Tuesday, December 19, 2017

ABOUT SPACE AND TIME OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES
ADIB BEN JEBARA


ABOUT SPACE AND TIME OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES OF PHYSICS
The subject of space and time of elementary particles is at the intersection of physics,
mathematics and philosophy of science.
It was not approached before because we are in an Age of partioning.
And also because conjectures are not welcome, only evidence is.

What is difficult to understand in the subject is the mathematical axiom of choice of
set theory as it is applied or rather its negation.

The existence of a second component of time at the level of elementary particles
is an idea which did not occur to me directly.
I started by trying to explain the Big Bang in quantum cosmology  by introducing
more mathematics for time and starting from scratch.
That was some 15 years ago while working in a company and corresponding with
Mr Andreas Blass.

The existence of the Big Bang still meets undue skepticism with some people.

The existence of the Big Bang is deduced by me from the existence of a Big Crunch
(collapsing) as the Big Bang follows the Big Crunch.
And my idea of space and time at the level of elementary is checked by the existence
of the Big Bang.

The Big Bang following a Big Crunch is an idea quickly considered in 1930 by Einstein
who did not look for arguments.
My argument is from mathematical modeling or rather mathematical explanation as
space and time are treated as mathematical variables.

The subject can be applied to teleportation of elementary particles and then to groups
of elementay particles.
Teleportation where particles are not replaced by others with the same caracteristics
in the process.
That is the most interesting part for physicists but most of it is still in preparation in
September 2017.

ANNEX TO THE INTRODUCTION
Axiom of choice for a countable family of sets
of number of elements between 2 and m included,
that is CC(2 through m).

For an infinite family of non empty sets,
an equivalent of the axiom of choice :
A1xA2xA3x... is not an empty,
We will see that it could be a set of paths.

Cardinality means number of elements.
A very important idea is that from what is true in quantum cosmology, we can deduce things in quantum
Mechanics.

SPACE AND TIME ARE DISCONTINIOUS
WHEN SPACE DISAPPEARS AFTER AN INFINITE TIME

After an infinite time, we will see that the set of paths will be the void set.
Physical space would become void, the universe would collapse and a Big
Crunch would happen.

we consider locations as urelements (non sets), elements of U.
Ui is a subset of U with number of elements n.
XiUi is the infinite cartesian product and a set of paths.
If n is greater than m in CC(2through m), countable choice for k elements
sets k=2 through m, the set of paths will be the void set.
n>m

From what is true in quantum cosmology, we can deduce in quantum
mechanics the following :

We can us notice that Newton first law is partly contradicted :
F=0  V constant but the particle does not move indefinitely as there is no
infinite path.
Time is also a set of urelements.
The particle could be using the second component of time.


SPACE AND TIME ARE INFINITE

Because of the Big Bang explained by the
negation of the axiom of choice, space is
a set of urelements of the negation of the
axiom of choice.
Such a set is Dedekind infinite.
Space is a mathematical entity which is infinite.
As a set of urelements, it is discontinuous.
The number of urelements in between particles
can be used to define a distance.
However, we do not have a vector space.

Such a reasoning can be made for time.
To write that time has 2 components is to
make an approximation.

A set which is Dedekind infinite has a cardinality
which is not an aleph of the cantorian infinite.


It is not only that physical space and mathematical space are entwined, it is that
space is seen more with the eye of the mind than with the eye.
People are so much tied up to their
bodies that they cannot see with
the eye of the mind, as if Descartes
and Galileo did not exist.

For time, it is blatant that the eye of the mind should be used,
even more so since the theory of Relativity.



Let us assume as an approximation that CC(2 to m) holds for m<n,
n being the number of locations of particles in the universe at a given
time.
The Big Crunch occurs.
Such an idea could be seen as  looking for the particular axiom of
choice which applies in physics.

About time and indeterminism in the physics of particles

Let Ui be a countable family of non empty sets of urelements (non sets), the
negation of
the axiom of choice implies that the Cartesian Product of the family is
empty.

We know from “A philosophical approach to Fermat Last Theorem” in "A
philosophy
for scientists" Adib Ben Jebara Shield Crest Publishing that only a
particular
case of the axiom of choice is true.

And from "About space and time in quantum mechanics" Adib Ben Jebara
Bulletin of Symbolic Logic September 2008, p. 410., we know that the
negation of the axiom of choice can be applied to particles.
That is a basis for the teleportation of the particle since the particle
will have much
“time” to move without the time at our level being much .
EXCERPT from “About a time not totally ordered
(published in the colloquium brochure WSEAS MCSS’15 Dubai 22 February) :
“For elementary particles, time is a set of urelements of the negation of
the
axiom of choice.

