20111214

God Particle in the News Again—Tentatively

When we perform experiments, we always find something out, even if it is that we are pretty ignorant. One way to handle ignorance is to be wishy-washy. That is just what the folks at CERN did yesterday. They announced that they still don’t know if the Higgs boson exists—maybe by next summer. The Higgs has been given the “god” appellation because it is supposed to give all other particles mass. Trouble is, it is supposed to be “about 126 times heavier than a proton and 250,000 times heavier than an electron” (Overbye, 2011). Doesn’t look like we will see any of these fat guys in our electrons soon. Egads! Does this even make sense? Sounds a lot like math girls gone wild to me.

More from Overbye (2011): “The Higgs boson is the cornerstone and the last missing part of the so-called Standard Model, a suite of equations that has held sway as the law of the cosmos for the last 35 years and describes all of particle physics. Physicists have been eager to finish the edifice, rule the Higgs either in or out and then use that information to form deeper theories that could explain, for example, why the universe is made of matter and not antimatter, or what constitutes the dark matter and dark energy that rule the larger universe.

The particle is named for the University of Edinburgh physicist Peter Higgs…who suggested that a sort of cosmic molasses pervading space is what gives particles their heft. Particles trying to wade through it gather mass the way a bill moving through Congress gains riders and amendments, becoming more and more ponderous. It was Dr. Higgs who pointed out that this cosmic molasses, normally invisible and, of course, odorless, would have its own quantum particle, and so the branding rights went to him.”

As I pointed out way back in October (http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2011/10/why-god-particle-does-not-exist.html), what gives particles mass is the fact that each particle contains other particles ad infinitum. This is in tune with the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). In contrast, the whole of modern physics is founded on finity, the indeterministic opposite, which assumes that the universe is finite, both in the microcosmic (e.g., Higgs boson) and the macrocosmic (BBT) directions. The days for the reign of finity are numbered.

It is nice that they have finally given up that old indeterministic idea that space is perfectly empty. Maybe they will rediscover aether particles, the constituents of electrons. At least those particles would be lighter than electrons, not heavier. Beats swimming through some Higgs goo just to get some rubbed off mass on your little particle body.

Note that Overbye has gotten the mainstream down, drawing the implications out to “dark matter” and “dark energy.” As we showed in UCT (Puetz and Borchardt, 2011), the missing dark matter is nothing special, just trillions of undetected planets running around without stars whose wobbles could give them away. You have to be pretty naïve to believe that all matter in the universe should be luminous anyway, or even that “dark energy” could exist. Energy is E=mc2, a calculation, for crying out loud. Energy neither exists nor occurs, it is a matter-motion term we require to describe the motion of matter. The placement of those two dark terms in mainstream speak shows that they think of “dark energy” as some type of entity separate from matter, a violation of the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). You wouldn’t be a modern physicist if you didn’t believe that matter could be turned into pure, naked energy, whether white or dark (Borchardt, 2009).

The Times reporter did get this gem from Steven Weinberg: “It’s always a little weird when something that comes out of the mathematics in theoretical work turns out to exist in the real world. You asked me earlier if it’s exciting. Sure is.”

Sure is.

References

Borchardt, G. (2009). "The physical meaning of E=mc2 (http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/The%20Physical%20Meaning%20of%20E%20=%20mc2.pdf)." Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance 6(1).

Overbye, D. (2011). Data Hints at Elusive Particle, but the Wait Continues (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/science/tantalizing-hints-but-no-direct-proof-in-search-for-higgs-boson.html?scp=3&sq=god%20particle&st=cse). New York Times. New York.

Puetz, S. J. and G. Borchardt (2011). Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe. Denver, Outskirts Press (www.universalcycletheory.com).

16 comments:

henk korbee said...

Quote 'what gives particles mass is the fact that each particle contains other particles ad infinitum.' That is a hypothesis to my opinion. It can contain 10^2011 elements as an upperlimit without ever summing up that amount. To my opinion is the 'infinite rule' you propose another way to express that it is beyond imagination. I bought your book but miss a mathematical workout as a check it all is okay.

Glenn Borchardt said...

henk:

Thanks for the comment. Infinity is a fundamental assumption. It is not really a hypothesis, which is a statement that could be falsified. Modern physics thinks we live in a finite, mathematical universe, partly because they begin with the assumption of finity. Math may love finity, but the real world doesn't.

henk korbee said...

Thanks for replying so soon. I hav e another question about time and motion. To my opnion is time the duration of a motion. You often write 'time is motion' and 'motion is time'. Why? You had in mind that 'is' denotes a relationship? About 'hypercone' I have another question. Writing down the equation and dividing by c^2 one get that time along the axes differs and can be summed up to get 'squared real time'? Am I correct? A. Einstein used a tau-function to get his famous formulaes but tau is defined on a 4-dim space so he in fact is using a 5-dim space?

