If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

*Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation*

Media Partner: Scientific American

Previous Contests

**Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest**

*December 24, 2019 - March 16, 2020*

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

*Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation*

read/discuss • winners

**Wandering Towards a Goal**

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

*December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017*

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

**Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics**

*Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation*

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

**How Should Humanity Steer the Future?**

*January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014*

*Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Current Essay Contest

Media Partner: Scientific American

Previous Contests

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

*Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.*

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Jean-François Geneste**: *on* 4/25/15 at 17:03pm UTC, wrote Dear Janko Kokosar, Not exactly. You have 1+1 particles remaining on...

**Janko Kokosar**: *on* 4/22/15 at 21:53pm UTC, wrote Dear Jean-François Geneste About your model in section 3: You wrote:...

**Joe Fisher**: *on* 4/7/15 at 15:23pm UTC, wrote Dear Jean-Francois, Do you have a real complete skin surface? Does every...

**Joe Fisher**: *on* 4/6/15 at 15:02pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Geneste, I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity;...

**Jean-François Geneste**: *on* 3/28/15 at 9:50am UTC, wrote Cher Vladimir, Je pense en effet que nous sommes d'accord sur bien des...

**Vladimir Rogozhin**: *on* 3/27/15 at 11:54am UTC, wrote Dear Jean-François, Your ideas are close to me in spirit deep Cartesian...

**Joe Fisher**: *on* 3/8/15 at 15:19pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Geneste, If I am correct about only surface having the ability to...

**Joe Fisher**: *on* 3/7/15 at 14:56pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Geneste, Thank you for not requesting that my comment be removed...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Steve Agnew**: "I agree that we and the universe exist together as a whole, but be careful..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Eckard Blumschein**: "Robert and Malcom, See me itinerant and a bit worried by Feynman’s..."
*in* The Quantum Agent

**Peter Morgan**: "That's not what the preview showed! Grrrrr. Aaaaannnnndddd I can't edit it...."
*in* An algebraic approach to...

**Peter Morgan**: "I have to hope that better understanding the relationship between the..."
*in* An algebraic approach to...

**John Wilson**: "Hi Malcolm, Thanks for reading some of my paper, I really appreciate it. ..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Amrit Sorli**: "BB cosmology has some troubles. I think that it will not last for a long..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Joe Fisher**: "A visible person could dig or bore a fixed hole with visible sides in a..."
*in* The Quantum Agent

**Joe Fisher**: "The most compelling evidence that the ability of white men of only being..."
*in* Undecidability,...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**The Quantum Agent**

Investigating how the quantum measurement process might be related to the emergence of intelligence, agency and free will.

**First Things First: The Physics of Causality**

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

**Can Time Be Saved From Physics?**

Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

**Thermo-Demonics**

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

**Gravity's Residue**

An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Investigating how the quantum measurement process might be related to the emergence of intelligence, agency and free will.

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

FQXi FORUM

February 28, 2020

CATEGORY:
Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015)
[back]

TOPIC: Trick or Truth: the Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics by Jean-François Geneste [refresh]

TOPIC: Trick or Truth: the Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics by Jean-François Geneste [refresh]

After asserting why mathematics and physics aim at describing the same world, ours, we concentrate on some appearent contradictions between both sciences. The biggest one in our opinion is that the probabilities of quantum physics do not fit the Kolmogorov axioms. From this point, we try to quickly study why this happens and why whereas some physicists have proposed the existence of hidden variables experiments have concluded that such variables cannot exist. This brings us to considerations which are quite original. We go through knots theory and propose a scheme for communications quicker than light without violating relativity theory, we propose our universe has a non-Archimedeam geometry with measurements in the field of the sureal numbers, we assert that this allows the very existence of an aether like the one in which believed the physicists of the 19th century. We alo give some clues, originating from experince and basic physics such as statistic thermodynamics to give clues why our universe must be non-Archimedean. We also propose an alternative point of view based on electromagnetic fields and the well known problem of embedding the Lobachevski plane in the euclidean 3-D space. This brings us to a very new conception of what our universe can be and allows us to propose an explanation of why mathematics are so "unreasonably efficient" in physics. Let us keep suspense there.

