1	The legacy faults.

A legacy due to Niels Bohr is to confuse the concept of measure with the concept of quantic reaction, or transition from a quasi-stable state to another quasi-stable state. Every macroscopic effect, hence every mea sure, implies at least one quantic reaction, and more often indeed a huge number of quantic reactions. Only an infinitesimal minority of quantic reactions (very recent ones), are included in a measure recorded by a human, or by a human-made recorder. All other quantic reactions, occurring elsewhere, or before the advent of industrialized mankind, demand a descriptor that does not depend in any way, on the human psyche.

Quite simply, the concept of quantic reaction is transferred from the well known concept of chemical (or nuclear) reaction, by abstracting towards the abs tract class of reactions, and setting a new instance of that class.

These three instances: quantic reaction, chemical reaction, nuclear reaction are indeed subclasses of the general class of reactions.

In a Feynman diagram (part of a graph, indeed), the quantic reactions correspond to the vertices of the graph. Two vertices are connected by a propagator-timer, such as: propagation of a photon, existence of an electron, etc.
Since 1905, the granular syntax of quantic reactions has been widely confused with a mystic rehabilitation of the Newtonian corpuscle. Of course, it never worked; it could never work any more... No Newtonian "corpuscle" can simultaneously pass through the two holes in Young's experiment, through which real elec
trons pass. No "corpuscle" can diffract on a crystalline lattice, as neutrons do. We must accept that reality is syntax ruled, and that it is up to us to write down its conformal descriptor(
).

3	The concept of temporal causality was overstretched out of its domain of competence.

In the macroscopic domain, it is usually reasonable to presume that the future does not influence the past. Statistical thermodynamics give us very convincing demonstrations, as long as we consider large systems, involving a huge number of quantic states, such as a gas. Newtonian ballistics, and its differential formalism, has accustomed us to believe this, and to always forget to consider each movement as a whole. As the lear ning of integral Hamiltonian formalism is hardly touched on, and only very late in the course of a scientific education, this conditioned reflex was never shaken up, was never deconditioned.

Yet, however unanimous that metaphysical presumption may be, it has never been validated by experiments in the quantic domain, and indeed has been extensively invalidated. We are still very ignorant of what this time that we put in our equations may be. We have no proof whatsoever, that our macroscopic mean time has any competence, nor even existence, on a quantic level. We have only mocking jokes.

4	The principle of retrosymmetry, in the domain of quantons.

1.	History has shown us outstanding researchers driven to imagine electrons with negative energy, propagating towards the macroscopic past (see P.A.M. Dirac()), or driven to figure out that all the electro
magnetic mass of the electrons comes from the sum of the retarded, and the advanced electromagnetic interactions with the rest in the universe (see Feynman and Wheeler( )). Everyday, we have before our eyes Feynman diagrams, that can be interpreted just as well with Dirac's retropropagation as with the only ortho
propagation towards the future. Discreetly, Feynman never ceased to seriously consider Dirac's retropropaga tion... and he has sketched it everyday, before our eyes.

But each time, these discoverers all too soon censored their creations, as if they intended to hide from others each new proof of the quantic incompetence of the macrotemporal causality, as it is presumed by macrosco pic metaphysics. Though these censures were collectively demanded by the other physicists almost unani mously, I suggest that these censures were so many major mistakes.

2.	The principle: every propagator-timer is retrosymmetrical. Put differently, its two terminating vertices are both equally valid, and both equally causal. To say that an orthochronous photon, with positive energy, was emitted there, and absorbed here, is equivalent to saying that a retrochronous photon, with nega tive energy, was emitted here, and absorbed there; these two statements are equivalent and indissociable.

