complement and texts of reference

June 2003:

After having built several buildings, I find again interest for cosmology.

The texts published recently in the review Science and Life seem to confirm the intuition that I had in the Nineties in my text completed in 1998 according to which what one taught us at the School of Architecture on the manner of structuring the vacuum and especially of giving him a dominating role, gained the field of physics more and more.

In 1998 the publications on the theory of the cords were increasingly numerous and I thought to the time that one would need also a theory of the “sail” what the physicists call of the “bran”.

I am obviously not a physicist, on the other hand I understand my language and the intended texts to a public as me are well adapted. It is necessary to interpret what I write, on the other hand I think that there is a discussion thread in the whole of this text and also of the completely erroneous remarks obviously, of the inconsistencies and contradictions but in a field where those reabsorb sometimes with time.

I thank the physicists who agree to read it. I am sure only of one thing, the vacuum is well in the heart of the debate.

I now will write a certain number of things following the number June 1029, 2003 of Science and Vie devoted to the energy of the vacuum which can appear aberrant to you. But it is without consequences and without claim and especially my professor of architecture learned to me has not to seek with very taken the sensational one. The text which follows is I think coherent with my preceding text.

It is said that the energy of the vacuum would have according to calculations considerable being and yet this one is not observable and this energy does not seem to undergo the curve of the universe under the action of general relativity.

I wonder whether the energy of the vacuum does not undergo the curve of the universe it east can be because this energy is not in our observable universe but in what one begins has to call the pre big-bang  (or beyond the big-bang because my point of view is rather space).

As I had considered in my text the pre big-bang would be big-bang on both sides.

I think that this energy undergoes the effects of general relativity but that those are different beyond the big-bang, which I call in a short manner “the threshold of inversion of scale”.

The general relativity applied to the energy of the vacuum which is for me a vibratory energy would produce beyond the big-bang of the straightness. The existence of this line is described in my initial text and remains associated with curves.

The characteristic of the vibratory movement would be to be rectilinear (see my text on the sand grains on a vibrating plate), general relativity beyond the big-bang is not opposed to it or could restore this straightness.

Ultimately can the theory of the cords east be only the general relativity applied beyond the big bang?

The universe does not have a centre and yet the representation that one in fact is always centred.

I tend to think that any formalism should be avoided, a random universe seems to me as formal as a centred and symmetrical universe. I chose in my text for a slightly centred universe deviated or almost centred. Almost is an open opening.

To destroy the centrality it sometimes happens to me to imagine moving the big-bang on the level of the largest oval of the expanding universe within the framework of a continuous system.

As I wrote at the beginning of my text our professors of architecture spoke of space times influenced by the physicists of their generation. It is thus normal that very quickly I believed without too much believing in it to evacuate the question of knowing what occurred beyond the universe by imagining a limit which moves. Before that becomes a debate it is said that this question was not paused at the beginning of research of Einstein who answered initially unfavourably the expansion of the universe.

But today I tend to say that a lengthened man who breathes is not moving, therefore the scale factor returns can be in line of account.

In addition the fact of blocking a parameter arbitrarily is not the base of any revolutionary invention.

For example Bernard d' Espagnat who explains that there is no infinitesimal particle of the matter evokes in his book “buckled reality” the law of large numbers in this “kind of determinism statistical” which would compensate for “the intrinsic indeterminism” of quantum mechanics. For me the law of the great numbers is too traditional compared to the description that Bernard d'Espagnat made of the atom. But once again I am not a physicist.

Einstein revolutionizes the design of the universe starting from a closed and erroneous design of a universe not expanding, as if the fact of blocking a parameter had allowed the creation of its theory, (relativity would be the residual but total movement system after blocking of the borders). It is undoubtedly this error on the total scale which limits the range of the theory on a quantum scale.

Bernard d' Espagnat would make the reverse, his description of the atom published in an article that I found a long time after his publication appeared to me fulgurating however in his book “buckled reality” the atomic nucleus would be associated law of the great numbers which constitutes in my opinion an escape ahead by too “modern” dated and finally too traditional. For me the universe is almost centred and almost closed, it is simply “open” in its design.

