In ancient Greece Zeno believed if the world was many and not one paradoxes arose;
problems of expansion that lead to infinite expansion of space because of essentially is entropy of the many particles of thermodynamics. These disproofs of the many were about the apparent unlimited division of subatomic particles (held in one by the then unknown force of gravity). Unstopped division of subatomic physics via entropy (flow of heat mostly from hot to cold) would lead to more and more infinite wheels in wheels. And the room between the wheels would expand out to infinite distance, this was the ancient greek observation of entropy in common life. "If the Existant is Many, it must at once be infinitely small and infinitely great-infinitely small because its parts must be indivisable and therefore without magnitude; infinitely great because, that any element having magnitude may be seperate from any other part, the intervention of a third element having magnitude is necessary, and that this third part may be separate from the other two the intervention of the other parts having magnitude is necessary, and so on ad finitum." Another of the paradoxes is "if all is in space, space must be in space, and so on ad finitum.".
This type of problem is solved by physics out of reach to Zeno about the gravity holding off the cosmic expansion.
~~~
problems that lead to disproof by contradiction
Zeno used many paradoxes like the above about the unlimited division and the unlimited expansion both to disprove the many. Even so general contradiction is found in all of physics, like Newton's Law of action and reaction, or energy conservation caused by a balance of opposites like a scale to weigh mass and energy, so this is actually proof of all there is so it can't be disproof of anything. When you ask which of the two opposite truths is greater like with experiments to see if explanations are valid, contradiction without experiments can't always be used as disproof, so general contradiction without evidence is not proof of Zeno.
With the "liar paradox" of the ancient greeks, if someone says he's lying, if he's lying, he's lying, and if he's telling the truth about lying, so he's both lying and telling the truth, with two opposite motifs in the same sentence. This idea was used by 20th century polymaths to supposedly prove that essentially nothing makes sense or can be proven about anything, and that all is infinite, as in Godel's Incompleteness theorem. If you have one and minus 1 on the number line and put a minus before the 1, it's minus 1, and with another minus before the minus 1, if it's minus 1 it's minus 1, but if it's minus minus 1, it's plus 1. While this is the form of the Liar Paradox, it only holds up till you measure what the numbers on the line are made of, here you'll find like men and women, cool and hot, bad and good that plus and -1 are always unalike in real life, this mostly solves the Liar Paradox and is why I believe mass and energy aren't quite the same as Einstein thought. If mass is the minus one and energy is the +1 and electric charges were thus the same, true and false would be the same as in the Liar Paradox. With a subatomic particle of 0 charge overall it's found that the magnetic field of the two opposite charges that make of the composite particle is not quite 0, this would be disproof to some extent of Einstein's idea that mass and energy are Equivalent, in truth this disproof of the equivalence of matter and antimatter seems to be another disproof of the absoluteness of relativity.
Contradiction is not disproof, but one of the two opposites will be of more worth than the other, there are no waves and particles at the same place and time even though there are always pairs of both like action reaction pairs of mass and energy, so energy conservation holds well. Even so the contradiction of the balance of opposites exists and to explain them of necessity must involve compromise. There really must be two opposites at the same place and time to some extent, otherwise there are paradoxes and there would be no way the opposites could all be unified by energy conservation, paradoxes must be used to explain paradoxes, and this is the truth but it doesn't mean physics all around us is infinite. Thus it would seem the cosmos is just somewhat paradoxical but not infinitely so.
Problems that lead to disproof by an infinity of smallness
e.g. if the many exists, when a slow and fast speed were compared like the famous runner and tortoise, both speeds would have to cross an infinity of points to go from one point to another. And since infinity is infinity, all motion would be at the same speed with the assumption of infinite points between two regions of space. Newton supposedly solved this by assuming that as you divide the points, they would have smaller and smaller size to fit an infinite number of particles in so the infinite room was solved. While there would be an infinity of particles within particles in number, they would have smaller and smaller size to fit in a usual space like our usual room around us.
