's that for a quantum positive and elimination of dialectical notions of 'off')?

A weakness, which we perceive, with sonoluminescence is bubble staging and bubble energy injection management. In cuneiform, sort of a: given |, how big is, and what orientation of V problem?

BBs give us some hegemony over those parameters which previously were absent (in our view). We should be able to queue BBs similar to current fuel injectors. Dyanamic laser alignment will be a challenge; alternately a way of staging which implicitly offers alignment (probably not as large an issue in prior versions of SL).

Perhaps BBs aren't best approach. OK! Try others which give us these requirements:

• omnimensional synchronous implosion (read multimensional quantum isoflux isorectification)
• very rapid BB and laser staging
• very rapid, variable repetition rates
• tunable implosion ontologies
• pulse energy (not average, non 'budgeted') gains of 10¹² or greater
• power variation management
• stand alone, reproducible packaging and system design
• etc.

There's a lot more to this, but we have offered quantum essence to you. Our memes derive from Claudia Eberlein's original notions.

We haven't resources, or we would do this ourselves.

Doug - 30Jan2006.

3. 

Quantons exist as unlatched n¤nactualities, and as both latched and unlatched c¤mplementary actualities.

N¤nactual - quanton(flux_u,flux_u)

Actual - quanton(flux_u,flux_l)

4. 

5. 

By QE (our QE in Quantonics is a quantum~process, n¤t a classical 'state,' so we should use QÆ as our quantum remediation of more classical QE, here - Doug - 4Apr2009) Planck rate sampling of all quantons in both unknown and known reality.

By using quantum~computing pr¤cæssings to ¤mniht¤r (Why? Classical 'measurement' requires reality to hold still so that scalar measurements can be made; quantum~reality is unstoppable! Doug - 4Apr2009.) stindyanic processings in quantum~reality

Our site uses spatial, not temporal, flux rates throughout. There are 10 orders of magnitude twixt spatial (10⁴³) and temporal (10³³) flux rates due to speed of light and metric unit factors.

6. 

Depending upon which assumptions we make about Stein's new ontology.
If we assume as he may 1) classical objects pre-exist, then classical objects are measurement devices.
If we assume as he subtly implies and may allow us
2) nonactualized quantons may coincide/interact, then proemial quantons measure both selves and actualized quantons via co-awareness.

Combinations:
² NQOs-NQOs
² NQOs-AQOs
² AQOs-NQOs
² AQOs-AQOs

Intrinsic quanton awareness.

Nature measures he-rself.

Humans will use quantum~computers and quantum~sensors (initially most of these will be biological (biocoquecigruecal) to use nature's built in, intrinsic, quantum~ ¤mniht¤ring qua) to do pragmatic quantum ¤mniht¤rings Doug - 4Apr2009.

7. 

Possible insistence on retention of classical ontology features.

Possible insistence on pre-existence of classical objects.

Denial of superluminality.

Interrelationships undefined.

Insistence on classical properties vis-à-vis interrelationships.

Absence of complementarity which may be interpreted somewhat similarly to Bohr's "exclusive complementarity" Rev - 11Jan2002 - Doug.

NQOs either/or AQOs and vice versa, vis-à-vis NQOs both/and AQOs.

Reverence for a Newtonian particulate/corpuscular light reality vis-à-vis a Huygens wave light reality.

Use of random walk (wave mime) proxy for mass, energy, and length while worshiping particle-based reality.

Assumed unidirectional flow of creation.

Despite this long list of deficiencies, your reviewer finds Stein's ontology most palatable both from intuitive and intellectual perspectives. Adaptation and evolution of Stein's ontology offer much potential for both understanding and explanation capability.

 Classical legacy assumption: humans observe reality experiments. Fails in quantum science, e.g., which human observes a universe or multiverse? (Question: After physicists finally asked this key philosophical question, why didn't they dump anthropocentrism? An answer: Blinders from a legacy SOM mindset!)

However, modern quantum science retains anthropocentrism. Here is an example: John von Neumann's description (Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics) of evolutionary changes and measurment changes, paraphrased, "1) a quanton's state changes smoothly and continuously with time as the system evolves; and 2) a quanton's state changes abruptly and discontinuously with time in accordance with the laws of probability when (and only when) a measurement is made on a quanton."

An assumption here is a human must measure a quanton for it to change state. (Subsequently, we have concluded, applying Pirsig's MoQ memes, and after reading Henri Louis Bergson's Introduction to Metaphysics and his Creative Evolution, plus William James' Some Problems of Philosophy, that there is no classical 'state.' Von Neumann's wave function collapse never happens! Quantum measurement is heterogeneous in interpretations, loci, and temporalities! See both Problematic Pirsigean Memes and Recommended Reading. Also consider how Pirsig's MoQ demands "...no classical 'state,' and that von Neumann's wave function collapse never happens!" MoQ tells us that DQ is absolute flux. Quantum reality never stops fluxing; it always fluxes. Von Neumannesque wave function collapse is impossible. Classical 'state' has no way to 'exist.' See Bergson's discussion of 'state' in his Creative Evolution Topic 40. Doug 2Jan2001.)

Also see our more recent Q&A on causality and two kinds of quantum complementarity: Bohr's 'exclusive' (Aristotelian excluded-middle) complementarity and Quantonics' inclusive (included-middle) quantum c¤mplementarity. Doug - 28Apr2003.

This exposes a major difference in some interpretations of quantum science and ours (Renselle's Quantum Heuristic). We see measurement as Planck rate quantal processes occurring ubiquitously. We assume quantons are aware, so any multiverse measures itself quantumly at (up to) Planck rates. Aggregation of quantal processes only appears continuous. We think von Neumann's wave function collapse is malperceived. Whether a human participates is incidental. Human or other sentient (or any other quanton or aggregate) participation may alter any local (all affected constituents, including any humans or sentients) experimental system irretrievably.

Return