Pages

Saturday, December 21, 2013

"Higgs Boson" Scientists Win Nobel Prize in Physics

We are a bit late on this, but James Morgan at BBC News has the story at Higgs boson scientists win Nobel prize in physics, where the following explanation is given for what a Higgs boson is in the context of the "mass" of particles:
"Scientists' best theory for why different things have mass is the "Higgs field" - where mass can be seen as a measure of the resistance to movement. The "Higgs field" is shown here as a room of physicists chatting among themselves.

A well-known scientist walks into the room and causes a bit of a stir - attracting admirers with each step and interacting strongly with them - signing autographs and stopping to chat.

As she becomes surrounded by admiring fans, she finds it harder to move across the room - in this analogy, she acquires mass due to the "field" of fans, with each fan acting like a single Higgs boson.

If a less popular scientist enters the room, only a small crowd gathers, with no-one clamouring for attention. He finds it easier to move across the room - by analogy, his interaction with the bosons is lower, and so he has a lower mass."
So that's the new standard model of the universe, allegedly, in modern theoretical physics, without gravity of course, which turns out to be a bother.

If gravity were added, we suspect the floor under the scientists in the above model would collapse at some point of idolizing boson accumulation and then what would we have?

The Guardian wrote more recently in The Higgs boson does a new trick (probably):
"In the Standard Model of physics, the fundamental building blocks of nature are quarks (which live inside hadrons) and leptons (such as the electron, and its heavier siblings, the muon and the tau). These building blocks interact with each other via fundamental forces carried by bosons - the photon carries electromagnetism, the W and Z bosons carry the weak nuclear force, and the gluon carries the strong force.

All those particles (except the photon and the gluon, which are massless) acquire their mass by interacting with the Higgs boson, the discovery of which was announced last year on the fourth of July."
We always wonder where those "fundamental forces" that are taken as givens come from, or where the boson gets its "interactive" power, but this does not appear to bother the physicists. The main thing is that the current math formulas work and they get enough "bumps" in the hadron colliders.

Somehow, we think these epicyclic-type theoretical models do not yet really explain the "real" universe. Give it another few thousand years, at least.


The Universe Viewed as a Hologram, i.e. a Projection

Ron Cowen and Nature Magazine
have the story at the Scientific American
in The Universe Really Is a Hologram, According to New Simulations.

See the Holographic Principle at the Wikipedia.

A holograph is a "projection".

Whose?

The universe, by definition,
is as we see it,
and we can see it
only by the means
we use
to measure it.


Can the mystery be solved in that way?

Or is our knowledge always limited to
and by
the methods of measurement we use?

Wednesday, September 05, 2012

Higgs Boson Quest Enters New Phase: We Remain Skeptical

See
Quest for Higgs boson enters new phase

University of Chicago (2012, September 4).
ScienceDaily. Retrieved September 5, 2012.

We remain skeptical of the existence of the Higgs boson or field,
unless that field be gravity.

A theory that does not account for gravity leaves out the strongest force in the universe and the idea that allegedly massless particles with a life span of next to nothing make up the foundation of our universe is quaint, but hardly believable, to put it bluntly.

Then there is allegedly an endless field of something which can not be nothing but which is not identifiable that allegedly gives massless particles mass, and so on. Alice in Wonderland physics.

To us that sounds like physicists in the kitchen measuring not what they know.
Half-baked.


Albert Einstein Patents and Invention


Einstein worked at the Swiss Patent Office as a patent clerk before making his mark on the world in physics.

The quote we feature below tells us a lot about how Einstein viewed inventors, patent applications and prior art.

See:

The Albert Einstein Archives
PBS NOVA - Einstein the Nobody



Albert Einstein on Creativity linked from Brandautopsy.com "Borrowing Brilliance"

 Jenson: Albert Einstein Quotes - The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. 

Utility Patents and Design Patents 

The United States Patent and Trademark Office, pursuant to U.S. federal laws and decisions of the courts, grants utility and design patents, defined by the USPTO at its website as follows:
"A utility patent may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, compositions of matter, or any new useful improvement thereof. A design patent may be granted to anyone who invents a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture."
Essentially, an invention viz. discovery can thus be patented for its FORM (design, the way it looks and feels) and/or FUNCTION (what it does), given the legal limitations on "prior art" and "obviousness" found further below.

