As promised, let’s now turn to technical details and see the consequence for NDEs.

We’ve already reviewed spectral analysis several times on this blog, so I won’t write all the calculations down again. For our present purpose, anyway, the Laplace transform is sufficient. More sophisticated transforms would only complicate things, but wouldn’t change anything to the principles.

In bidouille 37, eq. (7), is given the equation for rather general kernels r(x/l). According to (1), bidouille 93, the equation for the 3-volume of a body B’ is the equation for r(x/l) in 3 dimensions with only a change of sign before the identity, that is: -3Id in place of +3Id (nId in n dimensions). Moreover, for any smooth kernel r(x/l) = Kexp[-a(x/l)]/l¹l²l³, where x/l is short writing for (x¹/l¹,x²/l²,x³/l³) and a(x/l) = 0 at x = 0, one finds V(0) = K^-1l¹l²l³ to be the volume of B’ around B, when B is located at the origin of a chosen reference frame. This alone shows that V(0) is spectral.

To deduce from this result that the physical space in which parapsychological phenomena have to be studied would be 6D, 3 xⁱ for “ordinary” space + 3 lⁱ for “spectral” space would be a mistake. Indeed, I’ve already pointed out the fact that, in more than 3 space dimensions, physical bodies should keep a 3D basis. This is not what NDEs tell us and to say that would be a wrong interpretation of them.

Instead, NDEs show us we’re in front of two complementary states of the same 4D Universe: an “ordinary” state with coordinates xⁱ and a “spectral” state with coordinates lⁱ (i = 0,1,2,3). When taking these two states into account, we get a mechanical description of a quantum Universe: giving us coordinates (xⁱ,lⁱ) is actually equivalent to giving us coordinates xⁱ alone and wavepackets y(xⁱ,lⁱ) with squared amplitude r(xⁱ,lⁱ), as these wavepackets connect physical objects depending on the xⁱs (and called “originals” in the language of spectral analysis) to physical objects depending on the lⁱs (and called “spectral images” or simply “spectra”), through a global, integral, transform. As a practical example, we have the Laplace transform of a space trajectory x(t):

 

(1)               l(T) = L[x(t)] = ò₀^+¥ x(t)e^-t/Tdt/T

 

which gives a spectral trajectory l(T) in spectral space. Simple calculation then shows that the instantaneous velocity v(t) = dx(t)/dt of a substantial body B moving into “original” 3-space is transformed into v_ph(T) = l(T)/T, the phase velocity of a signal “associated with B”, according to the initial formulation of De Broglie’s wave-corpuscle duality. We now see that v_ph(T) is actually the mean velocity of a “spectral” body B’ complementing B in the quantum picture. It’s merely the equivalent of the mean velocity v_moy(t) = x(t)/t in “spectral” space, i.e. in the spectral state of (quantum) 3-space.

Let’s now go back one more time to the spectral relation k² = kⁱk_i, with kⁱ = 2p/lⁱ the components of the 4-wave vector. We know that:

 

(2)               k² > 0 => kⁱ time-like => v_ph > c <=> v_gr < c

(3)               k² = 0 => kⁱ light-like => v_ph = c <=> v_gr = c

(4)               k² < 0 => kⁱ space-like => v_ph < c <=> v_gr > c

 

since

 

(5)               v_ph(T).v_gr(T) = c²

 

for a group velocity v_gr(T) = dl(T)/dT, whatever the original motion in original 3-space, uniform or not. Now, v_ph(T) = l(T)/T implies:

 

(6)               k² > 0 => v_ph > c => l² = lⁱl_i < 0

(7)               k² = 0 => v_ph = c => l² = 0

(8)               k² < 0 => v_ph < c => l² > 0

 

Truly, there’s absolutely nothing new in what we’re talking at the moment. These are all elementary and well-known results of spectral analysis in space-time.

We’re used to say a signal is “causal” when k² > 0. It therefore means l² < 0, i.e. lⁱ is space-like or “tachyonic”, meaning it stands “on the other side of the light cone”.

We consider a signal to be “tachyonic” when k² < 0, meaning l² > 0, i.e. standing “on ‘our’ side of the light cone”.

And we consider a signal to be light-like when k² = 0, meaning l² = 0, i.e. standing exactly on the light cone.

Are you beginning to see what I’m undermeaning in all that?

In our reclassified interpretation of the wave-corpuscle duality, we find a body B’ in place of the signal.

 

LET B BE A “SUBSTANTIAL” BODY IN ORIGINAL 4-SPACE-TIME AND B’ ITS “SPECTRAL EXTENSION” IN QUANTUM 4-SPACE-TIME.

WHEN k² > 0, l² < 0 AND B’ IS “NON SUBSTANTIAL” IN ORIGINAL 4-SPACE-TIME.

WHEN k² = 0, l² = 0 AND B’, AS B, IS “IN BETWEEN”.

WHEN k² < 0, l² > 0 AND B’ IS “SUBSTANTIAL” IN SPECTRAL 4-SPACE-TIME.

 

What do we have at the precise moment when the patient’s blood pressure p falls down to zero? An “OBE”. Well, that’s not really what spectral physics tells us: nothing needs to “get out” of the biological body. Instead, we have a double “quantum” body, from the beginning, with a “substantial” part B and a “spectral extension” B’. Both are “alive”. But, when B is thermodynamically active, we have no direct perception of our B’, for a simple reason: B’ alone is thermodynamically reversible. And just like in superfluids, there exist exchanges between B and B’, but implying no mass transfert, i.e. no energy-momentum transfert. If there’s no perceptible changes in such exchanges, we perceive nothing. Or only a “single” body.

Things begin to change when p = 0, for B becomes inert. Surprisingly enough, the patient then “becomes conscious he/she gets a ‘second’ body, ‘of a different nature’”.

He/she just becomes conscious his/her “spectral extension” B’ is alive… because p = 0 does not concern it… J Or, much better, autonomy is transferred from B to B’. Whatever really happens, B’ is now autonomous and conscious.

 

So, what’s the need for a “Tunnel” with a “Great White Light” at the end?

 

This is where things become really extraordinary. Look at (6) to (8): what does spectral physics tells us?

 

THE SPECTRAL BODY NEEDS TO GO THROUGH LIGHT TO GET SUBSTANCE.

TO BECOME FULLY CONSISTENT.

 

Incredible, isn’t it?

When this “fake OBE” happens, B’ is “wavy”, “unsubstantial”, for it stands in the same “causal” region of the Universe, on “our” side of the light cone, where it appears to us as a signal. But this is the region of pretended “substantial matter”. He’s not in his region! His region is “on the other side of the light cone”. This is where it appears “substantial”, where he gets “consistence”, whereas previous “substantial matter” there becomes “unsubstantial”! J

It’s all about the choice of observers: to an observer in the “causal” region k² > 0 of space-time, l² being < 0, everything with l² < 0 looks non substantial, as matter “cannot move faster than light” and waves “move at the speed of light”… J. To an observer in the “tachyonic” region k² < 0, l² > 0 and everything inside the previous “causal” region looses all substance, for the very same reasons, as this “tachyonic” region is actually “spectral causal”.

