[[Peter Mutnick]]
Another thing that is suspect about Jack's theory is that he interprets the fundamental length in terms of Kleinert's lattice structure for spacetime, whereas Ginzburg himself and his Soviet buddies interpreted fundamental length, along the lines of the Heisenberg/Duerr theory, as the size of particles, not as a measure of the discreteness of spacetime.

[Paul Zielinski]
This is merely a historical footnote. Jack is free to interpret his equations according to his lights. Why should he be bound by Ginzburg's interpretation simply because his theory features a formally similar equation?

You might as well argue that Einstein was bound to interpret the Lorentz transformations in terms of an aether theory, since his theory also *formally* includes a "Lorentz-Fitzgerald" contraction. And somehow I doubt you would say that.

But then, one never knows, does one...

[Peter Mutnick]
Of course, Jack is free to do as he likes, but my point is that the turn toward a universal and fundamental unified field theory, which was the context for the analysis of fundamental length by one of Ginzburg's buddies, is the more profound and meaningful way to go.

The Ginzburg-Landau equation is:

- Epsilon^2 {Laplacian} Psi = Psi - Psi (Psi* Psi).

My equation for a fundamental unified field theory is:

Epsilon^2 {d'Alembertian} Psi_1 Psi_2 Psi_3 Psi_4 Psi_5 =

Psi_6A Psi_6B Psi_6C Psi_6D - Psi_7 (Psi* Psi).

This can also be written as:

Epsilon^2 {d'Alembertian} Psi_m = Psi_d - Psi_t (Psi* Psi),

where m = material, d = dialectical, and t = transcendental.

The basic Ansatz is that classical means existence in the higher metaphysical worlds looking down into the physical world governed by quantum mechanics. The big problem with quantum mechanics, and the source of all the enigmas and contradictions, is that the time derivatives of the Schrodinger Equation are noumenal (physical), whereas spacetime itself is a classical concept. In the fundamental equation above, the time derivatives are in the highest metaphysical world.

Similarly, in quantum mechanics, the quantum implicate order is a hidden order to be found by transcending inwardly the classical order, while the explicate order is externally quantal and hence noumenal. Bohm describes this in "Quantum Theory" (1951), by saying that if, in the von Neumann chain, you go far enough into the brain, you go past the classical part and come again to a part that must necessarily be described by quantum mechanics. In the fundamental equation, however, the explicate order is above and it can really be classical in character, while the quantum implicate order is below, i.e., it is the structure and character of nature itself.

The alphanumeric labels on the field operators refer to the principles of man - sarira_1, sarira_2, prana, kama, manas, buddhi, and atma - with the lowest above and the highest below, in the context of nature. This is the essence of the quantum revolution, that the quantum reality of nature is now abstract and to be grasped only by our higher principles, while we ourselves, in our lower principles, exist in the higher metaphysical and hence classical worlds of nature. This may seem like a topsy-turvey way to view the world, for those unaccustomed to the reciprocal and interpenetrating character of subject/object reality, but it is precisely what quantum theory mandates.

The notion that one can multiply field operators together and get something that is very similar to a single field operator has to do with the fact that these are infinite field operators associated with systems with infinite eigenstates. These notions come from Spinoza and Hegel. Infinite does not mean not finite, but rather it means neither finite nor not finite. This is the new kind of mathematics that must be developed.

So, the upshot is that the fundamental equation "makes straight the paths of the Lord" by unknotting the ontological/logical contradictions inherent in quantum mechanics. Bohm's 1952 theory attempts to do the same thing for particles that the fundamental equation does for fields, and these two pieces of the nomological puzzle must be fitted together to get a complete explanation of the metaphysical reality of quantum theory.

It might also be mentioned that Heisenberg's nonlinear spinor theory for fermions should be derivable from mine for bosons in much the same way as the Dirac equation was derived from the Klein-Gordon equation, by "taking the square root". Bosons are more fundamental because meta-physical light is fundamental and closely associated with both infinite space and infinite consciousness; to wit, the fiat lux. Hence my theory truly gives the Unified Field of Consciousness, spoken of by the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, but falsely interpreted by John Hagelin, the head of his physics program, to be the additive unified field theory of conventional physics.

Peter Joseph Mutnick 1949 - 2000