Good day,
I have been writing about the wisdom that the Big Bang theorists have left
out from there conjectures of the nature of worldly matters. Firstly that
there is a God and they are far from being God. Second it is not all about the
particles that make up matter and that it is more about how matter creates a
space an area of influence around it because it is these areas of influence
that causes the effects that we perceive and as importantly or even more
importantly what we can't perceive.
This past July (2012) there was much to do about the theorized Higgs boson
when CERN announced that they might have observed such a particle. The
long and the short of it is that Higgs had conjectured that there were other
particles amongst the makeup of the subatomic particles in the 1960's with
several other scientists. Besides formulating a theory to explain various
aspects of unifying the 'weak force' with the electromagnetic force there are
calculations aimed at discrepancies in mass of subatomic particles when certain
experiences were done. Decades earlier Einstein had championed physicist
Satyendra Nath Bose's subatomic particle theory for whom after the 'boson'
acquired it's name.
The 'Higgs' boson is presented as an quantum particle i.e. a minimum unit
and indivisible. As I had alluded to before there had been a branch in
ancient Greek philosophy that conjectured the idea of an Atom. A
subset of unobservable particles from which all mater is constructed
from. In many ways during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries
understandings of the elements brought back the idea of the atom and as
observational technology developed our current elemental atomic periodic table
was formulated. There were about two centuries of activity when many of
the essential ideas where debated and revised. Zeno's paradoxes started
the second foil of the development of atomic theory. Not only the aspects
of what makes up matter but as importantly how, or even more distressing, does
matter move. The upshot of the ancients' discourses came to the choose of
two choices: one; there must be an absolute singular minimum size of matter and
time because matter moves, two; that matter does not move, it simply is where it
is and then it is somewhere else.
The idea of an Atom went beyond those particles noted on the elemental table
and the currently recognized subatomic particles. Fire was also
considered to be composed of matter composed of Atoms. Einstein was able
to validate this idea that light was not only a wave but was also a particle by
constructing an experiment that altered the way we looked at light. The
two experiments Einstein constructed demonstrated a perspective that showed the
wave quality of light in one and the other demonstrated the particle quality of
light. The 'photon' and 'wave-packet' construction substantiated the
centuries old ideas of an Atom. I'm not writing about an Atom per se, the
ancients idea of an Atom stipulates an indivisibility and indestructible
quality for an Atom, as well as a stipulation that an Atom is completely solid
and without void. This construction of solidity I believe to be a
reaction to contradict those who insisted on the dominance of void over matter
and the voids permutation throughout all matter.
What I am conjecturing is that the understandings of the various forces that
fall within and without the unified field theories is not a matter of quantum
reduction but that the solution to these discrepancy is a matter of properly
recognizing the appropriate reference spatial systems and solving for their
relative quantities. That the lack of a measurable mass when it is known
that a particle has mass can simple be case demonstrating the wave properties
of the particle excluding the matter properties of the particle. It is
easier to work out how to insure that Schrodinger's cat emerges from the box
dead than it is alive. To paraphrase an early test jet propulsion saying;
you can get anything to fly if your strap a large enough rocket to it.
I had discussed before about the idea of a relativity beyond general
relativity. Further more if there is a non-Euclidean spatial relationship
then it is possible for there to be a non-Euclidean spatial relationship that
is of a second spatial relationship that is different than the Euclidean and
the first non-Euclidean and if it is possible for there to be two different
non-Euclidean spatial relationships then there must be a third possible
non-Euclidean space. If there a spatial configuration in which light can
only be seen as a wave and a second in which light can be only seen as a
particle then there must be two spatial representations to depict these two
different perspectives. Since these perspectives no more than one can be
Euclidean. Since both of these two different spatial relationships only
demonstrate one of two different perspectives of two different properties of
the same event there must be a spatial relationship that demonstrates both
perspectives. Since the duel perspective is a combination of two spatial
relationships of which at least one is non-Euclidean then no less than two
different non-Euclidean spatial relationships are needed to depict the three
different perspectives of light.
Peace,
Stephen
While studying Astrophysics I was obsessed in researching high-energy subatomic particle relationships with various cosmological observations until I found the answers that can bring Gravity in the Unified Field (and other incredible realizations), which is completely outside of the range of the Big Bang Theories. When the scales fell from my eyes I was Blind-sided by the "Military Complex's'" hold over high energy physics I left disenchanted. Now twenty-five years I'm ready to write about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment