CONVERSATIONS Part 5

 The Large Hadron Collider

CONVERSATION WITH AN ATHEIST AGNOSTIC PART 5

(For Part 1 through 4, Scroll down or type CONVERSATION WITH AN ATHEIST in the Search Box.)

CONVERSATIONS

©Edward R. Close 2018 

We met again at our favorite Starbuck’s:

“I’ve been thinking,” My friend began, “maybe you’re right. Maybe I’m not going to call myself an atheist any more. Maybe agnostic describes my position better.”

What made you change your mind? I wondered.

“I think it was the negativity. When I looked at my friends and colleagues who claim to be atheists, and analyzed that approach, and especially when I looked at myself, I realized that proclaiming that one is an ‘atheist’ is a matter of reacting to something we don’t like, something that we see as delusional wishful thinking. Trying to convince believers that they’re wrong, trying to destroy their fantasy, is a very negative thing. I’ve decided that you are right, they have just as much right to believe whatever they want to as I do. If it makes them feel better, or makes them better able to cope with life, who am I that I should deprive them of that?

“I still believe that I’m right that there is no god, no all-powerful entity watching over us, but, all I can say, from a logical standpoint, is that I see no evidence for that sort of superstitious, anachronistic belief. I guess that makes me an agnostic, not an atheist.”

I agree. I think most people who declare that they are atheists do so either to conform with their peer group, or as a form of protest. In either case, they may not distinguish between atheism and agnosticism. I’m glad we agree about something!

“Yes, but we don’t agree about this ‘something’ you call gimmel. I just don’t see how something that’s needed to make subatomic particles stable can have anything to do with consciousness. So far, I don’t think your arguments for that are very convincing. I think that, just like dark matter, it has to be some form of matter”

Let’s see if I can understand why you don’t believe gimmel is consciousness. What do you mean when you say “consciousness”? What is your definition of consciousness?

“Consciousness is the state of being aware. It is the subjective experience of being a sentient human being.”

Are you saying that only human beings are conscious?

“No, I suppose animals have some level of consciousness; they are aware of their surroundings. They’re just not self-aware.”

Don’t you think a dog is self-aware when you call his name and he knows it is him and not a cat or another dog you are calling?

“That’s just conditioned response.”

How is it different from your being conditioned to respond to your name as a small child?

“OK, maybe some animals are self-aware, but, they have a less-developed form of consciousness than human beings.”  

Do you think consciousness depends on our physical senses?

"Sure! How else can we be aware?"

But, dogs have a much more developed sense of smell, and cats have a much more developed sense of sight,... does that mean that their consciousness is more developed than ours, at least in one or more of the senses?

"Oh, I see where you're going with this: Consciousness is not just the senses, right?"

Right! Do you think consciousness is just different levels of one thing, or are there various kinds of consciousness?

“I would say that because we seem to relate to each other through awareness by means of our physical senses, seeing, hearing, etc., and animals like dogs do too, it’s just different levels of one thing: ‘awareness’.”

OK, then, how are we aware of matter and energy?

“By feeling and seeing them as something apart, as solid material. having weight and  taking up space, in the case of matter, and pressure or force in the case of energy.”

Ok, would you agree that these are distinctions, perceived as distinct from us as conscious observers, and distinct from each other?”

“Yes, I think that’s right.”

And, how do be demonstrate that an object is real?

“By measuring it, determining its weight and volume and plotting its path through space.”

Over time?

“Yes, over time.”

What are the parameters that we can measure?

“We can measure their Mass, energy and volume, and we can determine how they change over time.”

Perfect! You’ve just described the classical science of physics in a nutshell! Physical objects are described by only four measurable variables: mass, energy, space, and time. And, the basic relationship between them is described by the equation made famous by Einstein: E = mc². This simple little equation expresses the relationship between all four variables: E is energy, m is mass, and c is the distance light travels (space) in one unit of time.

“I hadn’t quite thought of it that way, but, yeah, that’s right.”

So, if physical reality is made up of particles and waves interacting in space and time, how is a particle identified, say in the Large Hadron collider?

