I had no idea where to put this article, so I decided to put it up here. It’s pretty intense. If anyone understands it, I’d be curious if you think it makes sense.
Buried deep beneath the ground spanning 27 kilometers under the border between France and Switzerland is the $9 Billion Large Hadron Collider (LHC), which is also sometimes called the world’s biggest (and most expensive) scientific experiment. To make a long story short, we are, in typical human fashion, smashing things together to get a big reaction. One of the main goals of the LHC is to prove or disprove the existence of a particle, force, or field called Higgs Boson.
Higgs Boson is a theoretical scalar elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model in particle physics. The theory being that Higgs boson is an Elementary Element that has not been observed, and “gives mass” to other elements through the theoretical “higgs boson” forces.
The LHC is currently running experiments to prove the existence of the Higgs boson, by smashing hadrons and witnessing the outcome.
My hypothesis is that the Large Hadron Collider will smash the atoms together and find only smaller particles or blackholes.
The false assumption of Higgs Boson is that there is an object or force that “creates mass.” This concept is already explained by the Higgsless Model, via Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking. Logic can, and does, dictate the “falseness” of Higgs Boson.
But to understand the application of logic is to explain the nature of logic itself. Logic, which currently has no strong definition, is, at times, both actual and theoretical. Logic, additionally, is the combination of both inductive and deductive reasoning. The ambiguity of Logic arises when logic itself moves from the past (study) to the future (prediction). The nature of this dynamic is best described within David Hume’s Is → Ought Fallacy1.
To break down the process of Inductive Reasoning even further, it is the process of taking a moment in the past and moving forward (to a time not beyond the present) to form a conclusion. Deductive Reasoning being the opposite of that effect.
Both forms of reasoning are best described by Reduction (Deductive Reasoning), or the process by which one object, property, concept, theory, etc., is shown to be dependent on a precedent (Effect ← Cause), and it’s opposite: Emergence (Inductive Reasoning or Cause → Effect).
The Is → Ought Fallacy comes into play when either of those two concepts are taken beyond the past (the actual) and applied to the future (the unknown). Rather, pure reduction and emergence both require a full knowledge of all causation forces of all things, even those yet to happen, otherwise prediction is impossible. Additionally, correlation is merely a reasonable conclusion based on known information, but in no way should be determined to be absolute.
In other words, we can only know what we know and we can not know what we don’t. The massive and indescribable interconnection of the Universe is far too vast for any single human or computer to fully understand.
Currently, our understanding of Elementary Particles and Forces is understood through the experiments of Maurice Jacob and Peter Lanshoff, whom observed that after firing high-energy electrons and protons into a proton that some of the high-energy electrons and protons were reflected. These experiments confirmed the hypothesis that Protons were not Elementary Particles themselves but that they can be reduced further into Quarks.
Higgs Boson comes into play when attempting to reduce Quarks further. Additionally, this interplays with the nature of Mass itself, which was formulated with the theoretical Boson during the 1964 PRL Symmetry Breaking Papers.
Higgs Boson is believed to be the connection between Mass and Massless Particles. But, I believe the interpretation is wrong through the lack of use of Emergent understanding.
Emergence, as viewed through Science, is the way complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions. The understanding of Emergence is natural because it is the opposite of Reduction.
So as the Higgs model attempts to explain mass by mass being “given” by a theoretical particle and force, it merely proves that mass is an emergent trait of Quarks, or some other intermediate particle or force between Quarks and Protons, based on the second law of thermodynamics.
Rather, Higgs Boson is Mass or a Mass Particle as an emergence of Elementary Elements and Forces (and possibly some unknown factor), not an explanation for it. Smashing Hadron’s to further reduce Quarks will lead to either another and smaller force or particle, or the experiment will lead to “nothingness,” a Black Hole.
Perhaps our understanding of a Black Hole needs to be redefined, to understand it’s role as both a reductive and emergent trait of the Universe.
Currently human understanding of the Universe is limited by two similar and parallel factors: expansion of the universe and observation of the known universe.
Human observation is limited by the nature of time itself, as light leaves stars and enters into our field of view. Time is the opposite of the speed of light. Rather, our understanding of physics is limited by time exposing the unobservable parts of the universe (possibly through the Golden Ratio):
But, this also coincides with the expansion of the Universe itself. To assume that the Universe is only as large as our ability to observe it is to assume that the Earth is the center of the universe, which is false due to our understanding of Cosmic Inflation:
And really, Cosmic Inflation, when taken from the “Big Bang” perspective is also known as metric expansion of space, which is the “boundless,” three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction, which is nothing more than spacetime:
And particularly with the observation of “Dark Force,” we see that indeed there are objects beyond the edge of our own observable universe:
This also confirms the Anthropic Principal, or that human understanding is limited due to the fact that we are part of the system which we wish to observe, and can not observe beyond what is observable (unobservable or meta-physical).
We can only know what we know, and we can not know what we don’t.
Anthropic Principal is not an absolute, but rather, just explains the limitations of our knowledge. The principal itself should humble human understanding and not be used for prediction. It merely is stating that we can not know the things that we do not know.
Unfortunately, even the world of science doesn’t exist within a vacuum, and theoretical physicists attempt to use Anthropic Principal to disprove String Theory. But, again, prediction is invalid, and String Theory can not be claimed “not to exist”, because it’s own existence has been predicated by the writer’s own logical progression, which is ultimately determined by a nearly infinite amount of particular instances that led to the culmination of his own personal physical (nature) and mental (nurture) reality.
Rather, the ideas should be unified.
