-ballet of spaces-


In respect for Roger Y Gouin who died September 2004

while his thesis was in the process of being published

history of this thesis




Max Planck institute proves existence of the decoherence free sub-space this thesis is based upon.


This is a new property of nature and entanglement and as proposed in this thesis the driving force of

life and nano-technology self assembly



Decoherence-Free Quantum Information

Processing with Four-Photon Entangled States

Mohamed Bourennane, et al


Physical Review Letters

Volume 92

Number 10



available here


On The Origin

"A worthy endeavor which should be made better known." Journal of Theoretics

A personal page linked from PhysicsWeb
(IOP's Physics World emagazine).
An exploratory study about the quantum origin and nature of space is performed, including a search for an experimentally verifiable minimal hint on how to proceed out of well-known difficulties in the established approach of Physics toward the make-up of our reality. This study reviews works by Everett, Feynman and others dealing with the nature of the quantum in light of hypotheses by Bruno, Leibniz and Einstein about the origin of space. A common thread is identified within this centuries-old line of thought, leading to an alternate conceptual approach for the problem of the elements making up our reality. The approach is supported by experimental facts in domains ranging from astronomy to microbiology, facts which have had so far little or no theoretical explanation. This study is published here in order to obtain a qualified, unbiased and independent review.


2000-2001 Roger Y. Gouin
[ latest update: July 2004 ]
---> The universe expansion is not there per NASA data... - see “Latest News” <---
---> Space is warped/manipulated by Life per latest experiments... - see “here” <---

Recall Plato's cave... where reality was seen from shadows moving on the wall of the cave? Such shadows were all that humans could grasp of their world. It was indeed a pretty bleak view of the human condition. But these were also the Old Greek times with the four elements, earth, water, wind and fire. Have we made progress since these times about knowing our world? Well, when it comes to the fifth element, I don't think so. 

Witness, for one thing, more than one century ago now, we thought of having rid ourselves of this fifth element, "aether," through a famous experiment, quite simple and cheap. But, since then, we have been left with a ghost called "space." This state of affair appeared to be confirmed by the experimental verification of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Here I quote Weyl's Space Time Matter book (Dover, 1952 - from the 1921 original), p. 3:
"Kant was the first to take the next decisive step towards the point of view that not only the qualities revealed by the senses, but also space and spatial characteristics have no objective significance in the absolute sense; in other words, that space too is only a form of our perception. In the realm of physics it is perhaps only the theory of relativity which has made it quite clear that the two essences, space and time, entering into our intuition have no place in the world constructed by mathematical physics."
But, when Einstein thought of his curved space around 1910 he imagined it as static, and saw the world, a. k. a. the universe, as set with its matter and radiation playing around in it, simply curving space like a rubber bag, and thus space HAD an objective significance in itself, even though not an "absolute" unaffected by its contents. Later, another part of Physics, the Quantum, informed him that space had also an objective significance via the "zero point energy." This energy did exist in a perfect vacuum! How could that be if space was only "a form of our perception?"

One of his old books was a treatise by Leibniz from the 18th century describing space as maintained by its contents, and from there he concluded that space had indeed an objective significance but it could not exist without its contents. As he carefully put out late in his life "the concept of space detached from any physical content does not exist, there is no such thing as an empty space, i. e. a space without field." But the existence of space was simply not addressed by his theory! His long and unsuccessful search for a "Unified Field Theory" could only be then meant as a search for the (physical) origin of space throught its contents, the "fields."

Weyl's seeing space only as a form of our perception, based on Einstein's theory, shows why present mathematical physics is inadequate: In effect it formalizes a philosophical system, Kant's, not our world. The theory intended to describe the contents of space is even worse off there: Not only Quantum Theory fails to obtain space from its contents, it treats space as an arena, not influenced by (or connected to) its contents at all, unlike Einstein's. In effect, per that theory, the contents is also a "form of our perception" in the Kantian vein.

