-ballet of spaces-
In respect for
Roger Y Gouin
who died September 2004
while his thesis was in the
process of being published
my teacher and my friend
note regarding this thesis:
this thesis describes reality and the mechanics of
nature to a level never before achieved by mankind
and produces a model/prototype to predict reality that
includes 'relativity' in;
particle physics
quantum mechanics
astrophysics
computer Science
life
psychology
and day by day more and more facts
of nature build the whole this thesis covers.
----
latest
Max Planck institute proves existence of
the decoherence free sub-space this thesis
is based upon.
This is a new property of nature and entanglement
and as proposed in this thesis the driving force of
life and nano-technology self assembly
PAPER
Decoherence-Free Quantum Information
Processing with Four-Photon Entangled States
Mohamed Bourennane, et al
Physical Review Letters
Volume 92
Number 10
107901-1
 |
|
"A worthy endeavor which should be made better known." Journal of Theoretics A personal page linked from PhysicsWeb (IOP's Physics World emagazine). |
An exploratory study about the quantum origin and nature of space is performed, including a search for an experimentally verifiable minimal hint on how to proceed out of well-known difficulties in the established approach of Physics toward the make-up of our reality. This study reviews works by Everett, Feynman and others dealing with the nature of the quantum in light of hypotheses by Bruno, Leibniz and Einstein about the origin of space. A common thread is identified within this centuries-old line of thought, leading to an alternate conceptual approach for the problem of the elements making up our reality. The approach is supported by experimental facts in domains ranging from astronomy to microbiology, facts which have had so far little or no theoretical explanation. This study is published here in order to obtain a qualified, unbiased and independent review. |
| Recall Plato's cave... where reality was seen from shadows moving on the wall of the cave? Such shadows were all that humans could grasp of their world. It was indeed a pretty bleak view of the human condition. But these were also the Old Greek times with the four elements, earth, water, wind and fire. Have we made progress since these times about knowing our world? Well, when it comes to the fifth element, I don't think so. |
Witness, for one thing, more than one century ago now, we thought of
having rid ourselves of this fifth element, "aether," through a famous
experiment, quite simple and cheap. But, since then, we have been left
with a ghost called "space." This state of affair appeared to be confirmed
by the experimental verification of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Here
I quote Weyl's Space Time Matter book (Dover, 1952 - from the 1921
original), p. 3:
"Kant was the first to take the next decisive step towards the point of view that not only the qualities revealed by the senses, but also space and spatial characteristics have no objective significance in the absolute sense; in other words, that space too is only a form of our perception. In the realm of physics it is perhaps only the theory of relativity which has made it quite clear that the two essences, space and time, entering into our intuition have no place in the world constructed by mathematical physics."But, when Einstein thought of his curved space around 1910 he imagined it as static, and saw the world, a. k. a. the universe, as set with its matter and radiation playing around in it, simply curving space like a rubber bag, and thus space HAD an objective significance in itself, even though not an "absolute" unaffected by its contents. Later, another part of Physics, the Quantum, informed him that space had also an objective significance via the "zero point energy." This energy did exist in a perfect vacuum! How could that be if space was only "a form of our perception?" |
|
One of his old books was a treatise by Leibniz from the 18th century describing space as maintained by its contents, and from there he concluded that space had indeed an objective significance but it could not exist without its contents. As he carefully put out late in his life "the concept of space detached from any physical content does not exist, there is no such thing as an empty space, i. e. a space without field." But the existence of space was simply not addressed by his theory! His long and unsuccessful search for a "Unified Field Theory" could only be then meant as a search for the (physical) origin of space throught its contents, the "fields." Weyl's seeing space only as a form of our perception, based on Einstein's theory, shows why present mathematical physics is inadequate: In effect it formalizes a philosophical system, Kant's, not our world. The theory intended to describe the contents of space is even worse off there: Not only Quantum Theory fails to obtain space from its contents, it treats space as an arena, not influenced by (or connected to) its contents at all, unlike Einstein's. In effect, per that theory, the contents is also a "form of our perception" in the Kantian vein. |
|
| Einstein put out his late thoughts in Scientific American one year
before his death, for the future generations, just in case, as he himself
did not know how to enter the existence of space in his theory. Nature had
indeed not unveiled itself in his lifetime, as he thought it did in his
young age. Einstein's equation does not make any sense if space is
objectively maintained by its contents, and many other things (such as
Quantum Theory) don't make sense as well. Our physical theories then
can only be a simplification of reality valid only under certain
conditions yet to be identified.