There’s a complementarity between the two dynamical regions of space-time.

Statically, now, we find three states of the same Universe: the “original” state (k² > 0 , l² < 0), the “spectral state” (k² < 0 , l² > 0) and the “quantum” state, gluing together these two states.

 

So, B’ has to move from “this” side of the light cone to “the other” to get consistence. And this can only be done with the help of a wormhole (Bidouille 89) and the velocity (!) condition G_iGⁱ = c² on the gravitational potentials.

It all goes around velocities…

 

ONCE B’ IS “ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LIGHT CONE”,

HE CANNOT COME BACK.

 

There can be no “return from the Deads”. This is not what happens. Again, it’s a feeling.

B’ cannot come back, for he’s now substantial and no substance can go through the light cone. Now, to “come back” in the “biological region” he left, he would need to go back through the light cone. Impossible for substantial matter.

 

BESIDES, NO “TUNNEL BACK” IS REPORTED IN NDEs.

 

The Tunnel was possible for B’ was not substantial yet. Now he is, it’s no longer possible…

 

BUT THIS APPARENT CONSTRAINT ACTUALLY EXPLAINS THE RADICAL CHANGE IN THE PATIENT’S BEHAVIOUR WHEN HE WAKES UP:

BECAUSE WHAT HE WAS BEFORE p = 0, I.E. A BIOLOGICAL BODY WITH A SPIRITUAL INCONSISTENT EXTENSION, HAS BECOME A DOUBLE CONSISTENT BODY, WITH A CONSISTENT BIOLOGICAL PART “ON ONE SIDE OF THE LIGHT CONE” AND A CONSISTENT SPIRITUAL PART “ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LIGHT CONE”

HIS “SOUL” TOOK CONSISTENCE.

 

And that makes the system completely different from what he was before…

Because the two bodies can communicate through the light cone.

How?

 

THERE’S A VERY INTERESTING SPECIFICITY OF NEURON CELLS, THAT IS TO PRODUCE AN ELECTROMAGNETIC ACTIVITY. AND THIS ACTIVITY PRECISELY PROPAGATES AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT.

AS A CONSEQUENCE, THE BIOLOGICAL BODY AND THE SPECTRAL ONE (HIS “SOUL”) STAY IN CONNEXION AND CAN COMMUNICATE THROUGH THESE ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS.

AND THIS CAN EXPLAIN WHY A NDE CAN BE INTERPRETED AS A “CONSCIOUSNESS EXPERIMENT”: BECAUSE THE “LINK” BETWEEN THE BIO AND THE PSI, IN ANIMALS, CAN ONLY BE THEIR NERVOUS SYSTEM AND THEREFORE THEIR CONSCIOUSNESS.

 

I’m particularly satisfied with these results, as they first reconciliate all points of view, the biologists’, the spiritualists’ and the physicists’ and because they gratify a hard work done throughout these last two years, showing all I developed so far was kind of founded and that the blame was actually on the incompleteness of quantum physics. It was these incompleteness that led me into dead ends or to unadapted scenario like phase transitions.

 

I’m glad I managed to understand a tiny, but central, part of what’s susceptible to happen “when we die” and to bring a physically consistent scenario to NDEs.

 

I have a very nice story to tell today. And what physics tells me, through the interpretation of its equations is rather extraordinary.

First of all, I have now acquired the certainty that

 

QUANTUM PHYSICS IS INCOMPLETE.

 

Which surely explains why everyone agrees in recognizing actual quantum physics still lacks coherence.

For weeks, not to say months, as I was progressing in the investigation of NDEs, something deeper and deeper inside of me was telling me something was missing in our general frame of description. According to the wave-corpuscle duality, a substantial corpuscle was to be associated with a wavepacket. But such an association just can’t be. Because we then associate two physical objects of different nature and belonging to two different categories: a body is a static object, a wave is a dynamical object.

A wave, and in particular a wavepacket, is a motion, not an object: what we model through y(x,t), or only y(x), is not a body, but a trajectory. It’s a generalization of x(t). So, associating a corpuscle with a wavepacket would amount to associating a body with a trajectory. This is clearly unadapted. What actually happens is that, when going from “classical” physics to “quantum” physics, trajectories are double: while the “classical” corpuscle continues following a “classical” trajectory x(t) through space, a second trajectory appears, modelled by y(x,t) or y(x), depending on the context. So, where the wave-corpuscle is correctly adapted is when it tells us this:

 

ACCORDING TO THE WAVE-CORPUSCLE DUALITY, EVERY PHYSICAL BODY IS ALLOWED TO HAVE TWO MOTIONS THROUGH SPACE AND EVEN TIME: THE SO-CALLED “CLASSICAL” MOTION x(t), AS OFTEN AS THIS BODY BEHAVES LIKE A CORPUSCLE, AND THE WAVY MOTION y(x) OR y(x,t), AS OFTEN AS IT BEHAVES LIKE A WAVE, I.E. LEADS TO INTERFERENCE PICTURES ON SCREENS.

 

This is a first reclassification of physical events that is in agreement with the classification of objects in physics: both x(t) and y(x) or y(x,t) are now dynamical and both belong to the category of trajectories. With a straightforward consequence: properties like the kinetic momentum, for instance, are not properties of bodies, but of their motions. The position x(t) of a body in space at time t has never been considered as a property of this body so far. Nor its momentum p(t). Both are features of its motion. Consequently, M(t) = x(t) x p(t), the vector product of them, is a feature of the body’s motion. It characterizes its rotation around its own axis. Well, the very same hold for waves. The “position” of a wavepacket in space is given by X^.y(x) = xy(x), where X^ = xId is now the “position operator” acting on the functional space of wavepackets. The corresponding “momentum” is P^.y(x) = -iħÑy(x), where P^ = -iħÑ is th “momentum operator” acting on the same space. Both “quantum” operators are now (non commutative) features of the wavy motion. Not of the body! We could say that the “quantum numbers” induced by these operators solving for eigenvalues equations are “carried by the wavepacket”: they aren’t properties of the body itself, like mass or electrical charge, for instance. It goes out of this that the kinetic momentum operator M^ = X^ x P^, where X^ and P^ no longer commute, is a feature of the wavy motion y(x), and the spin number, which is proportional to this “quantum” or “intrinsic” kinetic momentum, is not carried by the corpuscle, but by its wavepacket. When we say a (quantum) particle has “spin s” in its reference frame, we actually refer to the property of its wavepacket. A spin s means this wavepacket can be separated into 2s+1 polarized wavepackets. Or that the wavy trajectory of this “particle” can be separated into 2s+1 polarized trajectories. Hence a spin-1/2 describes a 2-component wavepacket, that is, a 2-component wavy motion, one polarized “up” (s = + ½) and one polarized “down” (s = -½). These “branches” are the “pure states” (i.e. completely polarized states) of the wavy motion of the quantum corpuscle (the “particle”). Otherwise, there’s a statistical mixing of these pure states, indicating the wavepacket, whether is only partially polarized, or is not polarized at all. Obviously, we can always associate the spin with an “intrinsic” rotation of the particle around its axis, just like for the classical kinetic momentum, but deducing it’s some “internal property” of the particle itself, the “quantum body”, is incorrect. It’s a feature of its wavy trajectory.

