Scientific considerations

[EricLux]

Hello :)

The purpose of this publication is to initiate reflections following answers, indications and scientific leads provided by the Cs during the sessions since 1994. I will do my best to publish regularly on these subjects in order to participate to an awareness in the scientific field allowing us to get out of the ambient and morose atmosphere by laying the seeds of a new reality, at least, the seeds of a new look at the reality in which we live.

Of course, I do not hide it, the objective behind these hundreds of hours of reflection, when free time is there, is, little by little, to access the Unified Field in consciousness. Because, to this day, it's the only way that assures us of being fully a conscious creator. Of course, this is my level of perception as I’m writing these lines. Finally, I will do my best to be as clear and accessible as possible for any type of reader, scientific or not.

It's in this thread that I will compile all my scientific thoughts which will come, thanks to you, and to my work on myself, to evolve.

At present, we belong to a 3D reality and we are gradually moving towards a 4D reality. From what the Cs told us, scientists are micro-dipping into 4D reality at the quantum level without really being aware of it. Indeed, the 4D reality is completely unknown to us since we aren’t aware of its nature. So, we aren’t yet in a condition to speak of the one relating to the Unified Field which takes place in 7D. Step by step (in 3D, we are in a linear perception do not forget it). Let's start with the apprehension of 4D reality.

The following questions then arise:​

• Should we review the foundations of our earthly mathematics to access, at the mathematical level, 4D reality? Do we need to review the foundations of our algebra and analysis?​
• The Cs said that algebra would free us: should we review our vision of the number 0?​
• Is our complex numbers vision conform to the reality ? More specifically, is the reality underlying the number i really that of our algebraic and geometric representation of the number i?​
• The Cs indicated that it would be appropriate to consider p-adic numbers (number with an infinity of digits to the left of the decimal point whereas, in our classic approach to numbers, the infinity of digits is after the decimal point) when we want to talk about 4D reality. Three questions then emerge :
  

  • why p-adic numbers, numbers inverted in relation to "ours", are accurate to describe the 4D reality?​
  • what do prime numbers (numbers that are not divisible by integer numbers other than themselves and 1) do at this level?​
  • when we talk about 4D, are we talking about 4D, from 4D, or about the vision we have of 4D, from 3D, because most of our scientific and human approach is based 3D. Even if we come to describe a "higher" reality, we are describing it from 3D.​
• When we talk about geometry, everything is based on a vision of the dimensionless mathematical and geometric point : how can we talk about a line and a plane sitting on a dimensionless point? Does the quantum leap towards 4D go through a new look at the mathematical and geometric point?​
• If the 4th "dimension" makes it possible to apprehend, simultaneously, the outside and the inside of reality, does this mean that it confers a dimension to the point that we do not envisage in 3D. The point would have an interiority that we do not take into account in our 3D approach, of which we are not aware. What seems supported by the fact that the transition from 3D to 4D would go through taking into account a change of unit (Santilli session on May 27, 1995)?​
• If my intuition is correct, Planck's constant shows us the way to a point which is not without dimension: in other words, NOTHING is ZERO, and by conferring a dimension to the mathematical-geometric point, this means that we identify it with the physical point due to the 4th “dimension”. From 4D, with the 4th “dimension”, we reveal the inner nature of the point that was previously non-existent or invisible. We leave the external approach, the 3D representation of reality to finally enter reality by taking into account its internal aspect (negative 3D). The 4th “dimension” characterizing the fact of considering, at the same time, the positive 3D and the negative 3D? Given the smallest of Planck's constant, our immersion in the heart of reality is, so, extremely weak (our quantum mechanics).​
• What's the true nature of the 4th “dimension”? We don't know yet because the Cs told that we haven't made a certain assumption: What is the nature of that assumption? Ark recently intuited that the 4th "dimension" of space is a frequency : is it the frequency of light whereas in Einstein's theories we only consider speed light ? Is it a frequency different from those of Maxwell, the so-called Tesla scalar waves?​
• If another view of the point is needed to access 4D, does that mean that the continuity we envision in real number intervals is in fact not real? Does this mean that going towards the Unified Field is to identify, in terms, mathematics and physics or, in a more rigorous way, to find THE mathematics that is ONE with physics valid in all dimensions?​
• If we have to revisit the concept of point, does this mean that, in 4D, the number π is no longer equal to 3,14159… (as we already saw, the number π is variable in special relativity although this theory is only spatially correct) because the circle would no longer be an infinity of points but, in fact, one and the same fully continuous and entire expanded point?​