“By its mass and energy.”

That’s right; and if we normalize the speed of light, as is done in Planck units and in Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence, our quantum equivalence units in the calculus of distinctions, then the c is defined as the movement of light through one unit of space in one unit of time, and Einstein’s equation becomes E = m(1/1)² = m, showing that mass and energy are equivalent.

“OK. That’s cool!”

Now, in particle physics, where relativity and quantum physics meet, mass and energy are identified as, and measured in, the mass-energy equivalence units of mega electron volts (Mev). Mega, of course means million. One unit of mass is equivalent to one million electron volts of energy in this system of measurement.

“Yeah, that’s pretty basic particle-physics stuff,”

Given that, how do we identify a specific particle. Like a quark, proton, neutron, boson, etc., in the LHC?

“By their mass in Mev!”

Yes. Exactly right! Now, remember the derivation of gimmel, the extra something that stabilizes the proton. Do you remember why gimmel cannot be matter or energy?

“No.”

It’s because if the units of gimmel needed to establish symmetric stability were mass or energy, it would change the measurement of the mass-energy of the proton, and it would not be a proton, it would be identified as some other particle.

“OK, that makes sense.”

Now, if something identified as a necessary part of every atom for stability is neither matter nor energy, what is it?

“I don’t know. How can consciousness be something, but not be matter or energy? It’s a puzzle. I need to think about it.”

OK, while you’re thinking about that, consider the fact that when the amount of gimmel in the elements are calculated, and the apparent percentages of each element in the universe are taken into account, the percentage of gimmel is almost exactly the same as the volumetric equivalence of dark matter and dark energy in the universe based on the Hubble Probe data!

“Really? That’s kinda mind boggling! There must be some kind of explanation other than consciousness! I need some time to think about this.”

With that, he frowned, grabbed his latte, and walked out of the Starbuck’s.

THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER: IF ALL YOU’VE GOT IS A HAMMER, EVERYTHING LOOKS LIKE A NAIL!

THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER:

IF ALL YOU’VE GOT IS A HAMMER,

EVERYTHING LOOKS LIKE A NAIL!

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is by far the largest machine on the planet. The LHC is constructed in a 17 mile circular tunnel about 570 feet beneath the ground, near the city of Geneva Switzerland. It is designed to accelerate atomic and subatomic particles to near light speed and then smash them together. The idea is that by inspecting the pieces flying apart from the point of collision, we can learn how the ‘stuff’ of the physical universe works. Even before the LHC was built, we had already identified most of the major parts of an atom, but we had questions about how such small particles spinning with so much energy could be stable. Why were quarks combined in threes, never twos? And why did the particles have so much more mass combined, than they did separately? There must be something lurking inside the nucleons that would explain these puzzles.

When first started up in 2010, The LHC particle accelerating power was about 4 times that of any previous ‘atom smasher’. Looking at the data generated from thousands of collisions, they saw evidence of many different pieces, making up the so-called ‘particle zoo’. But no Higgs boson, and they still didn’t have all the answers they needed to understand how subatomic particles work. The particle physicists suggested that, with even more power, the LHC might simulate the conditions of the big-bang origin of the universe (On a much smaller scale, of course), and they hoped to find all the particles predicted by theory (the Standard Model) including the Higgs boson, the so-called “God Particle”; and they even dreamed they could have the long sought-after Theory of Everything. So, in 2013, the LHC was shut down in order to upgrade it to an accelerating power about twice the power of the first run. In May, 2015, they started it up again, and sure enough, there was a track that fit the predicted trajectory of the Higgs boson! But even the “God particle” didn’t answer all the questions. Among the scattered, broken parts of protons and neutrons, there were still questions. For example, if the Higgs boson imparts mass to elementary particles, how does it do that? What is the mechanism?

