Which is the superior reality: the Field or the Particle?
.
It seems the more we tinker with particles, the more particles we find. Are the particles real, or are they reflections of our ingenuity? Is there any real limit to the number that can be concocted?
.
I am thinking about what is necessary to support the Discrete Incrementalism that seems to pertain to every quantifiable, digital transfer of a quantum of energy or communication of information. Transfers of discrete quanta seem to implicate or associate with discrete, mediating particles. So how could discrete changes and transfers of mass be made, without a mediating particle?
.
Our capacity to make accurate measurements of quantifiable expressions within our conserved environment seems to demand a set of properties that could support the discrete incrementalism requisite to each quantifiably recordable change. Insofar as each change in a transfer of mass is measurable, it would seem there must be some fundamental unit, bit, or smallest particle that mediates each such transfer. However, the fact that each transfer of mass obeys Discrete Incrementalism does not necessarily require that a "real particle" must exist to mediate each such transfer. Rather, the requirement of discrete incrementalism in each change may be enforced by an holistic principle of conservation, i.e., a mathematical mechanism, not necessarily a particle mechanism.
.
If so, there need not exist a smallest, "real particle" of mediation. Rather, the smallest possible increment of mass transfer may depend on a conserving relationship that applies between the Holism and the context of its then and there expression of particulars. Changing the level of focus, observation, and appreciation for the interfunctioning of particulars may change the smallest possible incremental change of recordable mass. The ultimate limiting principle may abide more in the conservational quality of the Holism and the limits of math than in any limits to the "smallest" size for "real particles." Ultimately, the Higgs mechanism may pertain more to a relationship with math than to a relationship with a mediating particle. On the other hand, so long as one wishes to consider such notions as "electrons" as if they represented "real particles" (rather than significations of the wider field or logos of the "Word made flesh"), then one may postulate a Higgs correlate for that level of analysis.
.
In any event, the agent of each transfer of a quantifiable exchange or signed communication may abide in a qualitative, iterative, proportionately renormalizing, mathematically conserving, reconciling capacity of the Holism. Each proportionately discrete re-normalization may be an upshot of reconciling a multiplicity of iterative perspectives of the same qualitative Holism. That may implicate a deeper notion of what should be meant by "Consciousness." It may also help drive atheists buggy.
.
While particles are secondarily expressed by fields, fields are not measurable except with particles. While the quantitative is secondarily expressed as traces of the qualitative, the qualitative is not measurable except with traces of the quantitative. The primary qualitative, in itself, is not measurable, but it can be experienceable.
.
.
It seems the more we tinker with particles, the more particles we find. Are the particles real, or are they reflections of our ingenuity? Is there any real limit to the number that can be concocted?
.
I am thinking about what is necessary to support the Discrete Incrementalism that seems to pertain to every quantifiable, digital transfer of a quantum of energy or communication of information. Transfers of discrete quanta seem to implicate or associate with discrete, mediating particles. So how could discrete changes and transfers of mass be made, without a mediating particle?
.
Our capacity to make accurate measurements of quantifiable expressions within our conserved environment seems to demand a set of properties that could support the discrete incrementalism requisite to each quantifiably recordable change. Insofar as each change in a transfer of mass is measurable, it would seem there must be some fundamental unit, bit, or smallest particle that mediates each such transfer. However, the fact that each transfer of mass obeys Discrete Incrementalism does not necessarily require that a "real particle" must exist to mediate each such transfer. Rather, the requirement of discrete incrementalism in each change may be enforced by an holistic principle of conservation, i.e., a mathematical mechanism, not necessarily a particle mechanism.
.
If so, there need not exist a smallest, "real particle" of mediation. Rather, the smallest possible increment of mass transfer may depend on a conserving relationship that applies between the Holism and the context of its then and there expression of particulars. Changing the level of focus, observation, and appreciation for the interfunctioning of particulars may change the smallest possible incremental change of recordable mass. The ultimate limiting principle may abide more in the conservational quality of the Holism and the limits of math than in any limits to the "smallest" size for "real particles." Ultimately, the Higgs mechanism may pertain more to a relationship with math than to a relationship with a mediating particle. On the other hand, so long as one wishes to consider such notions as "electrons" as if they represented "real particles" (rather than significations of the wider field or logos of the "Word made flesh"), then one may postulate a Higgs correlate for that level of analysis.
.
In any event, the agent of each transfer of a quantifiable exchange or signed communication may abide in a qualitative, iterative, proportionately renormalizing, mathematically conserving, reconciling capacity of the Holism. Each proportionately discrete re-normalization may be an upshot of reconciling a multiplicity of iterative perspectives of the same qualitative Holism. That may implicate a deeper notion of what should be meant by "Consciousness." It may also help drive atheists buggy.
.
While particles are secondarily expressed by fields, fields are not measurable except with particles. While the quantitative is secondarily expressed as traces of the qualitative, the qualitative is not measurable except with traces of the quantitative. The primary qualitative, in itself, is not measurable, but it can be experienceable.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment