About every day life of the elementary particles (simplified)

[Adib]

About every day life of the elementary particles (simplified)

 

This is what I think about some of elementary particles behavior,

avoiding much math.

 

The elementary particle jumps from one location to another with

the set of locations discontinuous and not linearly ordered.

What is far with the standard distance can be near with the jumps.

 

So, two particles can have an action one on the other after having

taken a "distance" one from the other.

The two particles could be within a limited number of jumps one from

the other.

Therefore, there could be an unexpected correlation.

 

Time itself is discontinuous and not linearly ordered.

So, there are no causality relationships unless time is ordered by

the observation set up.

Help is welcome for deducing other consequences of this behavior.

 

Adib Ben Jebara.

http://www.freewebs.com/adibbenjebara

[Klaynos]

How about with maths?

[Adib]

I am asked by Klaynos "how about with maths ?" :

An interpretation about space and time in quantum mechanics

 

There was a repeated experiment where at first, two protons are

joined and of opposite spins.

Then, the second is taken far away, and it is acted upon the first

to modify its spin.

The second proton will change its spin to keep it the opposite

of the spin of the first.

 

Now, if you will assume with me that we can apply the set theory ZFU

to physical space, U (urelements,non sets)) being physical space, you will see

that we get an interpretation of the experiment.

 

Indeed, as it is not possible to define a usual distance in U, the second

proton will not be any more far away from the first.

 

Also, if we consider time to be U, we cannot say that the protons

were separated a long time ago and that there should be no more

influence. [...]

There was another repeated experiment with a photon, expected to go one

way, going both two quite separated ways.

Here, again, if we assume something else about space, the two ways

would be not that much separated.

Regards,

Adib Ben-Jebara.

 

One reason why the negation of the axiom of choice is true

We apply set theory with urelements (non sets) ZFU to physical

space of elementary particles;

we consider locations as urelements, elements of U,

in number infinite. Ui is a subset

of U with number of elements n. XiUi is the infinite

cartesian product and a set of paths.

Let us consider the set of paths of all elementary

particles-locations which number is n.

If n is greater than m in CC(2 through m),

countable choice for k elements sets k=2

through m, the set of paths will be the void set.

So, after an infinite time, physical

space would become void, the universe would

collapse and a Big Crunch would happen.

The matter would have to go somewhere and indeed

the Big Bang happened. So, n is indeed

greater than m. Let us notice that physical

space is infinite. It's rather complicated

but what do you think ? Isn't it most likely that

the negation of the axiom of choice is true ?

It is like the non-euclidian geometry which

is known in physics as true.

Regards,

Adib Ben Jebara.

[Klaynos]

I am asked by Klaynos "how about with maths ?" :

An interpretation about space and time in quantum mechanics

 

There was a repeated experiment where at first, two protons are

joined and of opposite spins.

Then, the second is taken far away, and it is acted upon the first

to modify its spin.

The second proton will change its spin to keep it the opposite

of the spin of the first.

 

I think you might be talking about entanglement? In which case this is not what happens.