It is open as architecture is transparent what has nothing to do with the fact of seeing with through but which qualifies its understandable character, perceptible or at least felt within the framework of a walk. (And the walk is probably not finished).     

I evoked in my text the role of the principle of exclusion of PAULI and especially it principle of no recursivity evoked by PENROSE.

The chronology of the vacuums and full do not produce total and symmetrical inversions systems. The particles can become antiparticles but the molecules do not become antimolécules. This difference in effect compared to the chronology holds as I explained to nature different from full and the vacuum compared to the scale considered i.e. even if the vacuum is always the starting element.  

Empty spheres in a soft body bordered by a crust (see the beginning of my text). Planets or stars in a more or less empty space bordered by a vacuum emptier than the preceding vacuum zone of intense fluctuations. To formulate with more precision my matter I would say than on a binary scale empty spheres in a soft body is well the negative one massive bodies in a relatively empty space. With the ternary scale on the other hand the crust is not the density absolute or infinite and its negative is not the absolute vacuum. Thus symmetry does not function any more on a ternary scale. Thus the negative one of the crust becomes the intense zone of fluctuation, chaos or the transcendence? 

I would say today by referring to the recurrence of Poincaré that the edge of the universe known is captive of what surrounds it. Very concentrates there, “the centre”, the edge and information.

Beyond I would say that the infinite one is with the brain what the colour is with the eye, just a question of temperature (the 0 Kelvin degree being inaccessible).

March 2005:

In 1990 by reading the book of S. Hawking “A short history of time”. I was astonished by the way in which the author treated the infinitely large one differently and the infinitely small one. (A universe limited without end and a system closed for the infinitely small one).

Coarsely at the time for S. Hawking no information could come out from a black hole, a closed system we can say. Today S. Hawking would cancel its thesis of the time, information resulting from the black holes could come to us and according to the articles which I read and in fact there would be no part hidden beyond of the black holes.

While referring to me with a small text that I wrote on intersections of circle (see in my text joint), interest of the work of S. Hawking would be to have described two opposed extreme solutions.

I explain in my text how the principle of “threshold of inversion of scale” describes by the architect V. Gregotti in the middle of years 75 coincides with the description of the Abramowicz physicist (For Science 97) explaining how the centrifugal forces at the edge of a black hole are directed towards the centre.

Taking into consideration my text mentioned above on the circles and taking into account the fact that according to J.P Luminet (Science and life Fev 05) one can estimate the ray of a black hole, I always hoped that a physicist or a mathematician agrees to check by calculation if there is not a singularity “like a threshold of inversion of scale” to 1.154 of the ray of a black hole (R/COS 30).

(Or of the modification of trajectory of the elements located at the edge of a black hole when their radiation reaches a ray = 1.154 of the ray of the black hole). Is the black hole represented like a cone, but the edge of a black hole east can be itself a cone (but in which direction?).

Always in reference to my text on the circles, I propose to consider the two proposals of S. Hawking the old one according to which no information of spring of a black hole and the news which cancels the preceding one as the terminals of the system. My proposal would be, always in reference to my text on the circles to take again the old calculation considered as erroneous and to make a kind of arithmetic mean with the mode of recent calculation. It is not a question of a synthesis within the meaning of Heisenberg (see last page) but to define an undoubtedly false solution. Then I propose to make the average of the new proposal which results from this with the last solution adopted by S. Hawking. My intuition since is that the quantity of information which comes out from a black hole is important but not supplements (put 85% or 98.5%). It is about a form of synthesis by successive iterations in 2 phases can be a kind of calculation by the absurdity? I thank the specialists for accepting to interpret this text and to adapt it to reality. (My first intuition was that the quantity of information which came out from a black hole was weak (put 15% or 1.5% by making the average enter calculation old and the average of the 2 extreme solutions). No matter it is the concept of the edge we have to consider

While passing recently close to the collegial one of Sémur in Auxois during the songs, I thought at the time or I realized, thanks to my professor of architecture, to which point this field was practically inaccessible. I said myself that there was can be a parallel between this singularity with 1.154 of a ray initial and this angle that Ciriani had required of me to propose for 2 urban buildings which I had drawn. At the time and like I describes it in my text on architecture, I had proposed an angle of 15° by supporting me on observations which I had made 3 months earlier concerning the plan of Michel Ange for the Place of Capitole and the arcades in front of Saint Pierre.  

