(A philosophy of physics section will be inserted here shortly.)
Wheeler thought that the electron (a fermion) could well
be the only particle 1, the single constituent that was also everything
else... But, Feynman tried to talk him out of it.
In the same phone-call Wheeler may have realized how tenuous his idea was, so he hung up and likely forgot about it. Feynman just smiled and forgot about it too, although if it would have been his idea, he may have held on to it.
I though, could not forget what I realized Wheeler meant - perhaps in my mind I experienced a replication of his - however short lived it was - insight.
My intuition went a little further though 2:
1. Most importantly, Wheeler's "single" particle 1 could not have been an electron - a fermion, it must have been 3 - and still is - a boson... a single and thus 'primal' boson.
2. While generating its spaghetti paths (plural!), it must have been in a multi-stranded manner, the strands initially spreading out spherically from their origin, initially forming a field similar to the shape of a magnetic field 4.
3. Through mutual interference, the strands - as they 'go along' - create and keep creating 12 dimensional space-time 5.
4. I hypothesize that that single primal boson's replications (as per formation described in nr. 2 above) are 'virtual particles' 6 that behave as (what we now know to be) fermions (electron-like) in the process.
5. The earliest events within this hypothesized 'original boson replication' occurred faster than the speed of light (which is allowed by theory)... although at that point that limit was not set yet!... and I propose that that contributed to a limit that is now considered to be the constant c - the speed of light 6.
6. As it occurred that this primal boson could generate multiple virtual particles (or their fields 6)simultaneously; the formation of the first fermion (electron-like) lead to what is now called "Pauli's Exclusion Principle."
7. I am speculating that these fermions were virtual electrons (fermions), and that at some specific limit of speed they could become photons (bosons), thereby creating the constant c - the speed of light. (This would also lead to a different but still speculative interpretation of advanced waves, Einstein's special theory of relativity, and the photoelectric effect.)
At the time I was reading about Feynman and Wheeler's exchange, I was also reading up on string theory, I loved the trouser diagram visualizations, and I knew about the then still hypothetical Higgs Boson.
I foresee that we will eventually mathematically and
philosophically, but NOT experimentally (that would be impossible)
although definitely experientially discover that there is only one and
ONE ONLY Prime Boson!
Footnotes:
1 Although I'm using - as per convention - the term "particle", this is of course not a 'part-icle per se', as it is not a part of a more original or preceding particle that may have contained or produced it.
2 The following quote reminded me of an idea that I developed ca 1998, and led me to take that idea (an insight really) more seriously... hence this article. I received the quote (via Nilesh N. Oak) from a reputable scientist who did not wish his name to be disclosed.
4 Let's not fall into the trap of 'linear thinking': linearity... it must be (see note 2) multidimensional!
5 See my article "Three-dimensional Time" (as part of twelve-dimensional space-time):
6 I prefer to visualize these virtual particles as fields.
7 From Wikipedia:
 |
| John Wheeler |
One day, at Princeton University, John Wheeler was talking over the hall phone to Richard Feynman claiming:
"I know why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass...!
Because they are all the same electron!"
A little later he added:
"All creation is a slice through the spaghetti path of a single electron."
When I read that, I immediately understood it to mean:
In spite of 'us-and-everything' experiencing, knowing and meeting each other in a myriad of forms, formations and formulations,
there is only one particle that is
DOING IT ALL.
One single actor - not the electron (which is a fermion) - but a single boson doing a nifty magic trick:
creatively replicating itself...
creatively replicating itself...
self-mirroring but...
without even a mirror.
In a flash!
That is how I comprehended it.
 |
| Richard Feynman |
In the same phone-call Wheeler may have realized how tenuous his idea was, so he hung up and likely forgot about it. Feynman just smiled and forgot about it too, although if it would have been his idea, he may have held on to it.
I though, could not forget what I realized Wheeler meant - perhaps in my mind I experienced a replication of his - however short lived it was - insight.
My intuition went a little further though 2:
1. Most importantly, Wheeler's "single" particle 1 could not have been an electron - a fermion, it must have been 3 - and still is - a boson... a single and thus 'primal' boson.
2. While generating its spaghetti paths (plural!), it must have been in a multi-stranded manner, the strands initially spreading out spherically from their origin, initially forming a field similar to the shape of a magnetic field 4.
3. Through mutual interference, the strands - as they 'go along' - create and keep creating 12 dimensional space-time 5.
4. I hypothesize that that single primal boson's replications (as per formation described in nr. 2 above) are 'virtual particles' 6 that behave as (what we now know to be) fermions (electron-like) in the process.
5. The earliest events within this hypothesized 'original boson replication' occurred faster than the speed of light (which is allowed by theory)... although at that point that limit was not set yet!... and I propose that that contributed to a limit that is now considered to be the constant c - the speed of light 6.
6. As it occurred that this primal boson could generate multiple virtual particles (or their fields 6)simultaneously; the formation of the first fermion (electron-like) lead to what is now called "Pauli's Exclusion Principle."
