Applying the negation of the axiom of choice

Quantum mechanics

Negation of the axiom of choice

I have another text, write me to get it, adib.jebara@topnet.tn

There is also a revised text in

http://discussionflt.blog.co.uk/

The revised text is published in wseas conference mcss'15 in Dubai 22 february 2015

wseas : world science and engineering academy and society

mcss'15 : mathematical computational and statistical sciences 2015

Title : about a time not totally ordered (adib ben jebara) 

About logic for elementary particles

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.
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.

An equivalent of the negation of the axiom of choice is that there exist
at least one infinite Cartesian product of non empty sets of urelements
which is empty.
Urelements are undistinguishable non sets.

Adib Ben Jebara (Tunisia, North Africa)
adib.jebara@topnet.tn
ajebara2001@yahoo.com
http://adibbenjebara.webs.com

About lateral time of applyed ZFU

For elementary particles, time is a set of urelements of the negation of the
axiom of choice (ZFU).
So, time is not totally ordered and there is a lateral time.

In an experiment, a particle goes both two different ways while it is
supposed to go the first way only.
It goes the second way in lateral times.
There is no ubiquity.

As there is lateral time, the speed of a particle can be known only
approximately.
The speed can be defined as (number of space urelements in between +1)
divided by (number of time urelements in between +1).

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.

Space and time seem not to be lowering the correlation.
It could be because of time being lateral but one has to think about it.

An equivalent of the negation of the axiom of choice is that there exist
at least one infinite Cartesian product of non empty sets of urelements
which is empty.
Urelements are undistinguishable non sets.

http://adibbenjebara.webs.com

Adib Ben Jebara (Tunisia, North Africa)
adib.jebara@topnet.tn
ajebara2001@yahoo.com

About lateral time of elementary particles

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.


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.

It seems to me that the article goes on on a lateral time which is not much time
spent linearly.
I mean that the projection of the lateral time on the main line of time is small.
So, the second particle is not a long time away from the moment it was
separated from the first particule.
The second particle is in a lateral time may be because it is in a tense state.
Will the time of the second particle stay behind the time of the first particle ?

If a particle moves in space on a lateral time, it will arrive to a location in
no time. That is teleportation of the particle.

Time elapsed is no more absolute. Time is different from one particle to the other,
depending on the lateral time gone through.

If a particle goes on a parallel time, it is in state which is constant as the time
of the particle is inaccessible to us.

In the experiment described above, if the second particle can be made to move, it
might be teleported.

Let us assume we can use two orthogonal straight lines for time, we could project the
last urelement.


http://adibbenjebara.webs.com

Adib Ben Jebara

 About time of elementary particles

For elementary particles, time is a set of urelements of the negation of the
axiom of choice (ZFU).
So, time is not totally ordered and there is a lateral time.

I do not think that a paticle can go backward in time because it would jeopardize
causality relations.
However, the main time could stop as the orthogonal time goes on and the particle
would remain in the past of the main time because it cannot jump.

One cannot aggregate easily particles because of the interactions between them.
This can prevent teleportation of objects.

Gravitational force between elementary particles is not well known because of space
being what it is for elementary particles (a set of urelements).

Mathematics fit the real world because matter is a concentrate of equations with
a substrate.


What are the consequences of a particle staying in the past ?
A particle can go back in time orthogonaly
It seems that there is no linear relation between the componants of times.

The layers of urelements of space are bent by the
presence of elementary particles therefore the gravitation
force.

One of the conclusions can be that particles seem
to have free will but do not.

Another conclusion may be that the bosom de Higgs does not
exist and may be also the fermions.

If the time of a particle is known, the location could be
known without proobability.
The wave function does exist but it could be that it
exists because of the difference between our time and
the time of the particle.
Is the relation between the two times probabilistic ?

A mathematical why of the Big Bang

 

  ajebara2001@yahoo.com

 

 I proved (or at least explained successfully)  with mathematics that any

universe collappses (Big Crunch).
So, there was another universe previously of ours and there will be
another universe after the Big Crunch of ours.
.The Big Crunches happen after an infinite time.

