Great Letter from a Student Disgusted with Modern Physics

This is a letter from a former physics student who switched to philosophy. He is responding to an email that Steve sent announcing our new book:

Mr. Puetz,

Thank you so much! This couldn't have come at a better moment, I literally just finished watching a fractal zoom on the order of e.214 [ http://vimeo.com/1908224?hd=1 ]. From the author's description, "a magnification of e.12 would increase the size of a particle to the same as the earths orbit! e.21 would make a particle look the same size as the milky way and e.42 would be equal to the universe." I was struck by the immensity of what e.214 could represent, and then your message arrived, and I saw it: the local mega-vortex!

Of course, this moment is not the ideal for that reason alone. I'm a student of physics and mathematics that recently changed major studies to philosophy. Forgive the boring details, but I'm compelled to express my disappointment and regret towards the scientific culture. I'm amazed at the level of dogma in physics today, which is in no doubt due to the complete blackout of education in philosophy for physicists (and I suspect, science in general). It's an intellectual death sentence to march forward without at least an awareness of the premises under which one works. Your mentioning of Kuhn's work, which I am familiar with, is a breath of fresh air. Truly, paradigm shifts are defined in large part by the premises (or scientific assumptions, ch.3) that get overturned, be they epistemological, metaphysical, etc. I had many conversations with professors and grad students; my anecdotal impression is that science is not simply ignorant of these things, science looks upon them with contempt.

In the past I was a computer science (engineering) student at a top 5 university. I went on to do software at a major laboratory, where I was exposed to all kinds of research, a lot of cool machines and a lot of very smart people from all around the world. I thought it was 'engineering culture' that bothered me, the focus on tangible results, ends over means, and so on. I quit my job after 3 years and returned to school, thinking physics (pure science) is what I was looking for. Unfortunately, upon my return, it was never clearer to me that our universities are recruiting grounds for these large entities like the national labs and military contractors. I don't mean to stir up political topics - but, seriously, how are we to pursue truth if our universities are infected by these kinds of interests?

Side note- even mathematics is affected by this! Not the political dimension, but the philosophical. Surprisingly, many mathematicians I met didn't understand or care about Godel's incompleteness theorems!! In addition, I recently read 'God Created the Integers' by Hawking, and it was fascinating to see the early geometers idea of what a number *is*. Numbers were symbolic representations of lengths. Negative numbers in themselves meant nothing; they only made sense in the context of subtraction (one length taken away from another). I like the modern example of so-called 'imaginary numbers' - as if we are forced to accept them for utilitarian purposes, but secretly we think "don't worry, they don't really exist, they're imaginary!", just as once we may have regarded negative numbers from such a perspective.

What struck me most profoundly out of the excerpt you sent is the idea that there are no extra-Euclidean dimensions. Even time is not considered a dimension. I'm so curious to read more about this and the consequences of such an idea!

Also interesting to me is the mention of the role of mathematics. Of course, mathematical feasibility is not enough to suggest that a particular mathematical model is the right one, but isn't it interesting how powerfully predictive mathematics can be (assuming the model is correct)? e.g. predictions made by the equations of special relativity that even Einstein thought were ridiculous (black holes, etc.). I often wonder about the extent to which mathematical truth can be used to infer truths about physical reality.

Sorry for the long email; I'll wrap up and say, I can't wait to pick up a copy of this book!

Thank you!

Infinity and Definition of a Point

From Nathan Carlson, a reader of my first paper on IUT (http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/IUT.pdf):

Mr. Borchardt,

I was reading your paper on the Infinite Universe Theory, and it reminded me of something I had been pondering for quite some time now, a logical accounting for gravity.  I had a rather interesting idea that if something exists as an atom (by the Greek meaning, an indivisible subject) then inevitably, it exists as a point.  I then set about defining a point, starting with the idea of a small sphere, and found that unsatisfactory.  I then had it as the meeting between two lines, but that does not properly define it either, as it accounts for two dimensions.  So I came to my third definition which becomes useful hereafter.

A point can be defined as the intersection between an infinite number of infinite planes.  This becomes more interesting when you bring a second point into that interaction.  the intersections between these infinite planes become potential points as well.  The closer the two points are, the greater the density of these potential points.  I will call these I-points.

Now give the point mass (not realistically of course, because it would of course be made of an infinite number of smaller particles.)  If these two points have mass, and an inclination to move, then this point field, (to me at least) is the plot of likely paths that the particles can take, and may even be an exact representation of possible paths the particles can take, though still an infinite set of paths, they are denser with two particles than one, with three than two, and in expansion to a possible infinite number of particles.

However, I'm not interested in calculating an infinite number of particles possible point paths.  What interests me here is the logical explanation of gravity.        I will redefine force here, not as push or pull but as an inclination of matter to move, (which could be proved by proving that it is impossible for matter to be without motion, also a talk for a later time I hope.)

Mass (m1m2) I will define as a collection of M-points (M-points being defined as a collection of I-points that have/constitute mass). 

