The God Particle Exists, or Maybe Not

Thanks to Carl for this link:


http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/03/07/148158529/scientists-say-theyve-cornered-the-elusive-god-particle?ft=1&f=1001


I knew they would find a way; 10 billion is a lot to pay. If you start with the assumption of finity, you must end up with finity. Well I guess with the god particle having 125 times the mass of a proton, it should be easy to find. But I wonder how that sucker gives mass to the proton? Maybe it is filled with little godlets that surely must be less than 1/125 its mass.

Why is Potential Energy So Hard to Understand?

Henk writes:


Glenn, thanks for your answers. I read the introduction to physics at high school over here that my granddaughter has to read. The concept energy (potential energy) is used as a basic principle of physics. It is hard to grasp for a teenage girl!


Henk:


Thanks again for your comments. Glad to switch from kinetic to potential energy…


Potential Energy


The potential energy concept is particularly difficult for students only because of the missing microcosms common to modern physics. An object on a table in a “gravitational field,” for example, has “potential energy.” That is, if one were to give it the slightest shove, it would fall to the floor, with its “energy” appearing as “kinetic energy” (or the “energy of motion,” as the man says). The mainstream explanation for this is mysterious only because the gravitational field of Einstein and his followers is “immaterial,” it contains nothing at all to cause this strange behavior. In neomechanics, however, the object “falls” to the floor only because it is pushed there by aether particles, which exist everywhere. As Steve and I theorized in our last book ("Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe"), aether pressure is a function of distance from ordinary matter. The table provides the resistance that temporarily blocks the motion of the object toward the floor. This analysis shows the beauty of univironmental determinism (What happens to a portion of the universe is determined by the infinite matter within and without) as opposed to the mainstream’s “systems philosophy,” which tends to neglect important portions of the macrocosm. In this case, the aether has received short shrift. Einstein’s “curved empty space” is no help despite its popularity among indeterminists, who tend to believe in extra dimensions that they cannot see instead of the aether they cannot see.


Another example of the potential energy concept concerns the air molecules that exist in a balloon. The air molecules, which were in motion all along, are free to leave the balloon when it is punctured with a sharp object. Similarly, the aether particles responsible for gravitation are always impacting the object on the table. You only see their effect when you remove the blockage caused by the table. In the most fundamental sense, all microcosms in the infinite universe may be “blocked” or complexed by other microcosms. When their motion is thus confined within a limited space, it may be considered “potential” motion; when the confinement diminishes, it may be considered “kinetic” motion. Thus, because all microcosms in the universe are always in motion, the distinction between potential energy and kinetic energy is dependent on location. For instance, the water in a reservoir is considered to have potential energy, which, when released, is considered to have the kinetic energy of falling water that can turn a water wheel or turbine.

Why is Velocity Squared?

PSI Blog 20120317 Why is Velocity Squared?

From henk:

Glenn, thanks for your answers. I am still thinking about kinetic energy. In the 17th century, experiments by Willem Jacob 's Gravesande showed that the striking of a ball in clay was proportional to squared velocity and later on a French physician showed it was proportional to 'mass times squared velocity'. What is it about, is my question? How to get the formulae not by math manipulation, but from experimental considerations? By the way, I explained to a friend the idea of matter-motion by using examples and despite he is a dummy in math and physics, the matter-motion explanation seems to be more appropriate to grasp physics even at his age of 75.

Henk:

Thanks again for the comment. Before the Gravesande experiment, one would have thought that doubling the velocity of a microcosm would result in double the impact. Not so. As you mentioned, the doubling of velocity causes four times the impact. In other words, a microcosm impacting a soft, wet clay at velocity 2v will create a crater 4 times as deep as a microcosm impacting the clay at velocity v; an auto crashing into a wall at 40 mph will suffer 4 times the damage as one crashing into a wall at 20 mph. Your question: What gives?

I am afraid that this is one occasion in which I will not be able to avoid math, as much as I would like too. The simple reason that velocity is squared is the fact that there is a macrocosm.

Motion Without a Macrocosm

This was explained by Newton’s First Law of Motion (The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force). This observation, the law of the universe, makes Newton the most brilliant scientist who ever lived. Thus, a microcosm moving through “empty space” at 2 m/s will move two meters in one second. At a velocity of 1 m/s it will move one meter in one second. In other words, if Gravesande’s wet clay was really “empty space,” doubling the velocity would have produced a “hole” twice as deep. Of course, there would be no “hole” and the microcosm would not stop either, because empty space offers no resistance.

Motion With a Macrocosm

This was explained by Newton’s Second Law of Motion (The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F and inversely proportional to the mass m, i.e., F = ma.). While the First Law is just an astute observation concerning inertia, this Second Law describes causality. A cause produces acceleration, that is, a change in velocity. Here, Newton is describing a cause as a “force.” Of course, “forces” do not exist, only microcosms exist. The force concept is a handy, necessary mathematization. It is especially useful when we really do not know the actual cause. The true cause of the acceleration of any particular microcosm must be at least one other microcosm that collides with it. Incidentally, this is why determinists deny the possibility of ESP. “Extra Sensory Perception” is the indeterministic hypothesis that something or some motion might be perceived without microcosms colliding with a sensory organ.

Back to velocity squared… As generally explained, the Second Law is all about increasing the velocity of microcosms (acceleration). The collider hits the collidee. The same equations explain the opposite result (deceleration) when the situation is reversed and the collidee becomes the collider and the collider becomes the collidee. In either case, we are recognizing the effect of the macrocosm—the presence of something other than empty space. The explanation below, from http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ke.html#c3, gives the standard mathematics showing how a microcosm gets its motion:  

So what does all this mean? First, remember that, in neomechanics, there is no such thing as “energy” or “energy of motion.” Energy is neither matter nor motion. Instead, we define energy as a calculation: the multiplication of a term for matter times a term for motion. Nevertheless, the calculation or “energy concept” admitted above is a handy way to help us understand matter in motion. The illustration above shows how the microcosm gets its motion even before it collides with the clay. The somewhat mysterious “force” in the illustration is simply the push provided by some other microcosm. Incidentally, indeterminists who believe in finity often speculate about where the “first” push came from. Of course, this question becomes moot for an infinite universe—there is always yet another microcosm to do the pushing.

