The God Particle and the death of Atomic Theory
The discovery of the Higs Boson or the (misnamed) God particle as the culmination of 40 year search has been well covered in the general press. It completes the latest model of matter and lends a sense of closure.
The Nobel Laureate and great teacher Richard Feynman held the Atomic Theory as the “ultimate learning “of Science.
“If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generation of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words? I believe it is the atomic hypothesis that
All things are made of atoms-little particles that that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another.
In that one sentence, you will see, there is an enormous amount of information about the world, if just a little imagination and thinking are applied.”
We argue that the atomic theory of matter is dead. There are already three layers of the ultimate indivisible particles to explain matter
- chemical atoms and molecules
- the subatomic electrons and protons
- the nuclear quarks and leptons and bosons.
We explore the utility of these models and an alternate way of looking at models of matter covering infinite recursion, singularity and hetrarchy vedic philosophy and movie like the Matrix reloaded.
Leave a comment
Arvind’s G+ Posts
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Arvind Tiwary's Blog 
“The LCH isn’t just about the Higgs, there are a lot of other mysteries out there in the universe,” Dr Shears said
The latest results from Cern show that collisions between protons (hydrogen nuclei) travelling at almost the speed of light round the LHC’s underground circuit are generating more matter than antimatter forms of a particular type of subatomic particle, the D-zero meson. “It is very hard to explain the excess of matter through the ‘standard model’ of particle physics,” said Dr Shears.
http://m.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0907/1224323695870.html?via=mostread
Silicon Valley on MATRIX and MAYA
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/10/silicon-valley-questions-the-meaning-of-life?utm_source=CB%20Insights%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=b4c0d4bced-ThursNL_10_13_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9dc0513989-b4c0d4bced-87676197
A good read
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/?utm_source=mitfb
Interesting extracts
Gefter: But how can seeing a false reality be beneficial to an organism’s survival?
Hoffman: There’s a metaphor that’s only been available to us in the past 30 or 40 years, and that’s the desktop interface. Suppose there’s a blue rectangular icon on the lower right corner of your computer’s desktop — does that mean that the file itself is blue and rectangular and lives in the lower right corner of your computer? Of course not. But those are the only things that can be asserted about anything on the desktop — it has color, position, and shape. Those are the only categories available to you, and yet none of them are true about the file itself or anything in the computer. They couldn’t possibly be true. That’s an interesting thing. You could not form a true description of the innards of the computer if your entire view of reality was confined to the desktop. And yet the desktop is useful. That blue rectangular icon guides my behavior, and it hides a complex reality that I don’t need to know. That’s the key idea. Evolution has shaped us with perceptions that allow us to survive. They guide adaptive behaviors. But part of that involves hiding from us the stuff we don’t need to know. And that’s pretty much all of reality, whatever reality might be. If you had to spend all that time figuring it out, the tiger would eat you.
Gefter: The world is just other conscious agents?
Hoffman: I call it conscious realism: Objective reality is just conscious agents, just points of view. Interestingly, I can take two conscious agents and have them interact, and the mathematical structure of that interaction also satisfies the definition of a conscious agent. This mathematics is telling me something. I can take two minds, and they can generate a new, unified single mind. Here’s a concrete example. We have two hemispheres in our brain. But when you do a split-brain operation, a complete transection of the corpus callosum, you get clear evidence of two separate consciousnesses. Before that slicing happened, it seemed there was a single unified consciousness. So it’s not implausible that there is a single conscious agent. And yet it’s also the case that there are two conscious agents there, and you can see that when they’re split. I didn’t expect that, the mathematics forced me to recognize this. It suggests that I can take separate observers, put them together and create new observers, and keep doing this ad infinitum. It’s conscious agents all the way down
Aleph https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number
A way to rank infinities . Dev devta ishwar brahaman
Renormalization https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization
A way to talk across vast scales of time and space 10^-21 to 10^21 or 10^42
Maxwell magnetic http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1871/1849
How forces are created by motion. Magnetic forces are an epi-phenomenon of motion and not “real”. The experience of the world may be an epi phenomenon of a symbol processing machine