AAAS' 13Jul2001 Science issue has many quantum goodies -- see:

Jean Bricmont's 'Explaining Time's Arrow' review of David Z. Albert's new book, Time and Chance. See pp. 220-221.

Salman Habib's Quantum Physics Perspective, No Mere Anarchy, on Quantum Chaos. See pp. 221-222. See related report on p. 274. Excellent!

T. H. Geballe's Superconductivity Perspective, Super Boron, on revival of other fermions as superconductivity as a consequence of recent M_gB₂ breakthroughs. See BCS comments below in 13Jul2001 Physics Today's Donald McDonald article review. See related report on page 272. Superb!

13Jul2001 Physics Today

       Rev 19Jul2001 (see aside below)

More awesome physics history from Physics Today!

One of our favorite characters in quantum physics is Brian Josephson. Donald McDonald writes a superb article in PT's July, 2001 issue, titled The Nobel Laureate Versus The Graduate Student. McDonald's story is about a showdown twixt Brian Josephson (the graduate student) and John Bardeen (Nobel laureate twice over).

McDonald begins his article, "In 1962, Brian Josephson, a 22-year-old research student at Cambridge University, suggested a new and surprising effect. A supercurrent, he argued, can tunnel through a thin insulating barrier. University of Illinois theorist John Bardeen disagreed, and that mattered." P. 46.

Bardeen previously won Nobel prizes first for his efforts with William Shockley and Walter Brattain on development of transistors, and second for his work with Leon Cooper and Robert Schrieffer on BCS theory of superconducting electrons in superconductive materials. These Nobel prizes established Bardeen's reputation among all admirers in Earth's physics community during 2^nd and 3^rd quarters of our 20^th century.

What makes this story so scrumptious is that Bardeen was Josephson's senior by thirty plus years and just tried to blow off Josephson who claimed that coherent Cooper paired electrons shared quantum coherence across a superconducting 'barrier.' Bardeen's own theory denied any coherence of bosonic (coherent) fermions (electrons) in said barrier.

McDonald continues, "Bardeen publicly dismissed young Josephson's tunneling-supercurrent assertion in a 'Note added in proof' in a 1962 article in Physical Review Letters:

"In a recent note, Josephson uses a somewhat similar formulation to discuss the possibility of superfluid flow across the tunneling region, in which no quasi-particles are created. However, as pointed out by the author [Bardeen, in a previous publication], pairing does not extend into the barrier, so that there can be no such super fluid flow." (McDonald's brackets. Our bold-color emphases.)

Bardeen was well known and respected. Basically what he said was usually accepted as correct. But Josephson persisted, and ultimately Bardeen had to admit he had made a mistake. In 1973 Josephson won a Nobel prize for his persistence.

Much language in this article, both McDonald's and his quotes of various papers written by various authors, is classically objective.

We mention this because McDonald's article is about how

• both Bardeen's old ideas (status quo)
• and Josephson's innovative (pioneering) in superconductivity

juxtapose old and new/novel, and in Quantonics we see a similar juxtaposition of old and tired English language and Quantonics' newer and novel remediation of it.

Just as Josephson ultimately won over Bardeen, we expect a new language, e.g., Quantonics' remediation, to win over English, especially as we use it to discuss quantum topics vis-à-vis classical topics.

Examples of this language issue appear rather often in McDonald's article. One example is a quote McDonald makes of a problematic Bardeen paragraph which contains a mistake and perhaps caused Bardeen's allegiance to a faulty view of junction barrier quantum superconduction. His quote is from a Bardeen work titled Tunneling from a Many-Particle Point of View:

"If one looks at the [tunneling] problem more closely, from the viewpoint of the more general Gor'kov equations, which allow for a variation of the energy gap parameter with position, one sees that D will drop to zero very rapidly in the barrier. In effect, electrons in this region are not paired and the wavefunction is essentially the same as in the normal state." J. Bardeen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 6, 57 (1961). (McDonald's brackets. Our bold color.)