You can get an update on my work here

here (November 2002)


About the universal expansion...
Read an official astrophysical observation graph here
, no curve can go through all the error bars!... Conclude for yourself what Nature tells us: The Hubble effect simply went haywire in the past about half way through the age of our galaxy - Certainly not an accelerating universe expansion, as no curve is being followed! We are simply told by Nature (see latest news above)
(confirmed by independent data on galaxy clusters age)
On top of that, NASA data tells us that the SOLAR SYSTEM (and US) EXPAND! - Paradoxically, this goes also straight against the universal expansion theory (again see latest news above).
Your conclusion:
---We need a new cosmology---

See for yourself also the reported weird high local inertias of Life here - Knowing that centrioles in cells in fact don't rotate as that paper says, the observed inertia CANNOT BE of mechanical origin. So what is it?
Then find dead worms weigh less than live ones here!
Finally, look at the latest weird behavior of biological cells here
Your inescapable conclusion about all this:
--- Life warps/changes Space outside gravitation! ---
But HOW???

(Don't look for our present theories to explain)

Einstein put out his late thoughts in Scientific American one year before his death, for the future generations, just in case, as he himself did not know how to enter the existence of space in his theory. Nature had indeed not unveiled itself in his lifetime, as he thought it did in his young age. Einstein's equation does not make any sense if space is objectively maintained by its contents, and many other things (such as Quantum Theory) don't make sense as well. Our physical theories then can only be a simplification of reality valid only under certain conditions yet to be identified.

Not having found these conditions, to this day physicists still follow the young Einstein, forgetting the old one, and hang onto the thinking of space as a ghost of our perception with no physical origin, and with all the limitations and unphysical concepts such a thinking may lead to right now and in the future.

I have been working on this difficulty for quite some time now, and it led me to many matters of today's Science, not only in Physics and Astrophysics, but in other areas such as Biology, that need to be fundamentally questioned. Do we really know what we are dealing with in Particle Physics when we think of a "Higgs field" for example? (Is it our new aether?) In Astrophysics do we really believe there was a beginning to this universe if the Quantum in effect tells us that space is constantly created by its contents? In the same line of thought, knowing that Life appears a priori as a set of whole entities extended in space transcending their local chemical components, can we still maintain that Life only needs Chemistry in order to be explained? But these matters are not beliefs, experiments can tell us the truth, provided we understand what we are looking at, provided we understand the origin of space! I have then put the search for such a new understanding in an exploratory study titled
The arrogance of ignorance:
"By the end of my career," declares the 42-year-old Tabin, "we will understand development, not just describe it on a molecular level. We'll understand the logic behind it, we'll understand in a very real sense how you go about making an organism."
Discover Magazine, August 1996, p.75

On the Origin of Space
a study in two phases, with phase 1:
A Centuries-Old Thread of Hypotheses
(and Some of its Modern Consequences for Particle Physics and Astrophysics)

and phase 2:
A Space Generation Formulation of Biological Processes
(Another Way to Confirm Space as Objectively Built by Its Contents)

The Files

 Each phase is in one pdf file which includes the figures. For online reading use the Acrobat reader or Ghostview.
[An earlier version of the entire study (138 pages of text + 33 figures) as one zip file is here (1.4 Meg).]

Here are the files (1999 work):
On the Origin of Space: A Centuries-Old Thread of Hypotheses
On the Origin of Space - Phase 2: A Space Generation Formulation of Biological Processes

[The articles listed below are a 2004 update of the original 1999 study above, with additions, some of which have been submitted to Frontier Perspectives, a journal of Temple University, Philadelphia. http://www.temple.edu/CFS/index.html

