- What Imps These Particles Be

Below I wrote:

"It is the initial conditions, equipment, procedures and methodologies, observations and theory that is 'a neutrino'.

This is, of course, "such stuff as dreams are made on".

However, once this whole is given a name it is somehow cut free of these defining realities, takes on an existence all it's own, and becomes 'a particle'. "

(Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html: "such stuff as dreams are made on", 01 October, 2011)

"Particle"

It should really be called a 'Set' or an 'Empirical Set' or 'Empirical Particle' or in the new vernacular 'E-Particle'.

Perhaps, Imaginary Particle, or I-Particle, gets the message across better -applying Ockhams Razor the correct name should then be 'Im-P'.

'Im-P' has the added advantage of once it is cut free from its context it will take on the added common meaning of the word 'Imp' = a mythical creature of German folklore that caused mischief - which pretty much says it all for a lot of particles.


Current quantum mechanics reminds me of the theories of Epicycles and the Ptolemaic Universe. These complex systems were the result of the then perception that the Earth was the centre of the Universe. Once this perception was dispelled the much simpler Copernican heliocentrism took precedence. Basically it is a change in the frame of reference, not in the observation, but in the contemplation or means of expression.

What current perception might give rise to the complexities observed in Quantum Physics. This is, of course, hard to know since it involves how you think about the world.

Personally I would look first at the Real Line - the use of the Real (Complex) Number System in the expression of observations.

The assumption that the real world conforms to the Real number system reached a high water mark with Newtonian mechanics. However, that the real number continuum represents the real world arose, it seems to me, from perception (e.g. underlying Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox - i.e. to get to the end you must reach the ½ way point, to get to the ½ way point you must reach its ½ way point, etc. - this is, of course, one of the integral properties of the Real Number System, and Zeno was not only assuming that going from point 'A' to point 'B' could be represented by a Real number line, it was so much a part of his perception that he, apparently, was totally unaware that his 'paradox' was based on it).

The nature of Quantum mechanics suggests, to me, that perhaps the Real (Complex) Number System may not be suitable and finding a better one might, perhaps, simplify contemplation and expression.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html