The gist of the KE explanation is the equation: Work = KE = Fd = mad = ½mv². If you have ever pushed a car out of the ditch, you will have some practical feel for this. It takes a lot of work (Fd, force over a distance) to get a vehicle from zero velocity to any velocity at all. The heavier the vehicle (m), the harder it is; the farther you have to push it (d), the harder it is. Once, the vehicle is moving, it is just as hard to stop it (as our daughter learned when her friend’s formerly stuck car rolled driverless and brakeless into the neighbor’s garage door).

From the car example, we learn that the velocity of a microcosm cannot be increased or decreased instantaneously. The increase or decrease must occur over some distance and take some time. In the KE = ½mv² equation, we get the distance by multiplying the average velocity ( ½ v) times the time it takes to reach the final velocity, v_f. For instance, to accelerate a car from 0 to 60 mph in 10 seconds would take a distance of 440 feet (30 mph X 10 s or 44 ft/s X 10). That gives us the “d” in the Fd = mad equation. The mass, m, is assumed to be constant. Acceleration is the change in velocity. A change in velocity from 0 to 60 mph over 10 seconds is an acceleration of (0 + 60)/10 = 6 mph/s. That is, we increased the velocity by 6 mph for each second that we held the pedal to the metal.

Stopping a microcosm in wet clay involves the same process in reverse. Velocity must drop to zero as the microcosm transfers its motion to the wet clay over the period in which it decelerates. As shown by the math manipulation done in the KE illustration above, time cancels out and velocity appears twice. I find the KE = mad equation to be a bit more intuitive. Kinetic energy then becomes what happens to a mass as it accelerates or decelerates over distance.

For more no-nonsense physics and cosmology, see:

Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 327 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

No Identities in Nature

William Westmiller writes:

In a message dated 2/15/2012 7:09:29 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
noreply@blogger.com writes:

“...there are never two identical snowflakes...”

Totally a peripheral issue, but I don't think that's true.

The environmental variables are enormous, but the size and characteristics of snowflakes are always within concrete limits. Assuming a snowflake has some limited number of water molecules, which are naturally inclined to make hexagonal connections, there is a very small probability (larger among smaller flakes) that two are identical. See:
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/alike/alike.htm

For small water crystal formations, which still qualify as snowflakes, duplicates (at least apparently) have been found:

"But in 1988, the scientist Nancy Knight (at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado) was studying wispy high altitude cirrus clouds. Her research plane was collecting snowflakes on a chilled glass slide that was coated with a sticky oil. She found two identical (under a microscope, at least) snowflakes in a Wisconsin snowstorm."
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2006/11/13/1784760.htm

No response required. Just a novel investigation that I thought you might find interesting.

Thanks so much Bill.

The topic regarding identities in nature is critical to understanding univironmental determinism and neomechanics. In philosophy, the answer to the snowflake question distinguishes one as being either a determinist or an indeterminist. Your leanings in this regard are consistent with your belief in finity, freewill, and the god particle, which we have already discussed. The major claim of univironmental determinism is that what happens to a portion of the universe is determined by the infinite matter within and without. 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) gets right to the point. Whenever we examine any two portions of the universe (such as snowflakes) we may find many similarities indeed, but if we look in more detail, we invariably find some dissimilarities. This is, of course, because the universe is microcosmically (and macrocosmically) infinite. That is why “identical twins” and electrons (see UCT) are never really identical. True identities are only imaginary, abstractions that necessarily leave out dissimilar characteristics. Sloppy science will yield the same result.

I like your use of the words “apparently” and “under the microscope, at least).” It looks like we are making progress. It is a long trip from mainstream science, which still assumes finity just like the classical mechanists and the classical determinists. Once we assume infinity, everything changes. The consupponible Second Assumption of Science, causality, states that all effects have an infinite number of material causes. This could only happen in an infinitely subdividable universe. Every analysis that we make always has a plus or minus. No two analyses of anything can ever be identical. Nothing has a finite number of characteristics that would be necessary for identities and for causality to be finite, as claimed by classical mechanics and its mathematicians.

A little anecdote goes along with this subject. I once had a tussle with a Wikipedia author on the uniqueness of snowflakes. The author said that the probability of any two snowflakes being identical was on the order of 1 in 10¹²⁵. This finite number was obtained by considering 100 characteristics. I claimed, of course, that the probability was not only low, it was zero. We edited back and forth for a few times. Guess who won that one? The entry has subsequently been edited to be only slightly more compliant with infinity:

“Although statistically possible, it is very unlikely for any two snowflakes to appear exactly alike due to the many changes in temperature and humidity the crystal experiences during its fall to earth.  …It is more likely that two snowflakes could become virtually identical if their environments were similar enough. Matching snow crystals were discovered in Wisconsin in 1988. The crystals were not flakes in the usual sense but rather hollow hexagonal prisms, with identical complex snowflakes considered impossible.”

Note the reliance on macrocosmic finity in the attempt to achieve “virtual” identity. In the last sentence, the author takes a swing at microcosmic finity in defending the Wisconsin mess and asserting that “rather” hollow prisms might be identical because of their lack of complexity. Of course, in our view, no portion of the universe “lacks complexity.” That is because every portion of the universe is microcosmically and macrocosmically infinite.