The Uncertainty Principle, Physics, And The Higgs..
..
The Uncertainty Principle says that to observe a particle you must change it so much in subatomic physics the information you seek is not seen. There are many who have even said that in subatomic physics a particle doesn't even exist till you measure it, and if so, the observer would be all powerful, all would be democratic, and men, republicans,and royals would be nontexistant (mom knows!). As I say about my Foundations of Physics, all physics seems to be from a basic low energy field (If a woof could talk he would say, "Sue the neighbors! We'll collect in dog afterlife!) This would be why and how energy conservation and other such motifs like the uniformity of physics work for all the forces. Gravity speaks all the other forces but the other forces are less cosmic so gravity would be the foundation and the force from which all the other physics would be derived. Thus the gravity would implode to a certain level so the field is more implosive than explosive generally. Energy wouldn't be expanding out and fizzing away from the cosmos so energy is conserved at greater distances. But if it implodes too much it would also be disappearing e.g. into a super massive implosion so it would have to implode just to a certain density like that of electromagnetism and then expand outward so the expansive force would balance the implosion at another wavelength, like solar gravity and radiance. To make stronger more dense forces there would be more implosion of the same field, then more expansion, but not as much as the implosion so the mass wouldn't evaporate out. The implosion would be more fundamental than the rebounding because an implosion holds mass together in stable cohesion. Straight line motion outward alone would never be stablized and implosion is self limiting with a surface. Exobiologists say a surface is essential to life. So we wouldn't be here without more implosion than expansion. In this vision of physics the foundation field of mass implodes to electromagnetic energy, which would then expand out somewhat and is then imploded in more to make the strong force and so on. You have the basic field and it being simple always implodes to the same energy of the electron and this also obeying energy conservation with more energy would then always implode to the mesons and baryons of the same mass, and generally the same strength of the forces would always be created out of the same foundation field it's also constant. The first field is axiomatic and could have any strength, so it and the derived fields of the other strengths would also be determined by just when they would also expand after a certain amount of implosion, mostly the level of expansion would be derived from the implosion because it's more important. Even so the implosion expansion ratio is also mostly arbitrary because how much implosion and when and how much expansion would then take place is at the level of axiom (like the debate about whether Mamma will start selling cozy and fuzzy army boots!). This means even with the foundation field being more of worth this would determine mostly by it's resonance what the strengths of the other fields are. In subatomic physics the Uncertainty Principle would thus be caused by the coincidence that the forces of subatomic physics are at the same general energy level. Einstein believed that if you had a lower energy particle you could measure the higher energy fields of subatomic physics with, it would be much the same as the light and the moon because there's no fundamental reason to believe in physics the measuring beam, e.g light has to be the same energy as the imaged mass. Like Einstein I believe the Uncertainty Principle would not be not consistent with more general physics. Many believe the cosmos exists, even when not observed! The real reason the Uncertainty Principle seems to be true would be because in subatomic physics the electromagnetic and strong forces by just luck are at about the same levels of energy. Being derived from the basic field of energy conservation, the sensor and what's measured in subatomic physics as elsewhere could be any level and this is just coincidence because it's derived from the basic level of implosion and resiliency of the main field, which itself is just in the realm of luck.

The Uncertainty Principle says the more mass you have by it the smaller the volume of space the particle occupies. One reason I agree with Einstein is about one of the standard definitions of mass in physics; mass occupies space. When you pile more mass on a usual shelf or box and it occupies more room not less. This seems to be evidence in favor of Einstein's idea about the Uncertainty causology (of more mass and more volume of room). Another problem with the Uncertainty Principle is that if you add more mass when you go to smaller to zero size the mass is infinite so all the mass around us including the field of empty space with its low power particles would have infinite mass. The way out of this problem was believed to be by way of the observation that the inside of a subatomic particle seems to go from moderate to low to"infinite" power inside the particle as the probe bullets into the meson or other mote in the atom smasher. There would also seem to be an infinity on the outside of each field stretching out to infinity. Aha! they said, "The way out of the infinite mass at 0 distance problem is just by taking the positive outer infinity and subtracting it from the negative inward infinity leaving a finite residue."