Glenn Borchardt said...

henk:

You are welcome. Thanks for being such a faithful reader of our papers. What I mean by the “time is motion” slogan is just that. Neomechanics recognizes only two phenomena in the universe: matter and the motion of matter. “Matter” and “motion” are abstractions, for which other words come to mind (things and time, structures and functions, etc.). Therefore, “time” is an abstraction for the motion of all things with respect to all other things. Any specific phenomenon is either matter or motion. Thus, legs are matter and running is motion, brain is matter and mind is motion, etc. The importance of the slogan devolves around our effort to remove the observer from the concept of motion, which is where Einstein incorrectly put it. When we use a clock or say “duration of motion,” we are comparing the motion of one microcosm with the motion of another. Time (motion) does not care whether there is an observer or not.

You astutely mentioned that the “is” in the “time is motion” slogan implies a relationship. This is where most folks have difficulty in grasping inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). A relationship generally implies a physical association between at least two microcosms. But, because motion (time) is not a thing, we cannot detach it from the thing that moved. To do so, we would have to assume the indeterministic opposite, separability. Mentally, at least, we would be putting matter in one corner of the room and its motion in another corner. That makes no sense. Nonetheless, that is what we are doing when we so commonly say “time flows,” “saving time,” and “going back into time (as if motion had a door).” This common objectification of motion (time) was the philosophical error that made Einstein’s relativity invalid. See the blog http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2011/11/time-is-motion.html, where I reference the paper on just that.

With regard to the Hypercone question: Remember that whenever we put a value for “time” on a graph or diagram, we are objectifying “it” (see how hard it is to think about time (motion) without making it nominative?) We are separating time (motion) from the matter that moved. It doesn’t make any difference whether we square a time (motion) term or not. It is objectification all the same, so we have to be extremely careful in making any interpretations. In Hypercone, Einstein treated time as a distance, a philosophical error common to all the mathematical contortions we call Relativity. Being a mathematician rather than a physicist, Einstein was not concerned when his equations involved more than the three observable dimensions. Whether mathematicians come up with 4 or 5 dim, or the 13 dim of the string theorists is of no importance. Such mathematical games may be fun, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with reality.

henk korbee said...

Thanks for answering in an extensive way. I am still reading the ten assumptions of science. Reading your answer I get the idea that all is(or has?) to be classified as matter or motion. That motions are involved into the brain has to be accepted by me but never saw that or experienced it. Only 'a flow of thoughts' twenty-four hours a day. I agree that we cannot remove the observer from the concept of motion. It came to my mind that we objectify time in order to speak about it in an easy way.It seems that the only way we can handle the world is using objects to achieve something. Objectifying concepts is by hand. It's also done with the concept of emotions: one carries some sort of emotions the whole life. I disagree that Einstein handled time as if it was length. He used a 1-1 function from time to length to avoid all kind of difficulties. That is my opinion after reading his 1905-paper about motion and EM waves. But he introduced more problems as it comes to my mind, p.e. how can one talk about 'squaring velocity' if the units involved aren't explained in a clear way. Also he used 'distance=velocity times time' which is correct for light as a particle with mass and sometimes he is thinking of light as an EM wave. I do have more questions but first I will reread the ten assumptions.

Glenn Borchardt said...

henk:

You are welcome. Thanks so much for your questions. Looks like you should sign up as a “follower” on the blog. The flow of thoughts involves the electrical transmissions that “occur” in your brain. It seems like a “flow” when your brain circuitry makes one connection after another.

You say, “I agree that we cannot remove the observer from the concept of motion.” That is the opposite of what I meant. Sorry, but motion obviously occurs without observers. Your statement is more in tune with Einstein, who was a solipsist (one who assumes immaterialism, the opposite of the First Assumption of Science, materialism (The external world exists after the observer does not)). For more on Einstein’s solipsism and its relation to SRT and GRT see the wonderful paper by Lindner (2002).

You say, “I disagree that Einstein handled time as if it was length. He used a 1-1 function from time to length to avoid all kind of difficulties.” This was explained in the Hypercone paper we did (Bryant and Borchardt, 2011). It is true that by considering time to be equivalent to length, AE avoided all kinds of difficulties for his indeterministic philosophy. However, by doing so, he not only messed up the math, but he also messed up the philosophy by introducing all sorts of contradictions (paradoxes) that even indeterminists do not like.

You are right that 'distance=velocity times time' would be correct for light if “it” was a particle with mass. You are also correct that AE sometimes is thinking of light as an EM wave. Like his followers, AE could not make up his mind about whether light was matter or the motion of matter. Light, of course, is motion, a wave in the aether, whose velocity depends on the density of the aether (see our "Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe").

