Early in the video, theoretical physicist David E. Kaplan explains that, "We are reproducing the physics, the conditions just after the Big Bang so we can see what it was like when the Universe just started. We study particles because just after the Big Bang all there was was particles, and they carry the information about how our universe started and how it got to be the way it is and its future. In the beginning of the 1900's it became clear that all known matter, everything we know about, is made of atoms and atoms are made of just three particles, the electron, the neutron and the proton. In the 30's other particles were discovered and by the 1960's there were hundreds of new particles with a new particle discovered every week and it was mass confusion until a number of theorists realized that there was a simple mathematical structure that explained all of this; that most of these particles were made of the same three little bits that we call quarks and that there are only a handful of truly fundamental particles which all fit together in a nice, neat pattern, and there was born The Standard Model. Eventually all the particles in the theory were discovered except one…Higgs. And the Higgs is unlike any other particle. It's the lynchpin of the Standard Model. It's theory was written down in the 1960's by Peter Higgs and a number of other theorists. We believe that it is the crucial piece responsible for holding matter together. It is connected to a field which fills all of space and that gives particles, like the electron, mass and allows them to get caught in atoms and then is responsible for the creation of atoms, molecules, planets and people. Without the Higgs, life as we know it wouldn't exist. But to prove that it is true, we have to smash particles together at high enough energy to disturb the field and create a Higgs particle. If the Higgs exists, the LHC is the machine that will discover it."
Another theoretical physicist Nima Arkin-Hamed, equally charming and intelligent, adds the following, "Since the mid-seventies we've had an amazingly successful theory of nature called The Standard Model of Particle Physics. But sitting at the heart of the theory is a sickness; very, very glaring conceptual problems that infected this fantastic understanding. Why is the universe big? Why is gravity so much weaker than all the other forces? The kinds of answers that this theory gives to these questions seems so patently absurd that we think we are missing something very, very big. And on top of all that, there is one prediction that is absolutely crucial for it to make even internal theoretical sense and this is the famous Higgs Particle. The Higgs or something like it must show up. If it doesn't there is something truly, deeply wrong, very, very deeply wrong with the way we think about physics."
In this post I will be explaining, in detail, why most of Kaplan's statements are obviously wrong and why Arkin-Hamed's fears are almost certainly justified. I will also be offering an alternative view to The Standard Model, a view that, I believe, is much simpler, makes much more sense, reduces the four forces of modern physics to two, and comes much closer to explaining the real origin of the universe.
Kaplan says that, "we are creating conditions just after the Big Bang to discover things about the origin of the universe." From my point of view, materialists, which all these people are, are exactly the wrong group to turn to when you are wondering about the origin of anything. If, as the materialists believe, all things are material, then how do you discover the origin of material except by resorting to other material. If you want to understand how the universe began you have to understand how material began and by simple logic, you cannot begin that understanding with material, because whatever material you are starting with, you have eliminated in your thinking, the origin of that starting material. And you have eliminated in your thinking the origin of the interrelated laws and forces that govern the behavior of that material, the slightest variation of which would have made a physical universe impossible and which would, in present time, bring down the entire material universe like a house of cards.
In searching for the Higgs particle, or the Higgs boson, the LHC hurls two protons, sub-atomic particles, that are part of the nucleus of a cell, at each other at enormous speeds. This collision of protons causes them to break up, at least momentarily, and it is this momentary dissolution of the proton which is the focus of the research. Until very recently, protons were not considered to exist at all. In very ancient times many people believed that solid things were completely, uninterruptedly and permanently solid. At that time mystics, both unaffiliated and those affiliated with organized religions, experienced the material world as having no real solidity and therefore no real particles. Twenty-four hundred years ago Greek philosopher Democritus propounded the belief that solid things were made of separate particles, too small to be seen, that were attached to each other by hooks, while liquid substances were also made of tiny separate particles that were round and smooth and rubbed off of each other. These separate unseen particles he called atoms. At that time mystics of every religious persuasion continued to experience the material world as having no real solidity and therefore no real particles. In 1803 English chemist John Dalton proposed the idea that the tiny particles that Democritus had spoken of were indivisible and indestructible and remained unchanged during chemical reactions. At that time all mystics, unmoved by these developments, persisted in experiencing the material world as having no real solidity and therefore no real particles. In 1904 British physicist JJ Thomson put forth the opinion that the fundamental indestructible unit was not the atom but the electron, a sub-atomic particle a thousand times smaller than the atom, and shortly thereafter New Zealand physicist Ernest Rutherford opined that the atom was made up of a positively charged nucleus composed of indestructible and indivisible proton particles and negatively charged electrons particles that orbited the nucleus like the planets orbit the sun, (shortly thereafter James Cavendish, Rutherford's student, suggested that the nucleus was composed of indestructible and indivisible neutral particles, called neutrons, as well as the indestructible and indivisible positively charged proton particles) and that the great majority of the atom was not solid at all, but was actually empty space. At that time those flighty mystics stubbornly continued to experience the material world as having no real solidity and therefore no real particles. One thing is now absolutely clear concerning the above list. Every scientist on it has been wrong, has been proven wrong by successive scientists, and they have been wrong in that what they had considered solid, fundamental and indestructible turned out to be spacious, changeable and divisible. Whether or not the mystics are wrong remains to be seen.