This quote is remarkable in how it shows English language's impact on our abilities/inabilities to express quantum memes. Too, it makes us wonder whether Bardeen's difficulties arise from both his English language utilization and his own classical style of thing-king.

We marked McDonald's quotes of Bardeen's papers with bold and color codes to help you see how (unremediated) English language is problematic in assisting physicists to express quantum memes.

Our bold-color coded comments on quoted text highlights above are as follows:

• formulation - classical form, material based substantial objective reality, and radical formal mechanism; quantum reality is n¤t radically mechanistic. (E.g., David Bohm describes quantum reality as a n¤n-mechanics of quanta, a NoQ or nMoQ.)
• the - thelogos; Bardeen appears to use 'the' apparently (to us) intending 'only,' or 'one.'
• no, not - classical negation is subjective; classical formal negation of physical reality evokes incoherent classical thinking. See n¤t.
• quasi-particles - Bardeen uses this phrase to classically describe what quantum science now calls "quantons;" in quantum reality quantons are n¤t classically objective particles or "quasi-particles." Here, Bardeen shows a strong personal predilection to think classically, objectively — a huge problem for modern quantum science in Millennium III. We believe Bardeen's objective thing-king and language were a significant influence on his mistaken belittling of Josephson's more quantum innovative think-king.
• same - identity; n¤ physical identity is possible in quantum physial reality. For example, consider how 'identity' requires Zeno's absolute stoppability of reality! Quantum physial reality is absolute flux, and thus unstoppable (which Zeno apparently understood, yet, over two millennia later, today's classical scientists do not). See our classical vis-à-vis Quantonic equals sign. For more, also see our Aristotle Connection.
• normal - Bardeen could better use "fermionic" or quantum "decoherent" here; fermionic is just as quantum 'normal' as isonic, bosonic, and gravitonic. Perhaps more important: fermionic-normal is n¤t "all there is" to reality! Bardeen appears to use 'normal' as an appellation for classical objective reality, which classicists assume is "all there is" to reality. Consider how, using similar 'reasoning,' quasi-particles then might be called "classically non-normal," and then more correctly, "quantumly n¤n-normal." However, now we know that quantum superconductive barrier junction coherence is quantum-normal!
• state - Bardeen intends that we can 'stop' reality and conveniently examine it state-ically; quantum reality is absolute flux and thus unstoppable (we may speak of quantons as durationally quantum-persistent, however); quantum state is therefore something more like phase-icity rather than classical staticity. For more on classical vis-à-vis quantum 'state,' search for "gauge-invariance" and more apropos "phase-invariance." Beware classical semantics of 'invariance,' (quantum reality is n¤t classically invariant), and classical semantics of locality and nonlocality (quantum reality is b¤th l¤cal amd n¤nl¤cal).

As we can see from McDonald's quotes, Bardeen appears to 'thingk' of electrons as classically ideal particles, rather than perceiving them as quantons.

                                    19Jul2001

If we put on our quantum hats and comsider a simpler perspective more akin Josephson's we may describe what is happening in a better way. Cooper pairing of electrons is n¤t all there is to BCS superconductivity.

Aside:

We found this delicious comment in T.H. Geballe's article in AAAS' 13Jul2001 Science issue titled Super Boron (see Science 13Jul2001 topics above):

"BCS theory, although not successful in predicting new superconductors, was very successful in understanding and predicting the properties of known classes of superconductors." P. 223.

We find this quote intriguing because of our Quantonics take on coherent-fermionic superconduction as a double quanton issue:

1. Media (fermionic) superconductivity, and
2. Electron (quasi-bosonic) superconductive ability.
   

We think BCS theory would have been successful at 'predicting' new superconductors if Bardeen, Cooper, and Schrieffer realized what Quantonics says about electron fermionic wobble here, especially our remarks that electrons as fermions must cease wobbling (via quantum contrarotation) to mimic bosons and permit superconduction. Assume item one above wobbles and number two does n¤t wobble.

On top of that we should be able to 'predict' other media superconductors based on viewing superconductive media as compatible with n¤n-wobbling electrons. That quantum interrelationship between items one and two above holds power of 'prediction' which BCS did n¤t offer.

