Rethinking quantic ...particles...illusion vs truth

The Higgs Boson Particle Isn't a Particle - Why the Search for Subatomic Particles is an Illusion

(NaturalNews) Physicists are a great bunch of folks. They're bright and imaginative, but just like professionals in any other field of science, when educated under the same organized system of beliefs they have the ability to cluster together and share some rather remarkable delusions.

The latest delusion is the search for the so-called Higgs Boson Particle. It's a multi-billion dollar effort that has taken decades to pursue in the U.S. using the Fermilab particle accelerator. Soon, the search for the "Higgs," as it's known, will be largely taken over by the new Large Hadron Collider powering up in Switzerland in the summer of 2009.

Sounds cool, huh? But there's a problem with all this: Higgs Boson isn't a particle!

Outdated Newtonian thinking still dominates modern physics
Far too many western physicists remain steadfastly dedicated to the Newtonian idea that the world is made of ever-smaller spheres of matter that bounce off each other like balls in a pinball machine. The atom, in fact, was once thought to be the smallest unit of matter (that's what "atomic" means, of course). But before long, physicists began wondering "What are atoms made of?" So they invented a comical model of particle physics that they use to explain how atoms are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons.

Here's a typical explanation of this model of matter from the world of conventional physics:

Matter is made of molecules; molecules of atoms; atoms of a cloud of electrons about one-hundred-millionth of a centimeter and a nucleus about one-hundred-thousandth the size of the electron cloud. The nucleus is made of protons and neutrons. Each proton (or neutron) has about two thousand times the mass of an electron.

That's a handy explanation for kindergarteners and the scientifically illiterate, but it has a fatal flaw: There are no such things as physical electron particles, either!

Huh? Did I just say there's no such "thing" as an electron? Yep, I did. What I mean by that remark is that there's no such thing as a single, isolated, self-contained electron spinning around the nucleus like a tiny marble. As is well noted in the field of quantum physics a so-called "electron" is really just a cloud of probabilities in which the illusory appearance of an electron-like particle might be teased out of the fabric of reality under the right experimental circumstances, but no such discrete object can be said to truly "exist" in the physical world.

Still, many western scientists cling to the particle theory on practically everything: Subatomic physics, biochemistry and even water. In the world of water, for example, while we're told by scientists that water molecules are self-contained units of H2O, the truth is that water molecules are constantly transforming, releasing and creating new bonds in a sort of wet molecular square dancing jamboree. Thus, if you look at a cup of water, you're not simply observing a very large number of discrete water molecules that keep to their own business; you're watching the constant exchange and reconfiguration of molecules that openly share not just elemental particles but also information at many levels.

The self-contained H2O molecule explanation is simpler for everybody to grasp, though, which is why it's still taught everywhere today. The universe is simpler if you think it's entirely made up of tiny particles rather than intertwined fields of possibility that span multiple dimensions and propagate information encoded in mysterious energy fields.

Introducing the "God particle"
Most physicists are sticking to their Higgs Boson particle delusion, though. This mysterious "particle" is what gives mass to electrons, they say, and it works in such mysterious ways that they've actually named it the "God particle."

For the non-scientists reading this, that's the way western scientists fudge their theories to try to fit the observation numbers they've come up with. First, they create a mathematical theory that attempts to explain all the matter in the universe (most of which they can't even detect, but the stuff they can detect is believed to be made up of ever-smaller discrete particles). Then, when experimental observation doesn't fit their equations, they magically invent a mystical "God particle" that takes care of all the corrections, instantly proving their theories to be correct!

The same thing goes on in western medicine, of course, when researchers decide before the clinical trial that a candidate pharmaceutical is really, really effective at treating some disease. When the experiment turns up numbers they don't like, they simply invent "God numbers" and throw them into the data set to massage out whatever result they want. Convenient, isn't it? It even has the ring of high-brow science, but underneath all the academia, it's still just a bunch of people fudging the equations to get the results they want. It does make for a lot of entertaining science papers published in the physics journals, though, none of which are willing to entertain new ideas that don't fit their established (delusionary) models of the subatomic world.

