Files
memex/0_inbox/books/TWOW/html/31 Cosmology.html

957 lines
87 KiB
HTML
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters
This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<title>Cosmology</title>
<meta name="generator" content="LibreOffice 4.2.8.2 (Linux)">
<meta name="author" content="Amr Gharbeia">
<meta name="created" content="20010831;0">
<meta name="changed" content="20150722;204243141627937">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin-left: 2cm; margin-right: 1.2cm; margin-top: 1.2cm; margin-bottom: 1.25cm }
p { text-indent: 1.27cm; margin-bottom: 0.25cm; direction: ltr; color: #99ccff; line-height: 120%; text-align: left; widows: 2; orphans: 2 }
p.western { font-family: "Arial", sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; so-language: en-US }
p.cjk { font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt }
p.ctl { font-family: "Simplified Arabic"; font-size: 10pt; so-language: ar-EG }
p.sdendnote-western { margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; text-indent: -0.6cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; color: #000000; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; so-language: en-US; line-height: 150%; widows: 0; orphans: 0 }
p.sdendnote-cjk { margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; text-indent: -0.6cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; color: #000000; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 150%; widows: 0; orphans: 0 }
p.sdendnote-ctl { margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; text-indent: -0.6cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; color: #000000; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; so-language: ar-SA; line-height: 150%; widows: 0; orphans: 0 }
a:link { color: #0000ff }
a.sdendnoteanc { font-size: 57% }
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang="en-GB" text="#99ccff" link="#0000ff" dir="ltr" style="background: transparent">
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><font color="#ff0000"><font face="Verdana, sans-serif"><b>C<img src="" name="TtsOtkCLCos_01" align="right" hspace="5" width="150" height="47" border="0">osmology.</b></font></font>
By “cosmology,” I mean the ontological explanation of those parts
of the cosmos having to so with the extremes of the very small and
brief and the very large and long-lasting. We have already explained
ontologically the truth of the basic laws of physics governing the
middle range involving ordinary material objects and their
electromagnetic interactions. But as we recognized when we inferred
to spatiomaterialism as the best ontological explanation of the
natural world, the simplest and best form of any such ontology would
hold that time, space and matter are infinite. Though we left open
the possibility that a more complex ontological assumption may be
required to explain certain phenomena, the ideal from of
spatiomaterialism would hold that the universe is infinite.</font></font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">The
kind of infinity in question is twofold. Starting with the finite,
there are two ways there could be an infinite series of steps, one by
division into smaller and smaller finite units, and another by
multiplication into larger and larger finite units. And there are
three basic assumptions of spatiomaterialism to which it could apply:
space, time, and matter. Let us consider where we stand on each of
them. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><i><b>Space.</b></i>
Space seems to be infinite in both ways, as we noted in
<font face="Arial, sans-serif">Spatiomaterialism.</font> There must
be finite distances in space, for otherwise space would not have a
geometrical structure at all. To hold that space has three dimensions
is to hold that distances in it (and lengths of the objects
coinciding with it) can be measured in three independent dimensions,
say, by placing measuring rods down one after another. Each measuring
rod is a unit, and since units that are parts of the same world can
be counted [as established in <font face="Arial, sans-serif">Relations
(Math)]</font>, distance measurements must obey the theorems of
arithmetic, including division and multiplication. Thus, space can be
infinite in two way, by an unending division of finite distances or
by an unending multiplication of them. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">If the
division of finite distances in space is without end, space is
continuous. That is what we have assumed, and we have found no reason
to doubt that space is continuous.</font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">If the
multiplication of finite distances in space is without end, space is
infinite in extent. That is the kind of spatiomaterialism that
empirical ontologists must prefer, because it is the simplest
assumption. Since the essential nature of each part of space includes
its geometrical relations in three dimensions to every other part of
space, an end to space in any direction would mean that every part of
space has a different kind of essential nature from the rest, rather
than the same kind of relationship to different particular parts of
space. Not only would that complicate the nature of each part of
space almost beyond recognition, but it would also be difficult, to
say the least, to explain what happens at the end of space. As the
ancient Greeks asked, What happens at the end of space? Does a spear
thrown toward the edge of space bounce back? </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Thus, we
assumed that space is infinite in extent. But we acknowledged that we
might have to revise that assumption, for that is the prevailing
belief among bit gang cosmologists and a spatiomaterial world in
which space is not infinite is possible. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><i><b>Time.</b></i>
Time seems to be infinite in both ways as well. There are finite
periods of time. There must be, because there are cyclic processes
involving real change. Since such cycles are units that can be
counted, the theorems of arithmetic must be true of measurements of
time, including division and multiplication. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">If the
division of finite periods of time is without end, time is
continuous. There is every reason to believe that time is continuous,
because space is continuous and space has an inherent motion. If the
division of time were not as unending as the division of space, there
would be no explanation of motion, because objects could not occupy
continuously connected parts of space as they endured through time.