I know well that to compare an angle and a cosine is absurd except if a correspondence can exist by “compression, fold ect..? »

The characteristic of this angle being to make disappear edges (by destroying the effect of prospect and to amplify the horizon or the building opposite).

November 2005:

The first exercise at the school of architecture consisted in refusing any preliminary image, the second was on the image: One month before returned I reversed my plan and the report/ratio of the project to the image took all its coherence of a blow.

Compared to the villa La Roche of Corbusier presented in my initial text and which is used to me as model, if I reverse the figure the space principal cubic and double which represented for me the expanding universe would be finally “the negative of universe” and the lengthened building bordered by a curved wall skirted by a slope would be an image of the universe. But that contradicted all that I wrote in my initial text what is not very serious. Then I finally propose to consider that it is the balcony compressed with the junction of spaces 2 which would represent our known universe.

The balcony is designed by Corbusier as if 2 perpendicular spaces were initially superimposed. Its form would result from the action to draw aside them with 90°. I have several times written that the assumption of before big-bang is a concept space than temporal and in addition that what one regards as before big-bang being located this one on both sides? On the new assumption it is a question of stating clearly that there is after big-bang distinct from our known universe. Thus our universe becomes a passage. Our known universe and the big-bang is only one and even thing   

Foot-note: A second reading of the last paragraph of the text of June 2003 makes me discover a paradox:

I always thought as of the beginning of my text, in my intuitive system of comparison bringing into play the chronology of full and with the vacuums which the absolute density did not exist and which my comparison rested on an image. But if one pushes the reasoning a little further it is carried out that if negative crust is not the absolute vacuum to express that there is no symmetry in the chronology of the vacuums between the ordinary material and cosmos and by thus proposing the edge of the universe like an intense zone of fluctuation for marking the rupture well. On the other hand the crust itself is not the infinite density and thus by reversing the proposal one can say that the crust is not negative absolute vacuum. 

What I want to say it is that while remaining surface my text keeps its coherence but if one pushes the reasoning to the extreme (I always have wanted to make it but thus that took 20 years to me) the supposed elements to represent symmetry are not even already them not symmetrical what would blame the conclusion on the force that no symmetry between the chronology of full represents and of the vacuums between the ordinary matter and the universe. That brings me to a strange conclusion. Is my system of comparison for me a ternary form of extension of the principle of exclusion of Pauli who is a binary principle?

1)if beyond the edge of the universe which I describe as intense zone of fluctuation there is only absolute vacuum which is a concept that I avoid in general then by reversing my usual proposal, I would say that the infinitely small one is not the absolute density. And that applies to the ordinary matter as for the universe. And it is which they probably never meet i.e. Note in the passing that concerning my model for the ordinary matter the densest part is at the edge.

2)My comprehension of the principle of exclusion of Pauli changes completely. Psychologically one imagines in the first time that the matter being hard cannot be based in any case on a certain scale contrary to the vacuum. Out it is the opposite, it is the vacuum which can be absolute and not the full one and therefore one cannot reduce it to nothing.

I would say and that I always thought it, that the full one and the vacuum is indivisible and it is the way in which they mix which imports from where the idea of the “threshold of inversion of scale”. By thus pushing the paradox until the end, as I associate the energy of the vacuum vibrations I believe to foresee the paradox wave particle now. 

May 21, 2006:

By reading again my text today, I thinks that it is necessary can be to imagine the edge of the convex universe compared to us within the framework of a figure of Noebus. That leads us to ask us not only the question of before big-bang but to also imagine the existence of after big bang. Our known universe would be like a kind of tended arc enters  2 poles.