Here are some elements of reflection resulting from multiple readings of sessions of the Cs : my feeling is that, rather than using very complex mathematical concepts, the key to the Unified Field is, perhaps, also, in a return to the foundations of our mathematical concepts which have, perhaps, locked something that we must release or even make variable so that they are more fluid and alive. Because necessarily moving towards 4D means moving towards a more universal life, therefore being more alive... internally.

If these few lines were able to resonate with you, then I am happy and am open to any discussion to go further and find the answers together.

With Love and Light, Eric.​

 

[EricLux]

Abel Prize 2023

The study of nature sometimes leads to asking questions that seem very simple : what shape does an ice cube take when it melts, how does a fluid flow? But the equations that describe these systems can become a particularly tough playground for mathematicians. Many researchers focus in particular on ensuring that these so-called "partial derivative" equations behave "wisely". It is one of the great specialists in this field, Luis Caffarelli, of the University of Texas, at Austin, whom the Norwegian Academy of Sciences has decided to reward for his fundamental contribution to the theory of regularity for the equations to nonlinear partial derivatives, such as the Monge-Ampère equation.

Many physical processes in nature, also in biology or economics, often lead to dealing with partial differential equations. These equations take into account the fact that the phenomena studied are often dynamic and depend on several variables such as time and position. This is for example the case of the Fourier equation, which characterizes the diffusion of heat in a material, Maxwell's equations, which describe the propagation of electromagnetic waves, the Schrödinger equation, in quantum mechanics, or more Navier-Stokes equations, which account for the flow of a fluid.

These equations are often written quite simply… but their solutions can be particularly difficult to find and understand. Mathematicians therefore set out to study the existence, uniqueness, regularity and stability of these solutions. Indeed, at the macroscopic scale, the physical phenomena have behaviors where the magnitudes vary gradually. A solution that would present singularities ("peaks") or that would tend towards infinity would therefore not be satisfactory. Such a diverging function would indicate, for example, that the temperature would become infinite!

In 1977, Luis Caffarelli became interested in the equations that describe melting ice. This is an example of a so-called “free surface” problem, the latter being here the interface between ice and air. This type of problem is difficult to deal with because the surface is not defined a priori and is not constant throughout the process. On the contrary, it evolves over time and is therefore part of the solution sought. Thanks to the works of Luis Caffarelli, who was the first to find how to deal with situations with more than one dimension, and those later of Alessio Figalli, we understand why an ice cube that melts, even if it initially had the shape of a cube with protruding edges, its surface is gradually smoothed. The tools that Luis Caffarelli developed in this area are still widely used to deal with different problems.

In the early 1980s, Luis Caffarelli worked with Louis Nirenberg (Abel Prize winner in 2015) and Robert Kohn on the Navier-Stokes equation, which describes flows of fluids. Engineers and climatologists alike use this equation, all the time, and it works perfectly well. But its regularity is not proven and is the subject of one of the seven millennium prizes of the Clay Institute (with a prize of 1 million dollars). The equation could therefore have a solution which, under certain conditions, would explode : the speed of the fluid would tend towards infinity! The three researchers achieved a partial result and their solution is considered one of the most successful to date. If regions where the velocity becomes infinite are formed, they are infinitely small. This implies that these points are infinitely rarer than the points where the fluid behaves on a regular basis.

More recently, the Argentinian-born mathematician became interested in the Monge-Ampère equations. These equations appear in the field of differential geometry and are related to optimal transport problems. Once again, Luis Caffarelli has developed tools to show the regularity of certain solutions.

"By combining brilliant geometric intuition with ingenious analytical tools and methods, [Luis Caffarelli] has had and continues to have an enormous impact in this field", concludes Helge Holden, mathematician at the head of the Abel committee.​

https://www.pourlascience.fr/sd/mathematiques/le-prix-abel-2023-est-decerne-a-luis-caffarelli-24940.php?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pls_hebdo_136