(And the original and still most basic employment of the calculus to
represent motion in a way that overcomes Zenos paradox about
motion would be a misrepresentation of the world.) </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Furthermore,
spatiomaterialism is committed to the continuousness of time, because
it is entailed by the assumption of an inherent motion in space as an
aspect of its essential nature. Each distance in space corresponds to
a period of time, and thus, if space is continuously divisible, time
must also be. (To be sure, it is not possible to measure space by the
velocity of light because of the Lorentz distortions, and even if we
could, it would not necessarily tell us about space itself because of
the acceleration of the inherent motion in gravitational fields. But
the relationship between space and time, though complicated in these
ways, requires time to be continuous, if space is.)</font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">If the
multiplication (or addition) of periods of time is without end, time
is infinite in extent, or what is called “eternal.” The eternity
of the world is entailed by spatiomaterialism, because it assumes
that existence is in time. That is, spatiomaterialism assumes that
the world is constituted by substances of kinds that never come into
existence nor ever go out of existence, but rather endure through
time. That is what enables it to explain change as really occurring
as time passes. Given its view of time and existence,
spatiomaterialism cannot believe that there was a beginning to the
world, because that would be to hold that something comes from
nothing. Nor can spatiomaterialism hold that the world stops existing
at some point, for that would be to hold that what exists can become
nothing. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><i><b>Matter.
</b></i>Given our ontological explanation of quantum mechanics,
however, matter can be infinite in only one way. The existence of
ordinary material objects shows that there are finite accumulations
of matter, and since they are units that can be counted, theorems of
arithmetic are also true of matter. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">If the
multiplication (or addition) of matter is without end, matter is
infinite in extent, that is, the total quantity of matter in the
world is infinite. There is no reason to doubt that the quantity of
matter is infinite, if space is infinite, because there is no reason
to believe that only a finite region of space has bits of matter
coinciding with it. On the other hand, if space were not infinite,
matter could not be infinite, at least not ordinary matter, because
there would be no room for all of it. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">We know,
however, that the division of matter cannot go one without end,
because the theory of quantum matter holds that each bit of matter is
constituted by a series of cyclic quantum events, each with the size
represented by Plancks constant, <i>h</i>. The spatiomaterialist
explanation of quantum mechanics is based on the assumption that
quantum events have a unit-like nature in which they either exist as
a whole or not at all. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">To be sure,
force-field matter, such as electromagnetic and gravitational fields,
may be infinitely divisible. But that is because force field are just
properties or conditions that are imposed on space by quantum matter,
and the quantity of matter they contain is already counted in the
rest masses of the material objects exerting them (except in the case
of gravitational waves, which are eventually converted in quantum
events as they accelerate bits of matter). Quantum matter is the
basic form in which matter endures through time as a substance. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">At
this point, therefore, spatiomaterialism still takes space and time
to be infinite in both ways and matter to be infinite in extent,
though only finitely divisible. The final question in this
ontological explanation of physics is, therefore, whether
spatiomaterialism can keep this simple form. Do its assumptions about
space have to be more complicated in order to acknowledge that space
and matter are finite in extent? Can its assumption that matter is
not infinitely divisible be squared with what physics knows about the
basic objects? And do we have to accept that time is not eternal and
admit that spatiomaterialism is just an effect of a deeper, theistic
ontology in order not to give up ontology altogether? These are the
cosmological questions that spatiomaterialism must answer. The issues
to be addressed can be separated into two sets, one having to do with
the finite divisibility of matter and the other having to do with the
infinite extent of space and time. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><i><b>Finite
divisibility of matter.</b></i> Though spatiomaterialism has assumed
that matter is constituted by cyclic quantum events in order to
explain the truth of quantum mechanics, it had to take for granted
that electrons and the nuclei of atoms can be explained in as a form
of quantum matter. This is clearly not the deepest truth about
nature, since physics has found other particles like electrons that
are much heavier, and some that are massless and carry not electric
charge at all. And it has discovered not only that the atomic nucleus
is composed of protons and neutrons, but also that such nucleons are
composed of quarks, not to mention the two short range forces
involved in the interactions of its basic objects. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The main
question is not whether the rest masses of the basic objects of
physics can be explained ontologically as forms of quantum matter.
There is not much reason to doubt that it is possible to give such a
spatiomaterialist ontological explanation, though some might find it
reassuring to see how it works out in more detail. But there is a
reason to take up the issue of the nature of the most basic objects
here. It is another opportunity to show the fruitfulness of an
ontological explanation of the world based on spatiomaterialism. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Physics now
recognizes some 38 different kinds of basic particles (counting
antiparticles, but not the three colors of each quark), and though
they are a far less unruly lot than the particles recognized by
physics thirty years ago, they are still an odd lot. Part of the
problem is that the four basic forces of nature have not yet been
fully unified. Even if we count the so-called electroweak force as
the unification of the electromagnetic and weak forces, the strong
force still resists assimilation as part of a single gauge theory,
and as we have noted, physicists are at wits ends about how to
represent gravitation as another force of the same kind. Particle
physicists believe that there must be a deeper theory, but the
dramatic progress of high energy physics during the 1970s and 80s
has come to a halt in the 1990s. And they are still pursuing the
“holy grail” of physics, a single mathematical law from which the
laws describing all the forces of nature can be derived. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The
possibility that is not even being considered in this effort is
explanatory ontology. As we shall see, by recognizing that space is a
substance, it is possible to reduce all the basic particles of
physics to nine or ten kinds of particles (including antiparticles).