References

Borchardt, G. (2011). Einstein's most important philosophical error. Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, 2011 (http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5991.pdf), College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD.

Bryant, S. and G. Borchardt (2011). Failure of the relativistic hypercone derivation (http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Abstracts&tab1=Display&id=6000&tab=2). Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, 20115991.pdf), College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD.

Lindner, H. H. (2002). "Beyond consciousness to cosmos--beyond relativity and quantum theory to cosmic theory (http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_2928.pdf)." Physics Essays 15(1): 113-128.

Puetz, S. J. and G. Borchardt (2011). Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe. Denver, Outskirts Press (www.universalcycletheory.com).

henk korbee said...

Thanks for the suggestion to become a 'blog-follower'. That motion occur without an observer, is right but an observer is needed to write down that a motion occur. I disgree being a solipsist as the claim that universe exists only in the mind of human beings cannot hold. To my opinion AE did not use in the hypercone equation, time as length but writing down 'time as the fourth dimension' he skipped the equation and used time as one-dimension which must be length. I reread the ten assumptions especially about energy as it was always difficult for me to grasp what is meant by 'energy' not to speak about 'kinetic energy'. Most people I speak to about it do believe that energy is some kind of an object as, p.e., it can be transferred into your boiler just like one can move an object. The equation E=mc^2 is used to state that energy is equivalent to mc^2 but it comes to my mind as a definition: use the term 'mc^2' to define energy(E) apart from the question what c^2 expresses. I have read S. Bryant's articles about the hypercone but it seems that he is using a table to demonstrate that the hypercone equation isn't invariant under the transformations mentioned. To my opinion it is the consequence of numerical errors as 'division' and 'minus' operations are used, which mostly give 'nasty answers'. I continue reading as I am asking how to derive Newton's law from your assumptions. By the way, i once read that newton's first law was already written down by Chinese long long ago and almost in the same way as newton did.

Glenn Borchardt said...

henk

Thanks for the comment. All you have to do is read my last paper (Borchardt, 2011) to discover Einstein’s major mistake in objectifying time. Both SRT and GRT thereafter become moot. The hypercone paper with Steve Bryant was just an illustration of one of the ways he did that. Indeterminists loved Einstein’s thinking because it got them what they wanted. Unfortunately, Einstein’s attack on materialism not inadvertently was an attack on physics itself.

Actually, it seems that most modern physicists, like most people, do not know what energy is. Some even believe that energy and matter are equivalent. Energy is a matter-motion term. It is neither matter nor motion, but a multiplication of the two. This struggling quote from Feynman (1964) is about as close as modern physicists are to getting it right:

"There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law; it is exact, so far we know. The law is called conservation of energy; it states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not change in manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity, which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number, and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same."

At PSI, we generally do not use the term energy because its ambiguity conceals what is really going on: the motion of matter. It allows immaterialists to overlook the necessity for matter when describing motion (matterless fields, etc.). Because we adhere to the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion), we state conservation as “matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed.” Energy is not conserved, unless you want to think of it as the conservation of an idea.

BTW: Do you have the reference for the Chinese discovery of the First Law of Motion?

References

Borchardt, G. (2011). Einstein's most important philosophical error. Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, 2011 ( http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5991.pdf ), College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD.

Feynman, R., R. B. Leighton, and M. Sands (1964). The Feynman lectures on physics, Addison Wesley.

henk korbee said...

Thanks for the recommanded articles. In 2007-2008 I read the next in a Dutch newspaper(NRC); first in Dutch and then my translation of it: 300-400 BC schreef men het volgende op in Mo Ching: 'Het ophouden van een beweging is te wijten aan tegengestelde kracht..... Als er geen tegengestelde kracht'..... zal de beweging nooit stoppen. Dat is zo waar dat een os geen paard is. Translation: 300-400 BC next was written in Mo Ching: 'To stop a movement is due to an opposite force'.... When there is no opposite force'...... the movement will never stop. That is as true as the fact that an ox isn't an horse.

Glenn Borchardt said...

Thanks henk.

henk korbee said...

You wrote 'time is motion' and vice versa, motion occurs, thus time occurs. Motion does not exist, it occurs. To my opinion it can only occurs if there is a duration in which te motion occurs and hence motion exists, not as an object like matter but as what happens. So far so good. Reading Aristotle Physics book VIII, transplated bij Daniel Graham, I read chapter one, 251b-25: (own words)the moment a motion occurs, future comes into being as well as past ended, thus time exists as an occurency. I agree. I also read that Aristotle is considering that a thing can be moved by force, not by nature nor contrary to nature. keeping in mind that energy can be defined as the product of distance and force. I like that defintion as I can use my imagination what that will be.