Pro-patent forces argue that "anything under the Sun that is made by man" can be patented, but that rose-colored rainbow standard meets inter alia the Biblically recorded reality barrier that "there is nothing new under the Sun":
"What has been will be again,
    what has been done will be done again;
      there is nothing new under the sun" - Ecclesiastes 1:9 NIV Bible

Patent terminology: Utility and Design, Function and Form

Place of
Application
Patent Parameter Patent
Parameter
At the
USPTO

Utility Design

Normal
Terminology
Normal
Terminology
In Arts &
Architecture
  Function Form
Laymen's
Language
What it
Does
How it Looks and Feels


What are the two basic requirements for patentability?
  • Nondisclosure in Prior Art
  • Not Obvious to a Phosita (a person of ordinary skill in the art)

Place of
Application
Commentary Patent Rule Patent Rule
At the
USPTO
The "business" of the USPTO is "patents" and who is going to sabotage their own business? The claimed invention can not be disclosed in prior art
The invention can not be
obvious to "a person having ordinary skill in the art", a so-called "phosita"

Normal
Terminology
Normal
Terminology
In the Arts &
Architecture
No comparable patents exist in art or in architecture and thus these disciplines are more creative Original Avant-garde

The blog The Prior Art referred a couple of years back to a wry comment made in oral arguments by United States Supreme Chief Justice Roberts about the U.S. Circuit Courts (including the Federal Circuit) being obligated to follow U.S. Supreme Court decisions:
"Chief Justice Roberts: Well, they don't have a choice, right? They can't say, I don't like the Supreme Court rule so I'm not going to apply it, other than the Federal Circuit.
(Laughter in the court.)
 
This rebuke seems to indicate that as Roberts sees it, the Federal Circuit has a habit of blowing off Supreme Court precedent."
The Stanford Technology Law Review has a note on
New Insights on the "Death” of Obviousness:
An Empirical Study of District Court Obviousness Opinions
"
by Sean M. McEldowney which concludes:
"On the surface, these results seem to support the notion that the Federal Circuit has effectively gutted the standard of obviousness.
"
[McEldowney then goes on to suggest it may not be so simple.... (but we suspect it IS that simple).] 2006 STAN. TECH. L. REV. 4 http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Articles/06_STLR_4

The Federal Circuit in the USA is made up primarily of persons with technical degrees. This is a regrettable error in the make-up of this court, because their technology interests make them biased in favor of patents. The Federal Circuit has in fact been all but ignoring recent U.S. Supreme Court dictates, and have been getting reversed regulary for so ignoring them.

Those dictates are, here via the Wikipedia article on KSR v. Teleflex:
"Main article: KSR v. Teleflex

The Supreme Court reversed a decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit based on how the lower court defined the capabilities of a PHOSITA. KSR v. Teleflex was decided by a unanimous Supreme Court on April 30, 2007.

Importantly, Justice Kennedy's opinion stated, "A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Although the Court's opinion acknowledged other Federal Circuit cases that described a PHOSITA as having "common sense" and who could find motivation "implicitly in the prior art," Kennedy emphasized that his opinion was directed at correcting the "errors of law made by the Court of Appeals in this case" and does not necessarily overturn all other Federal Circuit precedent.

Once the PHOSITA is properly defined, KSR v. Teleflex described how obviousness should be determined:
In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls. What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under §103. One of the ways in which a patent's subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that there existed at the time of invention a known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent's claims.
which was applied to the facts before the Court with the following:
The proper question to have asked was whether a pedal designer of ordinary skill, facing the wide range of needs created by developments in the field of endeavor, would have seen a benefit to upgrading Asano with a sensor."
What are the consequences of KSR?

At LawPundit we previously quoted the unanimous decision in KSR in an opinion written by Justice Kennedy:
"Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue. To facilitate review, this analysis should be made explicit.... As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ."

