Consistency vs unification: irreducible difference

[massfree]

There can never be "a" theory of everything, because "everything" is not a finite set of phenomena, but a continuous becoming of irreducible multiplicities.

Will the Toe describe how to make a good stir-fry? Or how to make your mother-in-law laugh? Or how to compose a concerto and how to play the violin (and how gravitons function to draw particles of mass-energy together)? And would that be your right or your left toe, because there is a difference you know---and they don't always say the same thing. (This is not just a pun, your right and left brains truly would compose radically different ToEs, given the chance.)

When we learn to think in terms of irreducible difference, when we allow the left toe to be the left toe and the right the right, the dream of "unification" falls away, and all one desires from thought is consistency. There are theories, but not one of them that is adequate across all domains of thought, let alone of life.

Each theory, within its limited domain of applicability, can become consistent both with itself and with the realities (energetic events) it purports to describe (violin technique, asian cuisine, biophysics...) In fact, this is typically what one would call a 'good theory'---self-consistency and consistency with empirical reality.

We can even demand consistency between domains/theories (and this is the real sense of a quest for Toes), but this is worlds apart from "unification" of all into one Big Toe. Harmonization of persistent differences on a plane of consistency is not the same as reduction of difference to a common identity. Consistency "consists" of constructing a shared language of functional concepts which are capable of functioning across disparate domains of thought and practice.

Such functional concepts might include time, space, energy, velocity, force, action... so long as we realize that they will be "thought" differently each time, depending on the application at hand (i.e. the timing of a joke, or of a gravitational flux).

[Graybeard]

There can never be "a" theory of everything, because "everything" is not a finite set of phenomena, but a continuous becoming of irreducible multiplicities.

Will the Toe describe how to make a good stir-fry?

Particle physics will never describe this ... but it doesn't need to .... it describes chemistry, which describes stir-fries ? Particle physics does not need to describe that which has already been described.

If the Higgs particle shows evidence of its existence at the LHC ... then we are well on our way to a TOE. If there is no evidence then there will be evidence for something new ... and so we move forward.

When we learn to think in terms of irreducible difference, when we allow the left toe to be the left toe and the right the right, the dream of "unification" falls away, and all one desires from thought is consistency. There are theories, but not one of them that is adequate across all domains of thought, let alone of life.

Everything above you are describing is asymmetric .... The Higgs will show how the difference between symmetry and asymmetry occurs .... it does not need to show why. When we know this we will look into a new wonderland that was there all the time but unable to be viewed.

So don't despair buddy ..... wait patiently for the results

cool bananas ... greg

[massfree]

If the Higgs particle shows evidence of its existence at the LHC ... then we are well on our way to a TOE. If there is no evidence then there will be evidence for something new ... and so we move forward.



Everything above you are describing is asymmetric .... The Higgs will show how the difference between symmetry and asymmetry occurs .... it does not need to show why. When we know this we will look into a new wonderland that was there all the time but unable to be viewed.

So don't despair buddy ..... wait patiently for the results

cool bananas ... greg

Well, if they don't find it, all it will be "evidence" for is that the Standard Model has been wrong all along. No quarks, no Higgs, just a bunch of high-energy resonant artifacts that we didn't know what to make of. But I doubt "they" will admit that, since there is so much emotionally and financially riding on this derelict Model; in all likelihood they will merely push the "predicted" energy of the Higgs upwards yet again, and their audience will swallow it, because after all, it's peer-reviewed. Or perhaps they will make the ultimate metaphysical leap and suggest that the Higgs has infinite energy (wow, how 'bout that, the universe sure is a mysterious place).

The fact is, official science to this day has not the foggiest idea what mass is.

You're basically implying that "difference" (asymmetry) is due to the Higgs field, and that the only hope we have of thinking consistently in terms of difference rides on the discovery of a mythical particle. God help us all.

But what if mass is simply, and has always been, an intrinsic property of all Matter?

And what if, even more simply, mass is an inertial and gravitational wavelength, as first suggested by Reich over half a century ago?

And what if spacetime is a blatant distortion of physical reality, as argued by Bergson nearly a century ago?

And what if there is no particle-wave duality because each and every energy unit consists of a resonant superimposition of a particle of linear momentum and its associated wavespeed, as the Correas have shown for the past two decades?

And what if Quantum Mechanics has made the wrong interpretation of Planck's constant, and the electric fine-structure of matter can be known exactly and in no uncertain terms?

And what if space is teeming with energy and therefore energetic---and what if this energy is not electromagnetic---as Tesla constantly insisted?

And what if the universe is beginningless and endless, like Time itself, as Aspden and countless others have known all along?