Where is Richard Feynman when you really need the guy, anyway? Feynman was one physicist who wasn't afraid to go after the establishment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richar... )

Does Yoda know more about physics than the physicists?
I'm sure I'll receive plenty of flak about this story from atomic physicists who will say I should stick to health and stop commenting about physics. I'm not a physicist, after all, but I am made of the stuff these people are trying to describe, and physicists don't have a monopoly on conjecture about the nature of reality we all share, after all.

I'm also an experienced observer of the arrogance of western scientists and their cult-like dedication to particle explanations for the natural world. What western scientists don't like, I've learned, is mysterious energetic interactions among their delicate particles. They detest the idea of energy fields (beyond the fundamental four, of course), and instantly cringe at the mention of homeopathy, acupuncture, precognition, or mind-over-matter theories. In their quest to eradicate these mysterious energy fields from their theories, they desperately try to explain the entire universe as a series of tiny particles that operate independently, where atoms are actually microscopic perpetual motion pinball machines that somehow keep orbiting forever... or at least as long as it takes to fire a physics professor who has tenure.

I have news for these folks: All these particles are merely the visible echoes of the energy fields that make up the fabric of reality. In much the same way that a tumor is NOT cancer (it's merely the physical manifestation of a cellular communication problem in the body), all these gluons, muons, quarks and other particles are just momentary ripples of matter that spill over into our observable universe and then are gone in a flash.

The really courageous, high-level physicists already get this. They're the ones talking about superstring theory in eleven dimensions and all that. They know the Higgs Boson particle, when it's found, will actually turn out to be a multi-dimensional field of some sort and not a particle at all.

By the way, Yoda already found the Higgs Boson particle. His explanation of "The Force" is a near-perfect description of Higgs Boson. As Yoda says in The Empire Strikes Back:

"My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life breeds it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the force around you, here between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes, even between land and ship."

Did I just quote a muppet as an authority on subatomic physics? Sure did. That's because with all their high-flying scientific superiority, too many of today's particle-hunting physicists still don't know as much about the nature of the universe as a character from a fictional fantasy film.

The dead universe vs. the living universe
Why am I so harsh on these folks? The difference in view on this is a very big deal. The conventional physics point of view, you see, pretends that all units of matter in the universe are isolated and self-contained. Interactions between discrete objects are limited to a few basic field "forces" they admit to, but don't even understand: The strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, electromagnetism and gravity, none of which are truly understood by anybody.

Describing something with formulas doesn't mean you "understand" it; it just means you can roughly model its behavior with numbers, and even then, most of those numbers don't hold up in the real world. I've never even met a scientist who can describe where the energy comes from that powers a common magnet. They literally have no answer for it other than circular logic and physics babble. A magnet is magnetic because it's magnetic, essentially. And in that total lack of understanding, physics looks a whole lot like a mathematical branch of superstition.

On the other side of the fence (where I sit), everything in the universe is connected. The nature of reality is holographic, where the whole of reality is reflected in each and every piece of it. Energy fields are ubiquitous, and they permeate our bodies and our minds. Consciousness is sacred, and free will exists. Our own thoughts and intentions are broadcast into the universe where they have a real and measurable effect on events.

Sound bizarre? It's no less strange than a refrigerator magnet, which summons a mysterious force from the ether and uses it to cling to a slippery surface, day after day, year after year, using an unexplained force that persists, even without any apparent cause.

These are the two camps of modern physics: The particle-worshippers in search of the Higgs Boson particle who believe all things in the universe are isolated from each other, and the energy-field embracers who believe all things are connected and particles are just the fleeting shadows of underlying energies.

The particle-worshippers are largely athiests and determinists who do not believe in free will or the existence of a human soul. To them, death is a finality. Their religion is founded in make-believe particles, which is why they named Higgs Boson their "God particle." To them, finding the God particle is akin to meeting their Maker.

The energy-field embracers believe in free will, human consciousness and typically some form of life after death (reincarnation or otherwise). They believe that intention is a powerful force in the universe and that thought can travel faster than the speed of light. Interestingly, recent research in the field of quantum mechanics has already confirmed the ability of the universe to move information from one point to another faster than the speed of light (a phenomenon that conventional physicists insist is impossible).

Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter, says Yoda. But modern-day particle physicists are still hunting for crude matter. They're looking for the wrong thing, and that's why all the supercolliders in the world will never reveal the answers they're looking for!