Indeed, it may even be possible to formulate spatiomaterialism in a
way that reduces everything to just three basic particles — and
space, of course, as the substance with which they coincide. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><i><b>Infinite
extent of space and time.</b></i> In the direction of very large and
very long-lasting, spatiomaterialism must be false, if contemporary
cosmogony is correct, because it is currently assumed that the
universe began with the big bang and has been expanding ever since.
Indeed, the prevailing theory implies not only that the universe had
a beginning in time, but also that space and matter are finite in
extent. And some even interpret it as imply that the universe might
simply drop out of existence at some time in the future (if it
collapses because of gravitation), implying that time is also finite
in the direction of the future. There are both theoretical and
empirical reasons for believing that the universe began with a big
bang and continues to expand, though as we shall see,
spatiomaterialism can be defended against both.</font></font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">On the
theoretical side, Einstein showed how his general theory of
relativity could be used to represent the universe as a whole, and
with a relatively minor revision, that approach can be used to
represent the expansion of a universe being contracted by gravitation
in a mathematically precise way. That is the Einstein-de Sitter
model, as it is widely accepted by cosmologists as explaining the
expansion of the universe. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The
empirical reasons are Hubbles discovery of a correlation in
galaxies between their red-shift and distance which suggests that
galaxies are all rushing away from one another, the discovery that
the proportion of hydrogen and helium in the universe is explained by
their synthesis shortly after the big bang, and the discovery of a
cosmic background radiation that seems to be the left over from the
big bang (with wavelengths elongated by the expansion of space in the
interim). </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Spatiomaterialism
can, however, be defended against both kinds of reasons. Its critique
of Einsteinian cosmology is based on the spatiomaterialist
explanation of the truth of Einsteins general theory of relativity
and its explanation of the relationship between gravitation and the
other basic forces of nature. And spatiomaterialism offers another
way of explaining all the empirical evidence for the big bang and the
expansion of the universe. It is an approach to cosmological issues
that is not even being considered these days. Not only is it a
plausible defense of spatiomaterialism, but it also illustrates the
fruitfulness of spatiomaterialism in opening up new ways of
explaining natural phenomena. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">Let
me emphasize, however, that it is not necessary to defend such a
cosmological theory in order to spatiomaterialism as the ontology for
our new way of doing philosophy. What physics has discovered about
the basic particles does not even suggest that spatiomaterialism is
false, and like quantum mechanics, we could simply take it for
granted that a spatiomaterialist theory can be formulated. To be
sure, big bang cosmogony does contradict spatiomaterialism. But
scientists generally are not confident enough of its conclusions to
use them as a reason for dismissing spatiomaterialism out of hand.
Popular culture seems to be confident of the big bang, and the Church
has welcomed it warmly. But among scientists, cosmology is still a
matter of hot dispute. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">There
is, however, a point in carrying this project to the extremes of the
very small and brief and to the very large and prolonged, because it
turns up certain advantages of recognizing that space is a substance.
There are straightforward ways of elaborating spatiomaterialism into
an ontological explanation of cosmological phenomena, and hopefully
it will do not harm to suggest them here. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">This
part the spatiomaterialist ontological explanation of the world is
even more speculative than its explanation of quantum mechanics. It
is included here in the spirit of exploration. By offering an
ontological explanation, I do not suggest that these problems can be
solved in the end without the use of mathematics to calculate
quantitatively precise predictions and the attempt to make the
appropriate measurements. Ontology is a deeper explanation than the
efficient-cause explanations of empirical science, but it is not a
substitute for them. An ontology must be able to explain why those
efficient-cause explanations are true in order to be adequate. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Physics is,
however, so dependent on the use of mathematics for representing the
world that it has given up the intuitive insights that would come
from recognizing that the world is constituted by space as well as
matter. In explaining the truth of the special theory of relativity,
the general theory, and quantum mechanics, we have seen how ontology
offers a more intuitive explanation of these phenomena, one that uses
our capacity to imagine space and time to think of space and matter
as substances enduring through time and, thereby, constituting the
natural world. Thus, it would not be surprising at this point, if,
together with the enormously powerful constraints that mathematical
theories impose on what is possible, the attempt to formulate an
ontological explanation illuminated possibilities in the vague
darkness that lies beyond what is firmly in the grasp of experimental
physicists that turn out to be true. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Though I
claim that the following theories are true, I am not claiming that
the following explanation is the only possible spatiomaterialist
explanation of cosmological phenomena, nor even that it is the best.