Our conjecture. Doug - 13Jul2001.

End aside.

Flash HotMeme™ Contrarotation as Quantum Square Root™

Note to interested readers: Our use of "contrarotation" in previous paragraphs is cogent and telling. If one observes our Planck quanton animate symbol, one sees "contrarotation" in left, dotted blue portion of that animate semiotic. In its right, quantum c¤mplement, we see measured/selected fermionic chiralty. Note that its contrarotating c¤mplement shows n¤nchiral animate both/while/and contrarotation. We mention this because classical views of reality dogmatically insist on stable-inanimate either/or contrarotation. Also see our Riemann Quanton. And see our 7Jun2002 Möbius 3-Primæ Fermion.

Why is this important? Because contrarotation is a physial analogue of quantum-animated square root, with a quantum twist!

Classically, conjugal square roots are stable-inanimate plus either/or minus. Quantumly, comjugal square roots are animate plus both/while/and minus. Now, what does that mean? It means Quantonics offers a n¤vel semiotic means of "explaining" probability wave functions for fermions and for their their bosonic alter-egos!

Contrarotating fermions may be viewed as animate bosonic both/while/and "quantum-square-roots" of their 'normal' probability-amplitude-squared selves.

Yes, you/we may view our quanton's left blue-dotted c¤mplement as quantum square root (probability amplitude), and our right, selected c¤mplement as its actualized square (probability amplitude squared). Doug - 29Dec2001.

End Flash HotMeme™ Contrarotation as Quantum Square Root™.

Perhaps now reader, you can see how Bardeen's classically particulate (probability amplitude squared) perspective allowed and forced him to conceive electrons in a quantum tunneling barrier as distinct and thus separable (indeed lisr) from Cooper pair "quasi-particles" on either side of said barrier. Too, given our comments above, we might reconsider Bardeen's title, Tunneling from a Many-Particle Point of View, in more n¤vel quantum light. I.e.,

• "many-particle" as classically many lisr-objects, and
• "point of view" as a Newtonian impossible (infinitesimal) point objective view.

In (our perspective of) Josephson's view, ¤ne big quantum "n¤nwobbling" phase-c¤herent Cooper-paired electron (of bosonic contrarotating fermions) 'fills' or superconducts both sides and said barrier coherently. McDonald describes how Josephson's work shows a single supercurrent phase for this ¤ne big n¤nl¤cal quantum c¤herent, barrier-exempt, electron/quanton.

Reader, we have just barely fathomed page one of McDonald's resounding article. You can see there is much Value here — much to comsider and relish.

Superbly, McDonald goes on to describe historical events which led to Josephson's win over Bardeen. This is fascinating reading which you will enjoy immensely.

As you read this article, pay attention to McDonald's words and other authors' quotes he uses. Pay attention to their uses of our bold-color highlighted words and other classically objective terms. Pay attention to words like:

• the,
• electron (electrons are quantons, n¤t classically objective particles),
• formal,
• sides (quantum reality is included-middle c¤mplementary),
• single,
• state, and state's close kin 'invariant,'
• point (quantum reality has n¤ ideal Newtonian point 'objects'),
• zero,
• opposite,
• equal,
• particle (quantum reality is quantonic — n¤t classically particulate),
• effect vis-à-vis affect (quantum reality is, in general, qualitatively affective — n¤t quantitatively causal-effective; in Quantonics we deny, in general, formal unitemporal 'single' event physical causation — we admit n¤n-general special cases, some of which occur when one uses classical thing-king methods),
• etc.

Too, we see McDonald's own biased entrapment in classically objective lingual thing-king expression in comments like these:

1. About John Bardeen, "Characteristically, he had focused on physical understanding, not mathematical elegance." P. 48.
2. And on Josephson's win over Bardeen, "As befits good science, the dispute was eventually resolved by experimental results, not by prestige. What would sociologists, who call for the deconstruction of science make of that?" P. 46.
3. And on mathematics as a tool for modeling reality/nature, "And there was also, to my mind, the more profound question: How precisely can mathematics describe nature?" P. 51.

