• If one considers that, in its own framework, the duration between
the
start and the arrival of a
photon is null (ds = 0), and likewise for every massless
particle, then the photon contains the information about
its arrival as early (with respect to us) as it starts. Thus
Aspect's
experiment would be
convincing, but altered from the outset : the durations considered
not
being those which matter.
The idea of an “hidden thermodynamics” is not in this case excluded,
in
so far as it involves only non-local hidden variables (or with a
generalized
“localization” in the meaning of ds =
0).
• In some way, it may seem inconsistent to consider a mechanics
based
upon a
redefinition of space-time, when taking a basic argument in the
metric
of the space-time that is considered as being contestable. But this
is
not necessarily a contradiction : one may consider a space adapted
to
basic interactions, and the statistical properties of which would
give
back
(after a kind of “first renormalization”) a “vacuum” having the
quantum
and relativistic characteristics of “usual”
theories.
If the elementary objects are interactions between an emitter and a
receiver, perhaps is it necessary to
reason in a space of (oriented) emitter-receiver bipoints associated
with the propagators wich connect them. Maybe all the arguments that
we
consider,
based on observations, and therefore considering the physics seen by
receivers, are only one of the aspects of the physical reality
(considering the properties of only one of the bipoints extremities)
[1, 2].
Some fundamental questions could be : what is the
topology of such a space ? could it be connected to a metric ? In
particular, the dimension three of our (apparent ?) space would not
it
be deduced from the topology of the interaction diagrams
(à la Feynman), with a minimum value such as to allow the
connections of the considered kind of interactions (and thus
eventually depending upon the kind of interactions), and with
perhaps
some aspects of fractal dimensions ? For example, dimension three is
the minimum integer so that, in any finished set of points (and even
probably in “all” infinite set, accepting a few possible
restrictions), it would be possible to connect all the couples of
points by a continuous line (symbolizing an interaction in the
diagrams) without these lines intersect [3]
space the
elementary objects of which are points (in interaction)
space the
elementary objects of which are interactions (between
points)
Maybe would it be elsewhere usefull to search if some dual
approaches,
within the way of Gergonne and Poncelet methods, would not allow a
more
efficient understanding [4].
__________________
References :
1. Although different, these aspects are not without relation with
the
notion of twistor considered by R. Penrose ;
curiousely, the latter seems not to use the relativistic
instantaneousness that may follow from it ; see as
example : “la nature de l'espace et du temps”, S. Hawking and
R.
Penrose, Princeton University Press 1996 (Gallimard 1997 for the
translation), chapter VI.
2. The necessity to identify rightly the fundamental objects also
appears during the coalescence of undiscernible photons, coming from
sources of single photons ; see as example : “Photons indiscernables
:
qui se ressemble s'assemble”, I. Robert-Philip et al., Images de la
Physique 2006, p. 106.
3. See as example : “le problème de la fabrique de briques”, J.P.
Delahaye, Pour la Science n° 424, february 2013.
4. See as example : “le premier journal de mathématiques”, C.
Gérini, Pour la Science n° 332, june 2005.
