From Bill Westmiller:
“On a cursory read of the Amazon reviews and a few articles on your website, I'll give you at least 95% conformity. The sole exception is 8.1, since my theory postulates an irreducible 'microscopic' particle that is common to all matter.”
Bill:
You are not alone. Most physicists hypothesize an irreducible (elementary particle) or "god particle." Microcosmic finity was the primary supposition underlying Greek atomism and its offspring, classical mechanics and classical determinism. That is why the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions), is undoubtedly what puts my work ahead of the mainstream. You might want to do a thorough reading of Chapter 8 (pp. 88-97) in "The Ten Assumptions of Science" (TTAOS) (pp. 89-97 in "The Scientific Worldview"). Microcosmic infinity, in particular, is a thread that runs throughout all ten assumptions of science. It is what makes them “consupponible,” that is, if you can assume one of them, you must be able to assume all of them without contradiction. For instance, the Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes), would not be possible without it. All things (microcosms) must be bathed in an infinite sea of particles (supermicrocosms) so that no two reactions can be exactly alike. Similarly, interconnection (All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion) obviously requires it. Frankly, I don’t see how you can agree with anything in TTAOS without also agreeing with infinity.
Despite their claims to be “relativists,” modern physicists have not disentangled themselves from this one presupposition that most distinguishes classical mechanics—finity. They are ambivalent about the macrocosmic variety, as shown by the currently popular oxymoronic “parallel universe” and “multiverse” theories. Nevertheless, like yourself, most are firm believers in microcosmic finity. You are in good company, because the billion-dollar bet at CERN is all set to discover the Higgs boson, a hypothesized elementary particle otherwise dubbed the “god particle.” Only one problem: it cannot possibly exist.
There are many reasons for this. One is its association with the photon, the oxymoronic massless particle hypothesized by Einstein. Another is the fact that all microcosms must contain submicrocosms ad infinitum. An elementary particle can have no parts. If it did, then these would have to be considered even more elementary. Even if an elementary particle, filled with solid matter, actually existed, it would pose the most critical problem of all. In tune with the idealism that engendered it, all of these particles would have to be identical. To be non-identical, any two “elementary” particles could not be “partless.” At least one of them would have more “solid matter” than the other. For that to be the case, that solid matter would have to be subdividable, i.e., made up of submicrocosms. This, of course, negates the “elementary” claim.
Now let us suppose that these elementary particles really are identical, as claimed by those who hypothesize them. This would contradict the Ninth Assumption of Science, relativism (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things), producing a logical conundrum for believers in TTAOS. This is not so bad for those who prefer the indeterministic opposites anyway, but it presents yet another logical problem. Identical elementary particles, hypothesized to be the constituents of all things, have no reason to associate with each other. They could not be charged or have opposed polarity, because that would mean that at least half of them were not identical and therefore not elementary. Identical particles would bang around the universe forever, never having reasons for joining with other particles to form anything. As hard as it is for us to believe that all things must contain other things and must have other things outside them, it is even harder to believe that the universe could be constructed of elementary particles.
Recently, the CERN folks have admitted that the Higgs boson may be a “mirage” (Evans, 2011): “The centre's research director Sergio Bertolucci told the conference, at the Indian city's Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, that if the Higgs did not exist ‘its absence will point the way to new physics.’” You betcha.
Reference:
Evans, R. (2011). "Higgs boson may be a mirage, scientists hint." Retrieved August 22, 2011, from http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/22/us-science-higgs-idUSTRE77L5KS20110822 or http://reut.rs/rkw3ca
Posts
8 comments:
I'll give you 99.8% agreement on your response, which makes my reply pretty easy.
All things (microcosms) must be bathed in an infinite sea of particles (supermicrocosms) so that no two reactions can be exactly alike.
In general, I agree. But ...
An infinite regression would preclude any composite with emergent structural attributes. The universe would be an indiscriminate "fog" without substance, lacking any of the common attributes that could - in composite - produce the various types of particles we experience. The fundamental particle of my theory is substantially smaller than a "quanta" and maybe smaller than your hypothetical etherial particles:
"So the ether 'dust devils' that produce electrons require perhaps a billion ether particles to form an electron."
http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2011/01/elementary-particles-not-elementary.html
... CERN is all set to discover the Higgs boson, a hypothesized elementary particle otherwise dubbed the "god particle." Only one problem: it cannot possibly exist.
Of course, the 'God Particle' is pure fantasy (or supernatural gobbledygook). Sad to see governments blowing billions of tax dollars to find a "particle that gives other particles mass," which is totally incoherent.