Kennedy hammers the new standard home with a clear rejection of the formalistic conceptions attaching to the previous "helpful insights" of the TSM test:

"Helpful insights ... need not become rigid and mandatory formulas; and when it is so applied, the TSM test is incompatible with our precedents. The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents. The diversity of inventive pursuits and of modern technology counsels against limiting the analysis in this way. In many fields it may be that there is little discussion of obvious techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that market demand, rather than scientific literature, will drive design trends. Granting patent protection to advances that would occur in the ordinary course without real innovation retards progress and may, in the case of patents combining previously known elements, deprive prior inventions of their value or utility."
[emphasis added by LawPundit]
What are the consequences of KSR when properly applied in cases like Apple v. Samsung and to Apple's claims to exclusive proprietary patent rights in "bounce-back" software code applications or to various obvious "man-machine interactions" such as human touch controls of digital displays?

It is quite clear that the Supreme Court would throw those Apple patents out without blinking an eye as being no different in principle as a pedal designer of ordinary skill adding a sensor, i.e. a combination of previously known elements.

There is no inventive step in such compositions and no invention worthy of patent protection. The law can not permit a situation in which obvious developments in normal course of the state of the art become proprietary exclusive rights of greedy monopolistic companies who are just combining various features of prior art. However, that is a wisdom that the judges on the present Federal Circuit -- uniquely RESPONSIBLE for patent appeals -- are having difficulty understanding.


Place of
Application
KSR
Standard
KSR Standard
United States Supreme Court
Advances that would occur in the ordinary course without real innovation are obvious A phosita of ordinary skill has common sense, ordinary creativity and is not an automoton


Conclusion, Quo Vadis?


Maybe legislators in reforming patent law and judges in handling patent cases should heed the words of Henry Ford :

"I invented nothing new. I simply combined the inventions of others into a car. Had I worked fifty or ten or even five years before, I would have failed."

— Henry Ford

Modern smartphones or PC tablets or similar electronic gadgets are no different, being combinations of thousands of inventions and ideas of others to which no one should be able to claim any kind of proprietary exclusivity.

In fact, modern electronic devices trace their origins back to ancient writing shapes and surfaces as well as to the carving, wedging or stamping of iconic symbols into wood, stone, clay, or other earths or materials.

Today these data surfaces are called electronic displays and icons, but in fact, as far as invention is concerned, they are the same.

Transistors and microprocessors have enabled the micromanufacture of solid state elements that manifest more modern display possibilities in obvious utility and obvious design, all anticipated by prior art, long, long ago.

See also:

The Pinch Gesture as an Ancient Non-Patentable Natural Physical Historical and Technological Hand Mechanism With Prior Pinch Pot Art Galore as Obvious as the Hand in Front of Your Face : Our Modern Patent Systems are Operating in a Fantasy World

Samsung Digital Picture Frame 2006 is Clear Designer Prior Art to the Later "Design" of the iPhone and iPad

The Apple iPhone as a Design Copy of the First Pharaonic Cartouche of the Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt: A Design in the Public Domain as Prior Art for 4500 Years

Ancient Rectangular Mirrors With Rounded Corners as Image Inventions Precede the iPad by Thousands of Years: Apple Did Not Invent These Basic Designs

Old California Speed Limit Sign is Virtually Identical in Design to Apple iPad

Massachusetts First Standardized License Plate 1957 as Nearly Identical Prior Art for the Apple Phone

Motor Vehicle Registration Plates - License Plates - As Your Most Obvious Prior Art for Text and Graphic Information Displays on Rectangular Surfaces with Rounded Edges Enclosed in Bezels

In the Year 2525 ... You Won't Be Able to Move a Finger Without Paying Apple LOL

U.S. Sales of Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 Blocked by Preliminary Injunction Because of Patent Suit : Infringement Actions As THE Legal Weapon of Choice to Block Potential Competition

Minimalist Rounded Corner Design is Ubiquitous, So Why Should One Company be able to get ANY Rights to That Design


Only an inventor knows how to borrow, and every man is or should be an inventor. — Ralph Waldo Emerson





Tuesday, July 10, 2012

The Revised Periodic Table of Chemical Elements and New Insights About the History of Alternative Models

This is an update to my recent postings (Einstein's Voice, LawPundit) and my website page as originally posted in the year 2000 at LexiLine -- see the Wayback Machine at the Internet Archive.

A reader has alerted me to the fact that Charles Janet came up with the same so-called "left-step" periodic arrangement of chemical elements that I found in 1972 already in the year 1928 . Indeed, there is a recent article referenced at the Wikipedia article on Janet referencing "Stewart, Philip (April 2010). "Charles Janet: unrecognized genius of the Periodic System". Foundations of Chemistry 12: 5–15. DOI:10.1007/s10698-008-9062-5".

