v [in] interrelationships [with] — Wingdings font l.c. 'v'

Here we depict our wingdings font interrelationships semiotic superposed with our quantum uncertainty semiotic. What we see is that all quantonic interrelationships are quantum uncertainty interrelationships. It is good to perceive our comma-n¤space in quantons as this composite semiotic, e.g.: quanton(DQSQ) issi quanton(DQ,SQ).

Here we show our Quantonics' font upper and lower case Xs, size 400, as artistic uncertainty interrelationshipings.

Look what happens when we hook them up:

Imagine those green waves with Bergsonian durational 'con(m)tinuity. How could we 'design' our graphics to enable vertical and diagonal (and thogonal) quantum~interrelationshipings' emerscenture? Do we need polymorphism? Why? Why not? Doug - 5Aug2007.

Quantum Island of Uncertainty Attractor:

Island of Uncertainty attractor. Our title for this symbol is a take-off on Nick Herbert's "Quantum Island of Truth." This is a generic symbol for our quantonic isoflux notation. It represents any actual c¤mplement of reality. This is latched flux, and in Pirsig's MoQ we call it SQ. It shows 'omni-'dimensional latched flux as vectors of uncertain length and phase.

Adepts may notice this symbol, primitively as Light, from ancient Hermetic traditions. Jesus literally gn¤stically (in Essene b. c. e. gn¤sis) means Light.

It is also a symbol for Hermes Trismegistus: Thrice Great Hermes.

Other versions of this symbol include a cross with two horizontal bars, one shorter, on top, representing, again Light.

Ancient heretics and mystics used symbols like this to shroud optimistic (what we call "quantum") Gn¤sticism. What amazes us is how these ancient symbols correlate and coinside more modern quantum n¤n (i.e., wave) 'mechanical' 'science,' 'metaphysics,' and philosophy.

Here is our latest, 2005, version of this memeotic shown as 3D peaqlos:

Square Roots in Quantonics

Classical Square Root:

EOOO Square Root	=
Classically, i = dichon(-1, +1)

Quantum Square Root:

BAWAM Square Root
Quantumly, i quanton(-1,+1), (viz. Buridan's Ass walking b¤th (-1,+1) directi¤ns, simultane¤usly...see Stein...) and quantum EIMA anihmatæly and recursively,

i

T¤¤, it is w¤rthwhile t¤ n¤te that quantum 'roots' aræ n¤t limited classically amd state-ically t¤ base 10 'powers' ¤f 2. Quantum n¤mbærs aræ n¤t classical!

Quantum numbers are waves and as such are n¤t scalar. Quantum numbers as waves are all, from any classical conspective, positive. Energy is all positive. We can quantumly phase~cancel phase~shifted waves, but we cann¤t negate their energy in order to perform a classical, mathematical negation. Energy cancellation does not create a null, empty wave~cancellation result! To offer a transverse example two positive energies may cancel, but their cancellation itself is at least double energy present in both uncancelled waves. HotMeme™ Caveat: "Treat quantum~waves dialectically, and penalize yourself by a return to classical stuckness.™" HotMeme™ Caveat. Though shalt n¤t scalarbate waves! Another caveat: Classical reality is assumed to be 'transverse.' Quantum reality is multiversal, omniversal. Waves are not 'bi.' Waves are omni.

When we scalarbate waves we force quantum~waves to become classical 'state.' There is no 'state' in quantum~reality. Quantum reality is wholly flux and flux~mediated absolute change. Quantum reality, simply, does n¤t classically hold still. Zero momentum may n¤t be classically induced in quantum~reality.

Doug is prompted to add this red text given some of you are Googling Quantonics with this search pattern, "probability that a quanton in a box is in state n." Quantons are animate waves and ensembles of animate waves. Animate waves are unstoppable! It is impossible for a wave to have 'state.' Instead of classical dialectical state scalarbation, Quantonics is showing you and telling you that quantum~measurement, real quantum~measurement involves durational process omnitoring.

Classical theory canonically assumes that reality may be stopped! It is a bogus assumption.

Classical: State. Homogeneously-unified. Objective. Quantitative. Dead. Concretely insensate & dumb. Catholic. Totalitarian.

