Jacques Lavau

Ingénieur Génie Industriel Orsay

Marketing Industriel C.N.A.M.

Informatique Industrielle H.E.I.

quartier La Gandole

26740 Savasse


Tel: 04 75 46 13 92

14 July 1997

Rouse Ball Professor Roger Penrose

University of Oxford

Oxford OX2 6DP

United Kingdom

Dear Sir,

for several years, I admire your elaboration of twistors, though I find very difficult to crawl into the two volumes of Spinors and space-time.

I am a true physicist, and I will never mimic a true mathematician, in this meaning: I need the whole chaining of meanings and generalisations from experiences; I can not keep up very long when I have abstractions to read or to listen, without firm ground. Well, not everybody can be the general Leclerc de Hautecloque, but anybody can too, turn his weaknesses into strengths. He could turn his weakness of weaponry into mobility and surprise, in the desert. As I share my need of firm ground with the most of technician people, I carefully sketch the chaining of groundings and abstractions, and conceptualizations when reading the authors. It pays; it pays new insights, sometimes discoveries. The engineering science of conceptualization was yet to be established, and most of it is still to be done.

I have the french translation of your Shadows of the Mind. Paragraph 7.12, page 378, you have written that you expected some radicalchange of point of view, to amend the QM. And you seemed to deem the contributions of Aharonov, Vaidman, Werbos, or Costa de Beauregard, as still far from the target. I have not yet read any of those authors (Montélimar is a small and poorly literate town, far from any university). However, as far as I have heard or indirectly read on their ideas, we share at least one point: we do not reject the antichronous part of quantic causality.

Yet, I have the immodesty to think that I came to such a radical change of paradigm. In the enclosed paper "Though obvious, the retrosymmetry was unseen", I limit myself to the reshaping of the concepts, without any calculus. Einstein and de Broglie were forced to miss the spot, as they stuck to a neo-Newtonian corpuscle, and to an unproved validity of macroscopic space-time, and macroscopic causality, at quantic and subquantic level... Not any positivist could find it, of course, without abandoning positivism. Otherwise, no technical obstacle prevented the discovery sixty nine years ago, say by Dirac, just the mental obstacles...

In an other and yet unfinished work, I came into a new projection, very useful to a better use and interpretation of Broglian waves, especially for the geometrization of mass.

I had the surprise, too, that nobody seem to have diagonalized a mere Lorentz transformation, nor projected it on its proper subspaces. Here the formalism seem to be more learned than A. Einstein himself, as it leads us into interpretations that he strongly rejected: any restricted Lorentz transformation is decomposable into an orthochronous term, and an antichronous term, on the light cone, and is then diagonal. The general believing of my colleagues is too anthropocentric to tolerate such a simple result.

I came across lately on the paper from Kwiat, Weinfurter and Zeilinger, in Scientific American, on their experiments with Kasevitch, you briefly told about in § 5.9. of Shadows of the Mind. You have presented it as a solution of the Elitzur-Vaidman paradox. Mathematicians trust physicists far too easily... People trust too easily scientists to have appropriate and strict reality ordeals.

What a deception reading that paper! All that fuss, just to prove that reasoning is difficult and odd, with their neo-Newtonian corpuscle, equipped with deepest depth psychology, to determine its behaviour and its Newtonian trajectory by the presumed fact that an observer tries or does not try to measure where it will bang ! All that fuss, just to show a mere amplifying device: in their last Zeno interferometer, they obtained that from 100 incoming photons, 30 finally transfer the bulk of their momenergy to the "pebble", and 70 to the mentally privileged detecting cell. If they increase the number of cycles, sure they decrease the ratio of final transfers to the "pebble", but they will increase the noise too. No amplifier is without noise.

But wherever each photon will finally transfer its main momenergy, it really interacts with all reachable parts of the device. And, sorry for the mainstream, each interaction with a mirror, or any dioptric surface, is a quantic reaction, involving some momenergy changing of owner, even in the cases where no quantum of angular moment does change of owner. Only the terror of quantic dogma prevents people to physically reasoning, and sticks them to magic with neo-Newtonian and deepest depth psychologist corpuscles. In the Kwiat, Weinfurter, Zeilinger, and Kasevitch device, at each cycle of the photon, the radiation stress on the mirrors occurs. It has some results, such as slight frequency changes, on the reflected photon: the recoil of the mirror depends on its inertia, on its temperature and on the interacting phonons. The mirror may mainly borrow momenergy from the incoming photon, but this borrow is uniform only at zero K; sometimes, by its thermal vibration, the mirror may give positive momenergy to the reflected photon. Anyway, the reflections and refractions spread its frequency. There are some other causes of such a noise, inherent to the interferometer, but this is enough for today.

I thank you to have withstood my English mistakes up to this point.

Sincerely yours,