As written at the Wikipedia:
"In 1927 [Janet] turned his attention to the periodic table and wrote a series of six articles in French, which were privately printed and never widely circulated."
Even a French biography of him online currently does not have the table as far as I can tell. Biographie synthétique de Charles Janet. I do not speak French to this day so even if I had done any kind of deep research back in those days in 1972, prior to the Internet, the likelihood I would have found Janet's work in the USA is small.

Indeed, back in 1972 I would not have imagined that someone had come up with the same arrangement as I had found and thus I really had no reason to look for previous discoverers since I would have assumed that if someone had had the same idea, it would be well known. I myself sent off a letter to the Scientific American about my "discovery" of the revised periodic table but they paid no attention to it.

Accordingly, as it was just a hobby anyway, I went on with my life and only put up my discovery on the Internet at LexiLine in 2000 when I started my first website online, and when, to my knowledge, there was nothing at all online about alternative models of the Periodic Table, as far as I know. Amazingly, no one, prior to today, has ever paid any attention to my revised period table or commented about it.

That attitude in science epitomizes one of the reasons that I left the study of Biology, Physics and Chemistry in high school and college, by the way, and went on to law and legal studies, leaving the sciences as a hobby.

I was good in the sciences in pre-college studies, already earning college credits in Chemistry in high school, for example, and was sent off as a young student to a science fair where they presented an electron microscope that showed we had 46 chromosomes instead of 48. I dutifully reported on that development in class upon returning to school, whereupon the teacher said to the class immediately afterward that this information was fine but that 48 would be the correct answer for the final exam in that class and for any other test purposes until it was changed in her Biology textbook. That is a true story. That was it for me for Biology. Who wanted to live in the past?

My experience in Physics in high school was much the same. I came up with an algorithm for a complicated class assignment involving the calculation of total resistance in a circuit and my solution was correct, taking half the paper that the accepted method required. Rather than the teacher showing interest in the algorithm, the teacher tried to ridicule the solution in class, unsuccessfully, as I defended the clear logic of it, but that was it for me for Physics. Too much inertia.

And then I had an excessively long hours-long Chemistry lab early on Saturday mornings -- not in my circadian rhythm at all -- where the emphasis was on writing nice-looking lab reports and playing with moles and valences and the like rather than on examining the basic theoretical questions that were of interest to me. That was it for Chemistry. Too many vials.

So the study of law (jurisprudence) it was, where the emphasis was on the reasoning behind the laws and on problem solutions, rather than on repetition of what people already knew (excepted here in law are bar exams and similar, which primarily test knowledge memorized through law review courses and not through Socratic law study, and it is mostly knowledge that any idiot can look up and seldom needs in law practice). But to return to the periodic table ....

I am in fact quite pleased to find that someone in fact came up with the same periodic table arrangement as I did, because it does seem to me to be quite logical "in the broad view" to view the chemical elements this way.

Hence, it is gratifying to see "like minds" out there and I will definitely be doing some study of Charles Janet in the future, although it is clear from his alternative tables that he did not really understand what he had found.

The reader -- already cited above -- writes that a certain L.M. Simmons had the same arrangement idea in 1947 (A modification of the periodic table, but that publication even today is not accessible to me online because I am not an ACS member -- that's science! ... sadly). That same reader also notes that Edward Mazurs "publicized" the "left-step arrangement" in 1957, but in fact it was a "private printing" titled Types of Graphic Representation of the Periodic System of Chemical Elements, to which I could not possibly have had access. A revised accessible edition was first published in 1974 as Graphic Representations of the Periodic System During One Hundred Years.

I find online now that there is even a detailed article at the Wikipedia on Alternative periodic tables. See also Periodic Tables by David V. Black. where Black notes that Mazurs collected all sorts of alternative periodic tables and -- to my great astonishment -- was a fellow Latvian as a Professor at the University of Riga. As Black writes, and this is the important thing:
"Mazurs came to the conclusion – and so have I – that a left-step table works best....".
I am not now going to research all the myriad other alternative tables presented in the interim, but wish to point out that apparently none of these previous researchers realized the significance of the "left-step" revised periodic arrangement in showing how the underlying principle is gravitational for the elements as a whole, rather than viewing each element individually or in some "category", as chemists are wont to do, based on their "properties". I was not interested in chemical properties. I was interested in the underlying principle of physics that governed chemical element formation. All periodic tables -- even if useful -- that depart from the underlying gravitational principle are in my opinion not fully accurate.