This can't be used to prove the Uncertainty Principle; It explains the balance of the two opposites quite well but it's based just on the implosion and the expansion and expansion and implosion are found in abundance all around us. Just squeezing a jug of fizz and you recieve a hug this is not evidence there is Uncertainty in how much the atoms and molecules that make up bulk matter are so the mass is mostly the same too and this doesn't prove that the more you squeeze the a stone or jug the less room it takes up, this is not generally so, and the basic proof Einstein may have used remains that at 0 size the mass would be infinite. Some have held that the collapse of the wave function would mean that you can't measure something in subatomic physics without changing it. Consider however if those who hooted Einstein realized that when you don't observe something, it would just disappear, violating energy conservation. In keeping with Einstein if we just closed our eyes and the Uncertainty Principle were true, the universe would disappear. While quantum uncertainty may be based on some experiments, to believe it's generally true would seem to be the beam the ancients believed was in your eye to see with, not science. The reason this is a good disproof Einstein could have used is because it seems there must be an underlying reality; the particles may actually be changed considerably, but not so much they interact absolutely with the measuring ray or beam used to find the information. If all the quantum uncertainy is a fundamental measure of spacetime itself not just of subatomic physics if it were so fundamental quantum foaminess would be in all the mass of room temperature size and aroma around us and the wavicles would just be waves. The particles don't just collapse; if the wave function and the observer were absolute it would seem the implosion would continue ad finitum. While the outside of the wave implodes the inside of a heavier particle remains stable and the overall motion of the particle is slower than the collapse of the wave function. So it would seem there must be an underlying "more absolute" reality in subatomic physics of more elementary particles connecting up the cosmos for energy conservation, and because all the fields would be connected up by these particles, these particles which I call rishons (hebrew for element) need to exist because of this to uphold energy conservation. This leads to the question of what and how the Uncertainty Principle could be edited up to what would then be more general physics via Einstein's causology;

As I say HERE (with the information superhighway, some say no matter where you go is always a cushy sleep machine!) the masses of subatomic particles seem to need subparticles, components of smaller mass than quantum energy to make them stable and of constant rest mass on the scale from light to heavy in physics, if the subparticles weren't stable neither would be the subatomic physics. The Higgs' particle has been proposed and it would have to have huge energy to be small enough to fit inside the radii of particles like muons or protons, this by a strict interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle. All mass in subatomic physics would have to have huge density and mass (while the short range mass might be "cancelled" by renormalization, the gravity which because it doesn't shield in eclipses can't be cancelled so renormalization won't solve the problem.) If physics would go to the beach in CT, the ships are all airships! Basic elements that are lower energy would seem to be needed to build the particles of subatomic physics, and because of the necessity of all the physics being united. The units of mass that may actually turn out to have these functions that were believed to be caused by the Higgs may thus be low energy virtual particles like the spacelike and timelike particles that Einstein himself also predicted.

Einstein believed low energy physics might be a viable way around the Uncertainty Principle where you have so much interaction it jumbles up the information. With a low energy probe would go no collapse of the wave function. To see how this could be consider that all mass in physics is (and are thanks to mom's speech, Dr. Mom) held together by some sort of adhesion or it would expand out without limit. Both outward and inward implosion are somewhat balanced on edge by something. Some force of resiliency must maintain its stability when it's not being "sensed" or it would already have expanded or collapsed all the time. This means the collapse of the wave function is held off by a certain amount of expansive resiliency, R, to make it stable. If the energy of an incoming low energy beam is lower than R max deeper inside the mass energy field to be probed, the more unchanging reality of the muon or other subatomic mass might be seen by way of its illumination. Recent experiments seem to uphold Einstein's causology about this, the value R may be of worth to see if this is proof. If the strength in these Low Energy Quantum Experiments are more than R they may be too much to be the definite disproof of the Uncertainty Principle physicists might seek. Thus by R the low energy experiments may be proof or disproof of the Uncertainty Principle. This or my simple plan people around here use, It's called Amazing Enough!!