this brings us to the present time. As Kaplan stated above, starting in the 1930's the proton and the neutron were discovered to be not solid, indivisible, fundamental particles, but rather force fields which contained many, many so-called sub-atomic particles, now considered to be the fundamental, indivisible bedrock of the material world. Hundreds of these new particles, at the rate of one a week, were being discovered through the 1960's, at which time The Standard Model was proposed which attempted to bring some order to this chaos of particles. And at this time and since the 1930's, mystics of every nationality, unperturbed by this theory or these discoveries, as they had been by all previous theories and discoveries, continued and continue to experience the material world as having no real solidity and therefore no real particles. So now that contemporary scientists have settled on the quark and other subatomic particles as the solid, fundamental and indestructible foundation of the material world, are they right, or will they be proven wrong, as all the previous theoretical physicists have been proven wrong and discover that these particles, too, are not at all fundamental or indestructible, but, like all the larger, seemingly solid particles that preceded them, are actually spacious, changeable and divisible?|
Suppose they are made simply out of nothing, out of forces, which are not matter at all. If they are made out of nothing, which I am asserting here, then how could they have a spin or a charge? Don’t charges emanate from particles, from matter? How could they spin? Is it possible to have a nothing that was still charged and spinning? And most daunting, how could they be made of nothing and still have mass, as some of the subatomic particles, but not all of the subatomic particles, have been detected as having? Isn't mass matter itself? How can something have no matter and still have mass?
First off, is a force a thing? Certainly forces are very real. Try and pull apart opposite poles of a magnet and you will feel with absolute certainty how real electro-magnetic force is. And the same holds true for trying to force two like poles of a magnet together. And certainly gravity is very real as anyone who has ever fallen, or dragged themselves up a steep hill, can attest. These forces are real, but they are not things. There are no particles of gravity, no matter that weighs down on you when you fall. There are no electro-magnetic particles that are pushing against your hand when you try to pry two opposite poles of a magnet apart. These forces are very real, attraction is very real, it is just not made out of anything.
Have you ever seen a dust devil? These are whirlwinds of dust that spiral upwards from the ground. Dust devils are made of dust, but they are not caused by dust. These are just particles of dust that happened to be caught up in a swirl of forces. If there were powder on the ground, the same swirl would form a powder devil. If there were dried out, very light weight fallen leaves, it would be a leaf devil. What if there were no leaves, powder or dust? Would there still be a whirlwind? Yes, you would have a whirlwind of air. Tornadoes are whirlwinds of air and water and often many other objects that the tornado picks up once it touches ground join this whirlwind of particles. But is the tornado caused by the air molecules or any of these particles? Are whirlpools caused by water molecules? Or are they simply caught up in a whirl of forces and passively being moved by them? Well, you say, they are caused by winds or air currents, or tides or water currents. But are the air and water molecules causing winds and tides or is it that these molecules are just randomly caught up in forces that move them along?