Einstein believed mass/energy and space/time are unified. So another problem with Newton's solution of Zeno's paradox (in light of Einstein) is about the mass of the particles. If you go to smaller and smaller size, you have more and more particles, they are distinct, and this is a property of the particles. Indeed any property of infinite particles within particles would take some mass and energy to maintain it because of the unity of the mass and energy and space time. But with the infinite particles this would cause infinite mass of the usual mass around us by way of the combinations of any property the particle would have and this is not so. And like with Zeno all motion would be the at the same speed.
So while Zeno is disproven by gravity, and contradiction is not disproof, the third problem of the paradoxes because of all motion being at the same speed was not solved by Sir Issac.
The conclusion by this would seem to be, because paradoxes are more of worth and necessary to solve than more unified math and the infinity of uniform motion not being solved if there is no smallest particle, a smallest elementary particle must exist.
_______
It would seem by Zeno there can be no ultimate particle because if there were it would be unchanging and solid so it couldn't interact; all the change around us can't be built out of absolute particles. At least they must change somewhat, meaning they would seem more divisable, and so on to infinity, with the same problem of all motion and distances being the same.
With no smallest particle there would be infinite particles within particles having infinite mass which has not been observed. This means there both must be a smallest and not be a smallest particle.
But with waves or particles one or the other will be more of worth than the other, just as beauty is of higher worth than what's ugly.
Even though there would be a true elementary particle like the Higgs, waves by the above are more fundamental, one or the other would be moreso. Einstein's gravity waves would be smaller yet, with no resistance when they flow between the most elementary particles, explaining why gravity doesn't shield much eclipse after eclipse as in the age since historians wrote about the eclipses hours of time in ancient times, with no slowing down of the moon. (The founder of ancient greek philosophy one of "The Seven Wise Men" of ancient greece got much fame by stopping an ancient war in battle by knowing when there was an eclipse, to the suprise of the combatants who were calmed!) If the elementary waves were much solid gravity would shield. Gravity is continuous like a wave because smooth waves alone operate by continuous contraction, the basic foundation field. All particles interact by gravity, the most important cosmic force.
It might seem that the problem of the infinity of the particles at the limit would be solved by just making the force that would hold each particle together or make them distinct also become smaller and smaller so it would converge to waves at the limit. But there would still be the problem of all motion being infinite and the same as in the above about Zeno.
If waves are indeed more fundamental this idea may throw light on how and why they are. While particles would need force to make them smaller and smaller and keep them distinct, waves being of larger size or many sizes would be able to operate with less friction, more self sustaining and so would be more fundamental. Gravity would be "cosmic". It would keep all the thermodynamic entropy from winding down via the Second Law of power conservation over infinite time by attraction. You may say, gravity is finite, what's so amazing about this? If you wind up a watch, what's so unusual about it? Well, you exist for a while and wind up the watch, but the cosmos winds itself up and exists forever. It's infinite (in time). At least in the sense of the gravity, its an immortal life that powers all that exists. While there will be science up to the level of the foundation force, there may never be science beyond this level .