There would be a definite range of mass for the probe necessary. If it were too low it wouldn't have enough energy to interact, and if it were above R Max it would cause a collapse of the wave function. And the mass of the subparticles themselves if made of the same building blocks when allowed for their slower energy of motion would be also in a definite range like R max and H the lower value of the interaction. In order to interact without the collapse of the wave function to uphold idea that the cosmos exists even when not seen, having much the same mass energy and wavelength, the rishons would behave much like the lower energy quanta of the beam of the value R max-H, like two AM stations that resonate well if of the same size and wavelength, otherwise no information is broadcast. Because R max-H is a not a large number via the fickle balance of the wave function to collapse it puts a limit on the mass of the rishons. No doubt the mass of a rishon can't be more than the total energy. Rmax and the value of Rmax-H also limits the binding energy. The mass of the rishon would be somewhere between Rmax and some number multiplied by a number between Rmax and H, Rmax to H represents binding energy, and since total mass energy is conserved as this number from R max-H is smaller the possible rishon mass is larger [all there is is either mass or (binding) energy) or vice versa]. But R max to H itself is small. The upper limit of mass is by R max and I believe the rishons won't be of hugely small mass because both particles and waves are common in subatomic physics, with both well proven it would seem an elementary particle can't be either of huge mass or so small in mass they would be absolutely unseeable with our machines because whatever the elementary particle is it must be able to rapidly convert from particles to waves, this is a main cause of my disbelief in a massive Higgs in subatomic physics, a higher energy particle like the Higgs must be hugely particulate so no waves may arise. Low energy quanta near in energy to electromagnetic waves would explain may things e.g how the field is shaped by the motion of a high speed starship so when the ship changes speed, what Einstein thought of as space time shapes and molds the electromagnetic field so the redshift of the light and other the other relativity fits in with Special Relativity. Information about light is being sent at faster than light to control much of the field in special relativity because it changes before the light reaches the ship and this would only be possible if the wave sending the information about the wavelength is faster than light since the light itself is at just the speed of light. A low energy mostly continuous field that is near enough in energy to have stronger influence on it would be a good explanation of this.

The physics of the collapse of the wave function may be compared to a volcano where to find the information at the center you have to roll a big stone up the side; in order to see the lava in the center, because of the coincidence the stone is comparable in size to the lava dome, you have to be cautious to not let the boulder move up with too much force. Even the best way you can achieve this often would cause the stone to cause the explosion of the dome, the collapse of the wave function. If the stone is much the same energy as the volcano, it would seem there is no way to find out about physics geology (a science all it's own!). Like a watch, a meson or muon is not just a round fuzzy blob and has many general properties (a face, wheels, cogs) and the lava flow has size sound and other ways to see which are the parameters. Like the wheels, gears and other complex properties of subatomic particles, it's obvious the particle has substructure because even if parameters of these celestial mechanics of the subatomic realm are much unalike, they're all unified by energy conservation, and to unify the physics, this substructure would seem to be made of lower energy components like the atoms of the volcano. [We hear of how the parameters may be so unfathomable, but they may be proven without a great wait if the basic elements like muons are controlled so definitely by them. The parameters may be so common they've just been ignored. Einstein believed the evidence for the cosmos in a deeper sense is all around us in common life.] The necessity of sub particles at some fundamental level are necessary to uphold energy conservation. All is one, so it would seem to need just one or two basic building blocks. The volcano has much more mass than the atoms it's made of and with more mass it has more energy. So the smaller energy of the subcomponents would be not so high energy like the Higgs they hope to see with machines like the LHC.

As I say on THIS PAGE I believe that waves are more fundamental than particles and there would be no absolute sharpness of resolution. (All the tourists in MO want to live here! This is what's good about my county!) Even so we may get to more basic levels of what I call "low energy quanta" before we find the lowest energy stable particles, all physics below this level would be wavelike and continually accelerating without shielding and so on (gravity waves). Below a certain level of maximum compression of the gravity of the cosmos (which is finite or we would have been compressed to 0 size by the infinite gravity) there would be no smaller particle. One reason I believe in the wave foundation of all physics is because as I say particles are by definition discontinuous and lead to contradiction, waves are continuous so they would be more fundamental and have many sizes to unify all the physics like with the basic field that would operate by continuous overlapping waves to cause the acceleration of 32 ft near the earth. This would explain why to the best limits of resolution of space and time we can see like in subatomic physics the manifold of space time is completely continuous and smooth. If gravity and the basic quanta were of low energy, with overlapping waves to cause the acceleration of the field to stay in motion not high energy in it's quanta it could be stable in the general rest frame to give stable mass to subatomic particles.