... In tune with the idealism that engendered it, all of these particles would have to be identical.
I agree, but it isn't "idealism" that requires it. Logic would dictate that any "elementary" particle is just that: fundamental to all other compositions of matter. So, I agree with your logic in discarding non-identical particles.
Now let us suppose that these elementary particles really are identical, as claimed by those who hypothesize them. This would contradict the Ninth Assumption of Science, relativism (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things), producing a logical conundrum for believers in TTAOS.
I can't speak for the hypothesis of others, but all of my fundamental particles are different: they don't occupy the same position at the same time. They all have distinct relative motions, even if their composites (familiar particles) are similar and have characteristics in common. As you say (above quote), it may take billions (plus or minus millions) of those fundamental particles to form one photon. So, my proposition is only quantitatively distinct from your "ether particles":
"Some of these [photons] involve wavelengths shorter than the visible, but none of them probably is shorter than the diameter of an ether particle ..."
http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/search/label/ether
Identical particles would bang around the universe forever, never having reasons for joining with other particles to form anything.
I'll agree that there's no apparent reason why they would "associate", and certainly it would not be because of the attributes of their composites, which have familiar properties of attraction. However, on this point, I'll have to leave you in a lurch, because I don't want to jeopardize the copyright for my theory, once it's published. All I can do is assure you that it won't contradict any of your assumptions (except 8.1).
William Westmiller
William:
I will respond only to clarify some points:
“Emergent structural attributes” is what infinity is all about. Those attributes come about by interparticle associations, which can never develop between identical particles. There is no “fog” precisely because the universe is not made up of “identical particles.” We have evolved to sense some microcosms, but not others. Thus, if we could see the aether, we would indeed be living in a “fog”—life would be impossible.
Sorry, but that is what “fundamental particles” are supposed to do. They are an imaginary attempt to make finite that which is inherently infinite—sort of like the Big Bang.
Note: I discarded identical particles, which are idealistic, not non-identical particles, which are realistic.
Remember that “similar” is not the same as “identical.” The word “similar” begs the question about some internal variation and thereby logically implies an assumption of microcosmic infinity. Having infinitely variable motions is not enough to avoid the indeterministic assumption of microcosmic finity. This all might seem moot to most folks, but the whole idea of “fundamental particles” must be laid to rest. In UD, we assume that no microcosm (a portion of the universe) can be devoid of other things, which we call “submicrocosms.” “Solid matter” (implied by the term “fundamental particle”) and “empty space” are only idealizations. Reality exists on the continuum between the two ideals. The ideals help us understand the universe, but they don’t actually exist.
"Some of these [photons] involve wavelengths shorter than the visible, but none of them probably is shorter than the diameter of an ether particle ..."
http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/search/label/ether
BTW: The word “photon” was not in the original, nor was it implied or intended in the quote above. Photons do not exist (see http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5991.pdf).
In neomechanics and univironmental theory, all our associations have to do with the fact that we assume infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). The last quote you emphasized: (Identical particles would bang around the universe forever, never having reasons for joining with other particles to form anything.) sums it up nicely. I gently encourage you to take the last step and give up the fundamental particle idea entirely. So what if your particles contain other particles? You can still use them in any theory you could devise.
Glenn said...
"Emergent structural attributes" is what infinity is all about. Those attributes come about by interparticle associations, which can never develop between identical particles.
I think you're saying that the attributes of, for example, an electron are a consequence of distinct microcosms that endow or express each of its particular attributes. That is true for some of its attributes (e.g.: charge), but another set of attributes (e.g.: mass) are inherent in the composite, without regard to any submicrocosmic interactions. Another set (e.g.: spin) exist as a consequence of interactions, but persist (inertia) in the absence of any subsequent internal or external interactions. Finally, another set (e.g.: motion) are relative to other objects, whether they interact or not.
Identical fundamental particles (IFPs for simplicity) can have the attributes of mass, three-dimensional shape, spin, and motion without any internal associations at all. Granted, spin may have been initiated by a prior interaction, and motion is merely relative to other fundamental (or not) particles, but the IFPs can retain those attributes without internal submicrocosms. In composite, sets of IFPs can express additional attributes.
There is no "fog" precisely because the universe is not made up of "identical particles." We have evolved to sense some microcosms, but not others. Thus, if we could see the aether, we would indeed be living in a "fog" - life would be impossible.
I agree that life (or any other composite) would be impossible if IFPs could not interact with each other. And, I agree that such an interaction could not be equivalent to that of composites (e.g.: electrons) that have particular attributes (e.g.: charge) that facilitate or "motivate" particular kinds of interaction.