My only claim is that it is a spatiomaterialist ontological
explanation, and it does enable us to discuss these issues in a new
and illuminating way. It explores an avenue that physics will travel,
when it acknowledges that ontology is explanatory and uses the
empirical method to infer to the best ontological-cause explanation,
not just the best efficient-cause explanation. But even before it
proves itself in that more demanding arena, it is possible to get a
glimpse of how how the world is whole even at the extremes of the
very small and the very large.</font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#993366"><font face="Verdana, sans-serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><b>B<img src="" name="TtsOtkCLCos_02" align="right" hspace="5" width="150" height="36" border="0">asic
objects.</b></span></font></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US">
Let us first extend this ontological explanation in the direction of
the very small and the very brief. The place to begin is with the
so-called “Standard Model” of physics and the inventory of the
basic forces and particles included in it. (A history of the history
of particle physics by one of the participants that I would recommend
is </span></font></font></font><a href="/F:/Philosophy/Existentialism/The%20Wholeness%20Of%20the%20World/www.twow.net/ObjText/#Hooft"><font color="#0000ff"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US"><u>'t
Hooft</u></span></font></font></font></a><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><span lang="en-US">
(1997)). </span></font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><font face="Verdana, sans-serif">B<img src="" name="TtsOtkCLCos_03" align="right" hspace="5" width="175" height="56" border="0">asic
particles of physics.</font> In order to set the scene for
inventorying the basic particles of physics, I will first describe
more fully a basic difference that physics recognizes between two
kinds of basic objects, fermions and bosons. Gauge field theories
hold that forces are mediated by bosons, the so-called gauge particle
of the underlying field, and the next step will be to describe the
two forces of nature in these terms. That will put us in a position
to list all the kinds of basic particles currently recognized by
contemporary physics. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><i><b>F<img src="" name="TtsOtkCLCos_04" align="right" hspace="5" width="200" height="29" border="0">ermions
and bosons.</b></i> The most fundamental difference among basic
objects in space is that between fermions and bosons. (It is basic to
the Yang-Mills field theories which are currently used to explain the
basic forces.) This difference is exemplified by electrons and
photons. As a first approximation, fermions, such as electrons, are
the material objects on which forces the work, whereas bosons, such
as photons, are the forces that work on them. Though the difference
is more subtle, this contrast points to the basic difference in their
roles. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">Fermions
are basically particles that exclude one another from occupying the
same quantum state, whereas bosons are particles that tend to fall
into the same quantum states. To put it more precisely, fermions obey
the Pauli exclusion principle, while bosons do not. They behave
according to Bose-Einstein statistics, as opposed to Fermi
statistics. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The
difference between them is the kind of intrinsic spin they have. Spin
is the quantum mechanical version of a rotating object with an
electric charge. It is a measure of the magnetic moment exerted by
the particle when a magnetic field is imposed on it. But there are
two different kinds of spin, distinguishing fermions and bosons. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The Pauli
exclusion principle holds of any particle with some multiple of ½
spin (. .-5/2, -3/2, -1/2, 1/2, 3/2, 5/2, , ,) whereas Bose-Einstein
statistics hold of particles with an even number of spin (. .-2, -1,
0, 1, 2, . .). The spin indicates the number of different forces the
particle might exhibit when a magnetic force is imposed on it from a
certain direction. The number is equal to <i>2s + 1. </i>Thus, a
particle with 1/2 spin can exert one of two possible forces when
placed in a magnetic field, either positive or negative (up or down),
whereas a particle with spin of 1 can have one of three values,
positive, negative, or zero. Among the basic particles, however,
there are only three kinds: particles with ½ spin, particles with a
spin of 1, and particles with a spin of 0. The other values of spin
come from combining basic particles. (Actually, Yang-Mills field
theory recognize only particles with a spin of ½ and 1, but it has
been necessary to add particles with 0 spin in order to explain the
rest masses of particles.)</font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Fermions
have the nature that makes them most like ordinary material objects,
for they exclude one another from occupying the same place at the
same time. The structure of the atom, for example, depends mainly on
the Pauli exclusion principle. The various electron orbitals are
distinct quantum states, and since electrons are fermions, only one
electron (of each kind) can occupy each orbital. (The reason that
there are usually two electrons in each orbital is that there are two
opposite kinds of electrons, spin up and spin down, and one of each
kind can fit into each orbital.) </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Bosons are
the particles that mediate the forces of nature, and they are called
particles of the underlying field. Whereas basic fermions are
point-like in the sense that they are located at each moment at a
certain point in space, bosons have a nature more like space itself,
because they emerge from the underlying field to mediate its forces. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Particles
susceptible to a force are said to have a “charge,” but in order
to conserve the charge so that it does not disappear (or multiply) as
the particles move and interact, the force field laid out in space
associated with the charge generates bosons, or forces, that act on
the particle in certain ways, changing its motion or even its kind.