Then it's back to the drawing board for the scientific herd -- but it seems they would rather patch up their sinking boat. And it's starting to rain. Please be patient, we'll have it ready in no time... just give us a bigger particle smasher and another billion dollars --- quick, everyone, get on board.

[Graybeard]

Well, if they don't find it....... in all likelihood they will merely push the "predicted" energy of the Higgs upwards yet again, and their audience will swallow it

They cannot push it upwards .... there is a limit in which it must be found ... or dismissed. The LHC can reach this limit.

The fact is, official science to this day has not the foggiest idea what mass is.

I understand what your saying .... but the fog is not that thick ... we may not know what it is, but we know how it 'effects' what it effects. Your mistaking limited knowledge for no knowledge at all.

You're basically implying that "difference" (asymmetry) is due to the Higgs field, and that the only hope we have of thinking consistently in terms of difference rides on the discovery of a mythical particle. God help us all.

Nearly all particles, since the electron and the nuclei, were once mythical particles .... they were predicted by the math, but no one had the 'foggiest' where (at what energy) they would be found. The fact that the experimental results spectacularly matched the predictions shows that statistical confidence was not misplaced. We may not know where the path is leading, but we do know that we are on the right path.

But what if mass is simply, and has always been, an intrinsic property of all Matter?

And what if, even more simply, mass is an inertial and gravitational wavelength, as first suggested by Reich over half a century ago?

And what if spacetime is a blatant distortion of physical reality, as argued by Bergson nearly a century ago?

And what if there is no particle-wave duality because each and every energy unit consists of a resonant superimposition of a particle of linear momentum and its associated wavespeed, as the Correas have shown for the past two decades?

And what if Quantum Mechanics has made the wrong interpretation of Planck's constant, and the electric fine-structure of matter can be known exactly and in no uncertain terms?

And what if space is teeming with energy and therefore energetic---and what if this energy is not electromagnetic---as Tesla constantly insisted?

And what if the universe is beginningless and endless, like Time itself, as Aspden and countless others have known all along?

An if my grandmother had wheels, she'd would have been born a trolley car .... lolol

Then it's back to the drawing board for the scientific herd -- but it seems they would rather patch up their sinking boat. And it's starting to rain. Please be patient, we'll have it ready in no time... just give us a bigger particle smasher and another billion dollars --- quick, everyone, get on board.

No .... not really true ..... The LHC has the power, ... if the Higgs is not found then there is a high probability that there is no 'Higgs' ..... there are other theories ready to be interpreted in the light of that 'knowledge', remember.. no knowledge found is also knowledge.

Say not the struggle naught availeth,
The labour and the wounds are vain,
The enemy faints not, nor faileth,
And as things have been they remain.

If hopes were dupes, fears may be liars;
It may be, in yon smoke conceal'd,
Your comrades chase e'en now the fliers,
And, but for you, possess the field.

For while the tired waves, vainly breaking,
Seem here no painful inch to gain,
Far back, through creeks and inlets making,
Comes silent, flooding in, the main.

And not by eastern windows only,
When daylight comes, comes in the light;
In the east the sun climbs slow, how slowly!
But westward, look, the land is bright!

cool bananas ... greg

[massfree]

Ok, so you take the work of Reich, Tesla, Bergson, Aspden, Correa & Correa as a joke (lolol); I take the Standard Model (including its Higgsless heirs to the throne) as bad metaphysics. Just because a mathematical equation has a solution, does not mean it has any physical bearing. Just because complex resonances exist in a high-energy electric field, does not mean there are quarks buried in the heart of matter.

"We" understand perfectly well what mass is - an inertial and gravitational wavelength - and are able to deal, in a dimensionally consistent manner, with all known physical and biophysical phenomena. But conventional physics is not interested in dimensional consistency (witness the dimensionality of a magnetic field, which is said to depend on the units you measure it with!).

It is not partial knowledge I take issue with -- all knowledge is partial -- but the willful refusal to seek consistency in the concepts, functions and equations which constitute the language of physics (which -- I agree -- underscores our dealings with all other domains of thought and life).

Yes, let's hope the billions of invested dollars at least permit us to lay the blessed Higgs to rest! Though it seems like an expensive fantasy. What, out of curiosity, is the upper energetic limit of a Higgs boson? I figured they would just keep looking and looking, into the TeV range and beyond.