Quantum: Wavings. Coherent~multiplicity of individual autonomies called "waves." Subjective. Qualitative. Alive. Aware & wise. Gn¤stic. Free.

Doug - 25Feb2008.

 We have finally, after more than ten years, settled on our standard Quantonic boson symbol:

 We have finally, after more than ten years, settled on our standard Quantonic fermion symbol:

We are doing this work for our review of Banesh Hoffmann's The Strange Story of the Quantum, Act II. That review is underway now and still needs another 2-3 months of diligent effort. We thought you might like a tease, though which shows our usage of these novel bosons and fermions. Perhaps you may guess what our topic is by carefully perusing this graphic:

See whether you can guess what we are doing in that graphic...hint: bosons are phonons.

Doug - 2Jul2007.

Planck Quantum

(Inanimate) Planck Quantum attractor. This symbolizes our Quantonics Planck quantum. It is Planck's least action or least pragma. This is our smallest 'quantum island of (um)certainty.' All actualized positive entropic reality builds from packets of energy or mass (i.e., latched actual patterns of value) this 'size' and greater.

It represents he2•p•h. (2 and p here, used with our Quantonics Equals may/should be memetically visualized as anihmatæ Quantonics' quantum n¤mbærs. (Per Richard Dawkins of The Selfish Gene fame, a meme is a living idea, a living concept. As such, in Quantonics, a meme is a quanton, a meme is a physial quantum amd memes aræ quantons amd also amalgama of physial quanta. In Quantonics, memes aræ physially scalable emerscents capable of emerscitecture amd emerscenture.) This paragraph revised 14Jan2003 - Doug.

Aside:

Any Planck quantum's energy is normally shown as eh•f, and also as eh•v where f and v represent classical frequency, spatial frequency. A good reference is Philip R. Wallace's Paradox Lost, see especially p. 16 of hardbound 1st ed.

So our Planck quantum's energy quanta is a n¤n classical epiphany (thanks to Louis de Broglie and applied in desperation by Max Planck)! It is n¤t a proxy for amplitude! No Planck quantum cares about amplitude! So we can think about Planck quantal energy as how rapidly our vector above rotates. We do n¤t care about how big we show our circle (unless we are using circle size as a proxy for f and v). In Quantonics our artistic license requires that we show many circles of varying radii, but we must bear in mind that frequency n¤t amplitude is important when we are working in quantum reality.

Similarly, any Planck quantum's momentum is shown as eh•w_n. Simply, Planck's comstant times wave n¤mbær, where wave n¤mbær is flux count per unit reference spatial length.

Baggott, et al., point out that classical 'waves' are Maxwellian radical-mechanically 'transverse.' What we just described as a more quantum reality denies any classical notions of waves as transverse. Wave amplitude, area, and direction are invalid classical proxies of quantum energy! Only quantum flux carries energy! But folks, secondary and baccalaureate academics teach transverse methodic models of reality!

Astute students of Quantonics may recognize a classical problematic here. Frequency may be spatial flux. Frequency may be temporal flux (i.e., "frequency in 'motion'"). Momentum is classically 'directed' spatial flux.

Aside:

And Dirac, speaking of quantum superposition, tells us that quantum momentum does not care about classical direction, "...direction and amplitude are irrelevant." See mid-page 17, Ch. I, Sec. 5 'Mathematical Formulation of the Principle,' The Principles of Quantum Mechanics.

We choose to view this direction irrelevance notion as quantum omnidirectionality due absolute quantum flux. E.g., ponder your own 'Milky Way directionality' as you perigrinate your locale.

See quantum pi below.

Another way to superpositionally ponder quantum directional irrelevance is to view a Planck quantum's own 'field' as omnimensional and arbitrarily probability 'distributed.' Please do not view our use of 'field' here as a classically separable, independent, global field (one field fits all) in which our Planck quantum is classically, 'objectively' lodged.

End aside.

Time is, according to Einstein, et al., a space rate proxy ("identity"). To us, this (what tihme is) is modern science's most challenging current problematic (as Irving Stein said ~1993, recall-paraphrased, "...modern science currently has no coherent description, notion or definition of change..."). Currently, modern science has n¤ utilitarian ~real description of time as a n¤n-spatial changæ notion. In our view, this problematic arises from science's unwillingess to reopen pertinent philosophical issues of legacy underpinnings. Doug - 6Jul2003.