This is called “local symmetry,” but it is basically the
regularities about the particle that must hold in order for the
“charge” to be unchanged.</font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">One
basic difference between electrons and photons does not, however,
hold generally for fermions and bosons. Electrons have a rest mass,
whereas photons are massless particles. But this contrast in rest
mass crosscuts the distinction between fermions and bosons. There are
massless fermions and massive bosons.</font></font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Though most
fermions have rest mass, there is one set of fermions that, as far as
physics can tell, do not have any rest mass at all. They are called
“neutrinos,” which are affected only by the weak force (see
below). Theory does not require them to have a rest mass, and
experiments have made it clear that the maximum mass they can have is
about 12 eV.<sup><a class="sdendnoteanc" name="sdendnote1anc" href="#sdendnote1sym"><sup>i</sup></a></sup>
With a spin of ½, neutrinos should have two possible orientations of
spin, but in this case, having opposite orientations of spin is what
distinguishes each kind of neutrino from its antineutrino. Normally,
antiparticles have opposite electric charges, but neutrinos have no
electric charge, and the opposite orientation of spin is equivalent
to having an opposite weak charge. The neutrino has left-handed spin
in the direction of its motion, and the antineutrino has right-handed
spin. They are mirror images of one another. (As massless particles,
the fact that each kind of neutrino has only one orientation of spin,
despite having a spin of ½, could be explained in much the same way
as it is explained in the photon: one orientation of spin is lost
because they move at the velocity of light, because they cannot stop
to turn around so that they can interact from the other direction.) </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Though
photons are massless, there are bosons with mass. Mass would be
expected in bosons that are merely fermions locked together in a way
that neutralizes (or combines) their opposite orientations of space
so that they have a net spin that is an even number, such as the
helium atom. But bosons that are basic particles mediating the forces
of some underlying field are expected to be massless, and thus, the
discovery that the bosons mediating one of the basic forces of nature
have rest mass (the weak force) posed a problem that had to be
overcome. Let us turn, therefore, to the basic forces of nature. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><i><b>B<img src="" name="TtsOtkCLCos_05" align="right" hspace="5" width="200" height="31" border="0">asic
forces of nature.</b></i> Physics recognizes four forces in nature
(gravitation, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the
weak force), and attempts to knit a mathematical description of them
into a single, uniform deductive system have used the mathematics of
gauge field theory (Yang-Mill gauge invariance). Since bosons are the
kind of particle that emerge from the underlying field to mediate
those forces, they can be called gauge bosons. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><i>Electromagnetic
force.</i> We have already seen how the electromagnetic force can be
explained ontologically, and in passing, I have mentioned the gauge
field theory of electromagnetic interactions. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Basically,
the electric charge is represented as having an orientation in a
complex field, and the electromagnetic forces affecting it are what
is required for local symmetry, that is, for the charge to keep the
same orientation in the complex field as the particle changes
location in space. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">What I have
described as the force field matter of an object with rest mass is a
way of referring to the electric charge of such a particle, and the
gauge field theory about how it works can be explained ontologically
by thinking of the force field matter of an electric charges as
something that is imposed on space in a cyclic way as time passes, as
if the force were sent out from the object in regular pulses. If the
pulses of all negative charges throughout the universe were
synchronized, it would be possible to explain what is meant by
“orientation in a complex field,” for it would be the phase in
that cycle. Negatively charged particles would all be pulsing at the
same time, jointly setting up the force field in which they are
located. The pulses would propagate at the velocity of light, since
they are mediated by the inherent motion in space. And since the
force field that acts on the charged object is pulsating, its charge
must remain synchronized with the field, even though the particle may
be changing locations in space. Gauge bosons emerge from the field to
keep the charge synchronized, but they can do so only by exerting
forces on the particle that can change its motion, accelerating it in
one direction or another. Those forces are the electric and magnetic
forces described by Maxwells equations, and the gauge boson is the
virtual photon mentioned in explaining the quantum structure of the
atom. Virtual photons carry momentum and kinetic energy between
charged particles and the force-field matter the particles jointly
spread out in space by their pulses. They are the spin <i>1</i>
particles that mediate the electromagnetic force. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The
difference between positive and negative charges could be explained
on this ontological explanation as having pulses with opposite phases
in that universally synchronized cycle. Particles that pulsate in
phase would repel one another, whereas particles that are pulsing out
of phase with one another would attract one another. This dependency
of the direction of the force on the phase of the universal pulsation
is the reason that there must be virtual bosons to keep charges
synchronized with the universal pulsation as the charged particles
move across the force field they help set up (the force-field matter
that comes from all the particles). </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Partial
electric charges could likewise be explained as phases relative to
the universal electromagnetic pulsation (or as orientation in the
complex field) between the extremes of negative an positive. But in
order to take account of the magnetic force, the complex field in
which charges are oriented may be twofold, and the pulsation
correspondingly compounded.</font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">[The
mathematics of quantum electrodynamics, and gauge field theories
generally, makes it difficult to figure out how a particle will move
and interact in the field. Richard Feynman discovered a relatively
simple way of doing so by identifying the path of least action from
all the possible paths the particle could follow (which is
ontologically, the path requiring the fewest quantum cycles). He
showed how it could be identified by rules for canceling out more
complicated, symmetrically opposite pathways and seeing what remains.