Introduction: A Centuries-old Line of Thoughts in Physics
-----------------------Appendices to the Introduction
[1] Rational vs. Conscious Experience in Time and Space Matters
(Accepted by Frontier Perspectives, final version to appear in Vol. 13, No. 1)
[1A] A History of this Thesis
-----------------------MONADIC SPACES
[2] The Discrete, the Continuum and Everett's Many-Realities (Part 10)
[3] The Speed of Light, an Absolute Base for a Relational Reality (Part 11)
[4] The Concept of Monadic Spaces (Part 12)
-----------------------QUANTUM PHYSICS
[5] Quantum Mechanics and Monadic Spaces (Part 13)
[6] Composite Quantum Systems - Understanding the Many-Realities Idea (Part 15)
[7] Quantum Physics, an Alternate Picture (Part 16)
-----------------------Appendix to QUANTUM PHYSICS
[7A] Marked-up Copy of the True Quantum Theory (TQT) Paper by A. Zeilinger
with Referenced Comments (Part 15A) (Preliminary html)
-----------------------PARTICLE PHYSICS
[8] The Standard Model and Monadic Spaces (Part 14)
[9] A Continually Self-Renewing Universe (submitted as Part 1)
[10] A Many-Hyperspheres Model of the Universe (submitted as Part 2)
[10A] Quantization of Quasar Redshifts (Appendix B to the above article)
[11] The Case of the Missing Equation (Part 17)
[12] A Potential Dual-Layer State for Space in the Podkletnov Effects (Part 18)
-----------------------Appendix to ASTROPHYSICS
[12A] An Astrophysical Origin to Anomalous Spacecraft Accelerations (submitted to FP) -
see the comments on earlier submittal to the Plantary and Space Science Journal )

------------------------LIFE SCIENCES
[13] Space and the Basis of Life (submitted as Part 3)
[13A] Non-Local (Holistic) Life - Physical Approaches (submitted as Part 3A)
[13B] Non-Local (Holistic) Life - Recent Evidence (submitted as Part 3B)
[14] Quantum Conformational Dynamics (Part 4)
[15] Dialogues Concerning a Third New Science - Day 1 (Part 5)
[16] The Power of Quantum Dynamical Life (Part 6)
[17] Dialogues Concerning a Third New Science - Day 2 (Part 7)
------------------------Appendix to LIFE SCIENCES
[18A] Non-Local (Holistic) Life - A Survey - Basic Cell Data (Part 20A)
[18B] Non-Local (Holistic) Life - A Survey - Additional Cell Facts (Part 20B)
[18C] Non-Local (Holistic) Life - A Survey - Relations Between Cells (Part 20C)
[18D] Non-Local (Holistic) Life - A Survey - Hypotheses (Part 20D)
------------------------COGNITIVE SCIENCE
[19A] Mind over Machine - The Basics (Part 8A)
[19B] Mind over Machine - Higher Functions (Part 8B)
[20] Dialogues Concerning a Third New Science - Day 3 (Part 9)
------------------------DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY
[21A] Quantum Spatial Development - The Drosophila Oocyte (Part 3C)
[21B] Quantum Spatial Development - The Drosophila Embryo (Part 3D)
[21C] Quantum Spatial Development - Cell Proliferation (Part 3E)
[21D] Quantum Spatial Development - Cell Differentiation (Part 3F)
------------------------COMPUTER SCIENCE
[22] Nondeterministic Solution of Satisfiability Problems (Part 19)
[23] The Need to Develop a Non-Cantorian Set Theory (Part 21) (Preliminary html)
[24] Space Generation & Geometric Algebra (Part 22) (Preliminary)
------------------------PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Conclusion (Old conclusion of the study, giving its philosophical context)

New matters have been incorporated in the Non-Local (Holistic) Life Survey files :
File A, File B, File C, File D

A review of the biological literature in general giving evidences in favor of the theory was done in the Non-Local (Holistic) Life Review files: File A, File B,
and in particular on Developmental Biology in the Quantum Spatial Development files :
File C, File D, File E, File F

The Far-Reaching Conclusions

The limitations tentatively identified for present theories are two-fold:
(1) [from the phase 1 investigation] Einstein's Theory (and its Newtonian consequences) is valid as long as the quantum dynamics of space can be neglected, and as such cannot describe the evolution of our universe at large scales since then the effects of space quantum creation and annihilation can no longer be neglected (the limited speed of light is the key here);
(2) [from the phase 2 investigation] the Bohr/Schroedinger/Heisenberg/Dirac/Born Quantum Theory cannot cover the phenomena of space generation at molecular levels, physical phenomena resulting under very common circumstances from space not being in its quantum ground state, a spatial dynamics which notably appears to be fundamental to the existence of Life in all its forms.