Light slows down in a dense field of mass, so by conservation of angular momentum, the gravity would speed up in this event. (My computer's modem is slow real slow! To conserve energy on the information superhighway, it's not just a stationary wagon, it's going to 1997 at 90 miles an hour all month!) Waves are continuous, they operate by contraction, light stays mostly the same and changes in wavelength with constant speed. Gravity being mostly non relativistic would change both in speed and wavelength with more mass. This change in wavelength in my formulation of General wave Dynamics (GWD) click here for synopses...) is like a rope that waves faster between two moving masses to move them close or away because gravity is the opposite of thermodynamics in it's math. Gravity pulls us down while the thermodynamic expansion of relativity and the more constant speed of light balance out the gravity and lift us, so relativity would be the opposite of gravity, in equal opposition.


A possible way to Einstein's low energy way around the Uncertainty Principle might be by the neutrino. It goes through miles of lead without interaction of atoms collapsing any of the wave functions, proven by the rate of the events in particle machines. If the neutrino were made adhesive enough (perhaps with more it's self adhesive forces that must hold it together to make it stable using many neutrinos combined so the wave adhesion is multiplied) it might be adhesive enough but not too much to make it to the range between the values of R max to H. I agree with Einstein about this that it's possible the wave function wouldn't collapse and more of the information about subatomic physics would be measurable. (Click Here For Other Possible Ways Around The Uncertainty Principle.).

If the lower energy particles that would make up the subcomponents of the field in the general energy range of R max-H were isolated somehow they might be a good way to achieve Einstein's belief about how to solve the Uncertainty Principle. It may be possible to find these particles in the future by the two main paths that were the road to the physics of the atom and electrons we know today; one way was by observing currents like lightning with wires and motors and measuring the currents well. Another way was Millikan's oil drop experiment, still believed the best proof of the electron. There are many examples in physics of flow of the low energy fields. For example, the flow of iron around a magnet, magnetic induction, centrifugal force and gravity, which both might be explained by the pressure of this low energy field, and the resistance of the force of a rocket motor in space to move it forward all may be explained by the flow of one general low density field. It seems that centrifugal force is by expansive pressure, expansion is discontinous and thus particulate, gravity is (often) much like this by Einstein's Equivalence of gravity and inertia, thus there would be the low energy particles moving like the atoms and molecules of air all around us, perhaps if we set up "wires" and heat them enough of these more elementary ghost particles could be used to create pressure in the field that we could measure. The progress to find the would-be Higgs particle might in many ways be like the history of finding out about electromagnetism, then on to the electric charges.

There's another way to measure the mass and charge of an electron, if we have five atoms of equal valence (0 charge, say hydrogen with a proton and an electron each) and ionize the charge of 3, the charge and mass of these ionized and nonionized atoms will change in a predictable way according to the mass and charges of the atoms and ions. All we have to do to prove the electron exists is by just measuring atoms, and even better and faster to this improved Millikan causology would be to first ionize the 3 atoms or any number in a definite ratio and then weigh and compare them to each other with something like atomic interferometry. We actually know a lot more about chemistry than just that the electron exists. Like the much higher sensitivity of power steering of a Mazda by "ionizing" the low energy components and then weighing them in comparison to each other and adding pressure of the field on both sides of the wheel or what's measured, Einstein's low energy quanta or other particle might be measured, by the change in the ratio of the masses multiplied up when boiling off these low energy quanta, this is something Millikan didn't realize and may allow us more than just his method to resolve the electron as well as to prove the low energy quanta if they exist. They may boil off a wire because they may be so low energy they would not have strong adhesion to the "wire" and would move around in free space, this could how the pressure of centrifugal force and gravity would be unified in Einstein's Equivalence of the forces.

