_____________________
Postulate: There can be no limit, in theory, to the factor of shrinkage [in] approaching an infinitesimal microcosm.
Mental Experiment:
Question: If one were capable of shrinking to the size of a quark, for example, what would one expect to see? Answer: For illustrative purposes*, we'll describe it as a sphere the size of a basketball. Question: What would one expect its composition to be?Observation 1: If this represents the level where particles were finally considered to be solid matter (as a result of being regarded as elementary, indivisible, incapable of being made out of some combination of other things), the implied presumption is that it also represents the microscopic limit (i.e. we can't look beyond, nor does anything exist which is smaller than the quark dimension). Whereas, if an observer were capable of breaking this size barrier and further shrink to the next micro-level down (viz: .0000000001 times the size of an average sub-atomic particle), the result would yield a quark relatively the size of a planet. Now, what would its previously imagined solidness look like in this dimension? What characteristics would or could such hypothetical material take on?
Reasonable Conclusion 1: At this new 'super-sub-atomic' level, the spacetime continuum is again in evidence, establishing its typically vast regions between [what are now suddenly noticed to be] still another set of [smaller] spherical units, which may be referred to as 'ultra-super-sub-atomic' particles or ussaps. Whereof, incidentally, the presumed existence of these newfound particles, in turn, proves that the quarks, leptons, or bosons can no longer be considered, in of themselves, solid units of matter (indeed, they have not been considered thus by all).
Observation 2: We can now insert the idea of the ussap into the format of "Observation 1" and reach the selfsame conclusion, cranked down to the next sub-dimension. Moreover, this procedure can be repeated again and again, reaching the next level down, and the next, and so on, ad infinitum! (The suggestion may seem incredible that there can be no end to the depth of the microcosm**, yet it seems even more incredible that there would be! In fact, only the arbitrary reference point of the ego (observer) in spacetime has the tendency to indirectly assume a limit. And 'indirectly' is stressed here because such a limit is never actively reasoned out, but is subconsciously taken for granted; for, as soon as it's investigated, the idea soon collapses.)
Final Conclusion: Since there can be no diminished limit, in theory, to the size of conceivable globes of apparent substance, there can neither be any solid matter finally beheld in any of their relative dimensions.
This may be referred to as the Theory of Zero Mass, and it has far-reaching implications--not the least of which pulls the [already precarious] foundation of classical mechanics with its user-friendly laws, clean out from under the entire idea of what physics itself is supposed to represent! The fundamental problem we've been missing all along is the fact that we have been dealing with the effects of consciousness (viz. data derived from the world of phenomena, our sensual interpretation of it and, incredible as it may sound, our thoughts apprehending the measurements recorded by our senses***). We have been juggling, assorting, defining and categorizing merely the byproducts of something much deeper. And the mistake we're still making is, to use an analogy, not unlike the way we formerly [classically] viewed a big world object, naively concluding that what we saw was what we got--i.e. that it was utterly composed of the material which it represented to our senses...until we were capable of magnifying our focus, mentally as well as experi-mentally.
Not to suggest that this theory, or something similar to it, hasn't been conceived by any other physicist. However, it is suggesting that its methodical approach is novel, simpler and much more compelling.
The Zero Mass Theorem Formula: m = E(0)/c (mass equals Energy times zero divided by the velocity of light****) or: m = 0
* A quark is a hypothetical fragment of a hadron (which is a sub-atomic constituent that participates in the strong force in atomic structure), carrying a partially fractional electronic charge. To describe its appearance in simple terms is an impossibility; since it thrives within a complex virtual field of potential, probable and dualistic particle/wave characteristics. Therefore, for our purposes here, we will grossly simplify its apparent phenomenal event. BACK
** Or, like the macrocosm (according to general relativity), it curves in on itself. Einstein's proposal that mass feigns some mysterious linear force called gravity, where in fact it really causes curvatures which influence the paths other masses take, is here over-rode by the radical idea that mass itself appears in the format of an energy event which is, in turn, technically nothing more than a thoughtform! It has no objective reality (apart from the entified consciousness conceiving it).
One may also theorize (as an embellishment to what Einstein was suggesting) that there may in fact be a limit to the microcosm which, upon reaching it, one would then be plunged into an interval of nothingness whereupon one's 'psychic momentum' would further eventually transport its host past this interval and on into the field of--the macrocosm!...suggesting a sort of spherical closed-loop structure to the format in which consciousness itself manifests. This seems to be a neat model, and one that appears to satisfy an archetypal paradigm infused throughout nature and--as science is beginning to discover--within the artform and experiential methodology of the human mind as well. (i.e.: It boils down to the fact that we are perhaps witnessing exclusively the infinite diversity of mindshapes. This is the central theme contended by deep metaphysics; and, specifically, relates to what the Hindus refer to as the maya of kriyashakthi {the projection of forms and energies emanating from the power of the mind}.) 'As Without, so Within.'
Obviously, if the latter were true, it would refute the postulate upon which my theory is founded. Yet, it will, just as simply and even more artistically, prove the non-objective existence of matter. BACK
*** Please disregard this idea [regarding the implied transient nature of thoughts] if it is found so fundamentally disagreeable as to cause a reaction of apathetic indifference to the experiment. If the remainder of what is contended is found plausible, and if the reader so desires to pursue it further, this idea is addressed elsewhere in the website. BACK
**** Translated: Mass is an appearance of the non-event of Energy. This will likely be met with vigorous opposition, if not cynicism or even laughter. Nevertheless, it is a conclusion reached--albeit incredible--via the scientific method. Only a measure of patience and a fair dose of an open mind will enable one to perhaps come to recognize that it is a viable possibility. BACK
___________________
Return to: Quantum
Theory and Metaphysics