Use Your Browser's Back Button to Return to Previous Page      OR     Return to Flash
If you're stuck in a browser frame - click here to view this same page in Quantonics!

Flash 2003 Commentary!
31Oct2003 Science

Jonathan L. Feng's page 795 article in this Science issue, titled, 'Searching for Gravity's Hidden Strength,' is an incredible approbation of Quantonics' views of gravity as quantum-heterogeneous.

Problem is, Feng's description of gravitational heterogeneity is classical: spatial and dimensionally propertyesque. Too, Feng offers no notions of what we call "gravity as quantum flux," a la Irving Stein's one dimensional random walk "fluxing" models in his The Concept of Object as the Foundation of Physics. To Feng gravity is a classical objective property of two masses separated by spatial distance.

Worse, he does not tell his readers that in classical physics mass, space, time, and gravity are only measurables: they have no classical 'definitions' in terms of any scientific notion more fundamental than themselves. Classically, they are "indefinables."(Gravity is Newtonian 'definable' in terms of 'indefinables' mass and space. Einstein inferred relativistic gravity 'definable' as classical acceleration in terms of 'indefinables' mass, space and time, latter being a 'rate proxy' of space.)

More worse, Feng makes no mention of gravity as an Einsteinian notion of spatial acceleration with space and time as relativistic 'identities.'

What Feng tells us is that if we add more 'string theory' dimensions to any classical notion of gravity, at subatomic dimensions of reality gravity's "hidden strength" appears and approaches that of electromagnetism. On larger, macroscopic-superatomic (above 10-4 meters) scales those higher dimensions have little 'effect,' and gravity appears 'normally' weak.

Feng offers a really cool graphic which shows gravity's strength approaching that of electromagnetism when higher dimensions are applied at very small and classically 'immeasurable' scales of reality.

Readers may recall how, in Quantonics, we view mass, space, time, and gravity (and countless other measurables based on those four too, e.g., temperature) as quantum flux phenomena. Given that view, we also perceive all those measurables and their relevant brethren as quantum heterogeneous too. To us, time is heterogeneous, space is heterogeneous, mass is heterogeneous, and gravity is heterogeneous. Latter ~fits what Feng is saying. But Feng, et al., can garner much more for their quantum stagings when they commence viewing other quantum aspects of gravity too. As examples see our cohera and entropa. Then view quantum gravity in light of all those other affine nexi plus their quantum-gradients and -interrelationships.

Once quantum physicists commence viewing gravity as (anihmatæly, EIMA) sharing heterogeneous interrelationships vis-à-vis (state-ically, EEMD) 'possessing' classical objective properties, they may learn that a n¤vel quantum perspective is more potent than Feng's fast-fading classical view.

There is some Quantum Lighting here though! Feng's article admits (quantum) gravity's intrinsic heterogeneity.

Doug - 16Nov2003.

For more on our Quantonics views of gravity and antigravity Google search for "Quantonics gravity antigravity."

You may also wish to browser search following pages for gravity, then antigravity, then coherent-coherence:

22Feb2003 Science News

Science News offers us a fascinating article by Erica A. Klarreich titled, 'Knotty Calculations.'

Ms. Klarreich uses classical language to attempt to describe some provocative quantum concepts. We shall remediate some of those concepts here and transemerq them, for our students, into Quantonic memes.

Before we discuss Ms. Klarreich's article, allow us to show a list of novel terms both in their classical form and their Quantonic emerqant analogues.
Klarreich's Classical Version Quantonics Quantum Version
Anyon Anyon
Polynomial Quantum Braid Polynomial Quantum Braid
Topological Quantum Computer Topological Quantum Computer

Ms. Klarreich's list of protagonists includes:

  • V. F. R. (Vaughan) Jones (1986 Fields Medalist)
  • Edward Witten
  • Michael Freedman
  • Alexei Kitaev
  • John Preskill
  • Zhenghan Wang
  • Michael Larsen
  • Seth Lloyd

She tells us "...mathematicians have turned knot theory into a bridge between two seemingly unconnected subjects: computer science and quantum mechanics, [a] branch of physics that deals with...ultrasmall scale of atoms and subatomic particles."

Readers should note that all scales of reality are quantum. Only misguided classical dogma, to illegitimately preserve its legacy, insists otherwise.

A key nexus "...might finally enable physicists to reach a decades-long goal: to exploit quantum physics to build a computer whose performance would far surpass that of computers based on...classical physics of Isaac Newton. A quantum computer...will have...power[s] to crack...cryptographic schemes that safeguard Internet transactions and to create incredibly detailed simulations of...behavior of...universe at...tiniest scale[s]."