Usual mass around us is seen with the probe of light much smaller than the mass measured by the light. Einstein's conclusion about the Uncertainty Principle may have been that it would be just a coincidence if gravity is the foundation force. The value of the strength gravity would have that would attract via pressure up to the power of the electric field and then to the strong force and higher, is arbitrary. So the strength of the the strong force and electromagnetism energised up to at near the same power level is a sort of coincidence. Gravity is axiomatic, being the cause of all the cosmos because of the conservation laws and the unity of energy conservation and conservation of momentum and other laws like the uniformity of physics. As I say in my Three Foundations of The Cosmos link, by the evidence for the conservation laws of subatomic physics, I think gravity the lowest power field energises up to the power level of the electric field which then energises up to the strong force and so on with all the forces via this basic field as one by energy conservation.. It creates the electric field by attraction and then the electric field would create the strong force. So all three forces and the relative strength of particles and beams to see them that have to be made of these forces in subatomic physics is just luck as Einstein thought and not fundamental. If gravity (by luck) had another value, the forces might be much distinct like with usual mass and light to measure it and the Uncertainty Principle is like via Einstein.The probe is just at near power with the measured subatomic mass by coincidence of how much the basic field would bunch up to make the other forces. So for more general physics the sub particles of subatomic physics like the Higgs the smaller mass would have smaller size, and more mass would occupy more room, like the usual masses around us. Gravity and/or the Higgs and/or the graviton in the discontinous particles, not the waves (they may be all the same) would use low uncertainty to be the cosmic source of all the other forces. If you go to many lands and you have an international language, it probably wouldn't be a sloppy translation. All is one in the basic field and this would need a causal link by definition at least in the noncontinuous realms of the field. The subparticles of gravity would have many sizes to attract all masses great and small, so beyond a certain level of power, the smaller the particle or wave the smaller the size, because you would be able to measure a large particle with another without much influencing it. This was Einstein's explanation, and more recent low energy quantum experiments seem to uphold it. But waves would be more fundamental yet and this would also solve the wave particle duality.
The problem of the loops are disproof of the Uncertianty Principle; if by it when you go to a smaller and smaller radius of a particle the mass is more and more. So a particle of indefinite or 0 size would be infinite in mass. The lack of infinite gravitational mass of subatomic particles with gravity not shielding is disproof of the Uncertainty Principle.
.
More About the Higgs
The Higgs particle was named after physicist Peter Higgs about 40 years ago. Most physicists think the Higgs is a real way to explain what causes mass. Some name the Higgs "The God particle" since most of the properties of subatomic physics and all the rest of the cosmos from this may be derived from the Higgs. While they haven't yet found the Higgs it's believed it would operate by how it adds it's own multiplying force to the elementary particles of subatomic physics. While I think it's not impossible the Higgs exists, it may be more of 2nd or 3rd level of mass than a more general idea-mass is spinning energy in my formulation, and energy is just more linear mass. This is what we find all around us in the world, not a god particle or the ultimate foundation yet. What is the Higgs (or it's equivalent) made of itself? Because of Zeno's conclusions it must be made of smaller subparticles, and these made of smaller subparticles, ad finitum. The main limit would be of field compression; if the cosmos is finite and hasn't engulfed us in infinite energy it can just compress so much by gravity, no smaller subcomponent particles than that of the most dense particles of the maximum compression, no more. But gravity waves are what would cause the compression and they would not be made of the Higgs, the Higgs would be made of the compression, the Higgs is a particle more than a wave, even so both the most elementary particle and the waves would both be made of either spinning or linear motion, and motion not the Higgs is the most elementary, other physics would be beyond the Higgs. What would be the Higgs may control a lot, but combinations of the most elementary particles with the low energy waves could be of more use, e.g. to control "currents" of super small superlightweight or superdense wires made of the Higgs.
You may know it's easier in subatomic physics by Einstein's E mc2 to convert mass (of durable discontinuity) to energy (smooth waves) than a like amount of energy to mass (Particles are more about mass because they attract to solid elements and energy is the opposite because energy lifts us and the earth's mass being the opposite, implodes ). But this is just in subatomic physics. For the more general physics of gravity and the cosmos on a large scale, It's easier to convert the waves of gravity to mass by compression. If gravity didn't win out overall over the subatomic physics like entropy, without more implosion to have caused the subatomic fields, the cosmos would have lost power and energy conservation would have been violated. We couldn't be here if gravity were not with implosion always outdistancing the outward expansion of thermodynamic entropy.