A most recent article from July 20, 2011 at ChemistryViews.org in At Last A Definitive Periodic Table? (DOI: 10.1002/chemv.201000107) by David Bradley reports essentially that some observers currently still virtually reduce the 1, 4, 9, 16 sequence to mere "numerology", talking about odd numbers and all sorts of irrelevant extraneous things, thus showing that chemists and physicists are still unable to get away from their familiar world of electron shells, rather than trying to find the "basic" force of nature underlying those shells.

In other words, even though there have been predecessors to my own arrangement of the periodic table as far back as the year 1928, scientists still do not "get" what the periodic table revised in this way means.

The principle of chemical element formation is the same as the acceleration of an object in a vacuum, except that we have no "distance" (in the accelerative sense) but rather instead increasing "mass" -- well, that is the same as the idea of the relation between the Higgs Field and mass, and therefore, the Higgs Field is no different than this basic GRAVITATIONAL PRINCIPLE, which the Higgs Boson Theory ignores completely.

Physicists and chemists in explaining the inner workings of the elements do not stick to the gravitational principle but create artificial constructs such as "the weak force" or "the strong force", which in my opinion merely shows that they do not understand how to measure gravity at the atomic and subatomic level.

I.e. the elements in my opinion are created according to the gravitational principle internally, and it is up to Physics and Chemistry down the road to put their concepts of strong and weak forces into that basic gravitational system -- and this also applies to the Higgs Field and the Higgs Boson. If there is a Higgs Field, that Higgs Field is gravity.


Sunday, July 08, 2012

Simple Cartoons Explaining the Higgs Mechanism & Dark Matter

Ben Parr via PHD Comics on Vimeo has two exceptionally useful cartoon videos on Particle Physics, the Higgs Boson & Dark Matter Explained

Friday, July 06, 2012

Higgs, The Aether, Gravity, The Periodic Table of Chemical Elements Revised, and the Gravitational Principle of the Universe


"Since there is no DISTANCE involved in the building of the elements, the gravitational effect exerts itself on the mass of the elements." - Andis Kaulins, February 13, 1972

We see this process in the spectral emission lines of hydrogen (Bohr model) that are in the clear relationship 1, 4, 9 and 16, i.e. 1², 2², 3² and 4² as below (Wikipedia), representing the electron orbits in the Bohr model, i.e. "the energy of an electron in any one of these orbits is inversely proportional to the square of the integer n."):


 ......1²........2²................3²...................................................4²...............

I wrote the first line found now at the top of this page 40 years ago when I came up with a suggested revision of the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements (shown below), a revision based on the hypothesis that what the spectral lines of hydrogen showed was applicable to ALL elements taken to together, as the basic gravitational principle of their construction. That Table has been online at LexiLine for many years and no one has paid any attention to it.

[please read this page first and then see the update to this page on previous similar alternative tables - I am not the first to find the "left-step" model]

In the aftermath of the alleged Higgs Boson discovery, I drew a new illustration as below, and the original revised chart you will find further below that in this posting:




Gravitational Principle Universe

The gravitational principle is similar to the now alleged Higgs Boson in The Standard Model, with the difference, of course, that as far as The Periodic Table is concerned, electrons are fermions and not bosons, as Jon Butterworth explained last year at The Guardian's Life & Physics in Bosons and Fermions:
"Chemical elements consist of an atomic nucleus surrounded by electrons. Because electrons are fermions, not all the electrons can be sucked into the lowest energy level around the nucleus.... So as more electrons are added around a nucleus, they have to sit in higher and higher energy levels - less and less tightly bound to the nucleus, in general. The behaviour of a chemical element - how it reacts with other elements and binds to form molecules, and where it sits in the periodic table - is driven by how tightly bound its outermost electrons really are." [emphasis added]
We regard that binding force to be gravity -- on a subatomic scale, regardless of how one labels it. Indeed, internal GRAVITATION was the basis of our suggested revision of the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements, 40 years ago:

THE PERIODIC TABLE

OF CHEMICAL ELEMENTS: A

SUGGESTED REVISION

Originally Discovered February 13, 1972 by Andis Kaulins 

The Periodic Table of Chemical Elements
used in mainstream science 
 is more than 100 years old and severely outdated.
It is retained because mainstream chemistry is used to it.
It does not correctly represent nature.
 