So, time is not totally ordered and there is a lateral time.
In an experiment, if a particle enters a hole twice that must be that it
enters and enters again from the same side in a lateral time.
The second time is perceived at our level as being after the first time
while it is not at the level of the particle.
In another experiment, the particle enters two holes at the same time, the
lateral time appears to be the same time.”
Mechanics theory has a tendency to progress by introducing more mathematics
which may
receive industrial applications after some dozens of years.
We are no more in statistical mechanics, because the 2 coordinates of time
are known, the probability of finding the particle in one place is either
zero or 1.
Addendum : one has to pay attention to the weak structure of time at the
level of elementary particles.
it does not matter so much if fundamental indeterminism exist
because it will be reduced whenever physics progress.
Heisenberg uncertainty principle can be bypassed.

The principle states that the more precisely the position of some particle
is determined, the less precisely its speed can be known, and vice versa
That is if we do not know the orthogonal time for the particle but only the
time at our level.
If we know the orthogonal time, the speed is changed by it and the
uncertainty principle
with the time at our level does not apply.

Let us notice that Newton first law is partly contradicted :
F=0  V constant but the particle does not move indefinitely as there is no
infinite path.
I think that there are too many experiments using  particles accelerators
or cyclotrons or colliders and not enough experiments about beams of
 particles which are not of high energy such as teleportation of a beam of
particles.
In the most general  case, the orthogonal time is different from one
particle to another.

Teleportation is not the same than teleportation of properties
because some other properties may not be taken into account.
About Newton first law with F=0, after an indefinte time (approximately a very long time),
the position and speed of a particle will be not defined.

With the evolution of n locations of space of the particles
in the
whole universe, we cannot distinguish an infinite number of 
occurences between 2 urelements of time,
We have a case where the axiom of choice does not hold at all and that is
enough to have the axiom of choice not hold.
Such a reasoning can be made because the duration towards
the Big Crunch is infinite.
In mathematics (for integers), CC(2 through m) is true but in
physics the axiom of choice is not true at all.

-----Message d'origine-----
From: TaCitS 2017
Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 1:51 AM
To: Adib Ben Jebara
Subject: TaCitS 2017 notification for paper 3

Dear Adib Ben Jebara,

We regret to inform you that your abstract, About time and indeterminism in
physics of particles was not selected for presentation at TaCitS. There was
significant competition for presentation slots, and many strong abstracts
had to be declined to maintain a balance of topics.

However, we hope you will still consider joining us for the conference in
Hoboken!

Best,

Samantha Kleinberg


-----Message d'origine-----
From: George Redlinger
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2017 10:27 AM
To: adibbenjebara@gmail.com
Cc: Gershtein, Yuri ; Patrick Fox
Subject: [2017 Meeting of the APS Division of Particles and Fields (DPF 2017)] Abstract 22: About time and indeterminism in physics of particles

Dear Adib Ben Jebara,

We regret to inform you that we were not able to include your proposed
abstract in the DPF program.  The number of contributions was very high
this year.

Regards,
Paddy Fox
Yuri Gershtein
George Redlinger


Entanglement of particles is when one is still influencing
the other after the coupling ended.
Coupled means touching one the other.
The other is taken far away and the spin
of the first is changed, the spin of the
other will change.
The repeating of the effects makes
some causality exist.

There is entanglement when the state of a particule is
Influenced by the state of another particle after the
coupling is over.
The particles are said to be correlated.

The explation could be that the second particle
is still at the moment when it is touching the first
because it has been using its orthogonal time ever since.

It seems that there is no change or
change to expect for the particle in orthogonal time.

How orthogonal time is unlike time at our level ?
We cannot act on the particle during orthogonal time
and may be that is something which can be (may prove) useful.

Beside knowing that a Big Crunch will occur after an infinite
time (not Cantorian infinite), we know that
the axiom of choice is not true at all in physics (the opposite
of what people think).
In mathematics, the countable axiom of choice for sets of
number of elements between 2 and m (m included) is
true.
Besides, the first law of Newton is not true for particles.
The litterature about teleportation and entanglement of
particles is confusing (not clear).

The entanglement of particles was forecasted by Einstein in 1935.