End aside.

All quantum measurements can be n¤ more certain than this increment and greater. All quantum measurements must assume that reality's actual comstituents may be changing at this (Planck) rate or slower and (Planck) wavelength or greater.

As students of Quantonics, we learn to think of this as our smallest actual Quantonic comtext. We can say that, when comsidered as a single, minimum comtext, its positive entropy comsistency is unity_q (I.e. we can think of it in a much oversimplified manner: it always (abs¤lutely) changes at ~10⁴³ unit spatial reference flux.). Its actual l¤cal comtextual c¤mpleteness is a quantal minimum, which we can envision, again, as equantum_2 * quantum_p * quantum_h. (I.e, as far as we know, 'e' represents reality's least c¤mplete and most comsistent quantum comtext. Quantum ChromoDynamics appears to be uncloaking even smaller comtexts!)

(Comsider quantum animacy of quantum_p. Classically 'p' of a circle assumes a circle and its diameter are classically inanimate and state-ic. That classical assumption fails in quantum reality. If there are any quantum circles and diameters in quantum reality, their 'shapes' are always quantum-uncertainly dynamic and from a classical perspective kind of quantum-chaotically smeared. Imagine a can lid wrapped around a classical 3D conic section. Then imagine it in absolute quantum flux. 'Circle' as a quantum meme, is sort of like differences twixt Euclidean and non-Euclidean classical spaces except we must visualize them not only as curved omnimensional isospaces, but as quantum animate too. Again, we see SOM's knife creating classical thing-king walls against quantum think-king. Doug - 26Jul2001.)

(Another way to think about quantum_p is as a quantum variable, rather than as a classical irrational constant. Let's do an Einsteinian relativistic Gedanken experiment. You recall how a train's doppler effect goes from blue shift to red shift when a train's whistle blows continuously as said train approaches then passes a standing observer near track side. Now imagine a passenger on said train with a white board mounted perpendicular and translongitudinal train's fuselage direction. Assume train's blue shift distance is 25 meters from standing observer at start of our gedankenment, and 25 meters red shifted at end of our experiment. Assume train is traveling at 50 meters per second. Thus it will take said train one second to traverse both blue- and red-shifted segments. Assume our passenger starts drawing a circle at start of blue shift interval, and finishes said circle at end of red shift interval. It takes our passenger one second to draw said circle. Now consider two circles: one drawn on white board and one representing passenger's marker tip peregrinating general n-space as train traverses both blue and red segments in one second. Circumference of static circle on white board is smaller than white board's two meter by three meter perimeter — assume drawn classical circle diameter is one meter. Now consider static circle's circumference vis-à-vis dynamic circle's 'circumference.' Former is classically and naïvely px1-meter diameter, or ~3.1415926... meters. Latter is ~3.1415926... + 50 meters! p of former classical circle is still p/1 or p (i.e., circumference/d=1; unless we assume a variable diameter too; but then what 'measurement' do we use for diameter?). p of latter is ~53.1415926/1 or ~53.1415926! Now which p is more general? If reality were classically static, former would be general, however quantum reality is b¤th phasic amd animate/dynamic (stindyanic), s¤ latter is m¤re general. And we see s¤mething else that is even m¤re startling: in any dynamic, ¤mnimensi¤nal quantum reality — there are n¤ ideal classical circles! p is, defined as circumference over diameter, in an animate quantum reality, variable! Even more interesting, consider complications of Earth's axial rotation and Earth's solar orbit on calculations of p. At equator, our Gedanken experimental train, passenger and observer are moving around Earth's axis at ~500 meters/second. Simultaneously, that same Earth system is moving around Sol at ~30,000 meters/second, and moving around our Milky Way at 225,000 meters/second. Now calculate what affects those other two sources of quantum flux have on an even more general quantum p! As you may surmise, classical 'natural' constants almost entirely lose their semantic value in quantum reality. Doug - 12Aug2001; rev - 24Sep2001.)

