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 - ???2007 _____________________________________________________________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™ 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. 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. We quote Heisenberg, "But through this process of idealization [Platonization] and precise 'formal' definition the immediate connection with reality is lost." Physics and Philosophy, 'The Revolution in Modern Science,' Page 200 of 213 total pages (no index). Doug's brackets - 12Apr2007.) See a similar quote, more poetically given, 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, objects. That is what Doug intends by "theory classically opposes 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. 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.
We quote Heisenberg, "But through this process of idealization [Platonization] and precise 'formal' definition the immediate connection with reality is lost." Physics and Philosophy, 'The Revolution in Modern Science,' Page 200 of 213 total pages (no index). Doug's brackets - 12Apr2007.) See a similar quote, more poetically given, 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, objects. That is what Doug intends by "theory classically opposes 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.
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 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: By Doug Renselle — ©Quantonics, Inc., 2007-2009 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 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. 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. 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 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. Spin Class absence of spin (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. 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. 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., 2007-2009 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.). End aside.
A "Pound this Into Your Head" aside:
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 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.
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.
absence of spin
(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.)
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)
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 Dx/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/l. 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/l. 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 Dx/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/l. 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/l. 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!"
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. J
Simultaneity is a problematic classical concept. Ditto instantaneity! It implies 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.
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, 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 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.
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 'simultaneity' of two or more system's quantum behaviours.
Doug - June, 2007.
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:" J 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 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!
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 [Dspace/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