Not having found these conditions, to this day physicists still follow the young Einstein, forgetting the old one, and hang onto the thinking of space as a ghost of our perception with no physical origin, and with all the limitations and unphysical concepts such a thinking may lead to right now and in the future. |
| I have been working on this difficulty for quite some time now, and it led me to many matters of today's Science, not only in Physics and Astrophysics, but in other areas such as Biology, that need to be fundamentally questioned. Do we really know what we are dealing with in Particle Physics when we think of a "Higgs field" for example? (Is it our new aether?) In Astrophysics do we really believe there was a beginning to this universe if the Quantum in effect tells us that space is constantly created by its contents? In the same line of thought, knowing that Life appears a priori as a set of whole entities extended in space transcending their local chemical components, can we still maintain that Life only needs Chemistry in order to be explained? But these matters are not beliefs, experiments can tell us the truth, provided we understand what we are looking at, provided we understand the origin of space! I have then put the search for such a new understanding in an exploratory study titled |
The arrogance of ignorance: "By the end of my career," declares the 42-year-old Tabin, "we will understand development, not just describe it on a molecular level. We'll understand the logic behind it, we'll understand in a very real sense how you go about making an organism." Discover Magazine, August 1996, p.75 |
and phase 2:
A Space Generation Formulation of
Biological Processes
(Another Way to
Confirm Space as Objectively Built by Its Contents)
The Files Each phase is in one pdf file which includes the figures. For
online reading use the Acrobat reader or Ghostview. |
|
New matters have been incorporated in the Non-Local (Holistic)
Life Survey files : A review of the biological literature in general giving evidences in
favor of the theory was done in the Non-Local (Holistic) Life
Review files: File A, File B,
|
The Far-Reaching ConclusionsThe limitations tentatively identified for present theories are two-fold:(1) [from the phase 1 investigation] Einstein's Theory (and its Newtonian consequences) is valid as long as the quantum dynamics of space can be neglected, and as such cannot describe the evolution of our universe at large scales since then the effects of space quantum creation and annihilation can no longer be neglected (the limited speed of light is the key here); (2) [from the phase 2 investigation] the Bohr/Schroedinger/Heisenberg/Dirac/Born Quantum Theory cannot cover the phenomena of space generation at molecular levels, physical phenomena resulting under very common circumstances from space not being in its quantum ground state, a spatial dynamics which notably appears to be fundamental to the existence of Life in all its forms. [From the phase 1 investigation] The theoretical connection between Quantum Theory and Relativity can be found not through connecting quantum and gravitational fields but through establishing the quantum origin of space, with all "fields" except gravitation identified as contents of that space and contributing to its makeup. The warping of space (gravitation) is not part of the contents of space, it is a locally variable characteristic of space, itself seen as a dynamical manifold of relations maintained by its contents, the Elements of Reality (EOR's) or monads making up the observed quanta of matter and radiation. Gravitation can be thus identified as a "field" only when this manifold common to the EOR's is in an equilibrium state of existence (no net decrease or increase in the number of EOR relations making up the manifold). General Relativity is then a closed version of an open Space Dynamics Theory with sources and sinks of space, very much as Electromagnetism and Hydrodynamics have closed and open dynamical aspects. Such an open version of General Relativity logically leads to a cyclic cosmology where "new" matter/radiation is created from space and "old" matter/radiation in active galactic nuclei while "new" space is generated at large from radiation via the "Hubble effect." The logic of this approach to large scale phenomena is yet to be formalized within a future "true" quantum theory independent of classical features such as separability and distinguishability. Present Quantum Theory is a version of this future theory restricted to the concepts of Classical Mechanics that can only be defined within a separated world. A comment page for a commented copy of an original paper found on Prof. Anton Zeilinger's home page describes how the preliminary approach presented here meets the requirements for a "true" Quantum Theory. The full formal development of this theory will require a new branch of Mathematics. [From the phase 2 investigation] The presence of contents is not the only local quantum feature that can affect space, the quantum dynamical make-up of the contents may affect it too. Other modes of existence for space may occur through supramolecular structures with alternate conformational arrangements. A dual layer of space there may sustain a leptonic space in-between the layers where quantum evolution without collapse can