18

 In Geometrical Physics B the reader will find our personal approach, towards building a group acting on ten-dimensional space, this work being closely related to matter-anti-matter geometry.

Additional dimensions ? Which ones ? What could be their physical meaning ? Could we measure it ?

In his works (Géometrie et Relativité, Hermann-France Ed. 1964, Structure of Dynamical Systems, Birkhauser 1997, and Dunod-France 1973) the french mathematician Jean-Marie Souriau has widely extended physics in a five dimensional context. Then one has the four classical dimensions ( x , y , z , t ) of space-time, plus an extra-dimension z . This last was primarly introduced by the polish Kaluza in the 1920'.

Surperstring approach is an attempt to extend Kaluza trial to six more dimensions. Why 4 + 6 = 10 ? Because group and symmetries constraints.

When a physicist wants to make expriments he asks :

- How much energy do I need ?

Energy is linked to frequency and wavelength, through :

The smaller is the wavelength, the bigger is the energy.

The physicists looked upon these additional dimensions, searching what could be the associated characteristic length, hence the subsequent associated characteristic energy. They found :

Definitively ugly. To give to particles such energies you need an accelerator as big as our galaxy.

- Normal, says Michio Kaku, in his book "Hyperspace", Oxford University Press, 1994. We deal with future physics. Superstring corresponds to next centuries' science.....

- Hmmm.....

Strange new discipline. Some years ago I was at Souriau's home. He showed me the proceedings of a meeting devoted to superstrings. On the first page, the chairman had declared :

- Although this new science cannot predict anything nor interpret any observation or experiment, when we consider the increasing number of papers published in the field, it's a symptome that shows its great vitality and dynamism.

Souriau is easily sarcastic, but always with a good sense of humor. About today's theoretical physics, he has his own and short definition :

He thinks that since Feynmann's works fifty years of null-physics have past.

The kingdom of research.

Is it something rotten in the kingdom of research ?

Today, there are more alive scientists than all who worked in the whole history of Science. Which one will write his name in books, in golden letters ?

Between 1895 ( when natural radio-activity was discovered in France by Henri Becquerel ) and 1932 (when the British Chadwick discovered the neutron) it's only been 37 years. During such short time the scientific panorama has been totally changed. Everybody knows that.

I'm writing in 1998. What have we discovered that's so great since 1961, thirty years ago ?

Of course, we have sent people to the Moon, we make micro-computers, cd-roms, we have radio-telephone, we have biologic engineering, and so on.. But they are technologic developments. No really new basic idea. No revolution.

After the second world war the system of anonymous referee's system was generalized. The official idea was to protect the independence of the required referee, the expert whose charge was to decide if a paper could be published or not.

Then, when you want to publish something, the rule wants you to submit your paper to some Journal, who calls in an expert. After a month, or two, the answer comes back.

I have published dozens of papers in my life. If the work is conventional, it is relatively easy, but if you frankly go west, search "the physics at the west of the Pecos", if you try to search something really new, you get serious problems.

In fact, you have no problem at all. The answer comes back quickly :

No expert was chosen. Your paper was not reviewed. Why ?

Because top level journals receive too much papers, daily. Nature receives 100 papers each morning. Physical review, a dozen. How do you think they can manage that ?

Next, historical references.:

COSMOGONIA Cosmology, Theoretical Physics. Agora Street. Eube 58340 Macedonia. Publishing manager : Pr. Aristote.  to : Mr. Nicolas COPERNIC Old Mill Street. , 7 2304 Gdansk Poland.   Eube, 81 bef. JC, oct the 30 Reference : D-5703     Dear Sir; I have read your paper entitled : "De revolutionibus orbivm coelestivm" with attention and interest. Your model is attractive but unfortunately absurd. As everybody knows, objects can move only if a force acts on them. Furthermore the heavy objects are evidently more sensitive to forces than light ones. Do a simple experiment. Drop a stone and a feather from the second floor of your house. As you will see, the stone gets to the ground faster. Base your physical vision on simple facts. If the Earth was moving, as you suggest, some force should act on it. As inhabitants of the Earth we should be imbedded in this force field too, and this force should act on us. As we are made of material lighter than the Earth, this last should go away and we should stay in space like idiots. I am sorry but I must reject your paper.   Pr. Aristote Publishing Manager       COSMOLOGIA International Journal for Astronomia and Cosmologia. Uraniborg 26120 Danmark Publishing manager : Pr. Tycho Brahé. to : Mr. Nicolas COPERNIC Old Mill Street, 7 2304 Gdansk Poland. Uraniborg, le 6 février 1590 Référence : A-4428   Dear Sir, I have read your paper entitled : "De revolutionibus orbivm coelestivm" with attention and interest. This idea of a moving Earth is not new, but it never resisted, when analysed seriously. If the Earth was moving, as you suggest in your paper, this should cause an apparent displacement of nearby stars, with respect to the background, composed by distant ones. Stars do not lie at the same distance from us. Like candles, the fainter they are, the farther they are. If the Earth was moving, the closest stars should get an apparent displacement, due to parallax effect. What is parallax ? Place your finger in front of your nose and look at it, first with your right eye, then with the left one. Your finger will seem to move, with respect to the background. Your two eyes just figure two distinct positions of the Earth, if moving on a circular orbit, around the sun, as you suggest in your paper. . Look at the sky. Do you see any stars moving ? The constellation of the Big Bear is the same since thousands of years. I'm sorry, but your model, with its moving Earth, contradicts observations. The movement of planets, which has been intensively studied during centuries, is now quite well undestood. See : "C.Ptolemy, Almageste, Elements for mathematical composition, Phd thesis (231 after JC), chapter " epicyclic paths of planets", page 77. " This book, where all these things are clearly explained, is probably in your university's library. I'm sorry, but your paper cannot be published in our Journal.   Pr. Tycho Brahé Publishing manager.