The cosmos would start to maintain the all by the implosion, it being more of cosmic worth, and then expand when compressed beyond a certain compression by heat, fusion or other force. If it started to expand as the first of my motifs of the cosmos, the expansion would violate energy conservation because all power would have been fizzed out with no attraction of the cosmos by definition. While the implosion of the field is used to explain the cosmos, and the expansion then would balance the attraction, the gravity must always win long range so gravity is the field of most international worth and more. Because waves with more volume of room occupied are generally longer range than particles, the waves of gravity would outdistance masses, and good news! No mass or us will ever fall out of the cosmos!
Mass must be derived from one field to unify all the physics and explain the uniformity of nature and energy conservation, and so on, so gravity is more attractive so it's more continuous like a wave. But the graviton, a source of solid mass, would exist also, or mass would have no source of definition. The Higgs and this graviton wouldn't necessarily be the same since gravity is of much lower energy.
The Higgs is thought to have 60 times the mass of a proton or so while being elementary.. At first glance this would seem counterintuitive, since the Higgs also would be short range so all the subatomic particles would have huge mass and a volume of space would also be of high density.
Higgs the physicist believed the mass of the Higgs particle was derived from the Uncertainty Principle. With the Uncertainty Principle when distance is small the volume becomes a smeared out wave, and the mass is also uncertain, so a much larger mass is allowed than usual. If the Uncertainty Principle is not the foundation of physics, the volume of the room around the Higgs would have a foamy continuum of electromagnetism at the slower speed of light. But inside the region if there were mass of 60 or so times the proton at any time, it would have that much more gravitational mass. It wouldn't have smeared out mass because of the much faster speed of the matter waves of subatomic physics like in Einstein's own EPR paradox or the Bell Theorem they're now using on faster than light chips in the lab. So while the volume would be foamed out by the "slow speed of light" gravitationally, all the particles being made many of the Higgs would weigh hugely more, because gravitational mass never shields in astronomy much or elsewhere so while the Uncertainty Principle would seem to allow the Higgs, the Higgs would be at lower energy than the predicted value of the standard theory of 60 times the mass of a proton. Click Here for my Physics Synopsis (faster than light, and other physics).The Higgs is of worth in the Ghost Particle Theory (I think The "ghost" causology is a good explanation of Relativity and improves it much) but the Ghost particles would have o mass in the Ghost vision of gravity and inertia that's been devised, which uses the pressure of downward flow of particles like the Higgs to explain gravity by pressure of the field made of the Higgs and to explain centrifugal force and gravity well. See my Ship and Field Theory for more.
.The smallest particles of the cosmos must be somewhat with wave properties but fundamental waves being continuous, as is known about the electron in subatomic physics would be without the necessity of having actual size. The smallest (discontinuous) elements like particles must have behaviour of both waves and particles because if they were just indivisable particles they couldn't change in any way. All around us is change, so the absolute unchanging energy of indivisible elements is disproven by this. On the other hand waves are in constant change, or gravity waves at any rate would be, they never stop or lose power. While the wave of gravity flowing around the smallest cosmic elements would be small, to conserve connectivity, a matter wave like about the electron may have what amounts to no real size, this is what they say experiments prove the electron is about. While the ultimate gravity waves from which all other continuity would be derived in my explanation has to have some particulate property so the particles are created from this wave, ultimately all other connectivity is derived from this foundation field by axiom. Here is the source of all connectivity, with gravity the foundation more than other forces and this being the source may have no real building blocks, so we wouldn't have to be able to say what or where the wave's size is. It's both smaller and larger than the smallest particle, so this would solve the problem of the smallest particle extending from absolute continuity of no resistance flowing through the interstices of perhaps the Higgs field all the way up to waves of cosmic size. The most elementary particle would be finite, and by by way of Zeno would seem both somewhat divisible and more indivisible both by the low energy waves around it. Click here for Possible ways to measure and control matter waves with machines. While the wave of gravity is more fundamental than the particles in my causology, the subatomic particles are derived from the basic field. So if the derived shielding is from the basic field, gravity would shield a bit. Perhaps proof may be in eclipsing bodies of massive stars with other stars or heavenly bodies.