Glenn Borchardt said...

Sorry, henk, but it is not true that “time exists as an occurrency.” Existence is material. It is given to an xyz portion of the universe. Time is motion. Therefore, it does not have the xyz dimensions for it to qualify as existing. There is no place for time to exist in.

Also, forces do not move things, things move things. Forces are calculations describing the motion of things. Forces neither exist, nor occur. Forces are neither matter nor motion. Energy is a similar matter-motion term. Energy neither exists nor occurs. It is simply a calculation. It simply describes matter (which exists) and its motion (which occurs).

henk korbee said...

Glenn, as far as I know I do not deny the matter-motion point of view. I am puzzling the question what 'occurs' means. At the moment it is stormy weather overhere. The wind is blowing with great strength, which means that a lot of 'air particles' are moved with high speed against my body and pushing me away, so, yesterday, I felt on the ground. It all happened yesterday. Now, today, I am telling at a birthday party that 'some thing happened to me yesterday' etc., to express the existence of what happened to me yesterday. Take p.e. force, it is defined as 'mass times acceleration' in which accaleration is defined as 'a small change in velocity per unit small distance'. It seems to me that 'a small change in velocity ' occurs so force can be considered as 'existence times occurency' which cannot be a term defining existence as matter but is 'some thing that occurs'?

Glenn Borchardt said...

Henk, your problem with matter and motion is not unique. Like Einstein, most of us objectify motion every day. I say “I have things to do,” when I really should say that I have activities (actions, motions) planned. What happened to you yesterday did not exist then and does not exist now. It occurred yesterday and is no longer occurring. Matter-motion terms, such as force, are calculations in which we multiply a term for matter and a term for motion. Forces neither exist, nor occur; they are calculations. Thus, if you were hit by a baseball, we could describe the collision by multiplying its mass times the second derivative of its velocity to get a measurement we call force. A force would not have hit you, however. You would have been hit by a baseball.

As part of the philosophical struggle, it is a necessary habit of indeterminists everywhere to objectify motion. The popular phrase, “May the force be with you!”, perpetuates the mystery while generating enormous ticket sales. Similarly, modern physicists are fond of using such matter-motion terms particularly when they do not know what they are talking about. By that, I mean that they tend to drag out the mysterious connotations of matter-motion terms (e.g., P, F, & E) when they have no “what” to ascribe the motion to. For instance, in mainstream physics the “force of gravity” has no material carrier. For modern physicists, gravitation describes collidees without colliders. This is why we call modern physics “regressive” and indeterministic. Without the Fourth Assumption of Science (inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion), they will continue down the path that Einstein led them.

henk korbee said...

I agree that notions like force are calculations. In calculations it is handsome p.e. to have a shorthand for 'ma' as it is used many times. To speak about it is also easy to use a word for it. That it can lead to errors has to be accepted then but must be avoided. An example to get an idea what is going on in my mind: 'With full force the baseball hitted me' or shall I say 'it seemed that the baseball accelerated up to my head'? If I understand you well 'occurs' and 'exists' denotes two categories, inseparable from each other? Gravity has no material carrier. Well, how can space be curved then? To explain it away we turn around the idead and state that gravity is caused by a curved space?

Glenn Borchardt said...

henk:

Looks like you are getting it. The Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability, implies that gravity must have a material carrier. As you surmised, it is not possible for perfectly empty space to exist, much less be curved. Because empty space is “nothing,” it cannot be the “cause” of any motion. To have a cause, there must be a collider and a collidee. Your thinking has now surpassed that of Einstein. Maybe it is time for you to read our new book.

Post a Comment

Thanks so much for your comment. Be sure to hit "Preview" to see if it will publish correctly. Then hit "Publish". Include your email address if you wish to receive copies of your comment as well as all other published comments to this Blog.

For those having trouble getting this comment section to work:

Nitecruzr writes:

[FAQ] Why can't people post comments on my blog?

The Blogger / Google login status, and the ability to post comments, is sensitive to both cookie and script filters. Your readers may need to enable (stop filtering) "third party cookies", in their browser and on their computer. The effects of the newly unavoidable CAPTCHA, and the Google "One account" login, requires third party cookies, even more than before.

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/11/the-google-one-account-login-and-cookie.html

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/10/comments-and-cookie-filters-october-2014.html

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/10/the-new-commenting-captcha-is.html

Third party cookies filtering, in a browser setting, is the most common solution, overall - but your readers may have to search for other filter(s) that affect their use of Blogger / Google.

Any filters are subject to update, by the creator. If the problem started a few days ago, your readers may have to look on their computers, and find out what product or accessory was updated, a few days ago.

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/01/almost-nobody-controls-their-own.html