7. I am speculating that these fermions were virtual electrons (fermions), and that at some specific limit of speed they could become photons (bosons), thereby creating the constant c - the speed of light. (This would also lead to a different but still speculative interpretation of advanced waves, Einstein's special theory of relativity, and the photoelectric effect.)
 |
| Two particles meeting form a sharp corner (left) but two loops coming together are like two pairs of trousers sown together. (This trouser diagram has time going downwards and space horizontal.) |
At the time I was reading about Feynman and Wheeler's exchange, I was also reading up on string theory, I loved the trouser diagram visualizations, and I knew about the then still hypothetical Higgs Boson.
I foresee that we will eventually mathematically and
philosophically, but NOT experimentally (that would be impossible)
although definitely experientially discover that there is only one and
ONE ONLY Prime Boson!
I had no trouble assigning that 'Original Event Boson' a
name. Considering its original artistry and the fact that it is NOT a
particle - even if it produces them - I named it the
(p)Article
Around the year 2000 I was giving introductory talks on and demonstrating a cutting-edge computerized biofeedback apparatus in the USA (Connecticut, Georgia, Florida, Nebraska, California, Arizona, Washington State). I gave one particular talk (first in Connecticut, of which I still have a Hi8 video tape) in which I described how such a primal event could happen:
- One (p)Article
- producing a myriad of virtuarticles
- experiencing themselves and each other as individual particles
- that appear to interact with each other and thus appear as a myriad of formations, forms and formulations
- which through reflection 'reflect' on THAT of which they each are a reflection:
- One (p)Article!
The
difference between this (p)Article theory and most other 'universe
origination theories' is that in this formulation it is not an origination
theory that precludes the infinity (in fact it includes it
axiomatically) of an authentic originating,
infinite, primal, natural (as in physics) and physical entity characterized by an - in human terms -
all-encompassing integral of infinite qualities and quantities that are
usually, mistakenly and confusingly labeled as "divine" or "spiritual."
I purposely avoid the use
of the word 'God', as the usual connotations of that label are too
diverse and disperse, and will only lead to discussions which the Buddha
already indicated as being dualistic, counter-effective, limiting and
divisive.
The (p)Article is by definition:
- Timeless - as
time is a secondary and subsequent (simultaneous with space) result from the faster than
c (speed of light) 'self-mirroring or mirror-replications' of secondarily originated virtual particles (virtuarticles) in a timeless infinitely
momentous moment.The use of the word 'moment' is rather clumsy as it is only a human language approximation of the notion of a timeless, eternal, infinite, without beginning, without end and in relative human terms in a, to us, 12-dimensional space/time generating dynamic.
- Spaceless - as space is a secondary and subsequent (simultaneous with time) result from
the faster than c (speed of light) 'self-mirroring or mirror-replications' of secondarily originated virtual particles (virtuarticles) in a
spaceless undefinable locale. The use of the word 'locale' is rather clumsy as it is only a human language approximation of the notion of a spaceless infinite, non-measurable and non-definable notion in relative human terms in a for us 12-dimensional space/time generating dynamic.
Footnotes:
1 Although I'm using - as per convention - the term "particle", this is of course not a 'part-icle per se', as it is not a part of a more original or preceding particle that may have contained or produced it.
2 The following quote reminded me of an idea that I developed ca 1998, and led me to take that idea (an insight really) more seriously... hence this article. I received the quote (via Nilesh N. Oak) from a reputable scientist who did not wish his name to be disclosed.
"The philosophical speculation is: If the cosmos (and hence the laws of physics) does not 'know' when photon-1 and photon-2 are interchanged, are these two photons really two, or are they one photon with two simultaneous locations appearing like two particles? Can we then say that all the gazillions of photons in the cosmos 'are' one photon that is simultaneously present in many locations and seeming to go about in many directions, etc? Are they all mirror images of one? Is that a viable philosophy of science"3 "Must be", I will elaborate on that... (forthcoming!)
4 Let's not fall into the trap of 'linear thinking': linearity... it must be (see note 2) multidimensional!
5 See my article "Three-dimensional Time" (as part of twelve-dimensional space-time):
6 I prefer to visualize these virtual particles as fields.
7 From Wikipedia:
"A chronon is a proposed quantum of time, a discrete and indivisible unit of time. The term was introduced by Robert Lévi, and Henry Margenau suggested that the chronon might be the time for light to travel the classical radius of an electron. A quantum theory in which time is a quantum variable with a discrete spectrum, and which is nevertheless consistent with special relativity, was proposed by Chen Ning Yang. One such model was introduced by Piero Caldirola in 1980.
In Caldirola's model, one chronon corresponds to about 6.97×10-24 seconds for an electron, much longer than Planck time (tP), which is about 5.39×10-44 seconds. One Planck time unit is the time it would take a photon traveling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to one Planck length [1 Planck length = 1.61619926 × 10-35 meters]. Theoretically, this is the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible."
No comments:
Post a Comment