See also my Physics Synopsis page >Gravity Speed of, Boat and Ship Theory, and so on for why I think there is perhaps both a dense low speed Higgs component of the gravitation and a higher speed lower density component also.
If the Higgs particle gives (most) other particles mass by adhesion, in my causology it would be a sort of mediator between the foundation field (gravity) and the particles the Higgs gives mass to. It would be derived, not fundamental by another step from the main field. If it's so much like more usual higher power subatomic particles the Higgs would exert pressure and so have friction. Gravity has not much slowup with denser mass, so just the Higgs or a "ghost" motif offers no complete explanation for gravity. I asked a professor what the electron was made of, and she said, "sol fa". I said why did you say sol fa? She said, "I'm rehear-sing to go on Star Research!"
The Higgs may be a way to put weight on, like in string theory. Like string theory it may turn out to be only able to predict some of the subatomic numbers and events (String theory is a wave theory, and waves have been old science since the time of Newton. Since a wave and a particle aren't the same, string theory may be of worth more just for the low energy waves and not be of worth for high power physics except by addition of more properties like spin and charge by more conservation laws.).
Looking ahead to beyond and about the Higgs, it wouldn't put on infinite weight by its own implosion. The inflow of field would be almost the same amount of motion of it's outflow like more usual electric and magnetic fields. The Higgs' own field may flow in and add pressure like the usual fields (if it's a particle or antiparticle), causing the expansion out of it's magnetic or electric type field, and this may make the field react and flow out making the Higg's more solid, so the field stays finite. This is also how the Higgs, even if in the Standard Theory attractive like mass, exerts slight pressure to cause gravity and it's general equivalent, centrifugal force. Centrifugal force exercts pressure and it would seem to operate by way of outward expansion of the resilient ghost particles, gravity is much like centrifugal force, so it may have the same cause, the more dense Higgs type field. The numerous distinctions between gravity and inertia may be explained in my physics by the much lower energy gravitational field that's absent in the centrifuge but exists with gravity. For instance why can you turn off the "gravity" in an elevator far from the gravity just by stopping the rocket motors but not the gravity of the earth? And why can't gravity be reversed like when the rocket motors are in the opposite motion, so we would just fall up? (While the first of these problems may be disproof of Einstein's Equivalence of Gravity and inertia, since they are loosely the same both being made of motion, linear and angular, the second motif may generally not be disproof if inside a large wheel like in the circus the motion could be used to make you fall up. CLICK HERE. for more about this. As I say on the link either Einstein was wrong about the Equivalence of Mass and Inertia, or we find antigravity, either way we all win by improved physics.) The ghost particle's internal cohesion would make it solid so it could exert pressure. The Higgs would be solid, if it were just a fluid particle without pressure, gravity would be without the Ship and Field Theory.
.
Value Of The Higgs
.
The matter waves of subatomic physics, if made of Higgs particles may be of great value. In the Wikipedia site about teleportation, they say experience with the physics is showing no reason why this won't eventually be achieved. (For example, they recently moved the information of perhaps 10 million molecules and atoms a few feet). The force using the Bell Theorem is not a strong force so the Higgs could perhaps be used to make teleportation more robust via superdense lenses made of the Higg's to focus the ray. The Bell Theorem and the matter waves for teleportation may be aided more of worth if by strengthening the field by addition of density and combination of many of the Higgs well making the connection stronger or more high velocity, and so on, sending broadband information between the machines. (Evidence that much higher densities than found in usual subatomic physics are possible is in the mass densities of the center of high power masses like galaxies, higher than fusion. This density explains the power source of the cosmic jets of these masses. It's thought they are powered by gravity, but gravity only attracts, so a stronger expansion force must be present so energy is conserved and the matter won't disappear into the faster than light escape speeds massive bodies like BL Lacs or radio sources achieve.)
