DOCSLIB.ORG

A 2020 Vision for a New Theory of Physics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A 2020 Vision for a New Theory of Physics A 2020 VISION FOR A NEW THEORY OF PHYSICS ROBERT ARNOTT WILSON Abstract. I offer a vision for a possible unified model of fundamental physics, based on a rigorous examination of the underlying assumptions. Where the assumptions on which current theories are based are contradictory, I offer revised assumptions that are not. Much of this is necessarily speculative, but much is supported by the experimental evidence. I omit the detailed technical and mathematical arguments, that can be found elsewhere. 1. The fundamental problems 1.1. The status quo. The physical theory of the very small is based on quantum mechanics, which is a very successful theory that underpins almost all of modern technology. The physical theory of the very big is based on general relativity, which is a very successful theory that underpins our understanding of the universe and our place within it, and is also an essential ingredient in modern technology such as GPS. There is only one problem|these two theories are incompatible with each other. This problem has been known since the 1930s but we seem to be nowhere near a solution yet. A full discussion can be found in [1]. Part of the reason for this is that the two theories have been almost too success- ful. By the 1970s, quantum mechanics had developed into the `standard model of particle physics' which explains almost everything about the elementary particles of which the universe is made. Almost every experiment has confirmed the model in almost every detail, culminating in the discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012. 1.2. The neutrino mass problem. There is perhaps just one irritating gap, and that is that we do not understand the masses of the elementary particles. A par- ticular case of this is the neutrino mass problem. Neutrinos are produced in the interior of stars, in radioactive decays and in nuclear reactors. They are very hard to detect, as most of them pass right through the Earth without hitting anything on the way. The question is whether neutrinos have mass, or whether, like the photons that constitute light (and X-rays, and microwaves, and radio waves, and so on), they are massless. The standard model requires them to have non-zero mass in order to explain their experimentally observed properties. But no experiment has been able to measure this mass directly, and it must be very small|no more than about one-millionth of the mass of the electron, which is the next lightest particle. Therefore this (hypothetical) non-zero mass is a prediction of the standard model that has not yet been confirmed by experiment. While most physicists regard this prediction as a solid fact, I do not. There is simply not enough physical evidence to support this hypothesis, in my opinion. Date: February 23rd 2020; revised February 27th 2020. 1 2 ROBERT ARNOTT WILSON 1.3. The dark matter problem. Similarly, general relativity has developed into the `concordance model of cosmology' which explains almost everything about the structure of the universe on a large scale. But again there is a fly in the ointment, and again it is a problem of mass. According to our current understanding of normal matter, there is simply not enough mass inside galaxies for them to behave in the way that they obviously do. The structure of galaxies can only be explained by general relativity if there is a large amount of `dark matter', making up nearly 85% of the total matter in the universe. There is no direct evidence of this dark matter, and therefore its existence must be regarded as a prediction of general relativity that has not been confirmed by experiment. While most cosmologists regard this prediction as solid fact, I do not. I am not alone in this, but my opinion is definitely a minority opinion. 1.4. A possible way forward? In the light of these problems, I have been working on developing a mathematical model for fundamental physics in which • neutrinos have zero mass, and • there is no dark matter. If such a model can be built, then there is some possibility that it might eventually replace the existing models. Mathematical details are presented in [2]. 2. The basic assumptions 2.1. Lessons from history. There is a close analogy here with Einstein's de- velopment of the theory of special relativity in 1905. In the late 19th century explorations of the properties of light, electricity and magnetism had developed to the point where serious contradictions started to appear. There were experimental results that could not be reconciled with any commonsense view of the universe. The Michelson{Morley experiment produced the apparently absurd result that the speed of light in a vacuum is always the same, independently of how fast you are moving when you measure it. Einstein cut the Gordian knot by taking this result at face value, and making it his basic assumption. He was then able to develop a theory which not only explained the phenomena which had been seen, but also made predictions about new phenomena. These predictions, such as the one that moving clocks run slow, have been very well tested, and found to be correct. Now it turns out that, just as Einstein had to abandon the most basic assump- tions about the nature of space and time, so we have to abandon the most basic assumptions about the nature of mass and spin. 2.2. The concept of spin. Ordinary spinning objects return to their original state after rotating through 360◦. Quantum mechanics is based on the idea that certain fundamental particles, including the electron, proton and neutron that make up all of ordinary matter, `spin' in a different way: they have to rotate through two whole revolutions, that is 720◦, before they return to their original state. This is not as mysterious as it sounds, and can be visualised with an ordinary coffee mug: if you rotate it through 360◦ on a table it comes back to where it started. Now try to keep hold of the mug as you rotate it in the air in front of you: after 360◦ you will find your arm is uncomfortably twisted, but if you keep going through another 360◦ in the same direction, you will find your arm has somehow magically untwisted itself. A 2020 VISION FOR A NEW THEORY OF PHYSICS 3 That image provides a model for how electrons, protons and neutrons `spin'| something is `holding on' to them. That something, I maintain, is the rest of the universe, and the way it is holding on is by the various forces of nature, most im- portantly electromagnetism, but also including gravity. This means that ordinary space and time are sufficient to explain this initially surprising property of elec- trons, protons