So, the wave-corpuscle duality postulates any “quantum body” is allowed to move into space or space-time two different ways, according to the results of experiments. Again, deducing “it behaves sometimes as a corpuscle, sometimes as a wave” is incorrect: the body is one thing, its motions are another.

Besides, we retrieve this double nature of the motion at the macroscopic level in superfluids and superconductivity: in superfluids, we find the “normal” component of the motion, which concerns uncorrelated “fluid particles”, together with the “superfluid” component of the motion, which concerns quantum-correlated fluid particles. In superconductivity, uncorrelated electrons (“conduction electrons”) move a “normal” way, while quantum-correlated electrons move a “superconducting” way, i.e. resistance-free.

Yet, something still seemed to miss in this description of Nature. The argument brought by pretended “OBEs” in NDEs was in clear contradistinction with the uniqueness of physical bodies. My argumentation went toward a double nature of physical bodies as well. It appeared to me as the only way to explain OBEs. The phase transition scenario was not appropriated, even the semi-classical ones, for they transform the dynamics of a single body and, as I said earlier, this is not what NDEs report us. All NDEs are crystal-clear on this point: a second body “appears”, of a different nature, and this additional body had no place in today’s physics, not even quantum physics.

So, I went to the “almost-certainty” that quantum physics not only doubles trajectories, but doubles bodies as well.

Anyway, whether a brand new physics was to build and quantum physics had no role to play in parapsychology at all, whether quantum physics was incomplete.

I first tried the simplest solution, the second one, as usual. And we would see, as usual.

Okay, then, let’s now try to extend the wave-corpuscle duality a bit more.

 

ACCORDING TO THE EXTENDED WAVE-CORPUSCLE DUALITY, QUANTUM PHYSICS DOUBLES PHYSICAL BODIES AND TRAJECTORIES.

 

The new quantum frame looks now like this: starting from a single body, say B, with a motion x(t), we find two bodies B and B’ and two motions, x(t) and y(x) or y(x,t). Since B has motion x(t), B’ must have motion y(x) or y(x,t). B and B’ constitute one “quantum” body. [x(t),y(x)] or [x(t),y(x,t)] one “quantum” trajectory. Physical bodies are with physical bodies, trajectories are with trajectories. The classification of things is correct.

If this is so, then B’ can be nothing else than some kind of a “non-substantial body”. However, put this way, it hardly means anything. The adapted physical picture is a “substantial body” B, brought back to point-like, the famous “corpuscle”, surrounded by a “non-substantial” body B’ expanding inside a volume V of space around B.

What can be this volume? Quantum physics immediately answers us:

 

(1)               r(x) = |y(x)|²  in m^-3  =>  V(x) = 1/r(x)  in m³

 

The squared of the amplitude of the wavepacket being in m^-3, its inverse gives the searched volume around the point x of space where the corpuscle B is located. Should B moves along x(t), then (1) transforms into:

 

(2)               r[x(t)] = |y[x(t)]|²  in m^-3  =>  V[x(t)] = 1/r[x(t)]  in m³

 

so that the volume surrounding B can vary from V₀ = V[x(t₀)] = V(x₀) to V₁ = V[x(t₁)] = V(x₁). We can even have:

 

(3)               r[x(t),t] = |y[x(t),t]|²  in m^-3  =>  V[x(t),t] = 1/r[x(t),t]  in m³

 

and our volume is even allowed to change shape in time at each fixed point of space.

 

All this to say quantum physics already brings us solid arguments proving the existence of a second “non substantial” body B’ in direct connexion with the “wave extension” of a point-like “classical” body. This is everything but sci-fi. It only required a suitable reclassification of objects according to their physical categories. The rest is already included in quantum physics.

 

The addition of complexity leads us to the quantum picture of a biological body B surrounded by a “non substantial” body B’, precisely the one we’ve been searching for since the beginning… B and B’ are quantum-correlated, as any quantum object. Where B can be the biological location of a psychological activity, B’ is rather the location of a spiritual activity. B’ is a kind of “spiritual aura” around B, to give a (very) rough idea of it. It’s something “living”, as B, but with “no substance”, despite it remains material.

 

Tomorrow, I’ll give all the technical details about B’, as I have no time left to develop this.

I’ll also explain what the “Tunnel” and the “Great White Light” are for.

It’s not personal interpretation, only physical results.

And it’s just extraordinary.

When practicians report their patients show “a different behaviour” after an NDEs, that’s the least to say. A radical change does happen and we’ll see how and why.

 

Some precisions now about the results obtained.

We first used the proof of the existence of massless particles of matter such as neutrinos to build our own proof of the existence of much more general non-substantial matter.

Then, we used the Laplace transform to show how to go from substantial objects and motions to non-substantial ones. This is surely not the only possible transform, it’s only one of the simplest ones. It should give a first idea of how the whole process works.

Formulas (3) to (12) are useful for massive and/or charged substantial bodies. However, the existence of massless material objects forces us to go beyond the concept of integral transform, as purely non-substantial matter will have no substantial “original”. This means that a physical quantity like the wavy mass M(T), for instance, may exist despite its substantial “original function” m(t) is identically zero. Again, neutrinos are typical examples of this situation. Hence again, their interest to remain massless. On the opposite, the existence of a substantial mass m(t) non zero that would lead to a non-substantial M(T) identically zero would contradict the wave-corpuscle duality: if a substance is present, there’s automatically a wave associated with it. Once more, the physical evidence for this comes from particle physics. The rest is a mere question of assembling and complexification. Purely substantial objects like those encountered in classical physics are “mind simplifications”, “idealizations” of Nature. It only means the wave properties are not taken into account.

To sum up, to a m(t) non identically zero must correspond a M(T) non identically zero, but to a m(t) identically zero can correspond a M(T) non identically zero.

And the same holds for any other charge.

Mathematically speaking, we would say that, in this case, the integral kernel of the transform is no longer injective, as to a zero original may correspond non zero images. It isn’t of course reversible, since these non zero images would set back to zero originals.