.
. The Higgs would make a good microscope and higher resolution could be achieved. Since gravity is without much shielding by the eclipses, if of controlled gravity the beam could have penetration with reduced interaction without the harm of such rays as X rays, so the Higgs may be of use in health science, or perhaps to take a census of all the world's people with just one machine.
A super small chip might be made of Higgs with wires of alternation of Higgs' in N S N S so the wire would be unified by the field. Gravity's high speed may have proof in the large symmetrical masses the cosmos has on both sides by the evidence now proven by the Wilkenson Observatory which I think may be connected by faster than light force since light can't reach this distance with connectivity by Einstein's "slow" speed of light (See my Physics Synopses GRAVITY, SPEED Of , and LIGHT , Speed of).
The much faster gravity wave must be interwound well with the Higgs or other elementary particle of this type because the moon and Earth transmit information about linear and angular momenta, with energy always conserved. The Higg's being of higher mass and shorter wavelength is more like electromagnetism. Electromagnetism in Special Relativity is all about the speed of light and linear high speed motion. This is my explanation of centrifugal force, the slower speed of light and the linear motion of the moon disconnects the moon and earth, with Einstein's slow speed of light and seperate points of space and time. Electromagnetism is about more expansion long range via linear motion, gravity is the opposite angular implosion. The gravity is of higher speed than the slower centrifugal force than light, or the moon would spin outward in it's orbit.
...
. If the Higgs by control of the field may be stacked in "blocks" or other shapes, another use of the Higgs may be super strong lightweight materials that would be like what I have named a hadron solid. Since each block would be more controlled by cancelling out the usual round shape of subatomic particles by stacking a few of the Higgs, say one in five to cancel some of the force with the N and S poles reversed in the Higgs making up the solid, even if super dense they wouldn't wrap around like in uranium in one large U238 so not as much risk of radioactivity or explosion of the solid with more continous control Higgs solids may allow if the usual hadron solid might.
Higgs solids may be feasable if made of the lower power Higgs that are in the vacuum. (Physicists think the vacuum is not empty. It's filled with gravitation and other low power particles like the Higgs, like induction, why it always takes about the same time to go one distance but not another, or what a rocket exaust presses against to move foreward, the Lamb shift of Hydrogen discovered in the 50's and other motifs like this lead many to believe all the cosmos is filled with low energy fields.) Since there are no negative low energy physics or gravity would repel, at this level of power the Higgs would have no antiparticle, so stacking them in blocks might be easier, they would be non exploding but solid at short range. The Higgs must have some internal structure if they exist, otherwise by adding mass which is attractive it would implode indefinitely and the vacuum would have infinite mass and gravity. So while gravity is always positive and the low power Higgs may have no antiparticle, it would have stability because of as much contraction as rebound of the Higgs to a definite point to explain the finite vacuum. But without an antiparticle it might be stackable to blocks without instability. So the Higgs of this type could or would allow another way to create a superdense super strong solid if the hadron solid would turn out to be unfeasable, if for example due to cost of production in machines if cash machines are no more out than we are in the wind if it's 20 outside and the wind is 79 mph, so fast it won't freeze and go clunk!
Centrifugal force in General Wave Dynamics, GWD would be a sort of gravity without motive power, both unified by the ghost particles to explain how inertia is so much like gravity, and with gravity powered by the additional low power field to explain the distinctions like how a starship's force inside can be cancelled by stopping the engine or upside down by reversing the boost, and not with gravity. If the Higgs causes both centrifugal force and gravity by way of pressure of more static particles and the force is aimed upward like when you are in a circus wheel, the gravity would be stopped at the zenith, and while the wheels would be in oscillation so they wouldn't whirl you around and around, the general result might be the same. Click here for more about this possibility
~GRAVITY WAVE MACHINES (TECH )~~
antigravity/gravity augumentation.
~~~~
