If you're stuck in a browser frame - click here to view this same page in Quantonics!

31Oct2003 Science |
Jonathan L. Feng's page 795 article in this Problem is, Feng's description of gravitational heterogeneity
is classical Worse, he does not tell his readers that in classical physics
mass, space, time, and gravity are only measurables 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 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)
There is some 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 |
Ms. Klarreich uses classical language to attempt to describe
some provocative quantum 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.
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 Readers should note that A key nexus "...might finally enable physicists to reach
a decades-long goal Klarreich's use of a phrase " 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 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 Any mathematical notion of 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 Are classical mathematicians capable of 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
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 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. |

(16Nov2003 rev - Add 31Oct2003 Science article flash on gravity.)

(10Feb2005 rev - Add 'Physial Computing' anchor to 22Feb2003 Flash.)