http://ashese.co.uk/ajps-v6-issue-1/about-a-new-philosophy
Summary
The explation
could be that the second particle
About space and time
The subject of space and time of elementary particles is at the intersection of physics,
Shortcut in cosmology
The space of the universe is
infinite but the quantity of matter is finite.
Space and time are sets of
urelements of the negation of the mathematical
axiom of
choice.
For an infinite family of non empty
sets,
an equivalent of the axiom of choice
:
A1xA2xA3x... is not an empty
set,
It can be a set of paths.
There is no infinite path.
That is why there is a Big Crunch followed by a
Big Bang.
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.
Adib
Ben Jebara
About entanglement of
particles
Space and
time are sets of urelements of the negation of the
mathematical
axiom of
choice.
There is
an orthogol time for a particle.
Orthogonal
being defined by the smallest distance
at the
first axis.
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
changes.
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.
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.
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.
Adib Ben Jebara
end of summary
About space and time
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 partitioning.
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 (topic C2)
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.
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.
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.
(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.”
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 probabilistic mechanics, because the 2 coordinates of time
are known, the probability of finding the particle in one place is either
zero or 1.
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 (V not well defined).
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 (V not well defined).
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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]
Wei,
Yuchuan (29 June 2016). "Comment on "Fractional quantum
mechanics" and "Fractional Schrödinger
equation"". APS Physics.
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.
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.
Space is not created first thing
first.
The matter would collapse to the non
space
(to the edge of non space) if space was
created
in such a way.
The fabric of space cannot be expanding
but
the universe is expanding inside
space.
What is not measurable can be not speculation if
it is
nonetheless from mathematics.
When there is a problem of existence in physics
and
we use mathematics, we do not get lost in
speculation.
About
experiments
Do
we need to design more complicated experiments
at
this level ?
Does
a philosophical approach not bring results ?
If
my conjectures are not realistic, if there is no shorcut,
teleportation
in the furture will be difficult to perform
by
reduced means.
Adib
Ben Jebara
A
curved space
A
curved space could be a way to explain the surplus
of
gravitation occuring without assuming the existence
of
a dark matter.
Statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics,
I am a little confused because I am thinking
of
2 different problems.
What
can we know about a beam of particles (problem) ?
Can
the particles of a beam of particles use the same
quantity
of orthogonal time (problem) ?
A
lot of variants to a theory are less interesting than
a
new theory.
Our
universe has some outstanding qualities, so there is
no
multiverse, except in theory.
Epistemology
is beating around the bush, philosophy of
science
can be more to the point.
Remark
:
We
have as a limit of a theoretical case (purely theoretical) :
a
particle moves the fastest with the negation of the axiom
of
choice.
Using
the countable axiom of choice for a family of sets of
n
elements , n from 2 to m, when the particle has less potential
moves
(locations are the elements, m locations, m weak), it
moves
faster.
That
is consistent with what we are looking for, a particle
moving
in no time.
Remarks
about the subject :
Some
subjects deserve investigation more than others.
One’s
philosophy provides the choices.
If
one wants a perfect research article, that would prevent him/her
to
do a research quite worth doing.
Some
more arguing is planned with more details.
I
wrote (in the long text), in “2.Some details about time”, not far from the end
of the
long
text :
“If
the quantity of matter is not finite, there would be no Big Crunch”, I have to
write
some
more about that (the total quantity of matter in the universe).
Also,I
have to write something about the wave function of a system of 2 particles
(and
then
of a beam).
A
web page is almost not yelding anything from common people.
Universities
departments heads are ignoring proposales of lectures (that they
should
forward
to a vice-chair-for-research).
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.
If
orthogonal time t2 is known, the position of a particle will be known
and
the
wave function will be zero as the density of probability will be
zero.
The
number of independent variables will be increased.
To
know t2 directly or not is a question.
What
about a system of 2 paticles with coupling ? (do the 2 particles
have
the same orthogonal time or not ?)
Philosophers
of nowadays act according to fashions which have no future
(they
act according to a gregarious instinct).
We
should go to a more contemplative science where we take more
awareness
of the meaning of the principles adopted.
Philosophers
of nowadays act according to fashions which have no future
(they
act according to a gregarious instinct).
We
should go to a more contemplative science where we have more
awareness
of the meaning of the principles adopted.
The
team leader is mainly an organizer.
The
research team leader does not seek to have
the
knowledge of the members of his team.
The
synthesis is not done.
Synthesis
needs one (only) brain to do.
Do
we have t1+t2 equal to t with
t1
the time of the particle in the main axis of time
t2
the orthogonal time of the particle
t
the time at our level
?
t1
could be given by the last time we interacted
with
the particule.
t
is known
The
answer to the question has to be confirmed
by
experimenting.
From
a work of kurt godel, we know that there are an infinity
of
mathematical axioms to be discovered.
In
the other sciences, there are also principles to be discovered.
Making
some scientific discoveries overdue is a way to criticize indirectly
some
scholastic in science and philosophy.
The
meaning of scholastic is mainly the existence of comments of comments
of
comments.
To
do so, it helps to read Renée Descartes.
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.
Space
is infinite but not the cantorian infinite.
The
number of particles in the universe is finite.
The
mathematical has important consequences
and
"simple" ones for old problems.
REMINDER
Do
we have t1+t2 equal to t with
t1
the time of the particle in the main axis of time
t2
the orthogonal time of the particle
t
the time at our level
?
t1
could be given by the last time we interacted
with
the particule.
t
is known
The
answer to the question has to be confirmed
by
experimenting.
NEW
What
I mean is that the time to take
the
2nd particle to the distance can (maybe) be
considered
an orthogonal time of the
particle.
Orthogonal
being defined by the smallest distance
at
the first axis.
If
the size of urelements increases (in cosmology), the space would
expand
actually
but that remains a question.
adibbenjebara@gmail.com