[From the phase 1 investigation] The theoretical connection between Quantum Theory and Relativity can be found not through connecting quantum and gravitational fields but through establishing the quantum origin of space, with all "fields" except gravitation identified as contents of that space and contributing to its makeup. The warping of space (gravitation) is not part of the contents of space, it is a locally variable characteristic of space, itself seen as a dynamical manifold of relations maintained by its contents, the Elements of Reality (EOR's) or monads making up the observed quanta of matter and radiation. Gravitation can be thus identified as a "field" only when this manifold common to the EOR's is in an equilibrium state of existence (no net decrease or increase in the number of EOR relations making up the manifold). General Relativity is then a closed version of an open Space Dynamics Theory with sources and sinks of space, very much as Electromagnetism and Hydrodynamics have closed and open dynamical aspects. Such an open version of General Relativity logically leads to a cyclic cosmology where "new" matter/radiation is created from space and "old" matter/radiation in active galactic nuclei while "new" space is generated at large from radiation via the "Hubble effect." The logic of this approach to large scale phenomena is yet to be formalized within a future "true" quantum theory independent of classical features such as separability and distinguishability. Present Quantum Theory is a version of this future theory restricted to the concepts of Classical Mechanics that can only be defined within a separated world. A comment page for a commented copy of an original paper found on Prof. Anton Zeilinger's home page describes how the preliminary approach presented here meets the requirements for a "true" Quantum Theory. The full formal development of this theory will require a new branch of Mathematics.

[From the phase 2 investigation] The presence of contents is not the only local quantum feature that can affect space, the quantum dynamical make-up of the contents may affect it too. Other modes of existence for space may occur through supramolecular structures with alternate conformational arrangements. A dual layer of space there may sustain a leptonic space in-between the layers where quantum evolution without collapse can occur. In specific instances, this large-scale quantum protectorate may then require space to be warped in order to allow the largest possible collective evolution for the EOR's effecting the quanta. In living materials such local warps of space combined with the collective evolution of the EOR's may be at the origin of certain key large molecular self-assemblies, intracellular molecular tracks and accumulations/patterns, directed molecular transports and embryo initial compartmentalization. The evolution of the various leptonic space manifolds in turn produce collective separations such as cell division, subsequent multicellular evolution and directed intercellular development, thereby effecting and maintaining the 3D design of the organism as held by DNA. Within such a picture, the organism neural system then maintains a bodywide holistic evolution, including mental phenomena, through the quantum protectorate afforded by leptonic space. Life is thus created and sustained essentially through quantum and spatial dynamics, with local chemical reactions within a classical statistical dynamics framework providing its ancillary tools (e.g. classic electrical nerve impulses are merely the shadow of an unobservable quantum evolution). Life is not a clockwork because it is able to change its own space, thereby resulting in a holistic evolution within normal space, while utilizing the "anima mundi" character of the elements making up the quantum to find its future. Outside Life a similar quantum protectorate may explain the function of high temperature superconductors.

The Main Contentious Experiment: Recent (1998) High Redshift Type Ia Supernovae Surveys

The present thesis is based upon experimental facts which have so far received either little attention as to their importance and/or have no theoretical explanation at all. Here I shall summarize the main contention I bring in phase 1 as it appears that we are on the border of a fundamental discovery, but because of decades of theoretical assumptions going in a different direction, we are not willing to look at what experimental data from recent Astronomy (1998-2004) are in fact telling us.

Within the present astrophysical approach dating back from the 1950s, this data has been interpreted as showing that the universe expansion deduced by the 1929 Hubble discovery is in fact accelerating instead of slowing down, and 70% of the contents of the universe is from an unknown kind of energy given the name of "dark energy" or "quintessence." See the lecture The Accelerating Universe by Dr. Robert Kirshner, a noted astrophysicist from Harvard. This energy would add to the "dark matter" assumed since the late 1970s, for which we have not found any direct evidence after 20 years of search. After A. Guth's inflation theory of the 1980s meant to save the big-bang hypothesis (which pictured a space expanding at much faster than the speed of light, something that Einstein would have balked at, knowing that space and its contents are connected), I contend that this continuation in adding "epicycles" upon epicycles to a theory, the big bang theory (as was done millennia ago for the ptolemaic theory finally rejected by Copernicus and Galileo), is a strong indication of an approach which must be also abandoned if we do want a true predictive theory accounting completely for experimental facts without need for a posteriory hypotheses with no experimental backup.