As these M-points get closer the I-points they are made of generate increasing point sources to exist in.  In other words, Mass approaching Mass creates more possible spaces in the "etherosphere" for the Mass to exist in.  Given an inclination to move, mathematically a point will over time take (and remain in) the path with the most options.  Hence increasingly massive objects have an increasingly denser set of possible points for matter to exist in. 

Massive objects instead of being attracted to each other are instead falling into a denser etherosphere.  Hence your "Push", but not exactly.  Instead it is the motion of mass (still relying on proof of impossibility of mass to remain stationary).  The points generate their own increasing number of options for movement. 

[[don't take this as a relation to the theory above, rather take it as an interesting spin tweaking one dimension]
Take the I-points and instead of having the infinite planes have only two dimensions, have them three dimensional with the X and Y infinite and the Z approaching zero (or infinite smallness)  and then you have room for an interesting type of mass that is literally being squeezed through potential point paths generated by the density of the etherosphere. 
]]

Take those two :) and you can see that the system cannot collapse in on itself into an entropic state of stillness because the closer any mass (made of M-points) gets to another the more potential places it will have to move into, increasing the potential for motion.  The only way to approach that is to increase the density of the points, the farther a single point gets from a dense core (-singularity or not singularity but close in definition) the less options it has. 

I hope that is a sufficiently interesting conversation starter, your paper was thought-provoking and I believe closer to the Truth than science has come in years.  There are other things I'd like to discuss, like the law of Conservation of Mass, and the religious possibilities of an etherosphere; I don't believe that mass or even mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed, I believe that they cannot be created or destroyed by physical means or means known through things that exist with mass and physical existence.  And I believe in the soul, if the etherosphere exists, then I believe that a soul could be a complex mapping of potential point spaces constituting an intelligence, or more grossly a computer.

My Sincere hopes that you find this useful, and an interesting hello,

Sincerely,

Nathan Carlson

Post Script:  Please don't feel insulted by this, but I would hope that this leads to an interesting conversation and not a footnote in a paper.  I would not imply, having not met or become familiar with you beyond your 2007 paper that you would plagiarize, or steal an idea.  It is my intention rather to believe that you are an interesting and intelligent individual that, should this be of use to science, would detach any significance of personal recognition from you or I and leave the significance to the fascinating theory which shakes science and reshapes our understanding of our reality. I personally believe that science is hindered by the desire for personal recognition, and that better science develops from open source with excellent documentation.

Nathan:

Hello and thanks for your comments on infinity. You have quite the imagination! Since writing the IUT paper, Steve Puetz and I have just completed our definitive work on the subject (Puetz and Borchardt, 2011). As you may recall from the IUT paper (Borchardt, 2007), we consider microcosms (x,y,z portions of the universe) to be infinitely subdividable as well as infinitely integrable. None of these could be considered true points, because a true point in mathematics is the imaginary intersection of imaginary lines from all three directions. Neither the lines nor the point could exist, for existence is defined as that which contains matter, has the 3 dimensions (x,y,z), and has location with respect to other things. You are correct, therefore, that a true point cannot be a sphere. What you have realized, in essence, is that math is no match for the infinite universe.

BTW: In all our work at PSI, we consider force to be neither matter nor the motion of matter. Instead, force, like momentum and energy, is a calculation or matter-motion term in which we multiply a term for matter times a term for motion. Despite the claims of regressive physicists, force neither exists nor occurs. What we describe as force is our observation and description of matter in motion. Your definition of force as “an inclination of matter to move” is slightly better than the usual, but will not get you the correct theory of gravity. This Steve and I got by giving up matter-motion terms entirely. We don’t consider gravity to be a “force,” but the result of a Gravitational Pressure Gradient due to aether density and activity being greatest where complexed aether (baryonic or ordinary matter) is least. If you are serious about this, you can practice by substituting “matter-motion” for “force” whenever you come across it. Then the definition of “force as an inclination of matter to move,” becomes “matter-motion as an inclination of matter to move,” which clearly makes no sense. It’s best simply to stick with matter and the motion of matter, or in shorthand, “matter and motion.”

BTW2: Sorry that I can’t help you calculate souls from the aetherosphere. The Progressive Science Institute is an “organization that sponsors education and research on scientific philosophy free of political and religious influence.” 

References

Borchardt, G. (2007). "Infinite universe theory." Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance (http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/IUT.pdf) 4(1): 20-23.

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

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).

Neomechanical Theory of Gravitation

Duncan Shaw says:

I received your book yesterday and have already read much of it.  Congratulations to you and Stephen.  It is quite a masterpiece.

There are a number of similarities with my latest paper on gravity -- copy attached -- and a number of dissimilarities (Shaw, 2012).  We both have incoming and outgoing "aether" and we both use the vacuum cleaner analogy.  One of the main dissimilarities is that you use vortices and I do not.  Also, I use heat that is generated by the impacts of incoming aether as the driving force of outgoing aether or its constituent parts, whereas you use rotation of cosmic bodies to launch the outgoing aether.  While these are distinct differences, I think that we are close on our overall approaches.

I am particularly interested in your distinction between solid-mass and gaseous-mass and how that can account for the pressure difference that causes inflow.  You are, I think, in good company.  Isaac Newton, in his book Opticks, made a similar point in his Queries on the subject of gravity:  see Queries 18 to 22, particularly No. 21.

