X-Message-Number: 14103
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 14:57:44 EDT
Subject: Beyond nanotech

This message is a bit theoretical, my motive here is to
open a way beyond nanotech. I think a big risk when
cryonics will be near reversible cryopreservation, some will
conduct a "review" and evaluate the potential for recovery
of old patients. The result could be bleak and some voice
could say: Why continue to spend LN2 and storrage space
for people with zero recovery hope? Now we know what
must be done for real cryosuspension, all these old bodies
have no more interest.

Today, research in cryonics enrols only biologist and biochemist
this is a good choice given the current objective, but we must know
this is not the end of the road. When we get to the task of looking at
reanimate present day patients, nanotech will be an essential
componment of the research and microelectronics specialists will
be best for that task than biologists (even if nanotech uses enzyme-
like technology).

What if even brain or organ readers systems can't recover the original
structure of a brain? What about smashed brain? What about heavy
brain destruction before death by degenerative illness?

I think we may need to ponder about a recovery step beyond the
destruction level produced by freezing. Some, have argued that
cryonics research is not the best choice now: The argument is:
It is best to put the research money on the stock market and let
it grow so that there will be more buying power in some years in an
environment with more advanced science and technology. Indeed
the reasonning goes, we not have now the theoretical basis of a true
research program in that domain.

I'll discard here all modern theories such duality, supersymetry,
superstrings and the like (I don't understand them well :-). I discard too
the so called second quantification, because it works in the relativistic
domain and don't conserve the particle number, a bad property
when we look at building back a system made of particles assembled
in a precise order. So, I am left, on a theoretical basis, with the first
quantum domain, a physics going back to 1930! This is the right domain
because it comes just beyond classical physics, a sector explored at its
limit by nanotech systems.

So, what we have here? First, the quantum space has 3 coordinate
dimensions and 3 impulsion dimensions for each dot-like object. If an
object is defined by a swarm of N dots, then there are 3N space
coordinates and 3N impulsion ones, the quantum space can so
accomodate an infinite number of dimensions. 

Assume we have a dot D1 in that space called E1. We could have
a function F1 able to move D1 in the position D2 of an image space E2.
E2 is identical to E1 and superimposed on it, so a function F2 acting
in E2 could move D2 to D3 in a space E3 and so on... We can write:
D2 = F1(D1) and D3 = F2(D2) = F2(F1(D1)).
 This is the start of an infinite set of nested functions. I have learned
many years ago in a maths course for engineers that such a nested
system was equivalent to the tensor formalism of differential

If D1 is a prototype dot in E1, then D2 is the prototype dot in E2
and so on... In quantum mechanics, F1 is a function and F2, the function
of a function is called an operator. In quantum mechanics, the space
as defined above has no time element, so that time must be introduced
as an exterior parameter. At first glance, we could make the function or
the operator time dependant: D2 moves because F1 is no more F1 after
some time or D2 move because it is another functuon, F'1 who applies to D1,
this is because the operator F2 is not time stable. Both solutions move D1 to
a time variable position D2 so that there is no way to say witch one is
the good.

Indeed, the wave mechanics of Schrodinger (classical mechanics in the
Jacobi formalism + Planck's unit of action) assumes a time effect on
functions. On the other hand, the Heisenberg's matrix mechanics uses
a time action on operators. There are formulas to pass from one
mechanics to the other, this is mostly seen as a mathematical
convenience, many QM users don't even use these formalisms, many
other are indeed at hand.

In 1923, a peculiar state of Quantum Mechanics (QM) was discovered:
the so-called squeezed or tensor states. With them, 
the Schrodinger formalism is the rank 1 tensor QM
the Heisenberg's matrix mechanics is the rank two QM  and more
nested functions, not much taken into account are higher rank
tensor QM. Today, the technology alows to select these tensor
states and they can't be much seen as different mathematical
expression of a single reality.

That is interesting because we can have more than one time parameter
in a quantum system, we could for example have a Schrodinger time
running as the classical time and a squeezed time parameter at
Heisenberg level. In the ordinary world, squeezed states are very
uncommon, so that there must be very few interactions at that level.
That is, the rank 2 time parameter run very slowly.

When we come to entangled states (interaction between systems) we 
could get a good picture of past interactons in high rank QM. Even 
if these interactions have been erased for a long time at Schrodinger level.

Put another way: If a system has been around for a sufficient time,
so that there has been an interaction in high rank QM, then that
system can be read in the relevant squeezed state even if it has
been destroyed in lover rank tensor quantum mechanics. All you
need is to keep the particles (atoms) of interest in any scrambled
state you want (or can afford). If you have that technology at hand,
recovery is allways possible if you have a frozen patient, even if
he/she is in the infamous hamburger state.

Yvan Bozzonetti.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=14103