Let’s consider an ocean. At many places in the ocean there are various formations. There are waves and whirlpools and breakers, to name a few. Given the fairly consistent flow of forces, we can say with some level of predictability, that breakers will appear in certain particular areas, small waves in other areas, larger waves in others, and whirlpools will appear regularly in still other areas. But these are not particles. The same water molecules, the same particles, that are swept up in a large wave, can, at another moment, be part of a breaker or a whirlpool. The so called parts, or particles, are interchangeable, all depending on where they happen to be at a given moment in this force field that underlies the ocean. And the same can be said of the atmosphere. Molecules of air can be caught up, at different times, in balmy breezes, hurricane winds, tornadoes, mixed with water molecules in clouds, etc., all depending on where they happen to be in relation to the atmospheric field of forces, which underlie these phenomena.
What I am saying is that in the tiny world of the atom, there is no stuff, no matter. There are forces and the forces have certain patterns, shapes and intensities, but there is no stuff, no elements, no matter that is being moved along by these forces. The so-called sub-atomic particles are patterns, sometimes very stable patterns, of forces within the force field that we call a proton or a neutron or, for that matter, an atom.
How, you may ask, could forces, by themselves, form stable configurations? Certainly if you consider forces as being gravity, electro-magnetism, the weak force and the strong force, it is impossible to imagine any stable configurations. But I would like to suggest that we replace those four forces with two forces, and for these two forces I turn not to modern theoretical physics but to ancient, pre-industrial religions, many of which were based on monistic dualism. From one comes two. The Taoists say that Infinity (one) bifurcates into Yin and Yang (two). The Bible starts with, “In the beginning, God (one) created the Heaven and the Earth (two). The heaven that we refer to as the sky with stars and a sun and a moon, and the earth that we refer to as our planet with a firmament and oceans, were not created, according to Genesis, until two or three days later (actually unspecified time periods, and certainly not a twenty-four hour day which would require both a sun and a revolving earth, neither of which were there by the Biblical account until two or three days [epochs] later), then the Heaven and the Earth of that opening sentence must be referring to two opposing forces, an outward, expanding, centrifugal heavenly force (yin) and an inward, contracting, centripetal, earthly force (yang). So the Judeo-Christian statement and the Taoist statement mean exactly the same thing. Other traditions call the two forces of duality In and Yo, Shiva and Shakti, Vata and Kapha, Tirawa and Atira, Father Sky and Mother Earth, etc.
Now you may have heard of yin and yang, but are probably acquainted with these ideas on a superficial level. Yin and yang are not properties of things. Yin and yang are the things themselves. All things are made up of both yin and yang. Pure yang exists but not in the physical universe. Pure yin transcends the entire universe, both physical and non-physical, but it is not in time and space and can only be measured and observed in its interactions with yang. The physical universe, including all particles, is formed by combinations of yin and yang. From this perspective, forces do not emanate or originate from particles, but particles, or the illusion of particles and their illusion of solidity, originate from the combination of forces which have a very real force but no real, physical, observable material basis.
Yin and yang are not really attracted to each other. They are trapped by each other and it is not a peaceful union. The center of every object is more yang and the periphery is more yin. The yang force wants to keep contracting into itself, pulling all of the elements of the object with it, and in turn, getting pulled into the pure yang which is at the non-physical center of the physical universe. It is prevented from doing that by the outward force of yin which would like to unbind itself from yang, stop being a thing and disperse at infinite speed through the entire universe, but is held back by the inward force of yang. The tension between the inward yang force and the outward yin force creates a force field which creates in some cases the illusion of solidity. The force field may, in fact, be impenetrable and solid, at least to humans unaided by sophisticated and extremely powerful technical devices, but at the same time consists of nothing but forces which have no material existence.
According to modern physics, the electro-magnetic force, the force that exists between a positive ion (an atom that has one too few electrons to balance out its nucleus) and a negative ion (an atom that has one too many electrons to balance out its nucleus) is much weaker than the strong force within the atom. But let's look at it from a yin yang perspective. Within the atom are so called particles, which are yin and yang forces in a tight embrace. Let's say you have two teams of brawny individuals playing a game of tug of war. These two teams, each of which have tremendous strength and energy, are exactly equal in terms of the opposing forces that they exert upon the rope. Now suppose I covered both teams and the rope with some kind of covering so you couldn't see what was happening underneath. Outside you had a negative pole some ways off at one end of this covering and a positive pole some ways off at the other end. If the two teams continue at every moment to exert two perfectly balanced opposing forces, you would see no movement of this "particle" either toward the negative pole or the positive pole and would call this particle neutral, even though within the particle there are tremendous forces being exerted. Now suppose one team gets slightly more fatigued than the other team and that other team, the negative team, starts inching toward the negative pole; or you could imagine the reverse situation, where the positive team started inching toward the positive pole. These are the charges that we see when we look at subatomic particles. Now suppose someone suddenly cuts the rope that both teams are tugging on. Then you would see a sudden explosion of energy as one team falls back past the negative pole and the other team falls back past the positive pole. This is the energy that we see when these particles are split. This strong force is exactly the same force and the same energy as electro-magnetism, it is just that there is a lot more of it, since all the so-called particles, which are yin and yang bound in a tight embrace, are split releasing much more energy than the slight imbalance of the proton and the charge of a single electron.