My contention, looking at the data obtained, is that the Hubble data, when extended to beyond the age of our sun in the past (5 billion years - as the supernovae surveys allow us now 70 years later), tells us that THERE IS NO UNIVERSE EXPANSION after all: A considerable spread of brightness at the same redshift was found for astronomical objects which, by being "standard candles," ought to have the same brightness for a given redshift if the Hubble theory of an expanding universe was correct. The official explanation of this so-called "noise in the data" is "due to the built-in errors coming from the faintness of the objects observed," but this explanation does not fit with the "standard candle" character of the supernovae, which was the reason to go ahead with the surveys in the first place (and the short error bars on the graphs testify to that:
hubble haywire
Furthermore, postulating dust in front of the supernovae to explain the variations has already been discarded by infrared studies ("Our observations disfavor a 30% opacity of SN Ia visual light by dust as an alternative to an accelerating Universe." - see astro-ph/0001384 at the LANL website which can be obtained via Dr. Kirshner's homepage), and such an explanation would anyway null the official conclusion of an acceleration of the expansion. So there is definitely a gap of the first magnitude in this official position, avoided by not expanding at all on the "noise" in the data within official accounts either via published papers or lectures.

I do not contend at all that I am the first to question the meaning of Hubble's redshift as an expansion of the universe. The critical physical feature I address is whether the redshift follows Hubble law beyond the age of our sun or not. Nobody else has advanced before that such a physical feature could be present, a feature I deduce from my theoretical approach. (See the Q & A page for more details)

If this matter were only to affect the esoteric field of Astrophysics, it would merely be an interesting remark for the edification of philosophers. The important part is that the consequences of such a discovery are potentially very far reaching for Physics in general as the nature of space is then put in question. My analysis shows that these consequences may affect our understanding about the physical make-up of Life here on our small planet. Phase 2 tackles this issue, which is of course a lot more important if we want to progress in the handling of Reality for our ultimate practical benefit.

I have four reasons for not attempting to publish a short article on this matter separately from my study:
1- The data as taken by itself in Astrophysics needs confirmation as all good physicists would say (and I say that by agreeing with Dr. Livio - I only asked him to remember me if confirmation of my predictions is obtained)
2- Additional data is indeed in the process of being obtained as I wished and as the intent of my short article would be to point out anyway
3- I am not a specialist so I would not bring a valid testimony to the process of evaluating the data (Science must go with the best recognized qualified personnel when decisions of that magnitude have to be taken)
4- I have put up my website and prominently identified my contention as well as informed a specialist on the matter (I cannot do more as to advertizing my position being a non-specialist in light of the importance of the subject matter)

My study is taking into account the astronomical data already obtained to show that I do have experimental grounds from that area to go in the theoretical line I took. I expand on the theory in other areas to investigate what could be other verifiable experimental consequences of the new theoretical direction that the astronomical data suggests. Via attempting to publish a monograph with this full theoretical line to show its potential consequences for other fields of Science, and to get further experimental confirmation, I believe I took the best and only road possible in light of my personal position and the subject matter I deal with.

Information Discussed with Readers

A number of matters have been discussed with Readers along the years of posting. They resulted in linked pages now part of this site. When a complete set of Reviewers will have been found (see later about the intent of this posting), the information contained in these pages will be integrated into the final study as clarifications, corrections and amplifications where necessary. Names of contributors will be withheld when requested. Thank you in advance for the help.
There is a basic whole to my work, and this is summarized in the statement:

*********Space is built out of its contents**********

I attempt to prove that fact in particle physics, in quantum mechanics, in astrophysics, in Life and in Computer Science. This is the thrust of my thesis.
So anybody looking at only one part may misunderstand, or not understand at all. I cannot help that fact. The rewrite into articles helps, but the difficulty is still there.
The statement above is so UNINTUITIVE that even mathematicians do not understand it, and this because math cannot exist in a world where space is built by its contents. Math can only be a rough tool since it deals with separated things, as classical mechanics did. Only our quantum mind can process that information. This is why I wrote the equivalent of 20+ articles on the matter. .