This was the foundation for his famous “Feynman diagrams,” which
depict electromagnetic interactions between particles as being
mediated by the exchange of photons. But the mathematics involved is
suspect in the minds of many, because the calculations lead to
infinite quantities, which can be eliminated only by hand, canceling
out those that are opposed symmetrically, in a process called
“renormalization.” There must be a deeper explanation of what is
going on.</font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">[This
aspect of quantum electrodynamics and other gauge field theories can
be explained ontologically, I believe, in a way that involves the
waves we have assumed are sent out in the inherent motion by quantum
kinetic cycles. The symmetries that Feynman uses to determine the
path of least action can ultimately be explained ontologically by the
constructive and destructive interference of such waves (much as I
have used them to explain Bohms “quantum potential”). But it
is more complex, because the particle is carrying an electric charge
through the force field, and if the force field involves a universal
pulsation which constitutes the difference between positive and
negative charge, the virtual photons must be synchronized with it in
order to conserve the electric charge. I suspect there is some such
ontological explanation, but it would take a better grasp of the
mathematics than I have.]</font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><i>Strong
force.</i> The strong force is the force that accounts for the
nucleus of the atom. Being is about 100,000 times stronger as the
electromagnetic force, it holds protons and neutrons together despite
the strong repulsive forces among the positively charged protons. The
strong force does not affect electrons or neutrinos (or other
particles of their kinds). </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The
particles involved in the strong force are called “hadrons,” both
the particles affected by it and the particles whose exchange
mediates it. The strong force that holds the nucleons together is
mediated by the exchange of mesons (such as pions). But protons and
neutrons are only a two of many kinds of “baryons” that have been
discovered by accelerating particles to collide with one another at
very high energies, and various kinds of mesons have also been found
mediating interactions among them. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The
neutron, for example, decays into a proton, an electron, and an
electron antineutrino, and there are many other kinds of baryons that
decay into protons or neutrinos, with similar kinds of debris. The
negatively charged pi meson (pion) decays into a negative mu lepton
(a heavier cousin of the electron) and an mu antineutrino. Again,
there are many kinds of mesons with various decay patterns, so of
which decay by way of a pion. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The attempt
to explain the diversity in the kinds of baryons and mesons has led
to the recognition that hadrons are all composed of simpler objects,
called “quarks.” Baryons are constituted by triplets of quarks,
and that mesons are constituted by quark-antiquark pairs. There are
some six different kinds of quarks, each with an antiquark, though
only the two lowest energy quarks (<i>u </i>and <i>d</i> quarks) are
found in the nucleons of ordinary matter. Half the quarks have a
negative electric charge of 1/3, and half have a positive electric
charge of 2/3 (with their respective antiquarks having electric
charges with the opposite sign). </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Interactions
among quarks are mediated by the &quot;color&quot; force. That is,
quarks have a “color charge” which makes them susceptible to the
color force, and quarks interact with one another by exchanging
gluons, the gauge particles of the color force. Gluons are,
therefore, bosons with an intrinsic spin of 1. They are massless
particles, like the photon. But unlike the photon, gluons are
themselves subject to the color force, that is, they exert color
forces on one another as well as on quarks. Photons, by contrast, do
not interact at all, except for their tendency as bosons to fall in
step with one another. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The color
force has an unusual strength that keeps quarks confined in triplets
to baryons. When quarks are very near one another, the color force is
not very strong. But when the distance is increased, the color force
increases along with it. And if the distance increases enough for the
potential energy (or force-field matter) to constitute a quark and
antiquark pair, matter takes that form. The quark of the new
quark-antiquark pair replaces the quark that was being moved out of
the baryon, and the antiquark combines with the original quark from
the baryon to constitute a meson, which quickly decays. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">In order
for three different quarks of the same kind to help constitute a
single baryon, there must be three different “colors” of each
kind of quark. And according to the symmetry of the theory, eight
kinds of gluons are needed to mediate all the forces that hold among
three different kinds of quarks in constituting baryons. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><i>Weak
force.</i> The weak force has long been recognized because of the
need for some force to explain the radioactive decay of natural
substances, such as radium. Natural substances send out particles
with rest mass from time to time which can be detected, and since
that suggested that they were somehow coming apart, a force was