To speak about a propagator-timer, though knowing only one of its vertices, is nonsense, even though it may be a useful trick for calculus. On a quantic level, the orthochronous causality, from creator vertex to annihi lator vertex, is inseparable from the antichronous causality, from the annihilator vertex to the creator vertex. Dirac was the first to show this, by factorizing the relativist Hamiltonian. Indeed, whoever factorizes the Minkowski metric (ds² = dt ² - dx ² - dy² - dz²) is driven too, to see the indissoluble association of an ortho
chronous term, and an antichronous term. 92 years after the establishment of restricted Relativity, we are still fixated on the Einstein's interpretation (exclusively orthochronous causality), which has never been validated.

Here is a useful metaphor: a cement-plant does not send its lorries at random on the roads, hoping that a client will stop them, and will buy their twenty tons of fresh cement; rather, it answers to each order from its clients. These clients order when their hoppers are near empty. In the quantic domain, the annihilation reac tion is the order, and the creation reaction is the dispatch, and they are inseparable, connected by one pro
pagator-timer. More: we have proof that this propagator is a long handshake. It is not the photon, nor the neutrino, who during its journey, chooses where it will bang. On the contrary, the target reaction, co-chooses with the source reaction, the path taken by this quantum of wave, transferring a reactional quantum. In expe riments of the E.P.R. kind, both terminal reactions determine the intermediate bi-compatible diffusion.

Only macroscopic objects, made of a huge networking of reactions and of propagators-timers, all with in compatible spaces-times, could eventually be reasonably described by mean spatiotemporal descriptors, with a macro-causality, mainly orthochronous. It will remain false for a Bose condensate, such as superfluid helium, whose spin is macroscopic. Our well fixed metaphysical convictions shall have to face up to experi mental reality ordeals .

3.	Historically, the experiments by A. Aspect, definitely proved the principle of retrosymmetry. They have proved that the emission of a cascade of two correlated photons, depends, for each photon, on the type of receivers which will catch each one of these two photons. Limitation: all these experiments have dealt with photons, particles whose propagator has a null proper time, as they are of null rest-mass.

A not so trivial application: the microwave photons of the isotropic radiation of the far sky at 2.735 K, had no longer been diffused since the sky became transparent. When we receive them in our radio telescopes, it is their first quantic reaction, for these 15 milliard past years. For these photons, their last diffusion 15 milliard years ago, and their capture in our antennas, are two simultaneous reactions: the Minkowskian distance is null. So, it would be foolish to decide whether the propagation of the causality along the way of the propaga tors of the photons was orthochronous or antichronous: towards emission? towards absorption? If you reject one the two directions, you lock yourself up in inextricable paradoxes, among which is the ill-famous "reduction of the wave packet"( ): how did such a packet, spanning a sphere 30 milliards light-years wide, manage to condense into a radio telescope antenna, and into the amplifying junction? Conversely, how to decide which atom has emitted an electron received by the target, though they are undistinguishable?

4.	Concerning the spin ½ particles, experimental proof of the retrosymmetry are far older, though indi
rect. The experiments of Stern and Gerlach were the first to prove that the spin of silver atoms has exactly the same plane direction as the magnetic field with which it must react. Put differently, the propagator-timer of an electron, or of an atom, with single electronic spin, does not exist independently of the reactional vertex where it goes to, and which will end its propagation-timing. Its direction of plane being so fixed by the ma gnetic reaction, its only remaining degree of freedom, is to be transmitting an angular momentum in the di rection entirely pro, or entirely con: +½ , or - ½ . But, the law of conservation of angular momentum between the sommital vertices imposes that the emitting vertex has emitted an atom, whose spin plane is exactly parallel (with plus or minus orientation) to the plane of the strong magnetic field which it will meet in the gap.

The experiment with one Stern and Gerlach device, only proves retrosymmetry by the intermediate of the law of conservation of angular momentum, as it does not tell us anything about how the spin of the oriented atom evolves later, from the region of strong magnetic field, to its impact on the target. But two Stern and Gerlach separating devices aligned in a series do settle the question: they give the evolution of the spin between the two regions of strong magnetic fields, as each one forces the spin to choose its plane, and its direction of rotation in this plane: all pro, or all con (its "political attitude", so to speak).