The nature of the universe is far more holistic and enlightened than most modern-day scientists can even dare to imagine. They can document the particle decay tracks of every collision of every proton from now to eternity and still not understand the simple truths about the true nature of our universe.

A practicing Buddhist monk knows more about the nature of reality than a conventional subatomic physicist, and he didn't have to spend ten billion dollars in order to catch a glimpse of enlightenment.

Remember this quote from Confucius: "The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat."

If you really want to realize just how ignorant modern-day physicists are about the natural of the universe, just realize that even according to their own research, they can't even detect 96% of the stuff the universe is made of! That's because 96% of the universe is made of so-called "dark matter" or "dark energy," which are really just terms that mean "we have no freaking idea what's out there!"

Why we should support more funding for the sciences
It doesn't mean they should be looking, of course. If we're 96% ignorant about the stuff in the universe right now, the only way to map new territory is to keep exploring. And with that thought, I want to be really clear that I strongly support increases in funding for science research in America, and I strongly disagree with the Bush Administration's cuts of science funding. Under the Bush Administration, America invested in war, not science, and we've lost our footing on the science front. The age of America leading the sciences is now history, and that's shameful.

Basic education in mathematics and the sciences has plummeted to an all-time low in America, and in public schools, those interested in science at all are considered unpopular geeks. In the 1950's, science was cool; today it's considered nerdy. That's a shame, too, because science really is cool, and we live in a strange society, indeed, when being socially popular in school requires you to act like a dumbsh!t in front of your peers.

But as much as I support increases in science funding, I simultaneously believe scientists have got to get past their Newtonian mindset and start expanding the areas of politically-correct investigation. Too many realms of possible scientific investigation are censored these days, including the study of medicinal herbs, alternative cancer cures or even scientists who dare mention the phrase "intelligent design" in questioning Darwinian evolution as a valid explanation for the origin of the species. That's a whole different article, of course, and I'm not saying natural selection doesn't work -- clearly it does -- but for scientists to proclaim that Darwinian evolution explains the ORIGIN of all life is stunningly obtuse.

When it comes to the origin of life in our universe, conventional scientists are just as clueless about it as they are about magnets: Nobody really knows. The best-noted scientists like Dawkins actually say that aliens may have brought us to life!

It's actually a plausible theory, by the way. But then who brought the aliens to life? I'll cover this in another article about evolution vs. intelligent design, but I just wanted to point this out to show you that when it comes to offering real answers for the way things work in the universe, conventional physicists are as clueless as anybody -- they just have cooler formulas for describing all the things they still don't really understand. If you want to see an example of this, read up on the Casimir Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimi...).

I like physicists. I've known several, and they're cool people. The really good ones are asking great questions way beyond anything I've touched on in this article. They're investigating the nature of consciousness, the holographic nature of the universe, quantum tunneling effects, the multiverse, superstring theories and all kinds of other wickedly cool areas of adventure. But sadly, they are up against a stubborn cabal of conventional, old school physicists who cling to their particle theories and their "dead" universe models that exclude the existence of anything worth living for.

You see, advanced physicists are battling against conventional physicists in the same way that naturopaths are fighting against Big Pharma and the FDA: NEW ideas are always a threat to OLD ideas (and the snobs who cling to them). Like many areas of scientific inquiry, physics only advances as quickly as the tenured guardians of the status quo retire or die. It is a strange branch of inquiry indeed when advances in understanding are dependent upon the deaths of its most notable individuals.

Humans are stubborn folk, of course. We tend to believe the stories we tell ourselves, and the older most people get, the more difficult it is for them to listen to different stories. But as stubborn as people are, the universe is more stubborn still. And its secrets, I dare say, are beyond the capacity of any single human being to fully grasp; especially if they remain limited by the soulless language of mathematics.

Mike Adams

Jurassic Park will become a reality ?!

Extinct animals could be brought back to life thanks to advances in DNA technology
Steven Spielberg's Jurassic Park film may have been pure science fiction - but extinct creatures such as Neanderthals to Sabre-toothed tigers could soon be brought back to life thanks to advances in DNA technology.