As reality assembles massive aggregates of Planck quanta and their emergent spawn, its number of comtexts approaches infinity. Total reality's comsistency (We use comsistency here — do you see why?) decreases, but simultaneously reality's c¤mpleteness increases. See Absoluteness & Uncertainty.

MoQ Quanton

            DQ             SQ

(An Inanimate) Pirsigean Metaphysics of Quality Quanton. This is MoQ reality's (i.e., both DQ's and SQ's) least unit of both ethical and moral behavior. This version is a latched MoQ quantum depicted in latched SQ, while compenetrating DQ's absolute flux. In SQ actuality we show Pirsig's four levels of Static Quality: Inorganic, Biological, Social, and Intellectual. Our order of listing in our last sentence is Pirsig's order of increasing evolution. By that we mean Inorganic levels invent Biological levels which invent Social levels which invent Intellectual levels which invent... Our MoQ quanton shows that, just as DQ possesses intrinsic capability to emerse both proto and new (i.e., emerqed) SQ, all quantons — at all scales of reality — intrinsically possess capabilities to evolve Pirsig's four levels.

Planck Quanton

(An Inanimate) Planck Quanton. This is quantum reality's (i.e., both n¤nactual and actual reality's) least unit of action and its least unit of (un)certainty. This version is a latched Planck quantum depicted in actuality, while compenetrating n¤nactuality's isoflux. At this juncture, we do not know how to show this as either a fermion or a boson. That innovation is TBD. Perhaps it may be either and both, and it may require unique symbology for each. Our other c¤mposite quantons we know will have unique symbologies; however, we do n¤t know yet what symbols will omnistinguish fermions from bosons.

(An Animate) Planck Quanton. Here we see how our use of symbols latch our concepts (Platonic ideas) objectively. Our intent is for students of Quantonics to see or imagine our inanimate symbols as animate like this graphic. As Pirsig might offer, "Always keep Dynamic Quality with your latched, Static Quality intuemes. Try to prevent your memes from losing their Dynamic Quality (which is analogous to losing their Quality)."

This is Quantonics' version of minimum quantum uncertainty shown symbolically as (best we currently know how) durational quantum flux (one least action, least energy quantum: one of many quanta). Mathematical physicists show it 'state' ically, metrically as i•h. Real quantum uncertainty is almost always larger than least quantum uncertainty and we show and classically-noodle that 'state' ically like this: N•i•h.

For more detail, see Planck Quantum above.

Please comsider how this symbol depicts Riemann's Hypothesis. See our recent comtrarotation as quantum square root. Also see our review of Sylvia Nasar's A Beautiful Mind on "quantum Nash," for more Riemann nexuses. Blue-dotted comtrarotation corresponds square root part of Riemann's

Also see our 7Jun2002 Möbius 3-Primæ Fermion.

A superb practical example ¤f ¤ur animate quanton semi¤tic is a pendulum. L¤¤k at ¤ur quanton's actual c¤mplement. Y¤u will see a pendulum's peri¤d flux in s¤lid ¤uter circle. Y¤u will see a pendulum's directi¤n flux in its tw¤ inner circles. In this exemplar ¤ur quanton m¤dels a pendulum as a fermi¤n with a (Feynmanesque)

"w¤bble"  f_Directi¤n / f_Peri¤d  quantum_2.

Y¤u may als¤ intuit h¤w ¤ur quanton semi¤tic can/d¤es m¤del any physical scaled aggregati¤n ¤f quantum reality.

There are several Quantonics English Language Remediations which quantum~cohere and attend quantum memeos of Planck quanta. Let's keep an up-to-date list of them here.

First may we recommend that you carefully read all of Bergson's Time and Free Will, Topic 35.

Here is a list of QELRs and other relevant links which are quantum~descriptive of Planck quanta phenomena:

Affectation (large page), change, duration, included-middle, monitor, phasicity, perpetual-motion, probability, Quantum Pendulum,

Aside:

A crucial quantum avatar here is that all fermions are pendula, and as such all fermions exhibit,
we believe quite miraculously, nature's absolute motion. Indeed, we can use pendula to
quanton(qualitatively,only_apparently_quantitatively) assess nature's absolute motion.