In our first quote above, we can offer a c¤mplementary example where Richard P. Feynman and Freeman Dyson thought Einstein lost his way when he focused on mathematical elegance and gave up his intense intuitions about physical reality. See: James Gleick's Genius, "Feynman said to Dyson, and Dyson agreed, that Einstein's great work had sprung from physical intuition and that when Einstein stopped creating it was because '...he stopped thinking in concrete physical images and became a manipulator of [mathematically elegant] equations...'" Page 244 out of 531 total pages, in a first Vintage paperbacks edition, October, 1993. Our brackets.

For our second quote above, it is apparent to us that science still stands on a classical foundation which is crumbling beneath it evidenced by:

• English language's failure to describe quantum reality,
• failure of objective science in general to describe quantum reality,
• classical failure of Aristotle's syllogisms,
• blatant classical failure of Newton's ontology to describe quantum reality,
• use of classical undefinables (mass, length, time, gravity, etc.) as foundation of classical science,
• et al.

We do n¤t call for a deconstruction of science so much as we call for a reconstruction, grundlagen up, of science's fundamental assertions and assumptions. In Quantonics we have started much of that work.

Responding to our third quote above, we comsider mathematics a radical (formal) mechanism. It is a symbolic, Aristotelian, substance-based, formally objective, predicate logic based, state-ic language. It is an inanimate notation fully incapable of real, animate modeling of nature. Reality/nature is n¤t formal, rather it is emergent (emerqant); it is n¤t mechanistic, rather it is quantonic/stochastic.

We do n¤t know for sure, but our instincts and intuitions tell us that Josephson views mathematics as a tool, n¤t a means of think-king about quantum reality. We doubt he thinks of quantum reality symbolically. (E.g., in more recent efforts, Josephson pursues quantum biology and biological quantum coherence. And were he to think of reality objectively, how could he have ever imagined quantum coherence across a junction of classical objects?) Classically, mathematical symbols represent ideal objects. N¤ state-ic, inanimate mathematical symbol represents or can represent absolute¹ quantum flux! (Quantum reality is absolute quantum flux!) In our view, there is little elegance in classical mathematics! Rather, we view classical mathematics as problematic, just as we view classical unremediated English language as problematic.

To summarize Josephson's position on his disagreement with Bardeen, McDonald quotes Josephson, "Bardeen's basic error was to ignore the [quantum] n¤n-locality inherent in the Gor'kov theory, and to assume a local connection between the potential and the [Cooper-] pairing." Pp. 50-51. (Our brackets.)

We agree. And, reader, please comsider what quantum physicists sometimes mean by 'locality' and 'n¤nlocality.' Those two words are close kin to a classical concept of globality and what we call lisr.

In classical science 'nonlocality' is a bivalent dual of 'globality.' By that we intend: classical objects are either local or global/nonlocal. Classical experimental setups are either local or global/nonlocal.

Classical reality is a dichonic either/or (SOM's wall) reality! By comparison quantum reality is a c¤mplementary both-all/and, both-many/and reality. See BAWAM.

Classical locality is Aristotelian excluded-middle separable from classical nonlocality! Classical locality is classically opposite classical nonlocality. Classical opposite is a radically formal mechanism.

To us, Josephson's apparent quantum l¤cality semantic is included-middle n¤nseparable from quantum n¤nl¤cality. Quantum l¤cality is c¤mplementary quantum n¤nl¤cality.

Simply, we can use our Quantonics notation to distinguish these classical/quantum lingual/memetic disparities:

dichon(nonlocal, local) (Classicalese)

quanton(n¤nl¤cal,l¤cal) (Quantumese)

We need these local/nonlocal classical/quantum percepts to proceed with our review of McDonald's article.