Duncan:

Thanks for your comments. You touch upon some of the critical issues involving theories about the physical cause of gravitation. These are, of course, nonexistent for mainstream (MS) theories, which do not hypothesize a physical cause, such as the “attraction” attributed to Newton and the “curved empty space” attributed to Einstein. As Steve Puetz and I explain it in "Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe," gravitation is the property of all microcosms, from the smallest to the largest. Through 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), we assume that no two microcosms, in this case aether particles, are identical. Although, the rest of this explanation jumps into the middle of the infinite hierarchy, it applies to subsubaether particles as well as galaxy clusters. In intergalactic space, each aether particle has a unique momentum (i.e., P=mv, where m=mass and v=velocity). The more massive, slower aether particles are pushed together by the less massive, faster aether particles. The closer these massive particles become, the more they shield each other from the impacts of the less massive particles. That is the key to neomechanical gravitation. The mutual shielding thus produces a complex, which, by definition is slower and clumsier than free aether particles. Vortices get involved (see Fred’s video on the Vortex Water Experiment at http://scientificphilosophy.com) because aether complexes, being slow and heavy, tend to be pushed toward the center of any rotating cloud of such complexes. Because of this handy juxtaposition, the complexes become even larger, forming what we know as baryonic or ordinary matter. As their concentration at the center of the vortex increases, they tend to displace free aether particles, pushing the aether particles to the periphery of the vortex. The result is a layering effect, with heavy complexes in the center (solids) and less heavy complexes (gases) on the periphery. This battle between large and small is nearly interminable, with aether particles converging and aether particles diverging as per complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things). As Steve explained so well in his analysis of celestial microcosms, any increase in the rotation of a vortex produces an accretion of matter, while any decrease produces an excretion of matter. As always, celestial microcosms come into being via convergence and out of being via divergence.

The upshot of the above is that the density of free aether is dependent on the absence of complexed aether--ordinary matter. Thus, the concentration of ordinary matter in any one place produces a Gravitational Pressure Gradient with its aethereal macrocosm. This gradient is analogous to the atmospheric pressure gradient that surrounds Earth—but in reverse. A helium balloon will rise in our atmosphere because the impacts of air molecules are greater from the high-pressure regions below than from low-pressure regions above. A massive object will do just the opposite. It will be pushed toward the center of the vortex (Earth) because the aethereal impacts are greater from above than below. Although the layering produced by vortex rotation tends to dissipate when the rotation stops, there always will be some layering, and therefore a Gravitational Pressure Gradient around every object. Again, this is because the presence of matter automatically requires the displacement of aether, and the tendency to produce an “aethereal vacuum.” Of course, the total absence of aether is never achieved because aether permeates ordinary matter as well. It flows through and around every larger microcosm, with the contact that produces gravitation often involving only the densest parts of the microcosm. In the helium example, nitrogen and oxygen molecules, being of greater mass, tend to succumb to aethereal impacts more easily than does helium. Helium, in turn, tends to succumb more to impacts from nitrogen and oxygen than from impacts due to aether.

Notice that the above explanation views gravitation as a universal, but local phenomenon. We know that there are no true pulls in nature, as recognized in Newton’s laws of motion. We gave up on other pushing theories for various reasons. The Le Sage Theory, for instance, hypothesizes an elementary particle that travels great distances between objects to produce the push via mutual shielding (Borchardt, 2007). Such a particle would have to travel from the Sun to Earth to do its pushing job. A change in the position of the Sun would not be felt on Earth until that trip was completed, which would be over 8 minutes at light speed, c. The effects of gravity, however, appear to be felt immediately. For that to be the case, the graviton or the motion of the waves within the gravitational medium would have to travel at a velocity over 2 X 10¹⁰ c (Van Flandern, 1998). This is 20 billion times the speed of light! While c is no longer considered nature’s speed limit, like Einstein assumed (The OPERA Collaboration, 2011), speeds that great seem unlikely. Neomechanical gravitation solves that problem. The physical cause of gravity is due to the hypothesized aethereal pressure differences, which are local and ever proportional to mass, just as Newton said it was.

Thanks Duncan for the wonderful reference to Newton. The MS view is that Newton denied knowing the physical cause of gravity (i.e., hypotheses non fingo), considering it to be “attraction.” That was in 1713. This propaganda is clearly debunked with the hypothesis he put forth on page 325 in Query 21 of the second edition of Opticks (Newton, 1718), a part of which I put below. He had the Gravitational Pressure Gradient idea all along! We are certainly reassured to have come up with the same conclusion independently, even if three centuries late. Looks like those of us in progressive physics need to search the original sources just like you did. We must be continually aware, that as in all battles, the results of philosophical and scientific struggles are always written by the victors.

References

Borchardt, G. (2007). The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein. Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, p. 189.

Newton, I. (1718). Opticks or, a treatise of the reflections, refractions, inflections and colours of light. The second edition, with additions. By Sir Isaac Newton. London, Printed for W. and J. Innys, printers to the Royal Society.

http://books.google.com/books?continue=http%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.com%2Fbooks%2Fdownload%2FOpticks_or_A_treatise_of_the_reflections.pdf%3Fid%3DTwhbAAAAQAAJ%26output%3Dpdf%26hl%3Den&id=TwhbAAAAQAAJ&q=queries#v=snippet&q=query%2021&f=false .