The flaw of Anthropic Principal advocate’s attempted denial of String Theory is that they believe the two theories to be mutually exclusive:
It is therefore possible that there are multiple moments of singularity. But, of course, Anthropic Principal dictates that we can only know what we know, and assuming multiple singularities is flawed because of it’s self predicated assumption (circular logic), and requires further observation and study.
Rather, I pose another hypothesis: the “Big Bang” was not necessarily the “beginning” of time, but the beginning of time as we know it. It is possible that if there are multiple singularities, then there are different occurrences of time, which is outlined by Einstein’s Special Relativity Theory.
The flaw of Special Relativity is apparent from the mentality that we can only know what we know, and we can not know what we do not. Special Relativity omits gravity, which is an obvious mistake because the Universe does not exist absent from itself. The Universe must exist within the Universe, which includes all the different forces that occur within that Universe.
I believe the error is in the concept of epsilon nought and vacuum permittivity, and by implication, Surreal Numbers.
The logical question is not “are there Surreal Numbers?”, because they are impossible by their basic definition: numbers that are beyond “the real”. Anthropic Principal, again, dictates that we can only know absolutes by knowing everything that has ever and will ever exist, which is impossible due to physical limitation. But, in a more grounded level, Surreal Numbers can be reduced and explained through it’s two extremes: zero and infinite.
I propose an alternate view. Rather than viewing the universe as being a zero, or nothingness, or pre-big bang, and it’s opposite, the infinite, I propose the concept of time or not time.
This concept is already understood through the observed behavior of matter when close to Absolute Zero temperatures, and the Quantum Mechanical concept of Zero-point energy. But, Absolute Zero, as a dynamic of temperature, and Zero-Point Energy, as a dynamic of motion, does not mean that there is no motion and friction but rather a lack of motion and friction.
Extending Absolute Zero to a Universal Scale, we also see that dynamic of lack of motion and friction is merely the stopping of time, or the speeding up, of time to a point of lacking motion and friction (as dictated by Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity), as seen in Black Holes2.
Combining this hypothesis with Dirac’s Large Numbers Hypothosis3, and by implication Anthropic Principal, several conclusions can be made.
Returning to our model of the Universe:
We extend our knowledge slightly beyond the observable Universe by the natural progression of time, and it’s inverse the speed of light, and it becomes apparent that light is flowing into the closed system of our observable universe.
Additionally, due to the “relativistic mass” of light (as dictated by Einstein’s Theory of Relativity), we see that the inflowing light adds mass to our observable universe. Using Dirac’s Large Numbers Hypothesis, we see this to be true:
t ∝ 1/c2 (time is proportional to the inverse of the speed of light squared)
which combines with (from Dirac):
G ∝ 1/t (gravity proportional to the inverse of time)
m ∝ t2 (mass proportional to time squared)
and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity:
E = mc2 (energy is mass times the speed of light squared)
m = 1/c2 = t (mass is equal to the inverse of the speed of light which is equal to time)
While it is impossible for there to be such absolutes, I nonetheless think that it is a more plausible explanation for the nature of mass, and not, as is being attempted to be proven at the Large Hadron Collider, Higgs Boson.
I can not stress enough that Anthropic Principal dictates humility and humbleness when forming any sort of “conclusion.” It is physically impossible to know and understand everything. While there may be some sort of implication of this study, to begin to ask questions beyond our known universe should always be handled with doubt and skepticism.
Being the observer becomes relevant once again. Through our vantage point, light is at one moment moving in a direction towards planet Earth and away from the planet Earth. We also extend the concept that cosmic inflation is just an extension of time expanding from a singularity:
At Point A., which is looking into a singularity, Time and Light (and any other inflowing matter) combine to show a relative increase in mass, while at Point B. Time and Matter are opposed to each other to show a relative decrease in mass.
Again, this is already understood by Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, particularly with “the Mexican Hat Potential”:
The point of the curvature of the hat (the rim) where the observer peers through the singularity, Point C. And the top point of the hat is the edge of our observable universe.
And, by further extension, we see then that our known universe is merely part of a grander field, which takes shape in a familiar way:
But, more realistically:
Which is merely a two dimensional representation of the “Mexican Hat”.
Also, taking several steps back from the outskirts of the known universe, I propose that the “big bang” is merely a theoretical version of an Extremely Massive Black Hole churning matter apart to become Elementary Particles, which then begins an emergent process forward.4
This conclusion confirms both String Theory and the Holographic Principal.
Of course, the scope of this essay discounts how the emergence of different forces and particles interplay with each other, because it is physically impossible to understand everything we know and everything we don’t know and how they interconnect with each other, and therefore create other emergent paths and is the foundation for the existential and relative interconnection of the Universe.
1 In meta-ethics, the is-ought problem was articulated by David Hume (Scottish philosopher and historian, 1711–1776), who noted that many writers make claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is.
2 As of this current point in history, Black Holes are the one naturally occurring phenomenon as close to a lack of motion and friction in the observable universe. Thankfully Hawking Radiation explains that they too are not absolute, as confirmed by the observation of Accretion Disks.
3 Dirac’s Large Numbers Hypothesis (LNH) refers to an observation made by Paul Dirac in 1937 relating ratios of size scales in the Universe to that of force scales. The ratios constitute very large, dimensionless numbers: some 40 orders of magnitude in the present cosmological epoch.
Also, and perhaps this is either coincidence or correlation: “Scientists know that when an electron passes through a positively charged crystal lattice of atoms (a solid), the electron’s mass can increase as much as 40 times.” (From www.exploratorium.edu).
4 Which further explains why Super Massive Black Holes are in the center of galaxies.