From this mathematical viewpoint, the situation of so-called “massless substance” shows “singular” (with respect to the regularity of integral transforms for non zero originals).

There so exist an entire class of constructible objects and motions that are purely non-substantial and that correspond to no substantial objects and motions, but the converse is false.

 

Another important point I’d like to talk about today is on the general physical properties of waves and their fundamental differences with substantial matter.

As I recalled many times, the first of these essential difference is separation. Substantial matter is separable (unless it shows to be very fundamental): if you cut a solid in two parts, you’ll get two solids. Waves aren’t: if you “cut” a wave in two, you double it. The two “copies”, identical, can then always “glue back again”, without interference, since it’s the very same wave on both parts [interferences appear between two interacting waves of different shapes, for instance, a sin(wt) and a cos(w’t)].

Another crucial feature: substantial matter is subject to both internal and external friction, waves aren’t. The reason for this is: substance is stiff, because of its molecular structure, waves aren’t. To get convinced of it, just remind the properties of superconducting and superfluids motions: all purely wavy properties of matter show a complete absence of friction. Superconducting electronic Cooper-Bose pairs induce no resistance. Superfluid motion induces no viscosity.

Everything purely wavy automatically implies no dissipation processes at all. This is because, when combining altogether, waves give a “smooth” assembling.

So, where the decrease of substantial mass m(t) with respect to time is mostly due to friction (in inert substance), a similar decrease of a non substantial (inert) mass M(T) with respect to the period has a different origin. For particles and atoms, we have the simple formula M(T) = h/c²T, which immediately shows the wavy mass can only decrease with |T| (T < 0 for antimatter). In B87, we showed that any non substantial object, however complex, keeps the same phase numbers as its most elementary components. The difference lays in the combinations of Fourier coefficients at each complexification level. So, we would be tempted to say a wave(packet) is “lighter” at low frequency and “heavier” at high frequency, albeit I’d prefer to keep the more general dependence M(T), in case more complex laws appear.

After all, we still don’t know where mass originates from.

 

NO FRICTION = NO DOWNGRADING = NO DISSIPATION

= SELF-REGENERATION = THERMODYNAMICAL REVERSIBILITY

 

A purely wavy structure cannot “get old”, it can only be absorbed or destroyed by interferences with other wavy structures.

As an example, consider a substantial cell. The wave-corpuscle duality together with complexity associates a non substantial cell with it. As long as the substantial cell is “living”, i.e. autonomous, the non substantial cell remains “dead”, i.e. inert, “silencious”. We now know from biology that “paroptosis”, the “programmed death” of the cell is due to the shorting of its telomeres, the molecules at the end of chromosomes. During its life, the length of these telomeres shortens. They “disappear” one after the other. We cannot say a telomere is autonomous, since autonomy really begins at the complexity level of the cell (even a protein is not autonomous, it only has a function). When chromosomes have lost all their telomeres, the coding of the cell is no longer assured, bugs appear, free radicals begin to attack the mitochondria, responsible for the management of the cell resources and the “death” process starts. It proceeds in three steps: contraction of the cell, inner dismantling and general fragmentation. A mitochondria is itself a bacteria, so it’s complex enough to be autonomous. When it “dies”, its autonomy is transferred to its wavepacket. And when the whole cell “dies”, its autonomy is transferred to its wavepacket. So, we don’t mind if the cell dismantles afterward: it’s merely biological. As a material substance, it follows the rules of thermodynamics. What’s important for us is that, once the biological cell inert, its wavepacket replaces it. The cell “continues to live”, but as a compact wave. This wavepacket contains, as sub-structures, all the wavy components of the biological cell, including the molecular wavepackets of its telomeres. It no longer downgrades, for its dynamics is now thermodynamically reversible.

An assembly of biological cells will make a tissue adhering ones to the others, thanks to the adherence molecules they possess on the external face of their membranes.

An assembly of cellular wavepackets will make a tissue combining altogether through constructive interferences. This will give a new wavepacket (B87).

And so on.

If you tear a biological tissue apart, you’ll destroy it once you’re over its plasticity limit.

If you try to tear a tissue wavepacket apart, all you’ll do will be to extend it. You’ll never manage to destroy it this way, for all the cellular wavepackets composing it are strongly correlated. Basically, you could extend it “from one side of the Universe to the other”, you’ll never get it. The only way to destroy it is to expose it to negative interferences.

If you cut somebody alive in two, you’ll (almost) surely kill him.

If you cut his “soul” in two, you’ll double it…

 

These are only basic examples of the striking differences there are between substantial matter and non substantial one. If you limit yourself to biology or even behavioural sciences, you can’t even approach anything about “parapsychology”. For you, nothing happens, but in peoples’mind. And, indeed, nothing “extra-biological” happens.

You see no “ghosts”.

But, in particle accelerators, physicists see no neutrinos… to “see” them, they have to deduce their presence from the reaction balance.

So, you naturally laugh at “ghosts walking through walls”.

But, wavepackets go through walls… they can change shape against a potential barrier (energy), but they won’t through substantial matter, since they experience no friction at all…

As for neutrinos, they can go through lightyears of matter without interacting…

Now, don’t think I’m trying to say this non substantial matter is made of neutrinos, that’s not what I’m saying, nor what I’m thinking! And it’s not the case at all. I just emphasized the fact that the discovery of neutrinos was the first experimental evidence to the existing on purely non substantial matter. A first step to go much further, far beyond neutrino matter.

 

I’d also like to insist on the fact that, when you’re “alive”, your “soul” stays inert, but it’s completely formed! Just as your biological body.

And that precisely explains why, when your heart suddenly stops, your soul relay straight away and you experience what you interpret as a “OBE”. Within our frame, you don’t need to “get out of your body” anymore. It becomes a mere autonomy transfert from your biological body, now inert, to your soul, now activated.

That would be just impossible if your soul had to form step by step in some mysterious development process. Within 7 mns chrono?...

 

Your memory. Same. Suppose a mental object is stocked in a neuron network somewhere inside your cortex. This mental object is made of electrochemical charges and electromagnetic radiations. It’s an electrochemical information. This network is damaged. The information is transferred into the corresponding wavepacket. For your brain, it’s lost. For your soul, it’s not.

If the information transfert is reversible and if your brain, thanks to its very high plasticity, has recreated a neuron network able to stock this object again, or transferred this ability to another network, than you can recover this information.

Apparently, this is what happens in NDEs. It cannot be “because the experience carries a strong emotional charge”, since your brain is OFF… and a neuron cell can stay silencious within an active brain, while it soon starts to die inside a silencious brain. The difference there is the same as between sleep (an active process) and biological death.

How would you otherwise explain an NDE experiencer remind, not only what happened to him/her, but what he/she saw, hear, everything, in the operation room, in the corridors of the hospital,…?