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

Shaw, D. W. (2012). "The cause of gravity: A concept (in press)." Physics Essays.

The OPERA Collaboration (2011). "Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam." arXiv:1109.4897v1 [hep-ex] http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897 .

Van Flandern, T. (1998). "The speed of gravity - What the experiments say." Physics Letters A 250(1-3): 11.

From p. 325 in Newton (1718):

Time is Motion

PSI Blog 20111130 Time is Motion

 Photo by Nathan Dumlao on Unsplash.

 

To understand Infinite Universe Theory, it is absolutely critical to know what time is. The popular press seems to think time is a mystery. Nowadays, you may be excused if you think time is a dimension, an illusion, a concept, or a product of imagination. But the key to understanding time lies in the Fourth Assumption of Science, the famous dictum from Hegel, which we call inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). That is the ship abandoned by Einstein and his regressive followers in 1905. Classical mechanics had assumed the universe displayed only two fundamental phenomena: matter and its motion. Newton's Second Law of Motion implied all events were the results of collisions between objects.

 

This essay is an update of one of our most popular PSI Blogs. It has received the most comments, with “time is motion” appearing at the top of your Google search. It is the one thing Einstein and I are in agreement: Everything in the universe is in motion with respect to other things.

 

My esteemed co-author, Steve Puetz, asked:

 

“I still disagree with the statement....  Time is motion.  To be more precise, it should be worded as....   ‘Time is an aspect of motion.’ According to almost all conventional descriptions of motion, it has three aspects -- an object, a path, and time.  To suddenly state that motion only has one aspect (time) is confusing to many readers, including me.

 

For example, Wikipedia gives a good description of motion at the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_(physics)

 

‘In physics, motion is a change in position of an object with respect to time....  Motion is typically described in terms of velocity, acceleration, displacement, and time.’

 

When people think of motion, they tend to think this way....  the path that something follows, and the time it took the thing to follow the path.

 

By changing the definition of motion (it only involves time and not the path that a thing follows), then I need to know why.  In previous discussions, you insisted that time is motion, but never explained why the current definition of motion needs to exclude the distance that a thing traveled.  To continue making the statement that time is motion, it seems essential to give reasons why the object and the path are being excluded from motion.  A lot of readers of our work will want to know why, including myself.”

 

[GB: Steve, thanks for the question. There is a wealth of detail underlying my claim that “Time is motion.” I believe that there are only two fundamental phenomena in the universe: matter and motion. Of course, with our Fourth Assumption of Science, Hegel’s famous dictum I call inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion), we “tie” these two phenomena together. In other words, “motion” is simply the mechanist’s shorthand for the “motion of matter.” You are essentially voicing the criticisms of Newton’s First Law of Motion, which go like this: What could we possibly say about an object in motion if there is no other object to which that motion can be measured against? Newton’s ideal object moves through a finite universe, which at some point may be thought by the idealist as “pure empty space.” That is why he uses the word “unless” rather than the word “until.” Despite the critics, Newton’s First Law was accepted as the most important law of the universe. I also consider it the most important observation ever made, making Newton the greatest scientist who ever lived.

 

Newton’s failure to include a referent other than his concept of “absolute space,” was always handled in classical mechanics by being very careful to include one. If you did that, you could be like Newton; you would not have to choose between finity and infinity. You could measure the distance between object A and object B by comparing it to some conventionally agreed upon standard you hoped would remain unchanged. Then, you could measure time by comparing the object’s motion to the motion of some conventionally agreed upon standard you also hoped would remain unchanged. The rest of classical mechanics followed, with rampant success throughout all of science, as noted in Wikipedia.

 

In neomechanics, however, we use the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). This automatically provides the referent—we assume that there always is a referent. We still have to do the measurements in the same old way, but we now can think about them differently. In the infinite universe, things are always moving toward or away from other things. There is always a path and travel over that path occurs either quickly or slowly with respect to the motion of other things. Foremost, we do not have to be there to measure any of this.

 

The fact is that both matter and motion are abstractions. In neomechanics, we define matter as that which contains other matter, has xyz dimensions, and location with respect to other matter. We define motion as what matter does. Abstractions are generalizations we use for thinking. Fruit, for example, is an abstraction. One cannot really eat a fruit; one only can eat an apple or an orange, or some other specific member of the category. Thus, there is no matter and no motion per se, only specific examples of matter exist and only specific examples of motion occur. In other words, matter exists; motion occurs. Motion, like matter, has an infinite number of “aspects” or qualities. To choose one of these aspects of motion as “time” and some other aspect of motion as “not time” is illogical. Time and motion are identical.

 

As I mentioned, all phenomena in the universe can be categorized as either matter or motion. When it comes to time, we have a choice; we can consider it to be matter or motion. I choose motion. Einstein chose matter. Einstein’s objectification of time makes SRT and GRT invalid, as I showed in my paper on “Einstein’s Most Important Philosophical Error”. Anyone who really understands that paper will understand that time is the motion of matter and that relativity, with all its paradoxes need not be entertained any further. In particular, the seemingly endless discussions of the Twin Paradox are a waste of time.