Jean-François Geneste is the Vice-President Chief Scientist of Airbus Group Innovations. He has written several books in several domains. He is all together an engineer, a mathematician and a physicist.

Your assertions on various theories are quite mysterious!

With regards,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

report post as inappropriate

With regards,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

report post as inappropriate

Jean-François Ciao,

I know that some QM variations admit hidden variable at expense of local phenomena. What do you think in terms of your theory. For example, pilot wave theory.

Good essay. I need to read it a few more times.

Antonio

report post as inappropriate

I know that some QM variations admit hidden variable at expense of local phenomena. What do you think in terms of your theory. For example, pilot wave theory.

Good essay. I need to read it a few more times.

Antonio

report post as inappropriate

My theory is consistent with all variations of QM in the sense that we can find ways of thinking respecting the Kolmogorov axioms to explain experimental phenomena. The main problem for a theory is to be predictive a priori and then to be confirmed a posteriori by experience. This raises the question of what kind of new phenomena could the proposed theory give birth to. I think that the example I give in my text of communications quicker than the speed of light is a good one to show the potential of what can be expected and the power of prediction of the theory I propose. Concerning the non-Archimedean part, it only can propose a physical nature to the entanglement link...

Dear Jean-François,

Your ideas are close to me in spirit deep Cartesian doubt.

Weierstrass expressed the soap so important for mathematicians and physicists:*"The final object always to be kept in mind is to arrive at a correct understanding of the foundations of the science."*

Mathematics and physics lost existential certainty in the 19th century. the problem of...

view entire post

Your ideas are close to me in spirit deep Cartesian doubt.

Weierstrass expressed the soap so important for mathematicians and physicists:

Mathematics and physics lost existential certainty in the 19th century. the problem of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Cher Vladimir,

Je pense en effet que nous sommes d'accord sur bien des points. Je dois reconnaître qu'avant d'avoir lu votre essai je n'avais pas conscience réellement de la nécessité de ce que vous appelez un "super axiome". Je ne sais d'ailleurs pas si cela est possible. néanmoins, alors que cette question ne m'effleurait même pas, je reconnais que c'est effectivement une question fondamentale qui mérite d'être réfléchie.

Pour terminer, je partage totalement votre point de vue concernant la crise de la science russe et qui est avant tout une crise mondiale de la science. Si l'on se réfère à l'histoire, nous savons qu'un jour ou l'autre, il y aura basculement. Peut-être et hélas faudra-t-il que notre monde s'écroule auparavant pour qu'un nouveau monde naisse sur des bases plus saines.

Bien cordialement,

Jean-François.

Je pense en effet que nous sommes d'accord sur bien des points. Je dois reconnaître qu'avant d'avoir lu votre essai je n'avais pas conscience réellement de la nécessité de ce que vous appelez un "super axiome". Je ne sais d'ailleurs pas si cela est possible. néanmoins, alors que cette question ne m'effleurait même pas, je reconnais que c'est effectivement une question fondamentale qui mérite d'être réfléchie.

Pour terminer, je partage totalement votre point de vue concernant la crise de la science russe et qui est avant tout une crise mondiale de la science. Si l'on se réfère à l'histoire, nous savons qu'un jour ou l'autre, il y aura basculement. Peut-être et hélas faudra-t-il que notre monde s'écroule auparavant pour qu'un nouveau monde naisse sur des bases plus saines.

Bien cordialement,

Jean-François.

Dear Dr. Geneste,

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

Dear Jean-Francois,

Do you have a real complete skin surface? Does every real object in the real room you are presently in have a real complete surface? Does a real match have a real complete surface? Newton and Einstein were both completely wrong about the abstract motion of abstract objects. All surfaces must travel at the same constant speed otherwise, it would be physically impossible to see a plethora of surfaces instantaneously and simultaneously.