Thank you for the poem. Here is another

"When their accelerators became capable of generating field energies on the order of 2.8 GeV, electron-positron annihilations were observed to generate hadrons (jets of quark aggregates - in pairs, called mesons, and in triplets, called baryons) and even bosons such as the Z° particle. But these resonances are not separable from a basic understanding that is, somehow, completely absent from existing particle physics. You see, whereas the latter proceeds as if these high-energy particles were hidden inside paired leptons, as constituents of their respective quanta of mass-energy, the fact is that the initial paired leptons serve as nucleating seeds for the condensation of massive motes from the energy injected into the field (more properly, from the ambipolar radiation that produces the field)." --Correa & Correa, What is Dark Energy? (emphasis added)

[Graybeard]

Ok, so you take the work of Reich, Tesla, Bergson, Aspden, Correa & Correa as a joke (lolol);

Hi MassFree .... I didn't mean to offend .... I have not heard of these people except Tesla .. and he was dead before the discovery of quarks, neutrinos, and ZeeZero particles .... which the Standard Model rests on ?

It is not partial knowledge I take issue with -- all knowledge is partial -- but the willful refusal to seek consistency in the concepts, functions and equations which constitute the language of physics (which -- I agree -- underscores our dealings with all other domains of thought and life).

All that can be asked of a theory is that it makes correct predictions ... all else is opinion. Inconsistent concepts will forever plague QM because we interpret from our perceptions.

Yes, let's hope the billions of invested dollars at least permit us to lay the blessed Higgs to rest! Though it seems like an expensive fantasy. What, out of curiosity, is the upper energetic limit of a Higgs boson? I figured they would just keep looking and looking, into the TeV range and beyond.

If the Higgs is not found below a certain mass/energy value then a unitary fault occurs in the theory ... but best that the wiki explains ..

The Standard Model does not predict the mass of the Higgs boson. If that mass is between 115 and 180 GeV/c2, then the Standard Model can be valid at energy scales all the way up to the Planck scale (1016 TeV).

Many theorists expect new physics beyond the Standard Model to emerge at the TeV-scale, based on unsatisfactory properties of the Standard Model.

The highest possible mass scale allowed for the Higgs boson (or some other electroweak symmetry breaking mechanism) is 1.4 TeV; beyond this point, the Standard Model becomes inconsistent without such a mechanism, because unitarity is violated in certain scattering processes.

Many models of supersymmetry predict that the lightest Higgs boson (of several) will have a mass only slightly above the current experimental limits, at around 120 GeV or less.

Thank you for the poem. Here is another

But these resonances are not separable from a basic understanding that is, somehow, completely absent from existing particle physics.
.....
the initial paired leptons serve as nucleating seeds for the condensation of massive motes from the energy injected into the field

Aren't these words just an explanation for the observed results ? another concept ... In the end does it matter what concept is used ... the results/predictions do not alter .... ?

The Standard model is a complete explanation ... provided the Higgs is found .... patience, it deserves to be tested to its limits before it is condemned

It is not essential to a causal law that the object inferred should be later than some or all of the data. It may equally well be earlier or at the same time. The only thing essential is that the law should be such as to enable us to infer the existence of an object which we can more or less accurately describe in terms of the data. Bertrand Russell

cool bananas ... greg

[massfree]

I wasn't offended by your joke... you are free to not take their work seriously (just like no one took Tesla seriously even in his own epoch -- their right, and their loss).

I didn't realize 'the Wiki' was an accomplished scientist. My understanding basically was that no two particle physicists really agree at what field energy the Higgs should be observed to condense out of the aether -- when they make any prediction at all. The article you posted seems to suggest that anything between 115 and 1400 GeV would be "expected" (although the only reason for the lower limit of 115 is that even lower field energies have already been searched in vain). Not exactly what I would call predictive power, but I guess we shall wait and see.

I think it is clear by now that basically we just disagree -- I do not believe that "any concept will do"... but that scientists have a responsibility to arrive at functionally consistent concepts. A magnetic field cannot be now an acceleration, now a frequency, now a density, depending on what ruler you measure it with. If energy has a mass term (E = mv^2 = Fd = mad) and photons and electric fields are massfree forms of energy, where is the theory that accounts for this; what does the mass term of energy get converted into?

[Graybeard]

I didn't realize 'the Wiki' was an accomplished scientist.

The wiki is an encylopaedia of knowledge. You may take it that the upper limit for the Higgs has been determined by the theory. If it is not found within this limit then a Unitary problem emerges ... and the theory fails ... this does not mean it will be abandoned, but will have to be re-interpreted. There are many theories that can take over at this point, but the most favoured are SuperSymmetry theories.