 

Universal time is the motion of everything with respect to everything else. Of course, we can only measure specific time, the motion of one thing with respect to another thing. Nonetheless, time is not a measurement. The dinosaurs experienced time (motion), but they did not measure it. Again, time is not an aspect of motion; time is motion itself, whether it be specific time or universal time. I realize that it takes a bit of time to get your head around that concept. We are all struggling to escape from the conundrum that Einstein left us with. That is why I define modern, regressive physicists as those who do not know what time is. The average person seems to think that time is a great mystery or that “it” flows or that one could go back in time, as if it was a thing like a house with receding doorways. Again, many with solipsistic tendencies believe that time does not occur unless it is observed or measured. That is our background, and it takes each of us a while to overcome the propaganda surrounding such a simple phenomenon. Half measures embodied in the term “aspect,” which characteristically strive to keep the observer in the picture, nonetheless are steps toward the escape. They might eventually satisfy Wikipedia, but they are only steps. The complete liberation comes when we finally realize that: time is motion.

Thanks to Jesse for this heads up on current speculations involving the assumption that time might not exist and that “People are starting to put the pieces together…..slowly:”

https://www.livescience.com/time-might-not-exist]

Velocity of Light: Part 2

Frank asks:

Why the redshift?  Isn't c a supposedly fixed constant regardless of the relative velocities of the producers of electromagnetic radiation and its observers? I like your explanation: c changes due to some interaction with a medium between distant galaxies and our telescopes.

Frank, sorry for not answering this sooner in Part 1. The full answer is in "Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe," the book that Steve Puetz and I were keeping under wraps at the time. Since then, we got it off to press and scientists at CERN, as well as other researchers, have shown that c is not the universal speed limit. A particle they called a neutrino was accelerated to a velocity greater than c. Of course, this challenge to Einstein gives the cosmogonists “some splaining to do.” As you imply, the velocity of light is simply dependent on the properties of the medium through which the wave travels. The upshot of our theory is that aether exists wherever ordinary matter does not. This means that the velocity of light waves will be greatest where aether density is greatest. The cosmogonist’s “perfect vacuum of empty space” has the greatest aether density and therefore the highest light velocity. All cosmic light sources, of course, have surroundings that contain baryonic matter that prevents light waves from attaining the highest velocity.

There are many reasons for the galactic redshift (the scatter in distance vs. redshift curves is huge, indicating that the relationship is multivariate). One of the most important is the gravitational redshift, which is otherwise interpreted by cosmogonists as a proof of GRT (Pound and Rebka, 1960). Each light source is surrounded by what is called a “gravity well.” It is said that light traveling from that source has to “fight gravity,” losing energy in the process. What actually happens is that, the refraction and deflection produced by the interfering baryonic matter increases with nearness to the light source. Due to this interference, the light path near the celestial body is slightly longer than it is in open space. These contortions in the light path amount to a short wavelength. As that light reaches open space, the contortions diminish, the light path straightens out, and the wavelength appears long. Another way of looking at it is from the velocity side. In an extreme example, suppose that 10 waves occur over a distance of 10 meters in 1 second (wavelength of 1 m). Now suppose that those same 10 waves occur over the 10-m distance in 0.9 second (wavelength of 1.11 m)—a redshift. If we nevertheless assume that c is constant, then we are forced to hypothesize silly concepts such as length contraction and/or time dilation like Einstein did to save the theory of relativity.

The upshot of the above is that the wavelength of light is slightly influenced by its velocity, which in turn is dependent on the purity and density of the aether that transmits it. As we hypothesized in UCT, aether density varies (cyclically yet!) throughout the universe, being greatest in the intergalactic regions. We cannot expect that the velocity of light measurements we determine in our messy solar system or within our slightly less messy Milky Way galaxy could possibly apply throughout the universe. Once we give up assuming that c is constant, things fall into place for the 3D universe. Light travels faster through intergalactic regions, stretching luminal wavelengths as a function of the amount of intergalactic distance traveled. The result is an increase in galactic redshift with distance in the 3D universe. As Hubble stubbornly insisted, the galactic redshift occurs primarily because of what happens in the medium between galaxy and telescope. It is not evidence for a universal expansion requiring the fantastic belief in 4 dimensions.

References

Pound, R. V. and G. A. Rebka (1960). "Apparent Weight of Photons."Physical Review Letters 4(7): 337-341. (see also my blog “Redshift of Galaxy Clusters”)

Puetz, S. J.and G. Borchardt (2011). Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of thehierarchically infinite universe. Denver, OutskirtsPress.com.

New Support for Universal Cycle Theory

From Steve Puetz:

I thought you would be interested in the following links recently forwarded to me from two different reviewers of Universal Cycle Theory.  Both links are new types of evidence, supportive of the infinite hierarchical model of neomechanics.

1) The first spiral star ever detected by astronomers:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/31oct_spiralarms/

2) A NASA space telescope named "GALEX" has found stars forming in extreme galactic environments, places where researchers thought stars should not be.  The finding could affect astronomy much as the discovery of microbial extremophiles affected biology in the 1970s.