Counting the number of real matches you can see does not require an abstract zero. Seeing real surfaces does not require any mathematical ability at all.

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

Do you have a real complete skin surface? Does every real object in the real room you are presently in have a real complete surface? Does a real match have a real complete surface? Newton and Einstein were both completely wrong about the abstract motion of abstract objects. All surfaces must travel at the same constant speed otherwise, it would be physically impossible to see a plethora of surfaces instantaneously and simultaneously.

Counting the number of real matches you can see does not require an abstract zero. Seeing real surfaces does not require any mathematical ability at all.

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

Dear Jean-François Geneste

About your model in section 3:

You wrote: ''we entangle on earth the the remaining particles.'' But I think that this means that entanglement between the earth star and 5 mars stars is lost, because this means meaurement and thus decoherence.

Am I wrong?

My essay

Best regards

Janko Kokosar

report post as inappropriate

About your model in section 3:

You wrote: ''we entangle on earth the the remaining particles.'' But I think that this means that entanglement between the earth star and 5 mars stars is lost, because this means meaurement and thus decoherence.

Am I wrong?

My essay

Best regards

Janko Kokosar

report post as inappropriate

Dear Janko Kokosar,

Not exactly. You have 1+1 particles remaining on earth. And you have 5+1 on Mars. Let us number the particles from 1 to 8 and let us call H_i the Hilbert space associated to particle i. Let us call H_1 the space associated with the first particle remaining on earth and H_7 the one associated to the sceond. Now let us call /x_1,...,x_6> the vector associated with the 6 entangled particles and /y_1, y_2> the one associated to the 2 entangled ones. Now the global Hilbert space associated to the 8 particles is (H_1)X...X(H_8). The fact that we make interact the particles 1 and 7 (this is quite formal because indistinguishability of particles is at stake), makes vectors /x_1,...,x_6> and /y_1, y_2> interact. It does not really matter that the interaction takes place on earth or not. Now, we know on earth how to entangle 2 particles through interaction. The process, a priori, when it works, is instantaneous. This is this very fact which will imply the entanglement of the particles on Mars. But, and I do not know if it was your remark, the entanglement between the 5 particles of vector /x> is no more the same as before. But this is in no case any problem since what we are targeting is entanglement and not specific probabilities associated with it.

If your question is to know whether we can change the entenglement between entangled particles without disentangling (i.e. decoherence), the answer is yes. I refer to the well known protocol for teleportation which you can read in details in Le Bellac's book.

Not exactly. You have 1+1 particles remaining on earth. And you have 5+1 on Mars. Let us number the particles from 1 to 8 and let us call H_i the Hilbert space associated to particle i. Let us call H_1 the space associated with the first particle remaining on earth and H_7 the one associated to the sceond. Now let us call /x_1,...,x_6> the vector associated with the 6 entangled particles and /y_1, y_2> the one associated to the 2 entangled ones. Now the global Hilbert space associated to the 8 particles is (H_1)X...X(H_8). The fact that we make interact the particles 1 and 7 (this is quite formal because indistinguishability of particles is at stake), makes vectors /x_1,...,x_6> and /y_1, y_2> interact. It does not really matter that the interaction takes place on earth or not. Now, we know on earth how to entangle 2 particles through interaction. The process, a priori, when it works, is instantaneous. This is this very fact which will imply the entanglement of the particles on Mars. But, and I do not know if it was your remark, the entanglement between the 5 particles of vector /x> is no more the same as before. But this is in no case any problem since what we are targeting is entanglement and not specific probabilities associated with it.

If your question is to know whether we can change the entenglement between entangled particles without disentangling (i.e. decoherence), the answer is yes. I refer to the well known protocol for teleportation which you can read in details in Le Bellac's book.

Login or create account to post reply or comment.