1."About space and time in quantum mechanics" Adib Ben Jebara
Bulletin of Symbolic Logic September 2008, p. 410
2.“A philosophical approach to Fermat Last Theorem” in "A
philosophy
for scientists" Adib Ben Jebara Shield Crest Publishing UK 2015
CONJECTURES ABOUT TIME AND TELEPORTATION OF PARTICLES
INTRODUCTION
This article is the continuation of the article
“About space and time of particles”
Axiom of choice for a countable family of sets
of number of elements between 2 and m included,
that is CC(2 through m).
For an infinite family of non empty sets,
an equivalent of the axiom of choice :
A1xA2xA3x... is not an empty set,
We will see that it could be a set of paths.
Cardinality means number of elements.
Let Ui be a
countable family of non empty sets of urelements (non sets), the negation of
the axiom of choice implies that the Cartesian Product of the family is empty.
From “About a time not totally ordered” in WSEAS MCSS’15 Dubai 22 February (brochure),
I consider lateral time.
That is a basis for the teleportation of the particle since the particle will have much
“time” to move without the time at our level being much .
“For elementary particles, time is a set of urelements of the negation of the
axiom of choice.
In an experiment, if a particle enters a hole twice that must be that it
enters and enters again from the same side in a lateral time.
The second time is perceived at our level as being after the first time
while it is not at the level of the particle.”
Mechanics theory has a tendency to progress by introducing more mathematics which may
receive industrial applications after some dozens of years.
The 2 coordinates of time are known, the probability of finding the particle in one place
is either zero or 1.
1.ABOUT TELEPORTATION
ABOUT QUANTUM COSMOLOGY
Some time after the Big Bang, existed
only elementary particles, that is
what makes quantum cosmology
a field to study.
Quantum mrchanics apply in quantum cosmology
and what is true in quantum cosmology has
consequences for quantum mechanics.
From a mathematical model, we learned that space
is infinite and discontinuous and that the universe comes
from a previous universe.
We learned that time is also infinite and discontinuous
and not a Cantorian infinite.
Beside knowing that a Big Crunch will occur after an infinite
time (not Cantorian infinite), we know that
the axiom of choice is not true at all in physics (the opposite
of what people think).
In mathematics, the countable axiom of choice for sets of
number of elements between 2 and m (m included) is
true.
Besides, the first law of Newton is not true for particles.
From: David Barnett
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2018 3:19 PM
To: Adib Ben Jebara gmail
Subject: Re: subject of presentation with the most doubtful removed.
Thank you, Adib.
How does your theory account for the empirical data that suggests that our universe will continue
expanding forever, and thus that there never was a big crunch prior to the Big Bang?
On May 3, 2018, at 4:15 PM, Adib Ben Jebara gmail <adibbenjebara@gmail.com> wrote:
thank you for your message.
that is a good remark against the big crunch happening after a finite time
but that does not apply to after an infinite time because you can’t say that
it cannot happen then.
 From: David Barnett
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2018 11:23 PM
To: Adib Ben Jebara gmail
Subject: Re: subject of presentation with the most doubtful removed.
What if there is simply not enough density of mass, and gravitational force, for that to happen, ever?
Or are you not assuming that the crunch would be caused by gravitational forces?
From: Adib Ben Jebara gmail
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2018 11:50 PM
To: David Barnett
Subject: Re: subject of presentation with the most doubtful removed.
I am not considering gravitation.
big bang is a fact.
is there an alternative explanation ? no !
How orthogonal time is unlike time at our level ?
We cannot act on the particle during orthogonal time
and may be that is something which can be (may prove) useful.
Let us consider teleportation where no time is past
at our level and the particle moved from a location to
a location far away.
We are no more in statistical mechanics, because the 2 coordinates of time
are known, the probability of finding the particle in one place is either
zero or 1.
Einstein forecasted the entanglement of paricles in 1935.
2.SOME DETAILS ABOUT TIME
ABOUT INDETERMINISM
it does not matter so much if fundamental indeterminism exist
because it will be reduced whenever physics progress.
The idea that only what is measured exists
is restricting research.
The paragraph about the measurement of time is a bet on the
 experiments of the future, that they will go beyond what was
done until now.
I mean new measurements about times which will allow
new measurements about locations and speeds.
MORE ABOUT TIME
I saw recently that Mr Itshak Bars had an idea not
very different of mine about time.
Mr Bars has no good argument according to me.
As time is not totally ordered, there are less causality
relations at the level of elementary particles than
at our level.
ABOUT SPACE
Let U(m) the mathematical where CC(2 through m) is true.
CC(2 through m) is the axiom of countable space for a family
of sets of same number of elements between 2 and m.
A particle has m potential moves.
If we move from U(m) to U(m+p), the particle will have
m+p potential moves.
That is when the particle is moving indefinitely.