FULL STORY at http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/07nov_stellarextremophiles/

A video version of this story is available at

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k-XgLi1KgA

The astronomers were surprised by the star formation because these regions were considered to be "empty space." Of course, in neomechanics, interconnection (All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion) means there is no empty space -- and collisions that produce vortices can develop anywhere in the universe.  Hence, stars can form anywhere -- as long as the vortex has sufficient mass.  It does not matter if the gas-cloud consists of atoms, aether-1, or aether-2.  The only requirement is that the mass of the vortex is roughly the same as a stellar vortex.

Our latest book: Universal Cycle Theory

Steve Puetz and I just published a new book that I am sure you will enjoy (Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe). Except for the generalities in "The Scientific Worldview," this is the first book to adhere to "The Ten Assumptions of Science" in developing a theory of the universe to replace the moribund Big Bang. In doing so, we have avoided using any of the nonsense involving more than three dimensions, matterless motion, wave-particle duality, time dilation, matterless fields, and other outrageous claims common to modern physics.

In short, we propose that vortex motion brings aether particles together, forming the less mobile complexes that we call ordinary matter. What we observe as universal gravitation is produced by the still-active aether particles that exist wherever ordinary matter does not. With celestial bodies, complexification is a function of the velocity of vortex rotation, with the density of ordinary matter decreasing with distance from the center. At the same time, the density and activity of aether increases with distance from the center. This produces a “gravitational pressure gradient,” which acts like our own atmospheric pressure gradient—only in reverse. The upshot is that gravitation is a local, albeit pushing, effect. After Steve’s prodding, I came to believe that the Le Sage Theory is untenable. We need not hypothesize gravitons travelling thousands of times the speed of light to account for the observed lack of gravitational aberration. Though fundamental, gravitational theory is only a small part of the book, which proposes a new view of matter and motion at all scales, from the subatomic to the Local Mega-Vortex.

Steve did a super job in getting all this research together during the two years of our collaboration. We did a great deal of brainstorming every step of the way. His previous work on cycles had led him to a belief in the reality of infinity, which is rare among mathematicians. Once he understood that momentum, force, and energy were calculations and neither matter nor motion, we were off to the races… It was a great pleasure working with Steve, a quick study, who could almost instantly grasp the neomechanical reality of the conventional data used to develop the theory. The book has a bit more math than “The Scientific Worldview,” but we have tried to keep most of it in the appendix. The jist of the book is in the first 400 pages.

So far, the reviews have been excellent, in fact, they are great summaries from slightly different perspectives. The videos by Fred Frees, the voice actor, are interesting impressions by an open-minded person who has little training in physics, but nonetheless shows a lot of common sense. Click on this to see more about the book:

www.universalcycletheory.com

Wave-particle Duality Nonsense

Bill Howell:

Thanks for the link to Borg’s 2010 article on “Abolishing the wave-particle duality nonsense.”  You asked what I thought about it. He has come to the same conclusion that many of us have: light is motion. He mentions many of the properties of light, such as refraction, that show it to be a wave and not a particle. He demonstrates, convincingly, that the inverse square law should only be used for spherical sources. When point sources are used (e.g., lasers, etc.) the inverse square law does not apply. Collimated light maintains its wave nature and should not be construed as a beam of particles. Of special note is his mention of Planck’s verbal objection to Einstein’s claim that light traveled in digital form. Planck believed, as we do, that the digital property of light only appears when it interacts with a detector.  Coming from the primary initiator of quantum mechanics, this should have put the kibosh on Einstein’s corpuscular theory of light. It did not.

If Borg’s article can be faulted, it is his neglecting to mention anything about the medium necessary for light: the aether. Up until 1920, Einstein was an “aether denier”—that’s what made SRT famous. Nonetheless, the wiser, older Einstein (1920) said:  "Careful reflection teaches us that special relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume its existence but not ascribe a definite state of motion to it ..." "There is a weighty reason in favour of ether. To deny ether is to ultimately assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever." This also should have put the kibosh on the corpuscular theory of light. It did not.    

References:

Borg, X. (2010). "Abolishing the wave-particle duality nonsense."   Retrieved 10/14/2011, 2011, from http://www.blazelabs.com/f-u-photons.asp.

Einstein, A. (1920). Sidelights on relativity: 1. Ether and relativity. 2. Geometry and experience. London, Methuen.

Freewill and Fatalism

William Westmiller asks:

“I agree with your criticism of solipsism (we control the universe) and fatalism (the universe controls us) as irrational extremes. However, determinism seems to preclude human free will. If all of our actions are determined by prior states (micro or macro), do we have any ability to make choices?”

[William, once you read TSW you will understand the difference between classical determinism and univironmental determinism. I will restate it here because it a common question that I get. TSW was predicated on the idea that there is no freewill—all interactions in the universe are determined by what went on before. This is because, as a scientist, I regard the entire universe and everything in it to be natural. Determinists (and the best scientists) believe that there are material causes for all effects. That means also that any interpretation that leads to a freewill conclusion must involve a theoretical mistake. Even those indeterminists who believe their choices have no causes expect their choices to have effects.