Josephson's actual win over Bardeen, McDonald describes thus:

"[Philip] Anderson returned to Bell Labs and began a collaboration with John Rowell to observe the tunneling supercurrent. They succeeded, confirming that it was indeed the Josephson effect by testing, among other things, the magnetic-field dependence of the supercurrent. In January, 1963, Anderson and Rowell submitted the paper Probable Observation of the Josephson Superconducting Tunneling Effect for publication. After that experimental confirmation, Bardeen graciously withdrew his objections to Josephson's theory." P. 51. (Our title brackets and italics.) As we commented earlier, Josephson received his own Nobel prize for this remarkable accomplishment in 1973.

Josephson's emergent innovation brought enormous Value to physics in many areas. One which you read about here in Quantonics is experimental application of SQUIDs (Superconducting QUantum Interference Devices) . Another is an area in which McDonald specializes and practices in his own company (Boulder Metrics, Inc.) called "metrology." McDonald finishes his article on this measurement topic describing how much higher precision measurements can be made using Josephson junctions. Physicists now can show a junction proportionality constant to within one part in 10¹⁹.

Josephson's mentor, Philip Anderson, responded to this highly precise measurement capability by saying, "...it shows that gauge invariance is exact." And McDonald tells us finally that "Cohen suggests that such Josephson-junction results may be the best test we have of the accuracy of quantum mechanics. In retrospect, then, the Bardeen—Josephson debate has had fundamental implications that no one foresaw. When we find agreement between theory and experiment at a part in 10¹⁹, Nature seems to be revealing a deep truth." P. 51.

Again, we warn our readers to beware classical interpretations of quantum reality. We know that quantum uncertainty reigns in nature, where classical assumptions of absolute truth (i.e., states all truths and always states the truth) simply have n¤ physical foundations to stand upon. Upon further inspection our readers will notice that "gauge invariance" is a quantum(n¤nl¤cal,l¤cal) meme which most physicists treat as a classical ideal dichon(nonlocal, local). Gauge invariance, when described as classically global by physicists means global to an experiment n¤t universal or multiversal in scope.

For good, but fairly simple coverage of gauge invariance see Tony Hey and Patrick Walters' The Quantum Universe, chap. 10 pp. 137-141 of 180 total. What you will read is that "gauge invariance globality" is experiment(al) "locality." Sadly then, physicists perform that awful mathematical trick of modular induction, and conclude gauge invariance then applies everywhere. Just using Hey and Walters' description of how physicists arrive at gauge invariance using local and nonlocal concepts makes it quantum-apparent that gauge invariance is n¤t multiversally 'global.' Ugh. Doug - 14Jul2001.

One final and crucially important comment. If 'gauge invariance' were multiversally "exact," all least energy Planck quantons would be (at least phase-) identical, and we would in essence return to a wholly classical reality with ideal 'ones' and 'zeroes' spread ubiquitously in reality as classicists currently assume. There would be n¤ Heisenbergian quantum uncertainty! Quantum n¤nl¤cality of modern "gauge invariance" denies this classical view. Doug - 15Jul2001. Even more f und a mentally, quantum reality is absolutely variant. Any classical notion of invariance in quantum reality just uncloaks another major classical faux pas. Why? Classical 'gauge invariance' disables quantum pragma-action. How? As Dirac tells us: "...by zeroing !" Doug - 28Jun2003.

We enjoyed McDonald's article almost as much as Gerald Holton's historical perspective of Einstein and Heisenberg which appeared in PT's July, 2000 issue, just one year ago. Our profound thanks to Physics Today, APS, and to Donald McDonald for providing venue and means to share this delightful science history.

Thanks for reading our review,

Doug - 13-15Jul2001.

Note 1:

By absolute we intend "...quantum flux always changes and changes all." See our Absoluteness As Quantum Uncertainty Interrelationships.

Recently Clifford Geertz has gained our attention. AAAS' 6Jul2001 Science issue contains a book review by Geertz, titled Empowering Aristotle, p. 53, which may interest you. (Please note that Pirsig has considerable interest in Geertz' works.)

Geertz' Empowering Aristotle reviews Bent Flyvbjerg's 2001 Making Social Science Matter.