needed to explain how it could happen. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The weak
force was soon also used to explain the decay of hadrons (baryons and
mesons) into more common particles, such as neutrons, protons,
electrons, and neutrinos, which were observed in high energy
collisions of particles in accelerators. Indeed, there are also
higher energy particles like the electron, such as the muon and tau
particle, which decay into the electron and an antineutrino (or if
they are positively charged, decay into a positively charged
electron, or positron, and neutrino), and those decay patterns were
also attributed to the weak force. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">In order to
explain these decay patterns on the model of gauge field theory, it
was recognized that every kind of particle carries a “weak charge,”
which makes it susceptible to the weak force. The weak force is
mediated by a kind of particle, which was originally called the
“intermediate vector boson,” but is not referred to as the “weak
boson” or “weakon.” As the gauge particle of the weak force,
the weakon is a boson with spin 1, and in order for electric charge
to be conserved in decay by the weak force, there had to be two
different kinds of weakons, one with a positive and one with a
negative charge (W<sup>- </sup><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">and</font>
W<sup>+)</sup>. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">It is
called the weak force, because it is so much more difficult to make
particles interact in this way than by the strong force (or even that
the electromagnetic force, which is about 100 times weaker than the
strong force). (The weak force is about 10<sup>-6</sup> times the
strength of the strong force, whereas the electric force is 10<sup>-2</sup>
times the strong force.) According to recognized principles, the
weakon could still actually be a force comparable in strength to the
photon, if the weakness of the weakon were due to having a
considerable mass. But the assumption that the weakon had such a mass
spoiled the gauge theory: the weakon could no longer represented by
Yang-Mills mathematics. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">In one of
the most famous discoveries of the past few decades, Weinberg and
Salam independently discovered a way to give the weakon a mass
without spoiling its role as the particle of a gauge theory. This was
to postulate the so-called Higgs boson and to assume that such
particles exist everywhere in space. The Higgs boson has a spin of 0,
lacking any orientation at all in a magnetic field. But to postulate
their existence everywhere in space was to postulate the existence of
a new field that has minimum energy when it is exerting a force
everywhere in space. That force could be used to explain why a boson,
such as the weakon, that is otherwise massless has a mass. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Weinberg
recognized that this explanation of the mass of the weakon implied
that, in addition to the negatively charged and positively charged
weakons, there is a weakon that does not carry an electric charge at
all (<i>Z</i><sup><i>0</i></sup>). Interactions involving the <i>Z</i><sup><i>0</i></sup>
would not change the electric charges of the particles, but only
their motion, as in an elastic collision, and when evidence for such
“neutral currents” was found, it was recognized that Weinberg had
discovered a theory that explained both electromagnetism (how charges
interact by way of virtual photons) and the weak force (how particles
generally interact by way of virtual weakons). It is sometimes called
the “electroweak force.” (The color force, however, resists
assimilation to that theory. Though it is possible to construct the
appropriate equations describing gluons as the gauge particle
mediating interactions among quarks (and gluons), it has not been
possible to figure out what the equations imply.) </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><i>Gravitation.
</i>The success of gauge field theories in representing the other
forces of nature has led to attempts to represent gravitation as
force that is likewise mediated by the exchange of particles from an
underlying field. The “charge” on which the gravitational force
works is mass, and the gauge particle that mediates the gravitational
force is called the “graviton.” However, in order to serve this
function, it must be a boson with a spin of 2, and the attempt to
integrate this force with the other three forces of nature what has
led to superstring theory and the belief that there are as many as
ten dimensions to space. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Though the
mathematics of superstring theory is supposedly elegant, the need to
recognize additional dimensions of space, if nothing else, makes it
suspect. And it can be avoided, as we have seen, by recognizing that
space is a basically different kind of substance from matter.
Assuming that there is an inherent motion in space by which bits of
matter coincide with parts of space (and that <i>is </i>possible, as
we have seen, by the spatiomaterialist explanation of the truth of
Einsteins special theory of relativity), gravitation can be
explained as an acceleration of an inherent motion in space. That is
the spatiomaterialist explanation of Einsteins general theory of
relativity. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">This is a
radical departure from contemporary physics, because without
recognizing that space is a substance, it has no other way to explain
gravitation than as just another field that holds among particles.