End aside.

reality, select, stoppability, and What is Wrong with Probability as Value?.

Planck quanta are quantum reality's ubiquitous agents of absolute change. They are perpetual, unending, always changing, and always changing all.

Riemann Fermionic Quanton (See Classical and Quantum Square Root Symbols above)

	i	ii	iii		iv		v	vi	vii
1.	s	=	±		½		+	i	•v
2.	s	=	±		½		+	-1	•v
3.	s	=	±		½		+		•v
			+				+
4.	s		EOOO		½		BAAM		•v
			-				-
			+				+
5.	s		EOOO		½		BAWAM		•v
			-				-
								Graphical chiralty here is arbitrary.
				+		+
6.	s		EOOO				BAWAM
				-		-
								Graphical chiralty here is arbitrary.
7.	s+			+

24Apr2002 - Doug - Inserted step 5. Step 4 is an inanimate, BAAM, and normalized quantum square root, unless one imagines a quantum square root recursion on i (which is fine, indeed it is, and as we originally intended). But step 4 is normalized by an assumption that 'r' is ideally, classically '1.' We know that state-ic p is comstant for all circle radii, but as an animate quantum recursion, physically, those radii are changing from h, i.e., a minimum Planck length, to infinity. Step 5 generalizes, BAWAMs, and animates step 4 by replacing our assumed Quantum square root iterator which defaults to a normalizing '1' with a physical 'r' (which has a minimum limit radius h, and maximum radius unlimited). Now we can imagine more robustly how our Quantonics square root generates all possible Riemann (isotropic) comjugate (n¤nactual, isoimaginary, and quantum isocoherent) isoflux. Key here is to distinguish a classical 'r = 1' single-valued, inanimate physical reality assumption from a quantonic/quantum rall_values — from minimum Planck length to infinity — animate quantum physial reality.

Please make a best effort to visualize this Riemann Quanton as animate like our animate Planck Quanton just above. Also, try to imagine our blue-dotted comtrarotating circles as animate, omnimensional, and having omnivalued radii as described above. That imagined comjugate quantum n¤nactuality is what Quantonics appellates "quantum isoflux." See our map of Millennium III Reality. Doug - 25Apr2002.

In this sequence of graphics we show our Quantonics interpretation (hermeneutic) of Riemann's Hypothesis as a depiction of fermionic quantum reality. It is a special case of Riemann's zeta function, for h = ½, and quantum_square_root of -1 where we substitute e^pi for -1. (Here we are assuming a classical form of s = h + i•v which is often shown in typical classical complex notation as s = u + i•v. We did not intend for our use of 'h' here to confuse readers with our use of 'h' elsewhere as Planck's 'constant.' Please excuse our unintended possible confusion. Students of Quantonics will view any c¤mplex n¤mbær anihmatæly more like this shve^pi•v, where we intend our squaræ r¤¤t symb¤l as quantum vis-à-vis classical. Doug - 4Dec2002.)

Note that column three above may be interpreted as what we call quantum fermionic spin "chiralty."

Our top three rows show Riemann's special classical case of a Real ½ (i.e., fermionic) Critical Line. Rows four through six show our Quantonic depiction of that special case. In each of those rows we show both classical actuality's EOOO predicate and quantum n¤nactuality's BAWAM predicate in c¤mplementary interrelationships forming a Quantonic 's' case for a quantum Riemannian zeta(s) function. Latter case represents all quantum real (odd, half-integer spin fermi statistics) fermions! See our QELR of number. Look at bottom of that page segment.

In lines four through six, our quantum_square_root of e^pi represents a BAWAM (Quantum Vacuum Flux) "manifold" quantum comjugate vis-à-vis a classical_square_root of -1 is an EOOO "2D" dichotomous classical conjugate.

What this shows rather dramatically, is that we can view ±½ Riemannian reality, compenetrating Quantum Vacuum Flux, quite trivially as a Quantonics quanton!

For more Quantonic memes on The Riemann Hypothesis see these other links: Quantum Contrarotation as Square Root, Quantum Square Root as Comjugation, John Nash's Correlation of quantum reality and The Riemann Hypothesis.