Below is the standard mainstream version from 1972
showing "God's footnotes" (typical for the academics)
the actinides and lanthanides.
For the current status of the periodic table see 
Webelements.com - Period Table of Chemical Elements

Mainstream Periodic Table 1972
 



The above table is disorderly and requires

"God's footnotes"
for the actinides and lanthanides.
Nature can not possibly work this way.
The simplicity has been camouflaged
and replaced with unnecessary complexities.

Dmitri Mendeleev originally made the above table
using the chemical elements then known
by arranging cards on his living room floor.
In his era, it was a great step forward.
Today, it is a Model-T Ford,
but people are used to using it,
and have retained it for that reason.

A "correct" table of the elements
would show the general laws of nature immediately.
 

It is in fact possible to construct such a corrected table,
showing the gravitational law at the root of all of matter,
for this process extends in both directions,

 

The Kaulins Revised
Periodic Table

of the Chemical Elements



The above graphic stems from the year 1972.
Since then more elements have been discovered,
all fitting into this scheme.
For the current status see
Webelements.com
Period Table of Chemical Elements



The principle
at the root
of the
periodic table of elements
is gravity.



The elements are formed by internal gravity,
as in the spectral lines
of Hydrogen,
where the intervals are 1, 4, 9, 16,
that is, the numbers
1, 2, 3, and 4 squared

1², 2², 3² and 4².

The 4 elements from H to Be
build one entity of 4
so that 4 divided by 4 = 1 = 1².

The 16 elements from B to Ca
build the next entity of 16
so that 16/4 = 4 = 2².

The elements from Sc to Ba
build the next entity of 36 so that
36/4 = 9 = 3².


The elements from La to No. 120
build the next entity of 64 so that
64/4 = 16 = 4².

What we see in the spectral lines of hydrogen
thus applies to all the chemical elements viewed as a whole
and subsequently also the structure of the universe generally.
The electron rings show how matter in the universe distributes itself.


The process of element-building is comparable
to a mass which falls under the influence of gravity as follows:




The above chart is Galileo and Newton revisited,
but at the atomic level, it accords with Einstein's E=mc2 energy analysis,
which is calculated as explained by physicist Dr. William Watson, DEO, U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information, in Celebrating Einstein: E=mc2 - What's the Speed of Light Got to Do With It?

"
Since the velocity of the object as seen by the moving observer, "v", is the same after it emits the energy as it was before, the only way its kinetic energy can change is if its mass changes.  Evidently, the mass changes by L/c2 - by the energy the object emits (in our frame of reference), divided by the speed of light in a vacuum squared.  Since, as Einstein pointed out, the fact that the energy taken from the object turns into light doesn't seem to make any difference, he concluded that whenever an object emits an amount of energy L of any type, its mass diminishes by L/c2, so that the mass of an object is a measure of how much energy it contains."


__________

Update, 40 years later....July 4, 2012....in the days of the Higgs Boson....

The basic logic of my illustrations above corresponds to the more modernly called "Higgs Field", a theoretical construct which corresponds in its root conception to what the Ancient Greeks called the "aether".

Forty years ago I thought that the aether of the Greeks was -- and I also think now that the posited Higgs Field is -- nothing other than our familiar (but unexplained) all-pervasive gravity viz. gravitation which governs the motion and interaction of all bodies (collections of "mass") in space. Indeed, gravitation "accelerates all objects at the same rate" if there is no resistance.

In the metaphysical sense we might view such physical bodies as "something" and the corresponding space as "nothing" in which "somethings" are found.  