So, I agree that, at minimum, there must be some inherent attribute of IFPs that results in bonding ... which is not adhesion, attachment, or binding (all requiring submicrocosmic features). However, even without disclosing my solution, IFPs can certainly interact with each other by collision and be constrained in proximity (local negentropy) without internal components.
"Solid matter" (implied by the term "fundamental particle") and "empty space" are only idealizations. Reality exists on the continuum between the two ideals.
I agree that abstractions are only idealizations. There is no such thing as a "point mass", nor a two-dimensional "membrane." I'll even agree that there is a continuum of density among sets of particles. However, even at the atomic level, there must be some differentiation between constitutionally identical atoms. They must occupy a different space and (if they are to retain their basic attributes) be separated by some distance, occupied by "not atom." If such a separation did not exist, we would have a literal "block universe," rather than a "fog" of unbound IFPs. In the absence of that separation, you can't talk about the "diameter of an ether particle." (Suggesting the consequential question of whether or not those are IFPs.)
Photons do not exist (see http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5991.pdf).
Reading only the abstract, "wave motion" still exists "in a sea of particles" and those particles must be distinctly separate. Otherwise, there can be no wave.
... I gently encourage you to take the last step and give up the fundamental particle idea entirely.
I still have plenty of your material to read before I arrive at a conclusion. I can be persuaded.
William Westmiller
William:
You admit that some attributes of your IFP might have infinite characteristics, but that “another set of attributes (e.g.: mass) is inherent in the composite, without regard to any submicrocosmic interactions.” This is the old-fashioned view of mass. A single electron, for instance, may consist of 500 aether particles or 501 aether particles at any moment. These submicrocosms are what makes up the supposed IFP, just like our various organ systems are necessary for us to have weight (or mass). Our weight fluctuates by the microsecond, as we breathe, sweat, eat, and digest. We are microcosms, not systems totally isolated from our environments. We are at all times interacting with the macrocosm. All microcosms (portions of the universe) are that way—even the smallest entity you could hypothesize—your IFP.
You admit that “another set [of attributes] (e.g.: spin) exist as a consequence of interactions,” but claim that still other attributes “persist (inertia) in the absence of any subsequent internal or external interactions.” That is like saying that you could “persist in the absence of any subsequent internal or external interactions.” Aside from its personal impossibility, such a statement about anything is a violation of the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). It is typical of Newton’s classical mechanics, in which the First Law of Motion characteristically strips both its object and the environment of its object of all submicrocosms and supermicrocosms. It was the world’s greatest observation, even though it was an idealization of the first rank. It has been supplanted by neomechanics (Ch. 5 in TSW), a necessary deduction from the assumption of infinity.
Continued...
William:
I admire your logical consistency in tune with conventional wisdom and its steadfast belief in finity: You say that “IFPs can retain those attributes without internal submicrocosms.” Unfortunately, anything “without internal submicrocosms” verges on being nothing at all. This is why the UD definition of matter is “that which contains other matter.” This is restated as the Tenth Assumption of Science, interconnection (All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion). If we subdivide any microcosm, we will find two things that we characterize with the idealizations: “solid matter” and “empty space.” Subdividing “solid matter” results in “solid matter” and “empty space; subdividing “empty space” results in “solid matter” and “empty space.” We never reach “solid matter” or “empty space,” no matter how much subdividing we do. The difference between “solid matter” and “empty space” in any of these is simply the fact that the submicrocosm we consider to be “solid matter” has more of the properties of that which we call “solid matter” and less of the properties of that which we call “empty space.” This conception works on all scales, from the infinitely small to the infinitely large. Thus, you and I are matter (although we are probably 99% “empty space”) and the space between us is “empty space” (although it is probably 1% “solid matter”). This fits with the Ninth Assumption of Science, relativism (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things), which assumes that no two portions of the universe, no matter how small or large, can be identical.
Sorry to be so mind-boggling, but with infinity, it is essential that the question begging continue on forever. Matter is always defined by what is inside it (and outside it). Thus, when we ask: where do things come from, the answer is always the same: from somewhere else. These answers only can be given in an infinite universe. When we ask: where does motion come from, the answer is always the same: it is the result of a push from another microcosm. In an infinite universe, there is always another microcosm. Think about it. How could there be an “end” to the universe? What would that “end” possibly look like? Could it end with the ideal “empty space” of the younger Einstein and other idealists? Could it wrap around itself as in the imaginings of the elder Einstein and the Big Bangers? I don’t think so. What you see is what you get: an observed universe that is over 27.4 billion light years in diameter, containing <1% of all that exists.
Glenn said...
