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Outdated Newtonian thinking still dominates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 alsoinformation 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 justmomentary 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 anenvironmentally-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 atwww.HealthRanger.org