A more advanced way to find the "element who would be Higgs" may be by using a column or tube of electrons in field or laser resonance and seeing if any jumps like the energy Rmax-H per electron are seen. (Perhaps a Fullerene type column would work well). Even with electrons quantisized, the small mass of each of the rishons, the subparticles, would be proven by the same jump of each electron multiplied up by the giant number of electrons so even though the change of each electron would be small it would still be proof by way of the total change divided by the number of electrons. This would be proof of R max-H and my improvement of Einstein's idea that not only do low energy particles exist to connect more massive physics in the room near us with the quantum uncertainty resolved, but also that these elementary particles would be essentialy what's been believed to be the Higgs. The value of R max-H is narrow as evidenced by the resiliency and stability of the forces preventing or causing the collapse of the wave function, so it's range per electron would be definite proof or disproof. With the value well proven the flow outward from a proton's or electron's magnetic field and with the value of the mass and attraction of each rishon via R max-H we might then capture the rishon in a well made of other particles since we would know just how much to slow the field to capture one or more rishons. From there we might make self assembling wires and so on like by pulling the would be rishons out the other side by extrusion to make the wire. Wires could be used for "electric or electronic circuits" or combined to make rishon solids a new type of matter, or other uses like chips made of just criss crossed wires in a simple but real small and fast chip like the Molecular Wire Chip that's just built of wires at 90 degrees. .

You may ask why use individual rishons from the electric field of protons? There is field of flow already. Aren't they much the same? This may be like the distrinction between pulling a bucket of water on the ship in 1227 bereft the chemical value of hydrogen power and the atomic value of wires and electricicity compared to general mass, in other words rishon wires and solids may have all the value of mass via the Higgs is believed to have, except perhaps by my elaboration of Einstein's idea about the low energy particles. This was considered one of Einstein's "Big Mistakes" but if it was about the element of which all the mass is built, big may be the wrong word, and mistake may be just a word also! While it's quite posssible the Higgs as they say exists, this is an alternate path the physics could take if it actually turns out no Higgs is seen by giant machines like the LHC.

As I say above, absolute change or no change both are in subatomic physics and the mass of subatomic motes would exist mostly if unobserved just as your beloved feline "if fat rest" is cozy on the FM. Even so because there is a limit to implosion of the fields there would be a smallest particle of nonzero size in the cosmos. Waves being more fundamental would be able to go to 0 size without the infinities. You may say if the Uncertainty Principle itself is not fundamental and the low power fields are of the same energy how would we get around the problems I speak of here about the Uncertainty Principle for the low energy particles themselves? This may be via the much greater range of the low energy fields that seem necessary to connect up sizes from the size of the cosmos to the smallest sizes of subatomic physics or more. It's possible there would always be enough distinction in them to get around the Uncertainty Principle in a more basic way just as in room sized physics around us. It turns out the low energy physics experiments as of 2008 uphold this idea of Einstein’s and my elaboration of it, the Uncertainty Principle seems to be a loose association, and not as general as the more definite connection of energy conservation, the necessity of the low energy fields to connect up the mass and energy otherwise seem to lead to the infinities and other problems of common sense. Gravity connects up the cosmos and so does energy conservation, if gravity is the Foundation Field and it connects up the rest of the cosmos Uncertainty wouldn't be the most general physics, the energy range R max to H seems necessary for the fields to connect, otherwise energy conservation might fail because it's a simple unifying motif and if all is one must be connected. Thus the energy of the low power components would be between R max and H, and it would seem that Einstein's low energy particle wouldn't just be plausible it would definitely exist to unify physics. This low energy Higg's causology, would have all the worth of the Higgs and the ghost particle both. The ghost particle causology is considered of real worth by many because it may replace the space time of relativity with a definite field we can measure change and make predictions about. Low energy may be where the Higgs would actually be seen not in high energy machines like the LHC.

At any rate whether my belief about Einstein or the high energy Higgs is correct, by way of these currents and wires and particles a whole new type of electronics may be created, super small, super lightweight or strong and perhaps even faster than light. .