When the particle has less potential moves, it moves faster.
ABOUT THE VALUES OF ELAPSED TIMES
Values of elapsed time at our level and elapsed time of orthogonal
time can be linearly dependent.
The elapsed total time can be part of an axis especially when the elapsed
time is not big.
That makes time for instance in the first bisectrix.
What would be interesting for teleportation is to have
an elapsed orthogonal time much bigger than an
elapsed time at our level.
ABOUT SOME PROPERTIES OF SPACE
There is an alternative to the boson of Higgs.
Einstein wrote about space being curved
at the level of stars and planets , I think that it is at the
level of elementary particles also curved or bent.
So, the properties of the Higgs boson are not needed
for explaining gravitation.
Is the size of an urelement of space constant ?
In this theory, the set of real numbers
cannot describe space.
About Dedekind cardinals
Dedekind cardinals are infinite numbers.
For a Dedekind cardinal p, p+1 is different from p.
Because of that, they are ccalled Dedekind-finite.
D being the cardinality of the set of urlements,
D is not greater than aleph zero and not less,
there is no order between D and aleph zero.
More about the Big Crunch
There is a problem with n>m with axiom of choice
CC(2 through m) if the quantity of particles is finite.
If the quantity of matter is not finite, there would be no
Big Crunch.
Mathematics related to time disappear with the
Big Crunch.
3.MORE ABOUT TELEPORTATION
Teleportation is quasi instantaneous move.
We consider the case where particles are not
replaced by others in the process.
Mechanics tend to progress when we introduce
more mathematics.
To move backwards in orthogonal time is not
exluded.
Particles can move not straight in space.
In the most general case, the orthogonal time is different from one
particle to another.
ABOUT A DISTANCE
Number of urelements between 2 particles +1 except for d(part,part)
=0 is a distance, part being a particle.
d(part, part)=0
d(part1,part2)=d(part2, part1)
d(part1, part3) <= d(part1, part2) + d(part2, part3)
We have a metric space.
Properties of metric spaces apply.
CONCLUSION
Literature on teleportation is not clear because
teleportation of particles and teleportation of
properties of particles are not the same.
For instance is polarization of the spin the same
in the case of teleportation of the spin ?
What about the value of the momentum of the particle ?
I conjecture that coupling 2 particles makes them use
their orthogonal times after the coupling is removed.
Entenglement of particles be used for teleportation
which is not teleportation of properties only.
Could the orthogonal time of a particle
be measured directly or not ?
I thought about orthogonal time of a particle that we may
know something about it by comparing 2 experiments not very different.
Let us try to describe an experiment where a proton travels
a distance in a given time and another experiment where it
travels the same distance in no time.
Teleportation and not teleportation of properties only may ultimately
allow to teleport objects.
About experiments of entanglements
I wrote previously :
I conjecture that coupling 2 particles makes them use
their orthogonal times after the coupling is removed.
Let us try to describe an experiment where a proton travels
a distance in a given time and another experiment where it
travels the same distance in no time.
The continuation is :
After the coupling of 2 protons, the proton which is
taken away should instead be left moving by itself.
The particle could teleport itself without it being a teleportation
of information only.
Dedekind cardinals cannot be measured, not only what is measurable exists
in physics, the school of Copenhagen is wrong.
A way will probably be found to measure orthogonal time in the future.
People are still too much tied up to their bodies, Galileo and Descartes
had already to fight that.
Adib Ben-Jebara
REFERENCES
[PDF]Abstracts presented by title
An idea about time in cosmology
www.aladdin.cs.cmu.edu/asl/abstracts/bytitle.pdf
Abstract presented by title ADIB BEN JEBARA,
adibbenjebara@gmail.com

In
it is written
In 2016, Y. Wei proposed that particles themselves could teleport from one place to another.[10] This is called particle teleportation. With this concept, superconductivitycan be viewed as the teleportation of some electrons in the superconductor and superfluidity as the teleportation of some of the atoms in the cellular tube. Physicists are trying to verify this concept experimentally.[citation needed]
from adib :
there should be more history than that

About quantum mechanics :
From what is observed, the energie in the void is very small,
 from the quantum mechanics, it is very big.
 The quantum mechanics is partly wrong or is only part of a better theory.
 The void : no particles.

IF YOU WANT THE CONTINUATION, PLEASE WRITE TO
adibbenjebara@gmail.com

2 SAMPLES FROM THE CONTINUATION

If the number of particles in the universe is infinite, it is
necessarily aleph zero (or more) but there are no aleph zero
locations among D locations D Dedekind cardinal.

The Big Crunch cannot occur after a finite time
and cannot occur after a time equal to aleph zero
because an infinite path in space or time does not exist
because U1XU2XU3X....is a Cartesian product void.
The Big Crunch will occur after a time D dedekind cardinal
not finite.
(negation of the mathematical axiom of choice is true)


Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)