That is what leads to the belief that gravitation is mediated by
gravitons and poses what is the most formidable problem for
contemporary physics: connecting gravitation with the other forces of
nature. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Substantivalism
about space makes it possible, however, to explain basic particles in
a way that may be similar to superstring theory, but without the
extra dimensions. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><i><b>C<img src="" name="TtsOtkCLCos_06" align="right" hspace="5" width="200" height="29" border="0">atalogue
of basic particles.</b></i> Let us catalogue the basic objects that
are currently recognized by physics, and then we shall see how we
might account for all of them quite simply, given our ontology. The
objects that are currently taken to be basic include both bosons and
fermions. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">The
bosons are the particles mediating the forces. According to current
gauge theories, there are bosons for each of the four forces,
including the graviton to mediate the gravitational forces. (See
diagram of Basic Particles of Physics.)</font></font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><img src="" name="BasicParticles" align="bottom" width="504" height="347" border="0"></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Current
explanations of the weak force requires the postulation a Higgs
boson, with a spin of 0, to give weakons (and other particles) their
rest masses.</font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Three
weakons mediate the weak force: W<sup>+</sup>, W<sup>-</sup>, and Z<sup>0,</sup>
each with a spin of 1. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The photon
is the gauge boson that mediates the electromagnetic force. It also
has a spin of 1. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Eight
gluons mediate the color force, each with a spin of 1. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The
graviton is the boson that is supposed to mediate gravitational
forces, but it can be set aside, since I have already explained
gravitation without the need for any such particle.</font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">Fermions
are particles that obey the Pauli exclusion principle and have a
point-like location in space. There are two broad classes, leptons
and hadrons. The hadrons are distinguished by their susceptibility to
the strong force, while leptons are immune. Electrons are the most
famous members of the lepton group. Their masses are well defined,
and their name, meaning “light ones,” comes from being so much
lighter particles than hadrons (and even than quarks). But some
physicists suspect that neutrinos may not be quite massless. There
are six leptons in all, and each has an antiparticle. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The first
family of leptons includes the electron and the electron neutrino.
The electron has a charge of 1 and a mass of 0.5 MeV/c<sup>2</sup>,
whereas the electron neutrino has no charge and there is not much
reason to believe it has any mass at all. The antiparticle of the
electron is the positive electron, or positron, with a charge of +1,
and the antiparticle of the electron neutrino is the electron
antineutrino, with neither charge nor rest mass. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The second
lepton family is composed of the muon and the muon neutrino. The muon
has a negative charge and a mass of about 106 MeV/c<sup>2</sup>,whereas
the muon neutrino has no charge and no rest mass. Again, both members
of this family of leptons have an antiparticle, the positively
charged muon and the muon antineutrino, without any charge or rest
mass. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The third
lepton family is composed of the tau particle, with a negative charge
and a mass of 1784 MeV/c<sup>2</sup> and the tau neutrino. Both have
antiparticles with properties similar to the first two families of
leptons. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">Hadrons
are the objects affected by the strong force, and they are made of
quarks, as we have seen. (Baryons have three quarks each, whereas
mesons are made up of a quark and antiquark.) Let us inventory the
quarks, since hadrons have already been reduced to them. Most
commentators are struck by how the quarks also fall into three
families, with two particles each, both with antiparticles. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The first
family of quarks includes the d and u quarks, and an antiparticle for
each. The d quark has a charge of -1/3, while the u quark has a
charge of +2/3, setting the pattern for all three families. The
masses of quarks are not well defined, because they cannot be
released from confinement in baryons or mesons, but the d and u
quarks do not appear to be over 100MeV/c<sup>2</sup> (and may be
considerably less). Their antiparticles are antiquarks, with opposite
electric charges, that is, anti-d, with +1/3 and anti-u, with 2/3.</font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The second
family includes the s quark and the c quark, and their antiparticles.
The s quark, with a charge of 1/3, resembles the d quark, but it
has a mass of about 200 MeV/c<sup>2</sup>. The c quark likewise
resembles the u quark, except it has a mass of about 2000 MeV/c<sup>2</sup>.
Their antiquarks have the same masses, but opposite electric charges.
</font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The third
family includes the b and t quarks. The b quark resembles the d and s
quarks, with a charge of 1/3, while the t quark, with a charge of
+2/3, resembles the u and c quarks. Again the main difference is in
mass. The b quark has a mass of about 5000 MeV/c<sup>2</sup>, while
the t quark has a mass of about 175000 MeV/c<sup>2</sup>. Their
antiquarks have opposite electric charges. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">The
accompanying diagram listing all the basic particles recognized by
physics suggests the deep symmetry that is believed to hold between
the quarks and leptons. Each has three families; two members have
different electric charges; all particles have antiparticles, and all
are subject to the weak force. Together with the bosons required for
the three forces of nature, including gravitation, there is a total
of 38 particles. (But there are only 37 to explain, since gravitation
has already been explained by the nature of space as a substance.)</font></font></font></p>
<div id="sdendnote1">
<p lang="en-US" class="sdendnote-western" style="margin-top: 0cm; margin-bottom: 0.25cm">
<a class="sdendnotesym" name="sdendnote1sym" href="#sdendnote1anc">i</a>
Fermi postulated the neutrino as massless, and the only reasons for
thinking it has a mass at all is that makes it possible to fit them
into the current gauge theories of the basic forces more easily and
if they have a mass, it may mean that there is enough mass in the
universe for gravitation to cause a contraction, or at least, bring
the expansion to an end. Neither of these reasons carry any weight
on our approach, and thus, we assume that neutrinos are massless and
travel at the velocity of light.</p>
</div>
</body>
</html>