Lest what I am about to say be interpreted as critical and dismissive of this great accomplishment of science and engineering called the Large Hadron Collider, let me say, up front, that I am very happy that this giant machine exists, because without the data produced by it, the discoveries that Dr. Neppe and I are making with the new sicentific paradigm, TDVP, would be impossible. Having said that, I feel that we must put the LHC into proper context. We are just at the beginning of understanding the true nature of reality. We are like children standing on the beach of an ocean stretching away into infinity, with a toy shovel and a Dixie cup in our hands, dreaming of building a bridge to the other side of the ocean.

Even though the LHC incorporates the brilliant work of literally thousands of mainstream scientists from all over the world, its use to unlock the secrets of reality are rather crude. Let me suggest an analogy: Suppose a not-too-bright child has his grandfather’s pocket watch, which happens to be a beautiful gold Elgin timepiece manufactured more than 100 years ago, and he wants to know how it works, but the only tool he has is a hammer! He taps on the watch with the hammer and it flies apart. He gathers up the pieces and looks at them, and sees cog wheels, metal plates, screws and a spring, but he still doesn’t know how a watch like this works. “Maybe I didn’t hit it hard enough”, he thinks, so he gets another watch, and hits it harder. He finds more pieces, but still doesn’t know how it works. Do you think he might eventually come to know that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts? Not by just using his hammer!

ERC 01/29/2016

IS THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER (LHC) A THREAT TO OUR PLANET?

IS THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER (LHC) A THREAT TO OUR PLANET?

I’ve written about the LHC in several of my posts on this Transcendental Physics blog, and you can find my comments in a number of posts by looking for LHC, Large Hadron Collider, Collider, Cyclotron, etc. in the post labels. Information is also to be found in work I’ve done with Dr. Vernon Neppe in publications available on www.BrainVoyage.com.

While I am critical of the hype put out by particle physicists claiming that they are creating conditions the big bang theorists hypothesize for the beginning of the universe, our research into the history of the universe has been made easier by the data the LHC and other particle colliders have generated. Statements about 'creating conditions prevailing in the early universe' and the importance of detecting the Higgs Boson are greatly exaggerated in order to get funding. Of course, some particle physicists may even believe this hype. Particle physicists appear to be making the logical error of thinking that they can fully understand a complex object by blowing it apart and looking at the pieces. In fact, the whole is always more than the sum of the prats. This is especially true in regard to quantum physics.

Concerning effects of the LHC on the environment, fortunately, the effects of the operation of the collider on the planet are not as serious or far-reaching as you might think, - at least not yet – for the following reasons: 

1.) Contrary to popular hype, the LHC does NOT create the conditions existing at the beginning of the universe, whatever the big bang theory projects that to be. The extreme conditions of high-energy particle-collision velocity and temperature the LHC creates exist only in very minute volumes relative to the size of an atom, -let alone the size of the planet- and they exist only for nano-secconds. 2.) In contrast with the early atom smashers, and atomic bomb tests, the LHC has a lot of very sophisticated shielding and protection built in to protect the technicians working there and people living in the area surrounding the LHC near Gneva Switzerland.

Particle physicists, through little fault of their own, have tunnel vision (pun intended). Once we get away from the simplistic reductionist idea that we can learn all there is to know about sub-atomic reality by studying the pieces flying away from a particle collision, and combine the microcosmic with the macrocosm of the observable universe, we begin to see a more cohesive picture: Unknown to particle physicists, we (Neppe & Close) have proved conclusively that there could be no physical universe without the influence of the third form of reality, the part of reality that is not directly measurable as mass or energy. This is absolutely and irrefutably proved by application of mathematical and hyper-geometric dimensional logic to quantum mechanical experimental results and LHC particle collision data. Furthermore, there is strong evidence that the third form of reality is related to dark matter/dark energy. Not only that, the only available candidate that can be identified as the third form of reality is consciousness.

It is also now very clear that the third form of reality is a manifestation of a primary form of consciousness that has necessarily existed from the beginning, and even before any beginning we can identify by inductive and deductive reasoning from the current state of the physical universe. 

I propose that this Primary Consciousness is none other than that which the Spiritual Masters of all times have called God, the Infinite Intelligence underlying reality and connecting the individualized consciousness of every living being.