occur. In specific instances, this large-scale quantum protectorate may then require space to be warped in order to allow the largest possible collective evolution for the EOR's effecting the quanta. In living materials such local warps of space combined with the collective evolution of the EOR's may be at the origin of certain key large molecular self-assemblies, intracellular molecular tracks and accumulations/patterns, directed molecular transports and embryo initial compartmentalization. The evolution of the various leptonic space manifolds in turn produce collective separations such as cell division, subsequent multicellular evolution and directed intercellular development, thereby effecting and maintaining the 3D design of the organism as held by DNA. Within such a picture, the organism neural system then maintains a bodywide holistic evolution, including mental phenomena, through the quantum protectorate afforded by leptonic space. Life is thus created and sustained essentially through quantum and spatial dynamics, with local chemical reactions within a classical statistical dynamics framework providing its ancillary tools (e.g. classic electrical nerve impulses are merely the shadow of an unobservable quantum evolution). Life is not a clockwork because it is able to change its own space, thereby resulting in a holistic evolution within normal space, while utilizing the "anima mundi" character of the elements making up the quantum to find its future. Outside Life a similar quantum protectorate may explain the function of high temperature superconductors. |
The Main Contentious Experiment: Recent (1998) High Redshift Type Ia Supernovae SurveysThe present thesis is based upon experimental facts which have so far received either little attention as to their importance and/or have no theoretical explanation at all. Here I shall summarize the main contention I bring in phase 1 as it appears that we are on the border of a fundamental discovery, but because of decades of theoretical assumptions going in a different direction, we are not willing to look at what experimental data from recent Astronomy (1998-2004) are in fact telling us. Within the present astrophysical approach dating back from the 1950s, this data has been interpreted as showing that the universe expansion deduced by the 1929 Hubble discovery is in fact accelerating instead of slowing down, and 70% of the contents of the universe is from an unknown kind of energy given the name of "dark energy" or "quintessence." See the lecture The Accelerating Universe by Dr. Robert Kirshner, a noted astrophysicist from Harvard. This energy would add to the "dark matter" assumed since the late 1970s, for which we have not found any direct evidence after 20 years of search. After A. Guth's inflation theory of the 1980s meant to save the big-bang hypothesis (which pictured a space expanding at much faster than the speed of light, something that Einstein would have balked at, knowing that space and its contents are connected), I contend that this continuation in adding "epicycles" upon epicycles to a theory, the big bang theory (as was done millennia ago for the ptolemaic theory finally rejected by Copernicus and Galileo), is a strong indication of an approach which must be also abandoned if we do want a true predictive theory accounting completely for experimental facts without need for a posteriory hypotheses with no experimental backup. My contention, looking at the data obtained, is that
the Hubble data, when extended to beyond the age of our sun in the
past (5 billion years - as the supernovae surveys allow us now 70
years later), tells us that THERE IS NO UNIVERSE EXPANSION after all: A
considerable spread of brightness at the same redshift was found
for astronomical objects which, by being "standard candles," ought to have
the same brightness for a given redshift if the Hubble theory of an
expanding universe was correct. The official explanation of this so-called
"noise in the data" is "due to the built-in errors coming from the
faintness of the objects observed," but this explanation does not fit with
the "standard candle" character of the supernovae, which was the reason to
go ahead with the surveys in the first place (and the short error bars on
the graphs testify to that: I do not contend at all that I am the first to question the meaning of Hubble's redshift as an expansion of the universe. The critical physical feature I address is whether the redshift follows Hubble law beyond the age of our sun or not. Nobody else has advanced before that such a physical feature could be present, a feature I deduce from my theoretical approach. (See the Q & A page for more details) If this matter were only to affect the esoteric field of Astrophysics, it would merely be an interesting remark for the edification of philosophers. The important part is that the consequences of such a discovery are potentially very far reaching for Physics in general as the nature of space is then put in question. My analysis shows that these consequences may affect our understanding about the physical make-up of Life here on our small planet. Phase 2 tackles this issue, which is of course a lot more important if we want to progress in the handling of Reality for our ultimate practical benefit. I have four reasons for not attempting to publish a short article on