5.	Here is another false problem, due to the inherited semantic looseness. A spinning top, or a macro
scopic gyroscope, indeed have an angular momentum, whose magnitude, and especially direction, are in
trinsic, meaning that they are widely independent of the proper orientations of any ulterior observers who will measure this angular momentum. But nothing is smaller than one quantum of angular momentum, therefore there is no stable information, smaller than what is to be measured. Therefore, no propagator-timer by itself, has any intrinsic physical values; only the inseparable triplet vertex-propagator-vertex has intrinsic values, inseparable indeed of the remaining of a huge networking of quantic reactions-and-propagators: the Universe.

6.	A short miss. In 1926, Erwin Schrödinger gave a wave equation to the basic idea of Louis Victor de Bro
glie - a non-relativist wave equation, alas. But at that time, nobody perceived that a Broglian wave packet of spin-phase was firmly held at its two ends by quantic reactions, and therefore could not much stray out of a Gaussian beam, nor could spread out in a catastrophic manner as they said then. An objection that then swept out the Schrödinger's theory about the emission and absorption of light by atoms. By the way, any problema tics about the unfilterable noise of Broglian waves, coming from everywhere, was forgotten.

Every radio ham, every professional antenna technician, has noted that a good antenna, well tuned, deprives its vicinity of field. Put differently: that the classical formulae of the E.M. field, expressed as functions of the distance and of the azimuth from an antenna, are exactly as valid for receiving as for emitting. So then, eve rybody missed the point in setting the Green's problem: the downstream half of the boundary conditions has been forgotten, and so has been the downstream half of the causality.

7.	The false problem left by Max Born. Then Max Born propounded, and Werner Heisenberg evan
gelized, the indeterministic interpretation( ) of these half-waves for forecasting in half-ignorance, probabili
ties calculated from only initial conditions, and ignoring the final conditions; with only half of the indispensa ble data, with a starting point, but no ending point...

The fault in method was to confuse:

the set of forecasts from half of the necessary data (a set that has no other value than probabilistic),

with the reality waves, held by strict boundary conditions at both their ends.

That thoughtlessness, to inflate a paradigm far beyond the horizon of its competence, has exacted us an exorbitant cost in learning. To i Cette faute de méthode a passionné très au delà de son intérêt physique: avec seulement la moitié des données indispensables, et sans aucune donnée sur l'infiltrable bruit broglien en provenance de partout, prédire ou postdire l'autre moitié, manquante, ne relève plus que de la statistique. Bien que les fonctions d'onde usuellement calculées à partir des seules conditions initiales, fussent présentées comme des ondes de réalité, elles ne sont que des demi-ondes de prédiction en demi-ignorance. mpose on the rest of the world these waves of objective probability, in conformity to Born's paradigm, all the resources of a doubtful, blind, and even amphigoric propaganda has been needed.

Instead of flowing directly from the basic concepts, the tunnel effect had to miraculously spring out mathe matic formalism. But soon, one had to add lots of Ptolemaïc epicycles: virtual particles, enjoying the privi
lege of infringing on the quantic dogma, and on the principles of conservation...

1	Duration of quantic transitions; width of the Gaussian beams of transfer.

Concerning the width of the transfer waves, interferential proof are in plenty. For instance, in the Aharanov-
Bohm experiment, we know that the electron does not interfere with itself any more, when the holes are farther apart than 60 m ( ). Therefore, in those kinds of experiments, the width of the wave connecting the emitter to a certain point of the screen is about 60 m. To describe the geometric shape of these transfer waves, Gaussian beams, already used for describing the light beams in a stable resonator, are a sure bet.