The first article that I read on the no commutative geometry of Alain Connes (Science and Life April 2005) pointed out to me the principle of no recursivity of Penrose principle which I regard as determinant as I show it in my text. Not being a specialist I thought that that had can be nothing to see. But 2^ème did article what I read on the theory of Alain Connes (Science and future October 2005) refers to bricks of Penrose?  

TEXTS OF REFERENCE

HEISENBERG  The part and the whole       :                       unified theory of the fields 1957-58

PAULI:

“In the former physics of the atomic envelope, one still could be based on visual images coming from the repertory of traditional physics”.

“In an ideal way, one could imagine that all real symmetries of nature were born from a succession of unfoldings”.

HEISENBERG: answer to Carl FRIEDRICH:

It is thus important for you, intervened I, that the unfolding about which Pauli spoke is not an unfolding within the meaning of Aristotélicienne logic, but that the complementarity intervenes there in a decisive point.

The unfolding with the direction of Aristote would be indeed, like wrote Pauli, an attribute of the devil; while being repeated continuously, it would involve only chaos. But the third possibility, that which appeared with complementarity in quantum theory, can be fertile; the repetition leads then towards the space of the real world. Indeed, in the former mystic, the number `3' is related to the divine principle. And, without going also far, one could think of the triptych of Hegel: Thesis-antithesis-synthesis. The synthesis should not be a simple mixture, a compromise carried out starting from the thesis and of the antithesis, it produces something qualitatively again. »

PHYSICS AND REALITY - Bernard d' Espagnat

Mr. MUGUR-SCHACHTER                p 237

“Once one perceived clearly the cognitive situation on which is dependent quantum mechanics, very paradoxically, by one fluctuation comparable with that which reveals certain drawings of one cubic sometimes like concave sometimes like convex, it achieves an inversion. What with the first access, striking in the quantum approach like so new, suddenly appears gifted contrary to a kind of universality".

SCHRODINGER “tangle within the function of wave "          p 61/62/63 - p 425

principle of not-separability “The unit is in a determined state, but it is not the case of each taken part separately ".

Mr. BITBOL                 p494/495

“The second against representation is provided by the quantum theory of the fields, which to date is best corroborated and one of the most advanced quantum theories. The representation which its formalism supports is remarkably close in its spirit to the cosmological model which Schrodinger defended, which does not have anything a coincidence besides since Schrodinger was one of the precursors of quantum theory of the fields and one of its hotter in favour towards the end of its career. This new representation substitutes for the concept of a multiplicity of N twilights, that of nth level of excitation of a single vibrating medium. As B underlines it. of Espagnat, it makes it possible to replace the rather suspect concepts of “creation” and annihilation' of particles (to which relativistic equivalence between matter and energy leads when one applies it within the framework of thought nuclear physicist), by that of change of state of the vibrating medium. One passes thus from the firstly statistical point of view from a primarily dynamic point of view.

B. ESPAGNAT                    p 659

2) Second difficulty

What my tourist guide of Saintonge teaches me incontestably has a relationship with the story of architecure, but I avoid saying (“abruptly”) that the guide “refers to the history of the architecutre ". And I am right well, bus statement that would be to mean that it is about a book whose object would be the history of architecture, which is false. Admittedly, when I say that what my guide teaches me “ has a relationship with architecture "I allot to architecture a grammatical function of object. Although architecture only is very summarily evoked by the guide (it gives any quantitative detail, no technical precision), this mine attribution is unquestionably legitimate bus the guide evokes certain architectural styles. I hold that the situation considered in the paragraph "second difficulty" is very similar. Admittedly independent reality does not constitute (in my opinion) the object of physics, not more than architecture does not constitute that of the guide, but physics evokes (in a vague way) certain general features of independent reality (such is, of less, my thesis). On this point, I thus do not see more “obscure conflicts" in my design that I see any in the very simple assertion only the contents of my guide have a certain relationship with the history of architecture.