Kaplan says, "We are reproducing the physics, the conditions just after the Big Bang so we can see what it was like when the Universe just started. We study particles because just after the Big Bang all there was was particles, and they carry the information about how our universe started and how it got to be the way it is and its future." Again, I remind you that Kaplan seems like a very charming, intelligent young man, but what utter non-sense. All there were after the Big Bang were particles? He himself goes on to say, and the whole point of the CERN endeavor at this time, is to establish the existence of a Higgs field, a field of energy which had to exist, according to their theories, before the Big Bang, along with electro-magnetic fields, and other fields. How can you talk about creation without talking about the creation of these fields. Also, there may or may not have been a Big Bang, but it certainly wasn't the beginning of creation. If it was, then what was banging? What was the stuff that created that huge explosion? How did that get there? Now a Big Bang, but not even remotely close to the way that modern physicists conceive it, could have taken place, but that would not be the origin, that would have been the end of a contractive cycle of the universe, and the beginning of an expansive cycle, cycles that may have been repeated endlessly.
And then Kaplan talks about particles carrying information about how our universe started, got to be the way it is and how it will be in the future. Really? What is this information that particles carry? The only information that I know of that can be carried by particles is when those particles are part of a code, created by an intelligent being to be read by and for the benefit of other intelligent beings. The assumption is that these particles, the electron, the proton, the neutron and all the subatomic particles that compose the proton and neutron are exactly the same as they were since their inception. So what information about how things have changed and will change, could they possibly carry? Also, an absolutely integral part of the theory they are working with is that particles change as they pass through different fields. So the only thing there was after the Big Bang was not particles, but particles and fields, and the fields actually preceded the Big Bang. They are studying particles because particles are the only thing they can detect, not the only thing that there is; and since they are all materialists, they both acknowledge theoretically the existence of fields which they can only detect because of their effect on particles, but acknowledge the existence of these fields and forces begrudgingly, and avoid any discussion of them and how they got to be there when they are discussing creation. But if you are talking about true creation, then fields and forces, whether or not they can be directly observed or measured, must be accounted for.
Let's get back to the Big Bang. Now if there is an explosion on the surface of the earth, let's say, then the explosion throws debri in many directions, and if you stumble upon the scene of this explosion after it happened you can follow the lines of debri back to the origin of the explosion. That would seem true with any explosion. Now the physical universe is expanding, and it is expanding on a curved surface, something like an expanding balloon. If all the material, or seeming material, of the physical universe is debri moving away from the Big Bang explosion, then the lines of that explosion are moving outward from a center, a center that is not within the physical universe, but at the center of the expanding sphere of material that makes up the physical universe. In other words, the source of the explosion is at the center of that expanding balloon, the yang center of the universe.
At the end of a contractive universal cycle, all the yang energy is pulled back to one point which does not grow, but continues to contract, increasing in strength and pulls in all the yin which is trying desperately to escape. Under this unfathomable pressure, much greater than the pressure at the center of the sun, all atoms and molecules collapse; therefore the force fields that separate them collapse, therefore there is no matter, but only force. At a certain point the yin force, which hates compression, and is usually found most prominently toward the outside of configurations, is being compressed by more and more yang moving in on top of it, to the point where the compressed yin explodes out carrying a lot of the yang with it. Some of this yin and yang capture each other to form new particles, protons, neutrons and atoms, and some yin escapes away, not as matter, because yin and yang only form matter in combination, but as pure yin accelerating past the speed of light (the speed of light is the fastest speed that a thing can travel and still be a thing, but pure yin, not in combination with yang is not a thing) beyond the physical universe and into Infinity, where all things, which are not really things, travel at infinite speed, which means they are impossible fast and absolutely still at the same time since it takes them no time at all to traverse the entire physical universe and return to the same spot, and they are not divisible, since there is no matter, no 'thingness' to divide them, so they are a unity. Another word for this unity is 'cosmic consciousness' or 'the Godhead.'