We also know the length of coherence of a photon, about a hundred million cycles (read "wavelengths"), that is about a hundred metres for visible light. It is measured by interference with large differences of optical path( ). With such coherence length, it would be necessary to have a much longer measuring basis than the 13.5 m basis in Aspect's experiment, to hopefully separate the target from the emitter. In the visible part of the spectrum, it corresponds to a duration of coherence of about 10 ns. On the level of the emitting and re ceiving atoms, it is a very long handshake, comparable to a telex dialogue. For the microwave radiation of the far sky at 2.735 K, the same number of coherence periods, gives a length of coherence about 200 km (meaning our kilometres, for us macroscopic and massive beings).

Radio astronomy makes use of large widths of coherence. They exploit a 35 km receiving basis, tuned on 8,085 MHz, corresponding to a wavelength of 3.708 cm( ). Therefore the exploited width of coherence is more than 94,000 wavelengths. Theses figures should be debated according to the eventual correlation of a large population of bosons.

2	Tuning and superheterodyne transfer machinery de recherche .

Too impatient to weed out losers from winners, they swept off in an offhand manner the theory of Schrödinger, about the emission and the absorption of photons by transition of an electron between two energy levels. It told too many truths to deserve such an overhasty, and anti-dialectical oblivion. His theory postulated the coexistence, during the whole transfer, of two modes of Broglian oscillations, corresponding to each energy level. The frequency of the transferring photon, is the difference of the Broglian frequencies of each level-orbital: a beat that lasts as long as the transfer does. Each transfer sets a tight coupling between the emitter and the receiver, that lasts several million cycles, or hundreds of millions of electromagnetic cycles; and far more cycles of Broglian phases for the emitting electron, and for the receiving one. Every radio technician will have recognized the principle of a superheterodyne emitter-receiver. One needs only to take into account the acceleration of the internal clock of the electron, as its potential energy increases: General Relativity.

The association of an orthoelectron : negative charge, positive mass, and of a retroelectron , of negative mass, or put differently, the physical difference between two orthoelectrons , yields a very familiar object: a photon, of null rest mass, and of null proper time.

The relation W = h remains valid anyway. The electromagnetic frequency of the exchange photon is the difference of the Broglian frequencies of the exchanged orthoelectrons , or put in a better way: it is the alge braic sum of the Broglian frequencies of the orthoelectron and of the retroelectron that make up this pho ton(). If they differ in absolute frequency, the energy transferred by the coupling photon is not null, and neither null is the transferred inertia. During the coupling by a photon, the emitting orthoelectron , and the re ceiving orthoelectron are indistinguishable.

Up to now, the body of physicists have conceded existence to electrons and antielectrons, only in the case of positive mass, energy, and Broglian frequency. So they missed half of the picture.

Stages of the handshake between photon-emitting and photon-receiving electrons :

Stages	emitter	receiver
asking	It emits its Broglian wave (slightly more high-pitched). Receives all the Broglian noises and interferences.	It emits its Broglian wave (slightly less high-pitched). Receives all the Broglian noises and interferences.
sticking	The beat frequency permits a jump to a lower orbital.	The beat frequency permits a jump to a higher orbital.
transfer	Receives the feeble electron antichronally , sends the strong one.	Receives the strong electron, sends the feeble one antichronally .
unsticking	Is almost at the other stable orbital.	Is almost at the other stable orbital.
adjustments	Loans or emits some kinetic energy. Some times a fluorescence occurs.	Loans or emits some kinetic energy. Some times a fluorescence occurs.
3	Conclusion:

The two conjugated Dirac equations( ):	and its conjugate, are there
fore competent for simultaneously describing orthoelectrons and retroelectrons , both of positive or negative energy, and their null rest-mass association: a photon. We have only changed the semantics of interpretation, and therefore the boundary conditions.

We will later develop the transformations that link the Feynman's skeletal graphs (les diagrammes de Feynman) , with the Gaussian transfer beams, in the two kinds of spaces-times: the mean macroscopic space-time of the laboratory, and the spaces- times, peculiar to the particles, that differ substantially from the macroscopic one.