My understanding basically was that no two particle physicists really agree at what field energy the Higgs should be observed to condense out of the aether -- when they make any prediction at all. The article you posted seems to suggest that anything between 115 and 1400 GeV would be "expected" (although the only reason for the lower limit of 115 is that even lower field energies have already been searched in vain). Not exactly what I would call predictive power, but I guess we shall wait and see.

Not exactly ... if it was below the lower limit then the theory would also be incorrect ..... it does not rely on the fact that the lower limits have been searched, it only relies on the prediction.

eg: Physical experiments determined the existence of 1/3 charges in the quarks .. predicted as necessary by Gellman (not exactly correct) when he was forced to re-examine his 'eight-fold path'.

Now in a later theory, SU5, (nothing to do with Gellmann's predictions) out of the math emerges objects that require 1/3 charge. This occurred long after the quarks were discovered. What I am saying is that these 'objects' were not placed into SU5 by Scientists, but emerged from the equations as they were solved.

This is independant confirmation.

I think it is clear by now that basically we just disagree -- I do not believe that "any concept will do"... but that scientists have a responsibility to arrive at functionally consistent concepts.

Why are Scientists responsible for arriving at something that the Human race must be able to understand ? The Universe is the Universe, beholden to none ... If it is not forthcoming, then why hold Scientists responsible, they are just people like you and me ?

It may be that there is no concept to describe the machinations. Does not mean that they are not operating that way ?

cool bananas ... greg

[Graybeard]

They have also demonstrated how the continuous ambipolar spectrum contains two biologically and physically distinct regions that correspond to W. Reich's distinction between orgone (OR) energy and DOR (dorgone or deadly orgone). The cutoff between OR and DOR occurs at 79.4 keV. This is a strictly aetherometric discovery.

Dear Massfree .....

A biological system is a physical system ? Or does it mean two distinct physical systems containing Life ?

Why can Aetherometry be able to call a new particle into existence at 79.4Kev ... when you disallow the Higgs to reside in any region ?

As for Reich what can I say ....... a tragic life .. reading his history made me sad. You can't help but feel for him. But he was not a Scientist, sorry.

The police department hounded him, they called him Mr. Smith
They got him on conspiracy, they were never sure who with.
"What time is it?" said the judge to Joey when they met
"Five to ten," said Joey. The judge says, "That's exactly what you get."

He did ten years in Attica, reading Nietzsche and Wilhelm Reich
They threw him in the hole one time for tryin' to stop a strike.
His closest friends were black men 'cause they seemed to understand
What it's like to be in society with a shackle on your hand.

Bob Dylan ....1976 .. Joey


cool bananas ... greg

[massfree]

Dear Massfree .....

Dear Graybeard,

Thank you for doing a little legwork, and for your pointed questions.

A biological system is a physical system ? Or does it mean two distinct physical systems containing Life ?

A biological system is (in a sense) a type of physical system, though not all physical systems are living. The quoted passage means that the "continuous ambipolar spectrum" is found (experimentally and theoretically) to be involved in both physical functions of non-living systems and biophysical functions of living systems -- and that in both, the OR/DOR distinction applies. DOR stands for "deadly" Orgone and is implicated, for example and among other things, in the dissociation of water molecules -- an entirely physical process, but one which has deep repercussions for living systems.

Why can Aetherometry be able to call a new particle into existence at 79.4Kev ... when you disallow the Higgs to reside in any region ?

If you read the quote carefully, you will see that they have not called into existence any particle at 79.4 keV -- but rather that this marks an energy threshold between so-called OR and DOR portions of the ambipolar spectrum. So what they have "called into existence" is massfree longitudinal electric radiation in general (Tesla radiation), with two distinct energetic regions, which they call OR and DOR, and which interact with both "physical" (i.e. nonliving) and biological (living physical) systems in functionally distinct ways (as first discovered by Reich -- though he was unable to quantify it -- and demonstrated experimentally and theoretically by the Correas).

This is a slight simplification, since it applies only to the continuous portion of the ambipolar spectrum, which has a definite upper limit corresponding to the mass-energy of the electron. So "DOR" signifies ambipolar electricity between energies of 79.4 and 511 keV, while "OR" signifies ambipolar electricity below 79.4 keV. The distinction is merely functional, as it pertains to physical and biophysical processes, i.e. ambipolar electricity has the same "form" above and below 79.4 keV; it is only in the context of molecular physics and biology that the distinction has meaning.

I do not disallow the Higgs; -- I am critical of the idea that a supermassive particle "gives mass to" normal particles of matter, when mass can simply be treated, functionally and consistently, as an intrinsic property of each and every particle of matter. I think it is possible that they find some (unstable) energy artifacts above 260 GeV, though I do not know what Aetherometric theory predicts in this respect, if anything.