How could he/she remind what his/her brain was unable to capture?....

The only reasonable answer is that there necessarily is another active process in another body.

Another active process to replace the now inert one.

And another body to take place of the whole inert one.

To be distinguished from its biological counterpart.

 

Otherwise, we always fall into a dead end.

For the time being, it doesn’t work so bad…

 

Ah! And a “last minute”:

 

You no more see no “angels” nor “evils”.

But physicists see positive and negative frequencies, leading to positive and negative wave energies.

 

WHAT WE USE TO CALL “ANGELS” MAY BE REINTERPRETED AS PSI ENTITIES WITH POSITIVE WAVY MASS.

AND WHAT WE USE TO CALL “EVILS” MAY BE REINTERPRETED AS PSI ENTITIES WITH NEGATIVE WAVY MASS.

BOTH SIGNS ARE NOW ALLOWED, INSIDE THE SAME SPACE-TIME.

AS FOR INTERACTIONS, I.E. INTERFERENCES, THEY ARE:

-         CONSTRUCTIVE BETWEEN ANGELS AND BETWEEN EVILS;

-         AND DESTRUCTIVE BETWEEN ANGELS AND EVILS.

 

Choose your side. J

 

 

We move on. Today, two things: autonomy and the PSI.

We begin with autonomy.

 

AUTONOMOUS BODIES ARE PHYSICAL BODIES ABLE TO MANAGE THEIR INTERNAL RESSOURCES AND THEIR MOTION ON THEIR OWN.

 

That’s what differentiate them from inert bodies, which cannot move on their own, except a mere rotation around their axis under the influence of their own interaction field(s). Otherwise, one has to apply an external force to such bodies to make them move and they are unable to manage their internal resources.

This shows there is a complexity level to reach before becoming autonomous. But, once a physical system has reached this level, autonomy becomes an entire characteristic of the system, just like mass or charge.

We could roughly classify systems into two big categories: inert systems, for which autonomy is zero and autonomous systems, for which autonomy is positive.

For the time being, I can see no negative autonomy, since you cannot be “more inert than the inert”. Just like for temperature: you cannot be colder than the absolute zero.

 

“LIVING” BODIES ARE AUTONOMOUS BODIES.

 

A bacteria is a living body, since it can move on their own, manage its own resources and exchange with its surrounding environment.

This last ability is not a characteristic of autonomous systems, since any inert system can exchange heat with its external environment (except, by convention, the entire universe, considered as the only closed thermodynamical system).

This definition of the living is very general: nowhere does it precise the need for any material substance. Therefore, as we saw it in the former bidouille, complex yet non-substantial matter can be autonomous and thus living as well. I’d like to emphasize the fact there’s absolutely no physical objection to this. Only could it hurt our familiar (and well-established) conception of “the living”.

To go further, we need to introduce a new conservation law, that will remain a postulate until it’s confirmed or not:

 

IN AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS, AUTONOMY IS A CONSERVED QUANTITY.

 

This is already obvious for the “substantial living”: as long as an autonomous substantial system lives, it keeps its full autonomy. This covers all biology.

It becomes much less obvious in the transition from “living” to “death”. Let us schematize the process like this:

 

(1)               (living body 1) -> (inert body 1) + (living body 2)

 

In such a kind of “reaction”, we assume autonomy has to be conserved. The “living body 1” has autonomy A₁ > 0. It is supposed to give an “inert body 1” the autonomy of which has become A’₁ = 0 together with a “living body 2”, whose autonomy can be nothing else than A₂ = A₁ > 0. In other words, we had an autonomy transfert from a first body to a second one.

To understand where this “second body” could emerge from, just remind the hypothesis according to which all physical bodies are made “double”, in the sense that an extension of the wave-corpuscle duality to complex macroscopic systems leads to a “substantial / non-substantial” duality. According to this (still purely) theoretical result, we’d better rewrite (1) under the more precise form:

 

(2)               (SB; A > 0 / NSB; A = 0) -> (SB; A = 0 / NSB; A > 0)

 

We see much more clearly the autonomy transfert during the process: Substantial Body (SB) is the biological body. When “living”, its autonomy is > 0. Meanwhile, we assume its wavy counterpart NSB (Non Substantial Body) to remain inert (A = 0). After the transfert, SB turns inert (A = 0) and its previous autonomy has been fully transferred to NSB, who becomes “living”.

So, before the “living to death” transition, SB is “living” and NSB “dead” (inert); after the transition, SB is “dead” and NSB “alive”.

Let’s now go a bit further, introducing the blood pressure p.

For p > p_c » 15 pulses / mn, we have SB “alive”, NSB “dead”, that is, A_SB(p) > 0 and A_NSB(p) = 0.

For p = 0, we have SB “dead”, NSB “alive”, that is A_SB(0) = 0 and A_NSB(0) = A_SB(p>p_c) > 0.

In between, i.e. for 0 < p < p_c, the transition is partial, concerning only subsystems of SB involved in the process (i.e. “dying”). Each of these subsystems then transfers its autonomy to its non-substantial equivalent, while the rest of SB remains autonomous.

Let’s apply this to stade 2 coma. All the areas of the central nervous system involved, whether are damaged or are “down” (silencious). We have inert areas: their autonomy, as cells or assemblies of cells, have fallen down to zero. If autonomy has to be conserved, then it must be transferred “in some other structures”. These “some other structures” being nothing else than the non-substantial counterparts, which become active. The rest of SB being still biologically active, the rest of NSB remains inactive.

Stade 3 extends this to a larger part of the two bodies. Stade 4 covers the whole bodies.

 

What does this mean? It means the patient in real (= non artificial) coma is indeed “partially unconscious and inert” on the biological viewpoint. But, meanwhile and during all his coma, the corresponding activities are transferred into the associated areas of his non-substantial body. The patient can apparently keep, or not, a memory of his “non-substantial activities” when he awakes. It’s now a question of information transfert, back to his biological body, this time. As the transition from consciousness to coma is far from being reversible (except for stade 1), so is the transfert of informations from the non-substantial body back to the substantial one.

 

Consider now a patient having a heart attack. His blood pressure falls down to zero. You connect him to an artificial heart. His blood pressure goes back up to normal.

Why doesn’t he get back from stade 4, then?

Because his substantial body is still not autonomous again. It’s only fed by external means.

 

AS LONG AS AUTONOMY IS NOT TRANSFERRED BACK FROM THE NON SUBSTANTIAL BODY TO THE SUBSTANTIAL ONE, IF POSSIBLE, THE SUBSTANTIAL BODY REMAINS INERT, WHATEVER YOU TRY TO BRING IT BACK TO NORMAL ACTIVITY.

 

And this remains valid for comas, replacing global inertia with partial one.