Classical determinism was based on classical mechanics, with its belief in finite universal causality. This form of determinism was best illustrated by Laplace’s Demon, a super intelligent being who could predict the future by knowing the position and velocity of every particle in the universe. Classical determinism, classical mechanics and Laplace’s Demon were destroyed by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, which I interpret as the Third Assumption of Science, uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything). This is consupponible with the Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes) and the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). Infinity is what makes assumptions necessary and allows us to have “the feeling of freedom,” which indeterminists often mistake for an acausal freewill. The correct theoretical position, however, is not to follow this solipsistic tendency or its opposite, fatalism, but to adopt univironmental determinism (UD), the belief that what happens to a portion of the universe is determined by the matter in motion within and without. Univironmental determinism is not only the correct philosophy, but it is at once the universal mechanism of evolution.

So do we have the ability to make choices? Of course. Can choices be made independently of the univironment? Of course not. Should we give up, as fatalists do, saying that “it is all predetermined anyway.” Of course not. Each of us changes the world, whether we realize it or not. Even fatalists and couch potatoes take up space. We can have “the feeling of freedom” while changing the world for better or worse. What UD adds, now that you know the secret, is the theoretical framework pointing the way toward the material conditions that need to be changed within and without.]

Entrained Aether, Radiation, Light, and Time

Paul Schroeder writes:

“But cosmology must address the everyday curvature of relationships. For example your colliding of micro/macrocosms is a linear interaction. What about discussing penetration by gravity? What happens to your ether inside a mass? What about transference of rotation from mass to pushing gravity? How did we arrive at orbital motions?”

[Paul, those are extremely perceptive questions, which were addressed in our new book (Puetz and Borchardt, 2011), “Universal Cycle Theory,” due out before the end of the month.]

“Finally, going beyond your univironment, we need the origin of motion and the original existence of microcosms. Your conservatism does say matter and motion of matter can neither be created nor destroyed. True only if you allow for motion without mass and you include radiation in your definition of matter. Again my system covers these issues.” 

[As mentioned above, there can be no motion without matter. I don’t blame you for being confused about radiation. Einstein muddled this one real good by proposing the photon as a massless particle of motion. To this day, really smart folks believe that photons actually “exist” and that energy actually exists or occurs. It is part and parcel of what Einstein was all about. It was his most important philosophical error (Borchardt, 2011). Also see my blog on “What is Energy” http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2011/02/what-is-energy.html.]

“We also differ on matter creation. I see electrons as crossings of radiation beams as opposed to things being bombarded and pushed together.”

[What you propose is the creation of matter out of matterless motion. In UD each type of matter is formed out of other types of matter.  The equation, E=mc², describes it well, as long as one avoids the conventional interpretation (Borchardt, 2009).]

“You wrote: “I don’t quite understand ‘light is motion’ and ‘time is motion’. Motion is a singular concept which you equate with light and time, two dissimilar concepts.”

[Paul, references above provide the details. In brief, we must remember that the universe only presents us with two basic phenomena, matter and the motion of matter. There are an infinite number of concepts that fit either of these two categories. Thus sound is motion, running is motion, earthquakes are motions, etc. Light is the wave motion of the aether, just like sound is the wave motion of the air. Light is not a thing, but the motion of things. Time is the motion of everything. Universal time is the motion of each thing with respect to everything else. Specific time is the motion of a specific microcosm with respect to another specific microcosm (i.e., a clock). Time does not exist; it occurs. There is no “going backward in time,” because there is no such place, as implied also by the Seventh Assumption of Science, irreversibility (All processes are irreversible).Time is not a dimension. Time is not a measurement (dinosaurs experienced time, but they did not measure it). Time is motion.]

“I also don’t follow the etherosphere concept.”

[There are two schools of thought about the aether.

In the first, which was tested by Michelson-Morley (1897) [MMX] in a campus basement in Ohio, was that aether is everywhere the same, penetrating everything, and is unaffected by gravity. Earth would travel through such an aether, being unaffected by it. Nevertheless, there would be a relative difference between Earth’s motion and the motion of the aether, whether the aether was fixed or in motion. Earth goes around the Sun at a velocity of 30 km/s, so that is the expected relative difference after averaging what would be a headwind and what would be a tailwind. Note that in a recent paper, Steven Bryant (2008) used a wave-length approach to recalculate the MMX data, getting 30 km/s for what has always been considered a null result. If Bryant’s work is confirmed, it would be a falsification of SRT, as well as the second school of thought:

In the second, implied by Figure 8-2 in TSW (p. 202) (see also: http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2008/06/is-ether-negatively-charged.html), aether is “entrained around Earth.” Although aether exists throughout the universe, some of it travels with Earth, just like our atmosphere. This means that, like our atmosphere, there would be no relative difference between the motion of the “aetherosphere” and Earth. Data supporting this view began to accumulate after investigators did MMX-type experiments at high altitudes. With entrainment, we expect measurements of the relative difference in velocity to be a function of altitude. A velocity of 30 km/s would be obtained only when the effects of the entrainment are no longer significant. With entrainment, attempting to measure the relative difference in velocity at sea level would be like trying to measure the velocity of the jet stream in your basement. Figure 8-2 suggests that the 30 km/s value really could not be obtained at altitudes lower than the stratosphere. The figure also suggests that changes in the density of the aetherosphere are not only a simple function of gravitation, as they are with the atmosphere. The aetherosphere curve has a lower slope than the atmosphere curve, even though they both meet at the same point (a function of the square root of altitude vs. a direct function of altitude). Does this mean that the aether is charged in addition to having mass?]