A description of how this study came about as well as its main findings are given in the History of this Thesis page. Some of the generic physical concepts contained in the study are addressed in the Q & A page. Certain mathematical aspects are discussed in the Second Q & A page, while philosophical aspects are addressed in The Riddle of The Monads page. A summary of the correspondence is in the Correspondence page.

Ancillary matters are discussed in other pages:

A key mathematical development to permit a full future formal statement is identified in The Need to Develop a Non-Cantorian Set Theory page. The relation of some of the study conceptual thrust with the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Theory is in the How To Go Beyond MWI page. Publication hassles are recorded in the Publication Issues page. Facts found relevant since the submittal for publication are in the New Findings page.

A Note for the Casual Reader:
This study encompasses many disciplines of Science and demands a knowledge beyond the level found in the popular literature. Notably much microbiological literature background is reviewed and used in phase 2, while phase 1 assumes a wide past and recent mathematical and theoretical physics knowledge (even though equations cannot be found in the main text).


The intent

According to Prof. Lindley Darden's paper on "The Nature of Scientific Inquiry,"
"Plausible ideas need to be published, subjected to debate, challenged with new evidence. If a hypothesis turns out to be bad, science throws it away. If it stands up in the face of further evidence, then the scientist who first published it receives the credit. Science as a whole benefits from timely publication and the scrutiny to which the hypothesis is subjected."
In this spirit, my intent and hope are that my proposals can be known and evaluated to their fullest without bias (as well as extended in the mathematical area if at all possible) through publication via the Internet. I am looking for a feedback here, thereby eventually finding qualified referees to permit a final publication outside the Internet. My address appears below and in other places for that purpose.

As it was qualified in a correspondence with Nova Science Publishers, the work is a "monograph": I do take numerous personal positions and views which can be debated at infinitum, and the intent of the work is not to cover various understandings and views at the conceptual level. To expose such a debate would require a book of at least twice the size, and what I want to bring out would not only get muddled up but may never see peer-reviewed publication, while publishing is essential to ensure a truly open and free discussion of ideas. Quoting further Prof. Darden here,

"Peer review of scientific articles prior to publication serves as a check against hasty publication of results that do not conform to the accepted standards in the field. But peer review is not a guarantor of truth. No methods exist to guarantee truth."
The Reviewers needed for paper publication purposes are thus first of all to ensure the accuracy of my presentation regarding known theoretical and experimental facts. These facts are from Particle Physics, Astrophysics, Quantum Physics, Microbiology (with a background in Physics), Neurobiology (with some Cognitive Psychology), Computer Science and Mathematics.
The work has been divided into articles in 2004 for easier reviewing and publishing, with some of the article submitted to Frontier Perspectives, Temple University, Philadelphia, but the need for reviewers remains, and constructive comments are as welcome as ever.


The Works: On the Origin of Space
Continuous Update Page: New Findings

Supporting Articles/Work by Others :
The Pioneer's Anomalous Doppler Drift as a Berry Phase (J. L. Rosales) May 2004
4-dimensional optics, gravitation and quantum mechanics (J. B. Almeida) Website link
Maxwell's equations in 4-dimensional Euclidean space (J. B. Almeida) Mar 2004
An hypersphere model of the Universe – The dismissal of dark matter (J. B. Almeida) Feb 2004
Elementary Particles as Solutions of a 4-Dimensional Source Equation (J. B. Almeida) Apr 2003
Unification of classical and quantum mechanics (J. B. Almeida) Dec 2002
Ether & the Theory of Relativity (A. Einstein) May 1920 [Comments in ga.pdf]
A Revenge of Space on Matter? (A. Einstein) June 1930
The Centriole as a Gyroscopic Oscillator (M. Bornens - Institut Pasteur) Jan 1979
Additional Roundness of Space-Time and Unknown Vacuum Energies in Living Organisms (A. Sorli) Fall 2001
Time, Gravitation, Entropy and Life (A. & I. Sorli) May 2004 [with comments]

Discussions with Others:
How To Go Beyond MWI July 2000
The Riddle of The Monads revised Jan 2001
Questions & Answers revised Dec 2000   Second Questions & AnswersNov 2000
Consciousness, Self-Awareness and Language Nov 2000

Initial Discussions:
Correspondence Updated Dec 2000   Publication Issues Oct 2000