You don’t deal with inert matter anymore, you deal with autonomous matter. To “stay biologically alive” therefore becomes a voluntary process. If the (non-substantial) patient is not willing to “get back to life”, he won’t wake up again.

Now, NDEs tell us something more: that the patient could be forced to “get back to biological life”. This is highly metaphysical for the time being (and may even remain). I’m dealing with what (bio)physics can do and cannot. Which laws of Nature can be allowed or not. I hardly can go further.

What we can assert, because we see it, it’s a clinical fact, is that, amongst all the clinical death registered very day, very few “go back to life”. So, on a theoretical viewpoint, we can “almost surely” consider the “dying” process as being non-reversible.

Fortunately enough.

Because, if it was not the case, then we would live in a world of “living deads”.

 

WHAT WE CALL “LIFE” SHOULD BE RENAMED “SUBSTANTIAL” OR “MATERIAL LIFE”. IT COVERS ONLY A SHORT LIFETIME.

AND WHAT WE CALL “DEATH” SHOULD REALLY BE RENAMED “NON SUBSTANTIAL” OR “NON MATERIAL” LIFE.

OUR SECOND LIFE.

 

I know this is very commercial, but we should really end with this negative vision of “death” we’ve been carrying since the emergence of “modern” humanity. I’m talking about the “modern human”, industrial era, who rejected everything “spiritual” and “non material” from his global fate. This credo goes against the principles of physics.

We have evidences of the existence of matter having nothing substantial at all. We just cannot reject this in bulk, only because we have a problem of understanding.

Quantum physics applied to complex systems shows without ambiguity that physical bodies are double, with the consequence that we have two lives and not only a single one.

And the first one is far the shortest one. So?

 

Here’s for the first point of today. The second one now, the PSI.

 

It’s actually very easy to go from the “material dynamics” of macroscopic bodies to the “wavy dynamics” involving wave parameters (wavelengths, periods, group velocity and phase velocity): it suffices to place ourselves in the proper functional spaces and perform an integral transform with a smooth kernel. I will restrict myself to the familiar Laplace transform, since it transforms real quantities into real ones.

The transformation of “material time” t into “wavy time” T (i.e. period) is simply:

 

(3)               T = ò₀^+¥ texp(-t/T)dt/T

 

and that of “material distance” x into “wavy distance” (i.e. wavelength vector) l:

 

(4)   l = òòò_|x|³0 xexp(-å_a=1³ x^a/l^a)d³x/l¹l²l³

 

Going from a “classical trajectory” x(t) to a “wave trajectory” l(T) requires to work in the functional 3-space of classical trajectories:

 

(5)   l(T) = òòò_|x(t)|³0 x(t)exp[-å_a=1³ x^a(t)/l^a(T)]d³x(t)/l¹(T)l²(T)l³(T)

                                                                                                         

To transform an instantanous velocity v(t) = dx(t)/dt into a group velocity n(T) = dl(T)/dT, we need to work in the functional space of 3-velocities (tangent bundle):

 

(6)   n(T) = òòò_|v(t)|³0 v(t)exp[-å_a=1³ v^a(t)/n^a(T)]d³x(t)/n¹(T)n²(T)n³(T)

 

Finally, going from the contact space [x(t),v(t),t] to the contact space [l(T),n(T),T] combines all three transforms. The “contact elementary 7-volume” is d³x(t)d³v(t)dt. Then, we can transform a Lagrange function L[x(t),v(t),t] into a L^[l(T),n(T),T] and do “spectral dynamics”:

 

(7)   L^[l(T),n(T),T] = ò₀^+¥òòò_|x(t)|³0òòò_|v(t)|³0 L[x(t),v(t),t]exp(-t/T)exp(-å_a=1³ x^a/l^a)exp[-å_a=1³ x^a(t)/l^a(T)]dtd³x(t)d³v(t)/Tl¹(T)l²(T)l³(T)n¹(T)n²(T)n³(T)

 

In space relativity, both x(t) and v(t) are unlimited. So, we can set x(0) = 0, v(0) = 0 and x(+¥) = +¥, v(+¥) = +¥. In space-time relativity, the xⁱ(t)s replace the x(t)s and the cuⁱ(t)s the v(t)s. There, both xⁱ(t) and uⁱ(t) are unlimited, while 3-velocity v(t) must have modulus between 0 and c.

The rest consists in applying the known formulas of “material dynamics”, using the wave parameters and variables. Simple. For instance, the 3-momentum will be:

 

(8)   p(T) = ¶L^[l(T),n(T),T]/¶n(T)

 

and so on.

 

WHAT WE WILL CALL A “MACROSCOPIC PSI BODY” WILL SIMPLY BE A NON SUBSTANTIAL, ELECTRICALLY NEUTRAL BODY WITH FINITE “SPECTRAL 3-VOLUME” l¹l²l³, ALL l^a BOUNDED (a = 1,2,3), I.E. A COMPACT WAVE OR “WAVEPACKET”.

 

Again, we find inert PSI bodies and autonomous ones, elementary PSI bodies and complex ones. Again, in “spectral 3-space”, I can neglect the shape of the body to bring everything back to its centre of gravity.

A PSI body has “wavy mass”:

 

(9)   M(T) = ò₀^+¥ m(t)exp(-t/T)dt/T

 

m(t) is the mass of its substantial counterpart. The wavy mass of the substantial body is zero, the substantial mass of the PSI body is zero. Formula (9) above transforms a substantial mass into a wavy one. A kinetic contribution like ½ m(t)v²(t) can be directly transformed into ½ M(T)n²(T) because the integration domains are different: m(t) -> M(T) sums up over t, v(t) -> n(T) sums up over v(T).

If we had limited ourselves to substantial masses, we would have never been able to properly define nor describe any “PSI interaction” between PSI bodies. With wavy masses, it’s straightforward. The gravitational potentials G_i(x) become:

 

(10)           G^_i(l,T) = òòò_|x|³0ò₀^+¥ G_i(x,t)exp(-t/T)exp(-å_a=1³ x^a/l^a)d³xdt/Tl¹l²l³

 

Derivatives are upon the l^a and l⁰ = cT. G^_i(l,T) is a « spectral » or « PSI » (whatever) gravity field for it is produced by a PSI body with wavy mass M’(T). This source mass produces a 4-current [M’(T)c , M’(T)n(T)]. The spectral gravity field acts upon wavy masses but has no effect on substantial masses. Conversely, the usual gravity field G_i(x,t) acts upon substantial masses but has no effect on wavy masses.

Always the same “duality”.