Some of you may be asking, "Well what does all this have to do with prime numbers." (As The Riemann Hypothesis does...) We can only speculate; however, we do know something important about physical reality which appears relevant. N¤ two fermions in quantum reality are identical to one another. (E.g., just comsider animate phasicities of any two electrons. Ditto our Planck quantons above. Also comsider how classical reality assumes identities abound. E.g., Aristotle's A=A as a classical tautology! J) Now comsider aggregations of those. Do we see any aliases? Does reality have any real clones? Is it 'possible' to clone anything in quantum reality, or is cloning just another classical reproduction/manufacturing delusion?

Also comsider Fibonacci numbers and their predominance in natural physical reality. What do they share as somewhat analogous primes? Each prime is unique in that it has n¤ n¤nprime factors or factor aliases. Similarly, each Fibonacci number is unique in that it has n¤ sum aliases based on addends from prior terms in its sequence. Now, can you see how uniquenesses of primes and Fibonaccis appear as crucial physical/natural memes for absence of fermionic identities in decoherent quantum reality? Also can you now see why, in Quantonics, we say there are n¤ identities in physical/natural quantum reality?

Doug - 8Feb2002.

7Jun2002 - Doug - Also see our 7Jun2002 Möbius 3-Primæ Fermion.

After thought: You may find it worthwhile to ponder how our quantum integer-radius-modulated, anihmatæ, EIMA, interpretation/heuristic/hermeneutic of e^p•i as -1 offers one of an unlimited number of metaphors of how negation is subjective. Now blend that quantum Bergsonian metaphor with Philip R. Wallace's (very slightly paraphrased), "...interpretation involves according primacy to subjectivity over objectivity," and we may more adeptly admit abetting analogies among "unlimited number of metaphors" and quantum subjective "interpretation." Proceed comfidently another quantum increment: whenever we see a 'minus' 'one,' let's substitute e^p•i and re-think our interpretations of any local quantum comtext where any 'minus' 'one' may appear. 17Oct2002 - Doug.

Ison

   N¤npreferential Isoflux attractor. Or 'ison.' Our title for this symbol tells us that any quanton connects (i.e., comnects) to n¤nactuality via an isoflux attractor. Isoflux attractors may be as shown, i.e., n¤npreferential, tentative, and preferential.

Isop

Preferential Isoflux attractor. Or 'isop.' Our title for this symbol tells us that any quanton connects (i.e., comnects) to n¤nactuality via an isoflux attractor. Isoflux attractors may be as shown, i.e., preferential, tentative, and n¤npreferential.

Isot

   Tentative Isoflux attractor. Or 'isot.' Our title for this symbol tells us that any quanton connects to (i.e., comnects) n¤nactuality via an isoflux attractor. Isoflux attractors may be as shown, i.e., tentative, preferential, and n¤npreferential.

	Quantonics Font Equals Symbol (New 1Aug99 PDR)

Here are examples using our symbols above:

			v
MoQ Reality		Dynamic Quality		Static Quality

			v
A Reality Quanton

Equivalently we can show both examples like this:

MoQ Reality		quanton(DQ,SQ), and

A Reality Quanton		quanton(		,		)

Our Quantonics font symbol used throughout our Quantonics site looks like this full size:

It replaces Western culture's classical legacy, Aristotelian equals sign, '=.' It acknowledges and reminds us actual quantum systems (i.e., Static Quality) may coobsfect each other at Planck rates of ~10⁴³ spatial (n¤t temporal) flux, i.e., cycles/changes per unit spatial reference. Reference units are arbitrary; however, classical science has 'settled' on some specific unit references which we tentatively adhere. It is important to understand that classical 'time,' as used by 'science' today, is naught but classical space and classical space 'rate.' Classicists, today, at Millennium III's beginning have n¤ coherent understanding of time. Ditto mass. Both, like 'real' numbers, are proxies of spatial extensity. Why? Classical Greek concepts invented by Parmenides, Aristotle, et al., and further manipulated by Descartes, Newton, Einstein, et al., have disabled modern humankinds' abilities to view time as Bergsonian quantum-qualitative and "durational." This is mostly what Zeno's (of Elea) paradice are about. Doug - 4Dec2002.