Independence Day 2012

Of course we all understand that the scientists at CERN have not been flinging tiny billiard balls of stuff at each other in their ten-billion dollar merry-go-round, but have, in fact, been flinging tinier and tinier coherent entanglements of waves of energy at each other. And when you fling a complex of wrinkles in the field at another complex of wrinkles in the field the result is that when the (I hesitate to call it a collision) interaction occurs, it clearly disturbs the field in its immediate region, and generates more wrinkles in the field. Because this new set of wrinkles is so fine, and persists for such a short interval, it naturally seems to behave in some new ways, because we are getting down to or near the finest grain (or weave) of the underlying fabric, the fine grain limit, the frequency of the background electromagnetic field, the frequency of which seems to me must be at or near to 1/h (one over Planck’s Constant).

Whether the so-called Higgs boson is finally at that level we don’t know yet. But if we continue to deny reality and keep calling these units “particles”, even though we describe all of their characteristics (including mass) as electromagnetic, we’ll continue in our delusions of “wave-particle duality”, “quantum entanglement”, “superposition” and the like and will not be able to get down to the proper mathematical analysis of what we are actually observing.

Even the Washington Post allows itself to say, “One way to think of the Higgs field: It’s the water the entire universe swims in.” It’s what a few of us have been saying for a very long time. They (CERN) may be getting close, but it might help to use a more consistent logical terminology.

### Like this:

Like Loading...

*Related*

## About Charles Scurlock

Charles is a recently retired architect/planner and generalist problem-solver with a lifelong interest in science, physics, and cosmology, and the workings of the human mind. He has started this blog in the interest of sharing his ideas with others of like-(or not so like) minds.

Neil,

Thanks for your comment, and the “particle noir” scene from the movie. And you are not alone in having doubts that everything is waves.

In trying to put forth a simple field theory of physics, I have had to navigate a landscape of so-called “particle” physics and cosmology peopled by experts who are so wedded to the notion of “particles” that they tend to ignore their own fundamental explanations. For example, the Wikipedia article on Quantum Field Theory gives the following interesting definition:

“In QFT, photons are not thought of as “little billiard balls” but are rather viewed as field quanta – necessarily chunked ripples in a field, or “excitations”, that “look like” particles. Fermions, like the electron, can also be described as ripples/excitations in a field, where each kind of fermion has its own field. In summary, the classical visualisation of “everything is particles and fields”, in quantum field theory resolves into “everything is particles”, which then resolves into “everything is fields”. In the end, particles are regarded as excited states of a field (field quanta).”

Fundamentally, I agree with this statement, with some minor qualifications. In my view everything physicists call “particles” should be understood as “excitations” or “oscillations” in a field. And if they are to persist for longer than a microsecond, that is, for long enough to become part of any larger, higher energy entity, they must undergo something like a phase transition to a stable, higher order.

Where I diverge from the QFT model is that I am convinced that there is one field and that field is primal and is the medium out of which these stable orderly “condensations”, to use Einstein’s term, arise and persist; and what the QFT proponents describe as unique fields associated with each so-called fundamental particle are, in fact, simply distortions in the region of the field surrounding each identifiable stable entity. In other words, there is one field, vibrating at a very high frequency, out of which everything has arisen. All of the so-called “particle fields” are distortions of it, much like the distortions we perceive locally around simple magnets. The primal electromagnetic field is what we have, in our mysterious mystical imaginings, called “dark energy”. It both permeates and surrounds our universe, which is one of its biggest creations. And around the high energy concentrations we identify as stars, galaxies, and clusters are distortions of the field that we can’t yet discern directly but are clearly there, identifiable by their effects. We’ve named those regions “dark matter”.

Maybe what the experts at CERN and elsewhere have (almost) identified is evidence of my primal field. Maybe the “Higgs boson” is the fundamental wrinkle in the field where it all starts. That would be nice.

This dimension issue is the rock bototm foundation for physics. When how many dimensions this universe has is known, the physics will be complete.Of course, what is dimension? And, what are its attributes? What those attributes got to do with the universe?First, we should look what are already known.1. In 1870s, Georg Cantor proved that every n-dimensional space can always be brought into a one-to-one correspondence with the one dimensional line, that is, one dimensional line can give rise to n-dimensional space.2. This dimensionality issue can also be understood with fractal geometry. In fractal geometry, there are many space-filling curves, an infinite number of them to be exact. With the Hilbert space-filling curve, it crosses every point on a plane without crossing itself, that is, a two dimensional plane is reduced to a one dimensional line. From two facts above, all high-dimensions can always be reduced to one-dimension.Your explanation about dimension is truly inspirational, especially for the spatial dimension in terms of physics. However, we should look the definition of dimension in a bigger scope, in general term. New definition: If “all” information of system B can be “wholly” described with n codes, then system B has n dimensions. The above definition is a linguistics definition. Yet, it is similar to the base-dimension of a vector space, and it is in line with your saying, Matt: “A location inside a two-dimensional space is specified by two pieces of information.”With this new definition, the entire world must change.1. Regardless of how many physical dimensions it has, the entire computable world has only two-dimensions, as it can be wholly described with two codes (such as, [0, 1]). This is guaranteed with the Two-code theorem of mathematics.2. The outer surface of a ball has 4 dimensions, guaranteed with the four-color theorem.3. The outer surface of a torus has 7 dimensions, calculated by the edge-equations or the Heawood Conjecture.Then, how many dimensions does the non-computable world have? If we know how many dimensions the infinity has, then the physics will be complete. With this new definition, the consciousness and the intelligence could be dimensions, even the dimensions for the non-computable world. Of course, this statement will make a wonderful day for the crackpot callers, and they will reach their ecstasy on this.However, your example of boat/canal has hinted that consciousness could be a necessary gateway for the manifestation of an extra dimension although the consciousness itself might not be a dimension.