There was no creation of the universe.

Different universes were the successors of one another in all eternity

because of the negation of the axiom of choice, locations of physical

space being urelements.

  Why a Big Bang ? 

An equivalent  of the axiom of choice is that an infinite

Cartesian product of non empty sets is non empty.
Set theory with urelements was used to study the negation of
the axiom of choice.
The urelements are non sets and undistinguishable.

Let U be the infinite set of urelements and Ui sets of
urelements associated with elementary pârtiicles. The infinite
 Cartesian product of U1, U2, U3,............
is empty if the negation of the axiom of choice is applied.

Let us assume that physical space is U with as elements
locations of space of quantum cosmology.
When we consider the empty infinite Cartesian product,
space disappears (not a point remains).

The particles collapse upon themselves. It is a Big Crunch.
The Big Crunch is almost immediatly followed by a Big Bang.
Space reappears.

There always exist a universe or another.
Physical space is infinite.
A Big Crunch will occcur after an infinite time.
Adib Ben Jebara.

http://www.freewebs.com/adibbenjebara

(search by Google "negation of the axiom of choice")

Reference :
"About space and time in quantum mechanics" Adib Ben Jebara
Bulletin of Symbolic Logic September 2008 Volume 14,
number 3, pp. 410-411.

In an antanglement, the distance before measurement between
particles is in number of uurelements (number in between +1)
and could be small.
Difference in time itself is in number of urelements and
could be small.

Reference:
"An interpretation about space and time in quantum mechanics"
Adib Ben Jebata The Bulletin of
Symbolic Logic of March 2008 page 154

Regards,
Adib Ben jebara from Tunisia, North Africa.

 

At the level of elementary particles, time could be stopped

The assumption is that at the level of elementary partcles,
time is the infinite set of urelements U of the set theory
with urelements (urelements not linearly ordered).

If a particle is at the time u1 and "then" at the lateral
time u2, it could be again at u1 sideways.
Time would have stopped.

Time at the level of elementary particles is not the arrow
of time that we know at our level.

As a result of what could be happening at the level of
elementary particles, there might be disturbances of
time in an area, at our level, like time slowing down.
We cannot go back in time as we cannot jeopardize causality.
 
Adib Ben Jebara.
http://www.freewebs.com/adibbenjebara

Please, a comment. Mainly because of 2 specialities very few
reply.
I thank Mr Andreas Blass, Mr Jeff Rimmel, Mr John Halleck
and Mr John Truss.

 

Adib Ben Jebara

[The following text below appeared in the Bulletin of Symbolic  (Abstract for ASL Winter Meeting)
Bulletin of Symbolic Logic September 2008 Volume 14,
number 3, pp. 410-411.

About space and time in quantum mechanics

We apply set theory with urelements ZFU to physical space, we consider
locations as urelements, 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.
Let us consider the set of paths of all elementary particles-locations
which number is n.
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.
So, physical space would become void, the universe would collapse and a Big
Crunch would happen.
But the matter would have to go somewhere and indeed the Big Bang happened.
So, n is indeed greater than m.

Let us start the set theory ZFU with two infinite sets of
urelements U1 and U2.
Mr Andreas Blass pointed out that their union is U, the usual
set.
Let physical space at the level of elementary particles be U1
and time be U2.
As U2 is not linearly ordered, there is no backwards time
causality.
In quantum mechanics, there are waves which go backward time,
see :
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw08.html

But if U2 is time and is not linearly ordered, there is no
traveling backward time.
So, our notion of causality is less jeopardized than with backward time
causality.

May be using U1xU2 for space-time would be still better.

My idea is that Dedekind cardinals are cardinalities for space and for time.
For instance, the time ellapsed since 36 Big Crunches/Big Bangs ago is a
Dedekind cardinal.
The cardinality of the physical space of the previous universe (before the
Big Bang) is a Dedekind cardinal.

The negation of the axiom of choice is really true because it can be
applied in physics.

Adib Ben Jebara

http://www.google.com/Top/Science/Physics/Particle/Alternative/

 

http://www.dmoz.org/Science/Physics/Particle/Alternative/