Overblog Suivre ce blog
Editer l'article Administration Créer mon blog
3 août 2013 6 03 /08 /août /2013 14:21

            Being of light’ and intelligence of the lights?

In the article 'Our matter is not all the matter', (29/06/2013, in my blog), I mentioned the idea that we were ‘Beings of the light. There was no intention, from me, to make reference to any mystic but there is the idea, that after all, it is normal to be fascinated by this light which is so familiar to us but it should not blind us intellectually any longer. I suggest developing this idea which may seem a priori extremely iconoclastic.

The quotation which I have selected of S Haroche in the article mentioned above, is very explicit: The light and the matter are: ’Both faces of the same reality’, and for those who are perplexed towards this assertion, let’s to formulate it using the conditional: the light and the matter would be

To begin, please let me explain the title of this present article, by analyzing the following one: 'The dark matter could not be it completely' of Laurent Sacco, the 24/06/2013, in Futura-sciences. In particular I quote: “This matter is said black because it would consist of particles incapable to emit some light." He excludes that there is another light (another radiation) other than the one we are able to detect at present, which can be emitted by this dark matter. This assertion results from a bias and it contradicts what S. Haroche says, unless one considers that the subject of the Nobel Prize is not universal and is only accurate for the matter which is presently common to us. Nothing justifies this limited conception especially as the author to add the dark matter in the field of our speculation, favors a model that would make particles of dark matter Anapoles. For more precision I suggest the reading of L. Sacco’s article. Bear in mind that, until now, no object with such specific structure was ever observed in the elementary state.

James Clerk Maxwell has certainly been the scientist who has best explain how the process of modeling… ‘Nature’, is worth as an intellectual and speculative process; but no more! He acknowledged that his work ever consisted in modeling ‘Nature’: « That is to throw nets on ‘Nature’ - in other words, "Models" - , to catch its secrets. The stitches of the nets are mathematical, while knowing well that these are tricks, as these models never reflect faithfully the mechanisms which they serve to represent. Maxwell, with the use of these tricks intended to penetrate further into the intelligence of Nature and to formulate its fundamental laws that he thought of being possibly geometrical or at least structural.

The heuristic character of a work of modeling is thus rightful if, and only if, as recommends it Maxwell, we demonstrate, step by step, a great intellectual control and a great intellectual rigor. On the other hand this work can lead to the conception of false friends, and to be counterproductive if we proceed forcing into modeling (with accumulation of hypotheses) concealing so a confinement of the thought. This is the way I analyzed the article In question of L. Sacco. All this to put back on track to a possible interaction between dark matter and electromagnetic field: "If the dark matter consists of fermion of Majorana (sic) with an anapole (sic), she is thus sensitive to the electromagnetic fields.

Another recent article (27/06/2013, in NewScientist): 'Is missing ‘partial’ neutrino a boson in disguise?’ This boson would be Goldstone boson proposed in the 1960s, « Which is supposed to be part of the Higgs mechanism… », “…But no hints of it have been seen in nature so far”. According to the author of the article, it appears that the in-depth study of the map of the cosmic microwave background, relic radiation, by the satellite Planck, would lead to formulate the hypothesis that things would be more sensible if there was between 3 and 4 types of neutrino rather than just 3. As said S. Weinberg: "Clearly there’s no such a thing as half a neutrino. So what it could be? » « According to Weinberg, the boson of Goldstone could fill this difficulty. It is its own antiparticle (this subject is purely speculative) thus, these bosons would annihilate each other. It means that bosons would have only half of their visible effects, on the map of the relic radiation, compared with the more traditional particle pair. The boson is also expected to interact less with the other particles of matter during the expansion of the universe, which means that it could look like 0.39 of the neutrino now. That seems to match what’s being seen in observations. » If the idea of the fractional neutrino persists, the boson of Goldstone would be a plausible interpretation.

“The process by which the boson of Goldstone is introduced is the same as the one whom in theory, would give birth to the dark matter. The boson is without mass, thus it cannot be the dark matter. But as suggests Weinberg, if it is real, to understand Goldstone could help in reveal the nature of the dark matter from the earliest days of the cosmos.

However, let us relativize what is asserted in this article of the ‘NewScientist’ because in another article, of Alain Riazuelo de l' IAP (Paris Institute of Astrophysics), (in ‘Pour la Science’ of May, 2013), he has written that: “The suggestion of the possible existence of the fourth family of neutrinos, named sterile neutrino, would have an influence on the fluctuations of the relic radiation, but this type of modification is not observed in the results. Then, there would be only three families of neutrinos (Sic).

It is still easy today to convene neutrinos to fill the weaknesses of our understanding of the properties of Nature because these are so little understood, that is the physical laws which govern their properties are so weakly identified, that we can speculate about them without any restraint.

Among all the possible within the eternity, we, "thinking subject", have already reached a significant understanding of laws and properties of ‘Nature’. But there is no reason to consider that those who are within our reach of the next discoveries would be force to obey to the same criteria. As, at the appropriate time, James Clerk Maxwell has already recommended it, let us throw new nets with different stiches which will allow revealing new secrets of the Nature. To this end I propose that in the light of what we already know we threw fearless hypotheses which could widen the field of our knowledge in physics:

–The assertion of S. Haroche must be converted in one universal postulate: « That, in any type of matter must correspond the other face of the same reality. This other face would be a radiation. So if we make the hypothesis that the dark matter has an elementary constitution, it has to correspond to it a radiation which for us is (actually) 'undetectable'. »

- In what concern the matter which is common to us, the link between both faces of the reality in question is specific, that is E = mc2. The main parameters which characterize both faces of the same reality are united in a law which makes sense.

- With the matter of another nature, like the dark matter, there is no reason to be forced by the same law that is quoted in 2. Of the ‘black’ radiation is no reason to be characterized by the same parameters that of the light which is so common to us.

-The neutrinos of the various flavors should be considered as hybrid elements, that is as ersatz of electrons, of muons and of taus, but being no more radiant it is not right to consider any more that they can be characterized by E = mNc2. The obsession (understandable) to try to detect them by the ways of this formula is thus inappropriate.

Conceived in 1958 by Iakov Zeldovitch, a Russian : physicist and cosmologist. This anapoles was observed only in composite systems: nucleus of cesium 133 and ytterbium 174.

Partager cet article

Repost 0
Published by mc2est-cesuffisant
commenter cet article



  • : Le blog de mc2est-cesuffisant
  • Le blog de mc2est-cesuffisant
  • : Ce blog propose une réflexion sur les concepts fondamentaux de physique théorique. Le référentiel centrale est anthropocentrique. Il attribue une sacrée responsabilité au sujet pensant dans sa relation avec la nature et ses propriétés physiques. L'homme ne peut être nu de toute contribution lorsqu'il tente de décrypter les propriétés 'objectives' de la nature.
  • Contact