Apparently Geertz' primary point is that Flyvbjerg is saying to his readers that physical science's methodologies are ineffectual in matters of social science. This concurs with Pirsig's views stated in his Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, and Lila, and in his Einstein Meets Magritte 1995 conference paper titled, Subjects, Objects, Data and Values. Geertz says,

"...'science wars'...have made it clear that using the term 'science' to cover everything from string theory to psychoanalysis is not a happy idea...doing so elides the difficult fact that the ways in which we try to understand and deal with the physical world and those in which we try to understand and deal with the social one are not altogether the same."

(Our italics on Geertz' thelogos.)

It may n¤t be a "happy idea," however, we still think it is a viable ¤ne if only we will choose a n¤vel classically free quantum foundation for science.

However we agree, as long as Geertz speaks specifically of classical science (notice title of his review...Aristotle). Too, we agree with Pirsig, et al., and think classical "objective" techniques of physical science are entirely inappropriate when applied to social sciences. Our reasons are provocative and adhere Pirsig's own: objective science discards qualitative Value and qualitative Value is quintessence of all reality including social sciences!

C¤mplementary and extensible those memes, we offer a n¤vel heuristic: quantum scientific m¤des of thought and language as proposed here in Quantonics may be much more comgenerous social sciences than either Geertz or Flyvbjerg surmise.

Indeed, n¤n-classical quantum thinking m¤des are more qualitative than quantitative. Indeed too, reality is (apparent to us) more qualitative than quantitative. Reality and social sciences (and biological sciences) are more animate and evolutionary, where objective science assumes an absolutely (i.e., both states all truths and always states the truth; which Gödel showed uncertain) quantitative reality and depends upon inanimacy and state-icity for its analytic effectiveness.

Geertz quotes Flyvbjerg saying that latter wishes, "to construct a 'phronetic social science' one less focused on 'theories, analysis, and universals' and more on 'context, practice, experience, common sense, intuition, and practical wisdom.'"

We agree with most of Geertz' Flyvbjerg quotes except "common sense" and "practical wisdom." Common sense is stuff of lowest common denominator, "communist sense," "one common sense fits all." Reality is n¤t "common sense," rather it is (apparent to us) many animate, Planck rate evolving senses. We think to understand (esp. social) reality requires extraordinary senses. Ditto extraordinary wisdom.

(Remember that Aristotle, Plato, et al., hated sophisms. Philosophy means literally in Greek: love of sophism. Infer sophism isos wisdom isos quantum science.)

...

We are currently reviewing Geertz' 2000 Available Light.

In it, we should be able to show you whether Geertz is an essential deconstructionist ¤r more akin our own proclivities toward quantum reconstruction of most physical sciences.

14Nov2001 - Just two weeks ago we finished and published our review of Geertz' Available Light. Though Geertz shows (quite naturally, from our unique perspectives) many dyslexic artifacts of MoQ/quantum, CR & SOM, his preferences appear predominately, animately both intuitively and instinctively whole with and-trending-toward quantum memes. Happily, to us, Geertz is Earth's first quantum anthropologist! However, Pirsig might say, "Dusenberry was Earth's first quantum anthropologist." Doug.

Thanks for reading,

Doug - 20Jul2001.

19Jan2001 APS' FPS

18Jun2001 Dr. Scott C. Smith
requested that we remove his original text from this linked page on our site until we gain permission from FPS to publish its full content in Quantonics.

See Dr. Smith's comments on our review, and see Doug's response to his comments.

More on culture wars twixt science and religion, and legacy scientific Classical Thing-king Methods...

In that same APS FPS edition Dr. Scott C. Smith of Lockheed Martin posts a letter titled, Demarcation Between Science and Non-Science.

Those of you who are students of Quantonics will recognize Dr. Smith's extreme scientific objectivism in his title. Where we are MoQites, it is apparent from reading his letter that Dr. Smith is a blatant SOMite!

See our Review of Dr. Scott C. Smith's Demarcation Between Science and Non-Science in our typical side-by-side format and see us provide commentary on how his SOMiticism juxtaposes our own Quantonic views.

We previously commented similarly in our January, 2000 introduction to our new Millennium III Arches. See our Ending Mind Sets of War Between Science and Religion.