Thursday, January 12, 2012

More on Higgs Boson

I am returning to the topic of the last entry (i.e. the Horizon Programme on the hunting of the Higgs Boson).

There are many reasons why I have strong reservations regarding the interpretation of recent findings.

The finding of the Higgs Boson is required to bring a greater degree of completion to what is called the Standard Model which deals with the interactions between known particles and forces. Now admittedly this has proved remarkably successful in predicting an enormous range of physical events with astonishing accuracy!

However a major limitation is that it excludes gravity.

So to give an analogy; the search for the Higgs Boson represents the equivalent of finding a crucial weapon in a crime investigation. However in this investigation, the key potential suspect has been eliminated from investigation (due to the difficulty of searching for evidence). So in the absence of this key suspect, police are now attempting to pin the crime on someone else. Then to build a case against this new suspect some key incriminating evidence is required. So if a weapon - deemed to belong to the suspect - can be found at the scene of the crime, police will be ready to press charges!

However one could validly question this whole exercise as a somewhat artificial attempt to solve a crime (in the absence of the chief suspect).
So even if an incriminating weapon is found at the scene, a variety of possible explanations could be given. Indeed the chief suspect way even have planted this evidence so as to falsely incriminate another person.

In the same way, even if the Higgs Boson is eventually deemed to exist it still begs a lot of questions in the absence of the inclusion of the gravitational force in the Standard Model. Indeed one obvious suggestion is that the very existence of this boson intimately depends on the gravitational force!

So again even if the Higgs Boson is confirmed to exist, it represents important information, which however in all probability requires a much deeper explanation (than can be provided within the Standard Model).

Also it must be stressed again that the very rationale of the Standard Model is of an extremely reduced - and ultimately untenable - nature.

The idea here is that the Universe - as we know it - is ultimately comprised of basic "building blocks" of matter (which hopefully can be experimentally discovered through ever more powerful particle accelerators).

However in order to give fundamental particles a meaning, they must be placed within a preconceived environment of space and time.

This in turn reflects the reduced orientation of Conventional Science (where qualitative considerations are reduced to the quantitative).

So we cannot conceive of the specific (quantitative) aspects of matter in the absence of the holistic (qualitative) dimensions they inhabit.

Therefore the true task of science is not to just to explain the basic "building blocks" of existence but rather the manner in which both particles and dimensions - which have no strict meaning in the absence of each other - come into existence.

So it is strictly futile attempting to construct reality from its basic "building blocks" when these phenomena cannot be understood in the absence of corresponding physical dimensions!

The real task therefore is to explain how matter and dimensions mutually arise through dynamic interaction with each other. And this requires recognition of both the standard and - as yet unrecognised - holistic aspects of science.

And the ultimate implication of this approach is that what we call "reality" in fact strictly represents appearances of a merely relative nature arising from the interaction of twin aspects that are quantitative and qualitative with respect to each other. So true "reality" would be then understood as that absolute ever present source (and goal) of all that phenomenally exists in relative spacetime.

Indeed there is already a clue in existing thinking to this new way of looking at reality.

Moderns physics is strongly based on the notion of symmetry. However the paradox then remains that the perfect physical theory (based on total symmetry) would mean that reality as we know it - which requires a degree of asymmetry - could not exist!.

However we can now perhaps see that the perfect versions of physical theories are pointing directly at true "reality" as the ever present source (and goal) of what phenomenally exists.

There was also an interesting indication of this in the programme when Michio Kaku referred to the beautiful objects all around us in nature e.g. snowflakes as fragments of an original perfect world (before phenomenal existence) where perfect physical symmetry reigns.

What is fascinating about this that we can give a direct psycho spiritual counterpart to this observation in that all beautiful objects in nature represent reflections (or archetypes) of an ultimate perfect reality (that is spiritual in nature).

This would then immediately suggest that the physical and religious quests to know reality are themselves truly complementary. So perfection (in physical or spiritual terms) is in the realisation that both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of reality are ultimately fully symmetrical!

The truly great limitation of Conventional Science is the manner in which it attempts to abstract physical reality in a reduced quantitative manner from what is spiritual.

In the end one cannot attempt to properly understand the physical world without equal recognition of its spiritual aspect. So for every quantitative type relationship a qualitative counterpart exists.

However whereas (linear) reason is the appropriate vehicle of the quantitative aspect, intuitive recognition (which indirectly can be given be a precise circular logical interpretation) is the appropriate scientific vehicle of the qualitative.

No comments:

Post a Comment