this matter separately from my study: My study is taking into account the astronomical data already obtained to show that I do have experimental grounds from that area to go in the theoretical line I took. I expand on the theory in other areas to investigate what could be other verifiable experimental consequences of the new theoretical direction that the astronomical data suggests. Via attempting to publish a monograph with this full theoretical line to show its potential consequences for other fields of Science, and to get further experimental confirmation, I believe I took the best and only road possible in light of my personal position and the subject matter I deal with. |
Information Discussed with ReadersA number of matters have been discussed with Readers along the years of posting. They resulted in linked pages now part of this site. When a complete set of Reviewers will have been found (see later about the intent of this posting), the information contained in these pages will be integrated into the final study as clarifications, corrections and amplifications where necessary. Names of contributors will be withheld when requested. Thank you in advance for the help.---------------------------------------- There is a basic whole to my work, and this is summarized in the statement: *********Space is built out of its contents********** I attempt to prove that fact in particle physics, in quantum mechanics, in astrophysics, in Life and in Computer Science. This is the thrust of my thesis. So anybody looking at only one part may misunderstand, or not understand at all. I cannot help that fact. The rewrite into articles helps, but the difficulty is still there. The statement above is so UNINTUITIVE that even mathematicians do not understand it, and this because math cannot exist in a world where space is built by its contents. Math can only be a rough tool since it deals with separated things, as classical mechanics did. Only our quantum mind can process that information. This is why I wrote the equivalent of 20+ articles on the matter. . A description of how this study came about as well as its main findings are given in the History of this Thesis page. Some of the generic physical concepts contained in the study are addressed in the Q & A page. Certain mathematical aspects are discussed in the Second Q & A page, while philosophical aspects are addressed in The Riddle of The Monads page. A summary of the correspondence is in the Correspondence page. Ancillary matters are discussed in other pages: A key mathematical development to permit a full future formal statement is identified in The Need to Develop a Non-Cantorian Set Theory page. The relation of some of the study conceptual thrust with the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Theory is in the How To Go Beyond MWI page. Publication hassles are recorded in the Publication Issues page. Facts found relevant since the submittal for publication are in the New Findings page. A Note for the Casual Reader: |
The intentAccording to Prof. Lindley Darden's paper on "The Nature of Scientific Inquiry,""Plausible ideas need to be published, subjected to debate, challenged with new evidence. If a hypothesis turns out to be bad, science throws it away. If it stands up in the face of further evidence, then the scientist who first published it receives the credit. Science as a whole benefits from timely publication and the scrutiny to which the hypothesis is subjected."In this spirit, my intent and hope are that my proposals can be known and evaluated to their fullest without bias (as well as extended in the mathematical area if at all possible) through publication via the Internet. I am looking for a feedback here, thereby eventually finding qualified referees to permit a final publication outside the Internet. My address appears below and in other places for that purpose. As it was qualified in a correspondence with Nova Science Publishers, the work is a "monograph": I do take numerous personal positions and views which can be debated at infinitum, and the intent of the work is not to cover various understandings and views at the conceptual level. To expose such a debate would require a book of at least twice the size, and what I want to bring out would not only get muddled up but may never see peer-reviewed publication, while publishing is essential to ensure a truly open and free discussion of ideas. Quoting further Prof. Darden here, "Peer review of scientific articles prior to publication serves as a check against hasty publication of results that do not conform to the accepted standards in the field. But peer review is not a guarantor of truth. No methods exist to guarantee truth."The Reviewers needed for paper publication purposes are thus first of all to ensure the accuracy of my presentation regarding known theoretical and experimental facts. These facts are from Particle Physics, Astrophysics, Quantum Physics, Microbiology (with a background in Physics), Neurobiology (with some Cognitive Psychology), Computer Science and Mathematics. The work has been divided into articles in 2004 for easier reviewing and publishing, with some of the article submitted to Frontier Perspectives, Temple University, Philadelphia, but the need for reviewers remains, and constructive comments are as welcome as ever. |