Hum......... Maybe when God was walking with Ezechiel (in the bible) that is how he proceeded to bring back to life the Israel dead soldiers with the DNA of their dried bones.


By Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent
Last Updated: 9:02AM GMT 08 Jan 2009
Steven Spielberg's Jurassic Park III: Extinct creatures such as Neanderthals to Sabre-toothed tigers could soon be brought back to life thanks to advances in DNA technology.
A scene from Jurassic Park III - maybe not too far from the truth

The idea of resurrecting extinct animals moved a step closer to reality last year when scientists announced that they had decoded almost all of the genome of the woolly mammoth, from 60,000-year-old remains found frozen in Siberia.

Now New Scientist magazine has named the 10 other beasts most likely to rise again, including the Irish elk deer whose antlers measured 12 feet across, the dodo and Neanderthal man.

Animals that died out thousands of years ago could be recreated using genetic information retrieved from well-preserved specimens recovered from permafrost, dark caves or dry desserts.

There is no chance of bringing back the dinosaurs because genetic information is unlikely to survive more than a million years in any environment.

But scientists have just announced they had "resurrected" a gene from the Tasmanian tiger by implanting it in a mouse and examined its function - the first time such a feat had been achieved.

The genomes of several extinct species besides the mammoth are already being sequenced.

To revive a long-dead species scientists would have to recover enough DNA from a well-preserved specimen and find a suitable surrogate species similar to that of the extinct animal in which to grow the new baby from an embryo.

"It's hard to say that something will never ever be possible,"said Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, who is sequencing the Neanderthal genome.

"But it would require technologies so far removed from what we currently have that I cannot imagine how it would be done."

Assuming we will develop the necessary advanced technology, New Scientist has selected 10 extinct creatures that might one day be resurrected.

The magazine said: "Our choice is based not just on feasibility, but also on each animal's 'megafaunal charisma' – just how exciting the prospect of resurrecting these animals is.

"Of course, bringing extinct creatures back to life raises a whole host of practical problems, such as where they will live, but let's not spoil the fun..."

1. Neanderthal: Extinct: 25,000 years ago.

A draft sequence of the Neanderthal genome should be published sometime this year by the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. Humans would make the ideal surrogates.

2. Sabre-toothed tiger: Extinct: 10,000 years ago

There are some spectacularly preserved sabre-toothed specimens from the La Brea tar pits in Los Angeles, and lions are close enough to be surrogates.

3. Short-faced bear: Extinct: 11,000 years ago

This towering beast would dwarf the world's largest living land carnivore, the polar bear, stanidng a third taller when standing upright, and it weighed up to a tonne. Recovering its DNA should be possible as there are specimens encased in permafrost.

4. Tasmanian tiger: Extinct: 1936

The last Tasmanian tiger died in Hobart Zoo in 1936 which means there are well preserved tissues to obtain good-quality DNA. The tasmanian devil would make good surrogate.

5. Glyptodon: Extinct: 11,000 years ago

The Volkswagen Beetle-sized "colossal" armadillo, with its spiky, club-like tail, once rumbled across the South American countryside, and some might fancy seeing it do so again.

6. Dodo: Extinct: AD1690

In 2002 geneticists at Oxford University got permission to cut into the world's best-preserved dodo specimen, a foot bone – complete with skin and feathers – held under lock and key at the university's Museum of Natural History.

7. Woolly rhinoceros: Extinct: 10,000 years ago

As with the mammoth, there are plenty of specimens preserved in permafrost, and the availability of hair, horns and hooves is a big plus. These tissues can be cleaned up to release an abundance of near-pure rhino DNA.

8. Giant ground sloth: Extinct: 8,000 years ago

This giant stood around six metres tall and is estimated to have weighed a whopping four tonnes. The sloth's relatively recent extinction means several specimens have been found with hair, an excellent source of DNA.

9. Irish elk: Extinct: 7,700 years ago

A typical male stood more than two metres tall at the shoulder and sported antlers 12 feet wide. It is actually a deer rather than an elk and its closest living relative is the much smaller fallow deer.

10. Moa: Extinct: AD 1500

There is plenty of DNA to be found for this flightless bird, which is similar to an ostrich, in well-preserved bones and even eggs in caves across New Zealand.

www.newscientist.com