To see a gravity field having effects on both types of masses would require the field to span over both groups of variables: G_i(x,t,l,T). Formula (10) would then have to be changed into a convolution formula:

 

(11)           G^_i(x,t,l,T) = òòò_|x’|³0ò₀^+¥ G_i(x’,t’)exp(-|t-t’|/T)exp[-å_a=1³ |x^a – x’^a|/l^a]d³x’dt’/Tl¹l²l³

 

I have to introduce absolute values |.| in the exponential arguments, since integration over t’ and x’ still have to cover the domains |x’| ³ 0 and t’ ³ 0 and some of these values can appear to be greater than given x or t, respectively. This, for instance, would not happen for a Gaussian kernel. An initial G_i(x,t), acting on mere substantial masses, would then be extended into a G^_i(x,t,l,T) acting on both types of masses.

This can obviously be done for any field.

Not only mass is involved as a possible characteristic of a PSI body. Any wavy charge can be, as long as the substantial counterpart carries an associated charge. Take the example of the nervous cell: there are electrical charges on both sides of the membrane. Let q(t) be an amount of electric charge at time t.

 

(12)           Q(T) = ò₀^+¥ q(t)exp(-t/T)dt/T

 

is the corresponding amount of « wavy charge » at period T. Just like for mass, the neuron cell remains free of wavy charge, while the corresponding “PSI cell” (its associated wavepacket) remains free of electrical charge.

 

That’s all for today, folks. What follows needs “a little survey”…

 

Pfff… To say i encounter problems is simply an euphemism… Basically, the central obstruction is the appearance of a second body at stade 4, in addition to the biological one. But, overall, it is this aptitude of this second body to apparently disconnect from the first one. And this strikingly contradicts all known approaches from quantum theory and intrication. That’s the main reason why I’ve been turning in circles these last days.

There may be a way out, but it requires a reinterpretation of the wave-corpuscle duality.

Let’s try.

 

The node is the question of massless particles. For massive particles, one can define energy and 3-momentum without ambiguity using space-time relativity, for these quantities are corpuscular characteristics of a given physical body. So, for a corpuscle of mass at rest m₀, its energy of motion at velocity v(t) and its 3-momentum are simply:

 

(1)               E_corp(t) = m₀c²/[1 – v²(t)/c²]^1/2  ,  p_corp(t) = m₀v(t)/[1 – v²(t)/c²]^1/2

 

On the other hand, a wave with pulsation w and 3-wave number k will have wavy energy and wavy 3-momentum:

 

(2)               E_wav = ħw  ,  p_wav = ħk

 

When m₀ ¹ 0, on can always find a reference frame where the corpuscle is at rest and E_corp(t) as p_corp(t) are perfectly well defined for 0 £ v(t) < c. Going from classical to quantum, we can then use the De Broglie’s relations:

 

(3)               E_corp(t) = E_wav  ,  p_corp(t) = p_wav

 

and define the « (quantum) particle » as being a physical object with both corpuscular and wavy properties. Some experiments enlight its corpuscular behaviour, some its wavy behaviour. We interpret this saying the particle “is a corpuscle and a wave at the same time” or “sometimes behaves like a corpuscle and sometimes like a wave”. This is known as the “wave-corpuscle duality”.

A difficulty appears for massless particles. Consider first the case of the photon. There has been two decisive works on its quantum nature: that of Planck on the so-called “black body” and that of Einstein, on the photoelectric effect. Planck revealed the discrete nature of the electromagnetic radiation in a closed oven at temperature T: when trapped inside a close finite volume of space, an electromagnetic radiation behaves as an harmonic oscillator and its energy spectrum contains only discrete values, namely integral multiples of ħw₀, the energy of the fundamental state. Einstein then studied the photoelectric effect, i.e. emission of an electromagnetic radiation by atomic electrons. His theoretical work was confirmed 20 years later by Compton: an atomic electron did seem to emit a single quantum of electromagnetic radiation, when the atom interacted with an electromagnetic wave. The Compton wavelength was in perfect agreement with de Broglie’s relations, bringing people to consider the corpuscle known as “photon”, i.e. the quantum of electromagnetic light, a “quantum reality”, satisfying the De Broglie relations.

Still, there remains a problem with the corpuscular properties of the photon. When m₀ = 0, (1) leads to E_corp º 0 and p_corp º 0 all the time for 0 £ v(t) < c, meaning there’s no classical corpuscle at all. When v = c, (1) leads to 0/0, indefinite quantities, since m₀ is not supposed to depend on v and the situation is no better.

I want to point out here the fact that the choice m₀ = 0 ó v = c has nothing formal in space-time relativity. It’s merely a result “suitable for everybody”. But, no mathematics based on this frame shows that (m₀ = 0 ó v = c) guarantees a finite energy and a finite momentum at all times. De Broglie’s relations (3) then become no longer fully adapted in this case and it’s quite easy to understand it: there’s an essential difference between discrete wavy values such as nħw₀, n integer, and associating to them a set of n identical corpuscles.

 

THE PHYSICAL REALITY IS: THE PHOTON HAS NOTHING SUBSTANTIAL AT ALL. IT’S A PURELY WAVY OBJECT. ONE CAN ALWAYS ASSOCIATE A “CORPUSCLE” WITH IT, BUT NOTHING ALLOWS US TO GO BEYOND THIS PURELY UNFORMAL ASSOCIATION.

 

The Compton effect is not set back into question at all. Instead of saying “an atomic electron emit a (corpuscular) photon”, it’s much better to say it emits “a single quantum of electromagnetic radiation”, a single “wavy object called the photon”. Compton’s relation is even better confirmed, if we rewrite it l = h/p_wav: p_wav, not p_corp!!! p_corp is zero for the photon.

 

THE VERY SAME PROBLEM HOLDS FOR THE NEUTRINO, IF THIS MATTER PARTICLE IS TO REMAIN REALLY MASSLESS: DESPITE THE FACT IT’S A FERMION, THE MASSLESS NEUTRINO CAN HAVE NOTHING SUBSTANTIAL.

 

Let’s get back to history again. Pauli first wrote the spontaneous decay of the free neutron: n⁰ -> p⁺ + e^-. Energy was conserved. 3-momentum was conserved. But the spin was not: n⁰ is spin ½, the pair (p⁺,e^-) has spin 1. Now, in order to be allowed, the spin has to be conserved. So, Pauli was forced to introduce a new particle, n⁰, electrically neutral (to conserve the electric charge in the reaction), he called “neutrino”, “little neutron”. The complete reaction now writes: n⁰ -> p⁺ + e^- + n_e*, n_e* being the electronic antineutrino. Since n_e* did not contribute for corpuscular energy nor 3-momentum and was ejected at the speed of light out of the decaying neutron, Pauli deduced, still from space-time relativity, that the mass at rest of n_e* (and thus n_e) should be zero. However, n_e* does have an energy, and even a 3-momentum, for it contributes to the energy of spin. 1) spin is a purely quantum quantity, with no classical equivalent at all (not even the kinetic momentum); 2) n_e and n_e* are pure wavy, yet material, objects.