Klarreich's use of a phrase "build a computer" uncovers, in our view, essential legacy classicism among these mathematicians working with knots. Quantum computers will most likely emerge and evolve, probably biologically (all biological systems are quintessentially quantum computers as Klarreich hints later). They may not be objectively "built" classically, analytically. See our Darwin's Chip. Also see David Bohm regarding his remarks that quantum reality is nonmechanical: Quantum Theory, Chapter 7, Section 26, 'The Need for a Nonmechanical Description.'

She continues, "...knots that mathematicians have been studying have a slight quirk: After [a] theoretical knot is tied, ...ends of [its] string are joined together so the knot can't untie...The basic question of knot theory is, Given two knots that look very different, is there a way tell whether they are knotted in the same way (SN: 12/8/01, p. 360)?"

As Klarreich describes this work, mathematicians are using a subfield of mathematics called "topology" to study knots. Topology looks for aspect generalities and specificities in shapes like knots. Two major categories are knot-to-knot variants and invariants. An example is what mathematicians call "genus." Simply, genus is number of times a knot may be cut without creating two string segments. Genus in knots Klarreich describes is 'invariant.' It is classically 'one.'

Any mathematical notion of invariance in quantum reality is a nonstarter. Nothing about quantum reality is invariant. Quantum reality is, most evocatively, absolute change, semper flux. Real quantum computers are always biologically emerging and evolving. This creates serious issues for mathematicians who want to 'build' quantum computers. Why? They want to assess topological characteristics and properties numerically. Most mathematicians view numbers as analytical/stoppable/measurable scalar magnitudes which, then, are — once analytically stopped and assessed — become invariants themselves. But quantum reality is unstoppable!

Why does analysis want to sample and thus 'stop' reality? To make it certain! To make it definite! To make it controllable! To make it conventional! To make it classical!

But quantum reality is quintessentially uncertain, indefinite, uncontrollable, hermeneutically unconventiional, and as Bohm shows us: nonclassical, nonformal, nonmechanical.

Are classical mathematicians capable of real quantum notions about real quantum computers?

From a mathematical conspective, key to all this is, "The Jones polynomial." It is computable for simple knots, but as Klarreich says, "...for complicated knots is considered beyond...reach of even...fastest computers."

"A connection to quantum physics, however, has turned this apparent liability into a decided advantage by offering a new approach."

Enter physicist Edward Witten. Witten is an expert in string theory which is closely tied to recent innovations in analytical quantum field theory. During late 1980s Witten "described a physical system that should calculate information about the Jones polynomial during the course of its regularly scheduled activities—just as when a ball is hurled into the air, nature instantly solves the complicated equations that govern its motion."

Most mathematicians believe that equations, as natural 'laws,' are intrinsic aspects of nature. Thus they tend to view nature as analytic. But that most recent quote about Witten is (apparently, we infer) showing us that he believes that nature is animate process. And what do we know about process? Henri Louis Bergson taught us well: process is not analyzable! Nature is not, as mathematicians Platonically presume, analytic! Heisenberg says it like this:

"On the other hand, [mathematical] concepts are idealizations; they are derived from experience obtained by refined experimental tools, and are precisely defined through axioms and definitions. Only through these precise definitions is it possible to connect the concepts with a mathematical scheme and to derive mathematically the infinite variety of possible phenomena in this field. But through this process of idealization and precise definition the immediate connection with reality is lost." See Heisenberg's Physics and Philosophy 'The Revolution in Modern Science,' Page 200 of 213 total pages (no index).

Two other mathematicians, Alexei Kitaev and Michael Freedman, intuit that Witten's physical system may be a way to 'build' a "completely new kind of computer."

What excites us most about this article is that we see potential epiphany in Kitaev's and Freedman's intuitions to use nature to do quantum computing. Bravo! We agree! This is a better way to proceed — as long as we do not 'build' it. Rather, we must learn to do what nature does: emerse it! See our coined terms emerscenture and emerscitecture.

Another point we need to make here is that we need to use natural processes to 'measure' other natural processes. A more appropriate, less classical, term than 'measure' might be "monitor." 'Measure' implies classical analyticity. "Monitor" evokes notions of quantum process.

©Quantonics, Inc., 2003-2006 — Rev. 10Feb2005  PDR — Created 9Mar2003  PDR
(16Nov2003 rev - Add 31Oct2003 Science article flash on gravity.)
(10Feb2005 rev - Add 'Physial Computing' anchor to 22Feb2003 Flash.)

Use Your Browser's Back Button to Return to Previous Page      OR     Return to Flash