Géométrie et Physique — Part 2

0:00 C4, avec une mystique hermicienne qui, elle, finalement, n'a plus de signature. Et dans C4, vous avez à la fois R4, Euclidien, et ailleurs, obtenez par une rotation, l'espace de Minkowski. So if you take a function on the space of Minkowski and you make a prolongement analytic, it will be in all these four, and there will be a counter-partie in R4. This means that you will not consider a field which is in Minkowski, but also consider that this field, in a certain way, a part of his prolongement analytic lives in R4. so it has a sense to prolong the physics of Mikovsky on RK and I say it like that with the hands, it's not at all but what does it mean passer de Mikovsky RK it means passer de coordonnées T, X, Y, Z to IT it means transform the time in a time imaginaire and I can't say That's what do these theories, it's to say that you have a sort of analytic version of the theory of the change, which is analytic in the future, why? Because the things are resolved the better or the better. It's to say that in fact you have a function of partition, which instead of the puissance I x l'action, and 800S action, which is the opposite. The exponentials are complex, which have much more properties of divergence, etc. I would say there is no physical justification, but... the grand vulgarisation is almost impossible to do with the idea of the condition. so you are going to start with the information of the HL, so you are going to start with the three constants, and then you have all the projects to add the mass to the mass.

2:30 So what I don't understand very well, how does the HL, dimensionally, increase the mass? But the part of the dimension is, on the dimension. Pardon ? As long as I can say, HB contient HG qui est la masse. Ah, oui. Ah, oui. Ah, mais pour moi tout ça, je le considère sans dimension, si vous voulez, c'est-à-dire, je me fiche un peu des dimensions. Comment dire, un paramètre de déformation, il est forcément sans dimension. So H bar is a function of the problem. Well, in H bar there is no mass. If you want, it's the mass that is built with H bar. It's like that. But it's the same, lambda is the length. C is the speed. Yes, but it's the number spatial. and so it's not so important. So what is the mass of the number of hectares, is that it is derived for you? I mean, it's because you have chosen, for reasons historiques, if you want, we have a system of unity where the mass is considered as an unit of fundamental, and H-bar, which is a dimension, I don't know what, as an unit of derivative. M is the H-bar. Yes, you can very well say that the unit of H-bar is the fundamental, and so the mass, it's... You see what I want to say? On prend toujours pour des raisons historiques tout ce qu'on veut de commodité comme dimension base L, L, T, longueur, instant. Donc le très bien, faire disparaître en changeant d'unité M et rapporter M à L et T sera bien à deux. De toute façon, c'est de la physique toute bête au niveau Bach. De toute façon, on n'a pas le droit. Oui, on a le droit. Je sais que vous n'êtes pas d'accord, mais on a le droit. My conception is that there is no longer a long length. The only thing that we can measure is that in a certain point, the rapport of something to another thing, the rapport of two longs. If, for example, you say that tomorrow, the cm will be multiplied by 3, no one will ever see it. because my règle, which is 3 cm, will be multiplied by 3, and 11 cm also, so my weight will always be the same. So for me, the units have no sense. I mean, all the physics is invariant. I mean, all the physics is invariant. I mean, that's the position of the volatilist.

5:00 I mean, I don't know. I don't know. For me, the units, it doesn't exist. I mean, the dimensions exist. It's not. But no! But no! But no! It's to say, if we want to achieve a theory, there will not be an unit in this theory. It's to say, we can't say this length, this thing measures x cm, but we can say the length of this thing on this, it's x. I don't know if you have to say that. It's not that. I'm going to say that. I'm going to say that there is x-0. I'm going to say that it's 1,000 square feet. I'm not going to say that it's 1,000 square feet. But I'm going to say that I'm going to say that the mechanical system has made 30 square feet. Well, it's 1,000 square feet. So that's the only vision that can be taken if we want an approach, for example, quantique, of the gravitation and an approach unitaires. We can't conserve the unit. Well, already in gravitation quantique, there is no unit. But we have the atoms. The atoms are the horloges. We don't have atoms, such as the size. But no! The size of the size is very small. We know the mass, for example, from proton to the BC. We don't have the mass. But I'm going to use the rayon. Non, mais il y a un peu de longueur, on est délicant. Mais c'est clair. Ça a un peu de compte associé. Oui, mais elle change. Non, elle ne se passe pas. Non, je suis désolé, la conduire compte. Je ne comprends pas, c'est un part qui ne s'est pas misé. Ça ne change pas. Si, si, ça change de même. Mais non, c'est une unité naturelle. Il faut prendre. Donc il faut prendre comme unité, mais ça, c'est ce que j'ai écrit, et ça ne s'arrête plus de tout le temps. Ça change. Le rayon d'un atomique hydrogène n'est pas le même qu'il y a un milliard donné. I don't know. I don't know the difference. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. The difference is 10-3. It's not true, but it's not true. You can say that because of the expansion? Just a question. When we consider the cosmos as a gas galaxy, the galaxy is considered as quantum. But we don't say anything about expansion if it's at the top of the galaxy or if it exists at the top of the galaxy.