Pure yin is everywhere within and without the physical universe and is also nowhere since it takes up no space. But it becomes observable whenever there is yang, which attracts yin to it to form what we call particles. All the yang in the physical universe is bound by yin. Pure yang exists only at the non-physical center of the expanding physical plane, and an almost pure form of yang exists at the non-physical center of black holes. The reason that the movement of the debris from the Big Bang, which we call the physical universe, is slower than expected, is not a mysterious dark energy, but is the yang, non-physical center of the universe, the center of the balloon, which exerts a force which pulls everything within its reach back into it. So, while the physical universe is just out of the reach where it can be pulled back to the yang center, it still feels it as a brake on its outward expansion.
The reason large negatively charged sub atomic "particles" appear after an LHC collision is not because of a Higgs Field, or an undetectable Higgs Boson particle. There is no such particle. The reason these large negative particles (which are really just forces) these fermions appear, is that the high powered collision of protons releases the yang at the center of the proton which instantly attracts a lot of yin to it to make balance. It is simply an almost instantaneous reforming of what was broken, not the formation of a brand new particle which instantly vanishes.
Now let's talk about mass, because mass is puzzling to everyone, so puzzling, that modern physicists have imagined a Higgs field that when you pass through it a Higgs boson particle is formed which imparts mass to massless objects. Once again, the assumption is that the origin of forces is particles, rather than that forces are the origin and the make-up of particles.
What is mass? It is not weight. Weight is a measure of the attraction between an object and the center of the yangest object in its vicinity. In our case, that would be the center of the earth. Now there is a lot of heat and heavy elements at the center of the earth, but that is not what is causing the force that pulls things to this center. It is just that any thing, including our planet, is most yang at its center, as all things are most yang at their center and most yin at their periphery. If there are dense elements in the center of the earth, they have been formed by combining yin with all the strong yang forces at the center. Weight is not mass. You can get out of a gravitational field in a rocket ship and none of the objects would have any weight, but they would still have mass. Is that because they still have stuff, have matter in them? No. Mass is measured by the amount of energy needed to accelerate an object. On a level surface, a surface which exerts the same amount of friction on all objects, it is harder, even in a no gravitation field, to accelerate an object across this surface that has a lot of mass than an object that has little mass. Another way of saying that is that mass is a measure of the amount of inertia, the resistance to acceleration of an object. But that is not due to the amount of stuff, and the density of stuff in the object. It is due to the amount of yang energy, the amount of inward force, the degree to which all parts of that object are pulled in toward the center that makes it hard to accelerate, that gives it mass.
So mass, like weight, is a measure of force, not of matter, and it is a measure of the same force. Mass is the measure of the yang, inward force that is exerted on all the parts of an object. Gravitation is the measure of the yang, inward force that extends beyond the surface of an object. Why, as Arkin-Hamed asks, is the force of gravity so much weaker? It is because the yang force is so much stronger at the core of an object, than at the surface. By the time the inward force reaches past the surface of an object it has been neutralized to a great degree by all the yin elements at the periphery. And, again, this is not due to the dense elements or heat or pressure at the core. The heat, pressure and the density of the elements are there because of the contractive force of yang. Take the same elements that are millions of degrees at the solar core, that are under so much pressure that atomic fusion is taking place, and remove them to the surface of the earth, and the heat and pressure are gone. As the powerfull bull of yang moves out from the core to the surface it encounters the yin picadores that bleed it of its strength so that by the time it exists as a gravitational force, pulling objects beyond its surface toward it, it has become weakened to a small portion of the raging force that was causing atomic fusion at the core.