Space for physicists is often defined in terms of "extension" similar and with no more accuracy than Lewis Carroll's definition of his term "WABE" (quoted from Through the Looking Glass):
'And "THE WABE" is the grass-plot round a sun-dial, I suppose?' said Alice, surprised at her own ingenuity.
'Of course it is. It's called "WABE," you know, because it goes a long way before it, and a long way behind it—'
'And a long way beyond it on each side,' Alice added.
'Exactly so.
Bodies in space are neither particles nor waves per se and that is why Physics speaks modernly of a matter wave, combining the two concepts. A unified concept like matter wave is necessary because the terms "particle" (viz. "matter") and "wave" merely describe what we are able to observe (i.e. particles, and the way particles move) --  but not both at the same time -- something called the uncertainty principle in physics.

Einstein used the example of a moving locomotive. Where is that locomotive at any given time when moving, and do we look to the front, back or middle of the locomotive when we make our measurements?

At the subatomic level, physicists face this problem all the time -- everything is motion, and maybe what their experimental results show is in fact either the front or the back or the middle of any given body, or wave of motion - like the differing poles of a magnet -  which may account for things like electromagnetism and the weak interaction being viewed as two different things, whereas in fact they are the same as the electroweak reaction.

Indeed, perhaps the "three color flavors" of quarks are nothing more than measurements of one or more identical quarks in different positions as a "particle" viz. "wave" located at different parts of the locomotive, so to speak, top, front, back, bottom, sides, etc. We suspect as much, since no single quark or equally elusive companion gluon has ever been isolated, allegedly because they are glued together too strongly. Or because the theoretical model is flawed. The physicists see the flavored and colored quarks like this (two "up" quarks (U) and one "down" quark (D) -- surely one of the most forced, and surely erroneous, theoretical explanations of nature you will ever see:




The Scientific American had the following image including the gluons, via the Química wiki:






What is important to emphasize time and again is that all of these are merely purely theoretical constructions that aid scientists to explain how things work.

Human theories of matter and space in Physics must also be able to account for things like light (electromagnetic radiation) or energy, which are fundamental "relations" in a cosmic world that has no singularities, i.e. no objects that are fully independent of other objects in the universe.

Everything is interconnected.

Physical "bodies" in the larger sense are not only things like suns, planets or distant galaxies, but also include the chemical elements, which
-- in our view --
provide us with essential information about how the universe works, for the rules that operate here will be the same as operate throughout the universe, only on a smaller scale.


Most Popular Posts of All Time

The ISandIS Network

Our Websites and Blogs: 3D Printing and More 99 is not 100 Aabecis AK Photo Blog Ancient Egypt Weblog Ancient Signs (the book) Ancient World Blog AndisKaulins.com Anthropomorphic Design Archaeology Travel Photos (blog) Archaeology Travel Photos (Flickr) Archaeo Pundit Arts Pundit Astrology and Birth Baltic Coachman Bible Pundit Biotechnology Pundit Book Pundit Chronology of the Ancient World Computer Pundit DVD Pundit Easter Island Script Echolat edu.edu Einstein’s Voice Energy Environment and Climate Blog Etruscan Bronze Liver of Piacenza EU Laws EU Legal EU Pundit FaceBook Pundit Gadget Pundit Garden Pundit Golf Pundit Google Pundit Gourmet Pundit Hand Proof HousePundit Human Migrations Idea Pundit Illyrian Language Indus Valley Script Infinity One : The Secret of the First Disk (the game) Jostandis Journal Pundit Kaulins Genealogy Blog Kaulinsium Kiel & Kieler Latvian Blog LawPundit.com Law Pundit Blog LexiLine.com LexiLine Group Lexiline Journal Library Pundit Lingwhizt LinkedIn Literary Pundit Magnifichess Make it Music Maps and Cartography Megalithic World Megaliths Blog) Megaliths.net Minoan Culture Mutatis Mutandis Nanotech Pundit Nostratic Languages Official Pundit Phaistos Disc Pharaonic Hieroglyphs Photo Blog of the World Pinterest Prehistoric Art Pundit Private Wealth Blog PunditMania Quanticalian Quick to Travel Quill Pundit Road Pundit Shelfari SlideShare (akaulins) Sport Pundit Star Pundit Stars Stones and Scholars (blog) Stars Stones and Scholars (book) Stonehenge Pundit The Enchanted Glass Twitter Pundit UbiquitousPundit Vision of Change VoicePundit WatchPundit Wine Pundit Word Pundit xistmz YahooPundit zistmz