 

THE DISCOVERY OF THE NEUTRINO WAS ACTUALLY THE FIRST PHYSICAL PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF NON-SUBSTANTIAL MATTER.

 

Just like the photon only has two polarization states instead of the three required for a spin 1, the neutrino only has one polarization state instead of the two awaited for a spin ½. The origin of this is well-known, it’s due to the zero mass.

 

SO, BASICALLY, THERE’S NO PROBLEM OF PRINCIPLE IN ENCOUTERING MASSLESS FERMIONS IN NATURE. RIGHT ON THE CONTRARY, IT OPENS US WIDE THE GATE TO “WAVY MATTER”, I.E. MATTER WITH NO CLASSICAL EQUIVALENT.

 

Which does not prevent these fermions to contribute to the (wavy) energy of the Universe. But certainly not to the corpuscular one. Besides, we find no neutrino contribution to the classical energy of the Universe. The “neutrino problem” is a purely quantum one.

Massless fermions only hurt our conception of matter, since we’re used to reason in terms of classical, corpuscular, matter. That’s all.

 

This existence of non-substantial matter, revealed in the particle accelerators, is a first important step in our own researches, about the possible nature of a second physical body.

The second step is harder to make, as it’s about the separation between the corpuscle and the wave. Once more, Prigogine can save us.

 

LOCALLY, I.E. AT THE MICROSCOPIC LEVEL OF DESCRIPTION (INDIVIDUAL TRAJECTORIES), THE CORPUSCLE IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE WAVE FOR MASSIVE PARTICLES, A PROPERTY INTERPRETED AS QUANTUM INTRICATION, ALLOWING TO ASSOCIATE A “PSEUDO-CORPUSCLE” TO ANY MASSLESS PARTICLE.

 

“interpreted as” is very important. At this elementary level, we find both classical trajectories x(t), xⁱ(t) for corpuscles and wave trajectories y(x,t) (spinor or tensor). The De Broglie duality then means we cannot distinguish between what we will call a “corpuscle” and what we will call a “wave”: any particle has both nature, the “quantum” nature.

This assertion has no reason to hold at the macroscopic level. The reason is, we go from individual objects and separated motions to collections of objects and sheaves of trajectories. A non-reversible process.

 

GLOBALLY, I.E. AT THE MACROSCOPIC LEVEL OF DESCRIPTION, WE HAVE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE CORPUSCLE (POINT-LIKE BODY) AND THE WAVE, A CHANGE INTERPRETED, THIS TIME, AS QUANTUM DISINTRICATION. HOWEVER, THE WAVEPACKET DOES NOT VANISH, IT’S NOT EVEN “SEPARATED FROM” THE SUBSTANCE, WE NEED TO MAKE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO.

 

I’m going to try and justify all this. If we want the wave-corpuscle duality to include massless particles, we have no other solution than to consider that the wave carries no mass at all. The concept of mass is therefore purely corpuscular and the wave can be endowed, at the best, a “mass equivalent” hf/c², where f is the frequency of the wave. But this “mass equivalent” has nothing substantial. Then and only then can massless particles be properly represented as some “intricated pair” made of a wave, to which we merely associate a corresponding pseudo-corpuscle of zero mass.

This is not a true intrication. A true intrication would be a non-separable pair made of two physical objects, may they have different natures, exchanging their informations. Now, in massless systems, there can be no mass transfert from a “corpuscle” to a wave, since there’s no substantial mass anywhere… Instead and according to space-time relativity, there’s energy and 3-momentum. Both can be converted from one form to another one. And this is exactly what the De Broglie relations tell us: when they hold, the corpuscular energy can be converted into a wavy energy and back, as corpuscular 3-momentum can be converted into wavy 3-momentum and back.

But this actually corresponds to a situation of equilibrium: the De Broglie equivalence relations (3) can be read as equilibrium relations, where the corpuscular energy and 3-momentum of a system become equal to their wavy counterparts.

If we read it this way and then, turn back to Prigogine, we see that such an equilibrium situation can only be local. First, because it’s purely mechanical, between the dynamics of a corpuscle and the dynamics of a wave, for each particle (the corresponding wave is thus the individual wavepacket). Second, because there is no dissipation: all the corpuscular energy and 3-momentum is converted (and back) into the corresponding wavy energy and 3-momentum. Immediate consequence of this: these conversion processes are fully reversible, typical of “ideal” mechanics involving no friction and there’s no “time arrow”. Schrödinger is reversible, Klein-Gordon is reversible, even Ginzburg-Landau is (with respect to the inversion of thermodynamical parameters).

This should justify, once again, the general principles of quantum theory at the microscopic level.

As soon as the mesoscopic scale, this is no longer true. It’s still less true for complex systems, because of chaos. Chaos is a typical non-equilibrium situation. There, the De Broglie equivalence relations do not hold anymore, since we now have to distinguish between the substance and the wave. Both remain present. As we’ve seen before, a complex wavepacket made of more fundamental wavepackets remains a wavepacket (with only sub-structures) and there’s no reason why a wavepacket should vanish at higher scales, because of “information dissipation”. What chaos does is to “cut the system off its past”. In the present case, off its dual nature.

If a wavepacket had to vanish, there could be no light at all… no electromagnetic field… no gravitation… nothing.

The wavepacket is not even “separated from the corpuscle”, we have “substance” on one side and “non-substance” on the other side, carrying their own physical properties. They still can interact. The action of a wave upon a substance is identified with an external force.

The emission of a wave by a substance is identified with a “field of forces” and the substance in question as “the source of the force field”.

At the macroscopic level, the distinction is complete: we observe a world made of “substance with no wave properties at all” and “wave made of no substance at all”.

But we observe both. Both, “separately”. Distinctively.

 

There’s a straight parallel with fermions and bosons: at high temperatures, we don’t need to distinguish between fermions and bosons anymore; at low temperatures, we need to do it.

 

IF WE NOW COMBINE MASSLESS MATTER AND COMPLEXITY, WE ARE LED TO THE POSSIBILITY OF THE PHYSICAL EXISTENCE OF “NON SUBSTANTIAL” BODIES WITH PURELY WAVY PROPERTIES, COMPACT VOLUMES (AS WAVEPACKETS), TO BE DISTINGUISHED WITH SUBSTANTIAL BODIES.

“NON SUBSTANTIAL BODIES” ARE “SUBSTANTIALLY MASSLESS”. THEIR ENERGY IS THAT OF THEIR WAVEPACKET.

THEY ARE ALSO GLOBALLY ELECTRICALLY NEUTRAL.

 

This would imply all physical objects are actually “double made”: a substantial one and a non-substantial one.

 

Why then would the non-substantial body remain non-observable?

 

HEY: MASSLESS AND ELECTRICALLY NEUTRAL!

J

 

Try to catch him with an MRI!... :))

Or feel its presence with your consciousness (an electrochemical process!)…