“I do hope your book becomes the standard of future thought and possibly creates interest in my model. Philosophy sometimes seems so circular that can inhibit progress. Is that sort of an application of your predestination idea?”

[Paul, remember that progress in philosophy, like progress in everything else, actually is spiralic, not circular. The determinism-indeterminism philosophic struggle proceeds in fits and starts: three steps forward and two steps back. If there is any “predestination,” it involves the fact that humanity cannot avoid including more and more of the macrocosm in its considerations of the universe. Living in the two-sphere universe or Einstein’s solitary Milky Way universe or the Big Bang universe is quite different from what is destined to be considered an infinite universe.]

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).

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). G. Volk. College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD. 8: 64-68.

Bryant, S. (2008). "Revisiting the Michelson and Morley experiment to reveal an Earth orbital velocity of 30 kilometers per second Galilean Electrodynamics 19(3): 51-56  (http://www.relativitychallenge.com/papers/Bryant.CICS.MMX.Analysis.06302006.pdf ).

Michelson, A. A. and E. W. Morley (1887). "On the relative motion of the earth and the luminiferous ether." American Journal of Science 39: 333-345.

Puetz, S. J. and G. Borchardt (2011). Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe (in press). Denver, OutskirtsPress.com.

Aether, Least Action, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Paul Schroeder, author of "The Universe is Otherwise" (Schroeder, 2006) writes in an email:

“…the infinite blob of aether cannot be assigned any functions.”

[Paul, I would never call the aether “an infinite blob.” The aether must consist of trillions of tiny particles in constant motion. It cannot be a single motionless entity normally connoted by the term “blob.” It cannot be fixed or a “cell-like” structure as some have proposed. Aether, like all microcosms, must contain submicrocosms as per infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) and 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).]

“The concept of ‘least action’, which I did not previously know about, and the second law of thermodynamics, which I ignored as nonsensical for open space, are both directional – toward slowing and cooling. As such they conflict with the eternal and thus with the infinite.”

[Paul, these two laws are merely recapitulations of the law of the universe: Newton’s First Law of Motion: An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless it collides with something. As I explained in my "Resolution of SLT-order paradox" paper (Borchardt, 2009) and in the discussion of complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things) in TTAOS and TSW, your statement that “they conflict with the eternal and thus with the infinite” is not true. Only systems theorists, who typically under-emphasize the macrocosm, could make that interpretation. As univironmental determinists, we believe that the microcosm and macrocosm are equally important. This is tied to your next question:]

“Where do motion and heat come from originally? My system is the answer. Paep gravity beams (Schroeder, 2006) have always existed, providing the original motion and subsequently the heat upon interacting. My paeps continually recycle providing eternity and allowing infinity to resolve into everyday specifics."

[Paul, remember that the two basic phenomena presented by the universe involve the existence of matter and the occurrence of its motion. As explained repeatedly in my previous blog, no particular microcosm or motion can be regarded as more fundamental or more elementary than any other. There are no “god particles,” “concrete objects,” paeps, or aether particles that “have always existed.” Every microcosm has a beginning and an end. Every microcosm forms from submicrocosms, which form from subsubmicrocosms ad infinitum. To suggest otherwise is to proclaim a fixity never observed and assumed not to exist when we use inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). Because matter must always be in motion, it continually interacts with the macrocosm and is thereby changed. In an infinite universe it is pointless to ask where motion came from originally. The inertial motion of Newton’s object came from the motion of some other object, ad infinitum. Only those who don’t really believe in infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) would eternally ask the eternal questions: Where did matter come from? Where did motion come from? In an infinite universe the answer is always the same: From somewhere else. Infinity is the "grandest passing of the buck." It is time that we got used to it.]

References

Borchardt, G. (2008). "Resolution of SLT-order paradox" from http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_3.pdf.

Schroeder, P. (2006). The universe is otherwise (http://www.booksurge.com/The-Universe-Is-Otherwise-External-Gravitation/A/1419632310.htm), BookSurge Publishing, 198 pp.

How to Follow “The Scientific Worldview”

It has come to my attention that simply signing up as a “Follower” does not get you automatic notices of blog entries or comments. If you want to get these, you can now sign up for email alerts, RSS feeds of posts, and/or RSS feeds of comments. I try to put out a post every Wednesday, whenever I am in the office.

New to the blog are:

A world map showing the locations of visitors to the site (currently about 20/day).

A list of the top ten most popular postings.  

An alphabetical list of all posts.

Thanks to everyone who submits questions or comments. That makes it easier to come up with topics of interest to univironmental determinists and/or critics of TSW.

Why the God Particle Does Not Exist

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