7:30 What do you think of that? It's a different way to say it. It's to say that it has nothing to do with the relativity. Even if it's very small. But we don't know the solar system, it's even more simple. I have the solar and then I have the planet. So, I am in physics Newtonian. I would like to know, at a moment, I would like to know the position of the Earth at its own speed. And then, the beam gravitation of the Sun, what will be the moment of the Earth? Well, when I solve the system, I can do a kind of cosmology Newtonian. And so, when I solve an equation, I have to take into account of the infinite conditions. When I solve the equation of a local problem like this, according to the infinite universe, I say that the universe is static, or according to it is in expansion, the problem local will not have the same solution. And if I make the Earth's movement in the solar system, I will find a little difference. which is infime, completely impossible to measure, but it exists. At the scale of an atom, it's the same as the equation of Schrodinger, but it's the same as the conditions limits are different, I would have a different solution. And the orbit of an electron on his atom, it will vary more than regular. I agree with you, but I have already read in the physics book that the expansion stopped at the scale of the galaxy, In the galaxy, you will find, for example, that, in the galaxy, you have a star, here, which is in rotation, under the influence of the potential of rotation of the galaxy. She has a few hundred kilometers per second. If I remember correctly, the variation due to the cosmology, the universe is in expansion and accelerated, it's between 0,1 and 1 km per second.

10:00 So, it's an order of a million, it's not... We don't have this precision in the galaxy, but it's not... It's not infinite. Well, the solar system is much less, but when you go into a galaxy, it will start to move on. Mutatis mutandis. When I leave my crayon, the crayon falls, but theoretically, mathematically, the Earth goes towards the crayon. With a very weak force, it's a very weak force. It's not a very weak force. And so, the Earth doesn't move. Surtout because of the Antipodes, there are some others who leave their crayon. and that it's 0. I don't have a lot of time cosmology because there is a singularity initial, is that it doesn't need to have a lot of time? We can define a time cosmology because, in fact, when you have a space-time, n'importe where, You have hundreds of ways to define the time. If you take any congruence on a tour of this kind of time, with the hypersurface orthogonal, it defines a time everywhere. Well, obviously, as we can do it in a way, there is no reason why I want to use it in another way. But in cosmology, everything indicates that there is a kind of gas of galaxies which occupent, if you want, which means that the time, like that, is a very regular one. And as it is regular, we make the hypothesis that it is perfectly regular, well, with little fluctuations, but we regularize it by the mind. And so, it defines a thing that is a good thing, the time cosmic, like that. So, it's the origin of the time of observation? It's in the same time observation, it's a principle, it's the principle cosmology, in fact. The principle cosmological, it says that there are sections spatiales of space-temps

12:30 asymétries maximales, which are H3, R3 or S3. It is a consequence of the principle cosmological. All observations are in agreement with that, so we think that this principle is good. And if this principle is good, we can demonstrate that we can define a cosmic cosmic and that this cosmic cosmic is equal to the time 3 of an observator in this model. That's to say, we're going to do n'importe quel object. There's a coincidence in each point. It doesn't mean that all these times are synchronized normally. It doesn't mean that we can find, what happens, It's not for the time simultaneity, it's not for the time simultaneity. It's to say that two events that are located at the same time of the cosmos, I will not see them as simultaneity, with the definition of simultaneity. No matter what, no matter what. There's no reason to be here. It's always to be careful, because if you can say something, it's not that you can say something. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.