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Outdated Newtonian thinking still dominates modern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.
About the author: Mike Adams is a holistic nutritionist with a
passion for teaching people how to improve their health He has authored
and published thousands of articles, interviews, consumers guides, and
books on topics like health and the environment, impacting the lives of
millions of readers around the world who are experiencing phenomenal
health benefits from reading his articles. Adams is an honest, independent
journalist and accepts no money or commissions on the third-party products
he writes about or the companies he promotes. In 2007, Adams launched
EcoLEDs, a manufacturer of mercury-free,
energy-efficient LED lighting products that save electricity and help
prevent global warming. He also founded an
environmentally-friendly online
retailer called BetterLifeGoods.com that uses retail profits to help
support consumer advocacy programs. He's also a noted technology pioneer
and founded a software company in 1993 that developed the
HTML email newsletter software
currently powering the NaturalNews subscriptions. Adams volunteers his
time to serve as the executive director of the
Consumer Wellness Center, a
501(c)3 non-profit organization, and pursues hobbies such as Pilates,
Capoeira, nature macrophotography and organic gardening. He's also author
of numerous health books published by
Truth Publishing and is the
creator of several consumer-oriented grassroots campaigns, including the
Spam. Don't Buy It! campaign,
and the free downloadable Honest
Food Guide. He also created the free reference sites
HerbReference.com and
HealingFoodReference.com.
Adams believes in free speech, free access to nutritional supplements and
the ending of corporate control over medicines, genes and seeds. Known as
the 'Health Ranger,' Adams' personal health statistics and mission
statements are located at
www.HealthRanger.org