"... A single electron, for instance, may consist of 500 aether particles or 501 aether particles at any moment."
That's consistent with aether particles being Identical Fundamental Particles (IFPs). Perhaps, if you described the characteristics and qualities of your aether particles, I might conclude that they are exactly the same thing as my IFPs.
My preliminary calculations suggest that electrons are composed of 1.24e10^20 IFPs, give or take a few billion, depending on orbital position and the transitional status of the electron.
"... inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion)."
I would only put the second clause a little differently: it wouldn't matter that there was any matter if there were no motion. In the case of my IFPs, they might exist without motion, but that existence would be utterly meaningless, since there could be no emergent particles, atoms, planets, or people.
In a different interpretation, we might disagree: my IFPs have mass and shape, whether or not they encounter other IFPs in any particular microcosm. In the context of macrocosmic infinity, they certainly have persistent encounters. Those encounters always affect its relative motion and may effect its bonding or unbonding.
On another interpretation, we might disagree: my FSPs have no internal components or motion. They are not a "cosm", nor an idealization, but concrete objects.
"... Unfortunately, anything "without internal submicrocosms" verges on being nothing at all."
As close as you can get: an indivisible unit of mass (/matter).
"... relativism (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things) ..."
Although all of my IFPs have identical mass and shape, none of them occupy the same position at the same time. At any particular time, they may or may not be components of "super-sub-microcosms," which are emergent objects.
" ... Thus, when we ask: where do things come from, the answer is always the same: from somewhere else.
Precisely: because my IFPs are indivisible, they are necessarily eternal. They've always been someplace else.
" ... How could there be an "end" to the universe?"
The theory (I should be writing it now) requires an infinite universe with an infinite number of IFPs, as a necessary condition for our "cosmos" to exist.
William Westmiller
William:
You think that your Identical Fundamental Particles (IFPs) might have the same characteristics and qualities as my aether particles, and that therefore they might be exactly the same thing.
This is not possible. My aether particles contain submicrocosms (subaether particles), while yours do not. You said “my FSPs have no internal components or motion. They are not a "cosm", nor an idealization, but concrete objects.” The “concrete” in your reply indicates that you believe, like the CW (conventional wisdom) folks, that your IFPs are filled with “solid matter.” As I have explained, “solid matter” is an idealization despite your protestations. It is exactly the conception that characterizes the greatest error in classical mechanics: finity. As neomechanists, we have given up on that idea. Our aether particles have subaether particles and those have subsubaether particles ad infinitum. No two of our aether particles are identical. You could join us and I bet it would improve your theory.
Another way of looking at the main error in classical mechanics is from the point of view of liberal arts folks, who sometimes derogate physics and most of the hard sciences as “reductionist.” Of course, as I explained in TSW, reductions (or abstractions or idealizations) are necessary for understanding the universe. We need architectural drawings to build a house even though they are mere cartoons of what the house will become, with its infinite variety around every corner. In practice, we can only deal with a finite number of elements; in theory, however, we must realize that the number of elements is infinite.
Traffic cops reduce motor vehicles to one element: velocity (as you do with your IFPs that are only distinguished by their velocities and locations). They then expand on this simple reduction by stopping speeding vehicles, expecting to find a driver, a license, and hopefully, no open containers or concealed weapons. They must not believe that vehicles are “concrete objects.” What UD assumes is that all microcosms (portions of the universe) are like this, according to the Ninth Assumption of Science, relativism (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things). That was the whole point of the blog: there are no identities in nature. Any identities are like Plato’s “ideal forms,” only imaginings in which the imaginer was necessarily unable to include all the infinite detail.
You say that “it wouldn't matter that there was any matter if there were no motion. In the case of my IFPs, they might exist without motion…” The whole point of the Second Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion), is the claim that matter cannot exist without motion. It is a clear contradiction of the whole IFP (god particle) idea. Like the believers at CERN, you have reduced the insides of your model to “concrete,” which has no internal motion of its own. My claim is that such a particle cannot exist, and even if it did, its external motion “would be utterly meaningless, since there could be no emergent particles, atoms, planets, or people,” as you say.
Glenn said...
... My claim is that such a particle cannot exist, and even if it did, its external motion "would be utterly meaningless, since there could be no emergent particles, atoms, planets, or people," as you say.
I do. Which is why I think my IFPs are consistent with your assumptions, aside from clause 8.1 ... so I'll be happy if you only agree with 95% of my theory.
... You could join us and I bet it would improve your theory.
Once I have it written, I'll be happy to have your input. I doubt that you'll call it "Conventional Wisdom".
William Westmiller
Post a Comment