This post is dedicated to someone who means a lot to me and unfortunately is in the throes of the battle of her life with cancer 😦  Let’s all pray she makes it through!  She has the strength to do it, but prayers and well wishes can help her get over the top! I miss you so much Skye! You have so much to offer the world, dont leave us please! You are beautiful inside and out and dont ever forget it!


I wanted to talk a bit about the possible discovery of the Higgs Boson and some scientists’ resignations that it means we’ve found all that needs to be found.  Not so fast!  Do we really even know what we found and if particles even exist?


That invokes another really interesting question……… do we actually exist in the physical forms that we do or is this solid thing that we supposedly are just a limitation of how we perceive reality? Maybe we really do exist across multiple dimensions but our perceptions only allow us to see a slice of the pie.


This is where our models fail…… we separate the subject from the environment, when in reality it is just a part of it.  And I think it’s just for that reason—– simplification.  The mental yoga, as you put it, is insane when trying to compute a continuous function.  Somehow we have to find a formula which gives us this reality we exist within.


I wonder if particles in the conventional sense even exist; let’s say that mass is just a property, and particles are just functions that act upon energy fields, and this higgs particle is just a function whose mathematical actions on the higgs field converts some of its energy into the property we call “mass” that we associate with other “particles”.  This “mass” would be measured as the resistance of the “particle” to the surrounding field of energy.  Gravity would draw massed “objects” together because, since they were resisting the energy field, they would cause localized “dips” in it and be drawn to each other (as long as they were sufficiently close).  Why do some particles and objects have more mass than others?  Maybe because they have more energy that can be converted into mass and thus more potential for producing a steeper dip.  Density would represent this potential elegantly.  This is why fundamental particles like top quarks can be so massive—– they have a much higher energy density available to be converted into mass; it’s like a pile of dominoes, the closer they are to one another, the more can fall in a chain reaction (simulating the conversion of energy into mass.)  To make Allen happy, we can do away with any reference to distance and merely refer to this as the range of the function.  The more energy that is within the range of the function, the higher the amount of mass created from it.  Converting mass into energy would involve flattening out the dip and thus would create an explosive release of energy that was merely potential locked up in the dip.   In this model, space itself would just be a fabric of energy (which itself is dynamic with virtual photons popping in and out as they are entangled with each other through wormholes) with mass being dips in that field of energy; the larger the mass, the greater the resistance to the energy field, thus the larger the dip and the larger its gravitational pull, as it drew other “massed objects” into its dip.  Eventually, mass could become so large as to be pinched off from the field of energy entirely (black hole.)  In this model, while mass represents dips in the energy field, dark energy would be depicted as spikes; as the energy of space spikes (perhaps to compensate for the dips as mass swallowed by black holes is converted into energy and transferred via wormholes), massed objects would be forced away from each other (as if they were going down opposite ends of a steep hill) and this would give us the effect (or illusion) of the expansion of space.  Now we have to determine why gravity is more local while dark energy is more cosmic…… this may have to do with the steepness of the gradients of the dips and the spikes and also due to the spikes being a holdover from inflation, when the universe was much smaller and require much more energy to create than a dip needs, therefore, while less frequent they are far more powerful and long-reaching—– they are truly cosmic!  But because of the far-reaching effects of inflation (across both space and time), dark energy still “thinks” the universe was as small as it was back then (maybe distance holds no meaning to it, and past, present and future truly become one on such cosmic scales.)  For whatever reason, the only force that can affect particles that travel through time (like sterile neutrinos) is gravity, so there has to be some connection between gravity-dark energy-time on a very basic level.



Space could easily be a “particle” within a larger “space” and so on until you get back to where you started.  Same with time.  Dimensions would be nothing more than properties of the energy created by the function of forces propagating across the field of energy.

if you consider mass as dips in the overall energy field, then the interaction of galaxies with their environment can cause the appearance of “dark” matter, a cosmic version of quantum decoherence—– so I guess size doesn’t matter after all ha:

In quantum mechanics, quantum decoherence is the loss of coherence or ordering of the phase angles between the components of a system in a quantum superposition. A consequence of this dephasing leads to classical or probabilistically additive behavior. Quantum decoherence gives the appearance of wave function collapse (the reduction of the physical possibilities into a single possibility as seen by an observer) and justifies the framework and intuition of classical physics as an acceptable approximation: decoherence is the mechanism by which the classical limit emerges out of a quantum starting point and it determines the location of the quantum-classical boundary. Decoherence occurs when a system interacts with its environment in a thermodynamically irreversible way. This prevents different elements in the quantum superposition of the system+environment’s wavefunction from interfering with each other. Decoherence has been a subject of active research since the 1980s.[1]
Decoherence can be viewed as the loss of information from a system into the environment (often modeled as a heat bath),[2] since every system is loosely coupled with the energetic state of its surroundings. Viewed in isolation, the system’s dynamics are non-unitary (although the combined system plus environment evolves in a unitary fashion).[3] Thus the dynamics of the system alone are irreversible. As with any coupling, entanglements are generated between the system and environment, which have the effect of sharing quantum information with—or transferring it to—the surroundings.
Decoherence does not generate actual wave function collapse. It only provides an explanation for the appearance of the wavefunction collapse, as the quantum nature of the system “leaks” into the environment. That is, components of the wavefunction are decoupled from a coherent system, and acquire phases from their immediate surroundings. A total superposition of the global or universal wavefunction still exists (and remains coherent at the global level), but its ultimate fate remains an interpretational issue. Specifically, decoherence does not attempt to explain the measurement problem. Rather, decoherence provides an explanation for the transition of the system to a mixture of states that seem to correspond to those states observers perceive. Moreover, our observation tells us that this mixture looks like a proper quantum ensemble in a measurement situation, as we observe that measurements lead to the “realization” of precisely one state in the “ensemble”.
Decoherence represents a challenge for the practical realization of quantum computers, since they are expected to rely heavily on the undisturbed evolution of quantum coherences. Simply put; they require that coherent states be preserved and that decoherence is managed, in order to actually perform quantum computation.