All particles and waves are composed of yin and yang. Without yang, there would be no pull to the center and the yin elements would disperse and not be able to hold a form. Without yin the particle would not be able to expand and occupy any space. It would just collapse into itself and dissappear. Particles and waves are made from the force field created by the inward pull of yang and the outward push of yin. All particles have mass, unlike what you may have been told by modern physicists. It's just that some masses are so tiny that they cannot be measured, at least on the surface of the earth. A particle or a wave must have both yin and yang. Without yin, the particle would contract right out of the physical universe and find its way back to the yang center. Without yang, the particle would have no form and just disperse into infinity. This is why light waves or photons (in their seeming particle formation) which are considered to have no mass, bend when they pass close to much larger stars or close to the centers of large constellations and are pulled into and disappear into black holes. Although they have no detectable mass on this planet, no detectable attraction to the earth's center, when they pass a much stronger yang center, they are pulled toward it and the light rays bend.
If there is no stuff within the individual subatomic particles, what about when subatomic particles combine to make atoms? Is there real stuff, real material then? No. All research shows that protons, neutrons and electrons are identical, regardless of which element they are found in. The difference in the density, permeability, color, weight and mass of all the different elements is not due simply to the addition of more identical parts, but the difference in the field connecting these subatomic elements. A field with several positive forces and several negative forces is a much richer, thicker field than one composed of one positive and one negative unit of force. It is the difference in the force fields between subatomic particles within the atom, which, in themselves, are smaller but more intense force fields, that causes the difference in the qualities of elements.
One more thing about yang. As I said, yang is not really attracted to yin. It is captured by yin to form waves and particles. Yang is attracted to stronger accumulations of yang. And strong accumulations of yang seek to attract more yang to it. That is the source of gravity. If gravity seems weaker than the other forces it is because it is attracting yang, but the yang is involved in particles which include yin. So while the yang at the center of the earth is pulling objects toward it, the yin elements in those objects is resisting that pull, in the same way that the yin elements of the electron yearn to fly away from their orbit around the nucleus and resist the pull to the center of the nucleus. Since all stable particles are basically balanced, the ratio of yin per the mass of the object is the same in all objects so the amount of resistance to gravity is proportionally the same for all objects and the speed and acceleration of falling objects is the same. But if yang were unimpeded by the opposing force of yin, you would see a tremendous attraction between small yang and large yang and an enormous acceleration as the smaller yang flew to the larger yang and united with it. But, as I said, this doesn't happen in the physical plane, since all objects that contain yang are instantly surrounded by yin, which permeates the entire field and instantly coalesces around any free yang, as in the CERN proton collision experiments.
So, finally, if the material world is made up of forces and combinations of forces that give the illusion of particles and solidity, then the origin of the universe is the origin of these forces; and what is that origin? Well, we call natural forces laws. There are Einstein's Laws and Newton's Laws, and these laws are attempts to explain, accurately or not, how forces behave. When humans create a law, they must also create a method of enforcing that law. With natural laws, the method of enforcement and the law are the same thing. Man made laws begin with an idea, an idea to improve society for the benefit of the lawmakers and, hopefully, for the benefit of the entire society. Natural force-laws begin with an idea as well. That idea, I believe, is a way of creating a physical universe that gradually forms the groundwork so that, ultimately, conscious beings can have an experience of separation, a separate existence dependent on a separate brain and body, a separate set of desires, and a separate consciousness that stores and organizes its own experiences and information in a particular way. The physical universe was created as a way of having a milieu in which separate conscious beings can have a unique existence with a unique set of desires for different aspects of the physical world; desires that can be met thanks to the brilliant and careful design and development of both the natural environment and the conscious beings that desire different aspects of that environment.
You may think, then, that if the physical universe begins with an idea, then I am overlooking the creation of the physical being with a brain, and a very advanced brain, that has these transcendent ideas. But that is the same thinking that says that forces are the result of, emanate from, particles. Ideas don't emanate from brains. If anything, brains emanate from ideas. And when you "get" ideas, are they formed by your brain, or are they received and recorded by your brain? You may prepare for receiving an idea by accumulating the information and the skills to use the idea when it arrives, but you do not create the idea yourself. Ideas come from that yin unity, that cosmic consciousness, that God head, that I spoke of earlier, that transcends every corner of the physical universe and beyond, and is beyond space and time, and has never been created. What we are is, in John Milton's words, the "bright effluence of bright essence increate." We are the overflow of the bright consciousness that is the essence of all things and is, itself, beyond time, space and creation.
Any comments? I would love to hear from you.