and neutrons. In quantum mechanics, for mainly historical reasons, an abstract space of `spinors' is used instead|but is not necessary, as this discus- sion proves. Occam's razor, that is the principle that the simplest explanation is the best, should therefore force us to remove the concept of a spinor from quan- tum mechanics altogether. Everything that can be explained with spinors can be explained with spacetime instead. In fact I have shown elsewhere that it is the concept of a spinor that is itself responsible for the contradiction between quantum mechanics and general relativity. Thus it is not only desirable, but almost certainly essential, to abandon the concept of a spinor altogether. A further benefit of avoiding spinors is that we avoid at least some of the problems of interpretation of quantum mechanics, which bedevil the subject. The basic question is `What is a spinor?' which is unanswerable, although many people have tried to answer it. A weaker version of the question is `How should we think about a spinor?' to which the traditional answer is `Shut up and calculate.' Questions of this type go away when spinors are replaced by spacetime. There are however other questions of interpretation that do not necessarily go away, which I will come back to later. 2.3. The concept of mass. A similar problem affects the concept of mass, in the foundations of general relativity. Einstein originally took as his starting point the `general principle of relativity', that is, the principle that the laws of physics are the same for all observers. But in the end his theory of general relativity was based instead on the `equivalence principle', that gravitational mass and inertial mass are the same thing. Gravitational mass measures how hard gravity pulls an object, and determines how heavy an object is. Inertial mass measures how difficult it is to move the object, and does this by seeing how hard the electromagnetic forces between atoms push and pull. The equivalence principle therefore states that the relative strength of gravity and electromagnetic forces is always the same. This principle has been tested to high accuracy both on the Earth and in satellites orbiting the Earth, and no discrepancy has yet been found. But it is known that the relative strengths of electromagnetism and the nuclear forces are not always the same, so why should gravity be any different? Cosmological evidence from the shapes and sizes of galaxies also casts doubt on the equivalence principle on very large scales. It is therefore desirable, if possible, to devise a more general theory that does not assume the equivalence principle. 2.4. Up the creek without a paddle. To summarise the conclusions at this point, we have found it necessary to abandon the basic assumptions of both quan- tum mechanics and general relativity, namely • the existence of spinors, and • the equivalence of gravity and inertia.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Five Common Particles
    The Five Common Particles The world around you consists of only three particles: protons, neutrons, and electrons. Protons and neutrons form the nuclei of atoms, and electrons glue everything together and create chemicals and materials. Along with the photon and the neutrino, these particles are essentially the only ones that exist in our solar system, because all the other subatomic particles have half-lives of typically 10-9 second or less, and vanish almost the instant they are created by nuclear reactions in the Sun, etc. Particles interact via the four fundamental forces of nature. Some basic properties of these forces are summarized below. (Other aspects of the fundamental forces are also discussed in the Summary of Particle Physics document on this web site.) Force Range Common Particles It Affects Conserved Quantity gravity infinite neutron, proton, electron, neutrino, photon mass-energy electromagnetic infinite proton, electron, photon charge -14 strong nuclear force ≈ 10 m neutron, proton baryon number -15 weak nuclear force ≈ 10 m neutron, proton, electron, neutrino lepton number Every particle in nature has specific values of all four of the conserved quantities associated with each force. The values for the five common particles are: Particle Rest Mass1 Charge2 Baryon # Lepton # proton 938.3 MeV/c2 +1 e +1 0 neutron 939.6 MeV/c2 0 +1 0 electron 0.511 MeV/c2 -1 e 0 +1 neutrino ≈ 1 eV/c2 0 0 +1 photon 0 eV/c2 0 0 0 1) MeV = mega-electron-volt = 106 eV. It is customary in particle physics to measure the mass of a particle in terms of how much energy it would represent if it were converted via E = mc2.
    [Show full text]
  • The Particle World
    The Particle World ² What is our Universe made of? This talk: ² Where does it come from? ² particles as we understand them now ² Why does it behave the way it does? (the Standard Model) Particle physics tries to answer these ² prepare you for the exercise questions. Later: future of particle physics. JMF Southampton Masterclass 22–23 Mar 2004 1/26 Beginning of the 20th century: atoms have a nucleus and a surrounding cloud of electrons. The electrons are responsible for almost all behaviour of matter: ² emission of light ² electricity and magnetism ² electronics ² chemistry ² mechanical properties . technology. JMF Southampton Masterclass 22–23 Mar 2004 2/26 Nucleus at the centre of the atom: tiny Subsequently, particle physicists have yet contains almost all the mass of the discovered four more types of quark, two atom. Yet, it’s composite, made up of more pairs of heavier copies of the up protons and neutrons (or nucleons). and down: Open up a nucleon . it contains ² c or charm quark, charge +2=3 quarks. ² s or strange quark, charge ¡1=3 Normal matter can be understood with ² t or top quark, charge +2=3 just two types of quark. ² b or bottom quark, charge ¡1=3 ² + u or up quark, charge 2=3 Existed only in the early stages of the ² ¡ d or down quark, charge 1=3 universe and nowadays created in high energy physics experiments. JMF Southampton Masterclass 22–23 Mar 2004 3/26 But this is not all. The electron has a friend the electron-neutrino, ºe. Needed to ensure energy and momentum are conserved in ¯-decay: ¡ n ! p + e + º¯e Neutrino: no electric charge, (almost) no mass, hardly interacts at all.
    [Show full text]
  • Lepton Flavor and Number Conservation, and Physics Beyond the Standard Model
    Lepton Flavor and Number Conservation, and Physics Beyond the Standard Model Andr´ede Gouv^ea1 and Petr Vogel2 1 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, 60208, USA 2 Kellogg Radiation Laboratory, Caltech, Pasadena, California, 91125, USA April 1, 2013 Abstract The physics responsible for neutrino masses and lepton mixing remains unknown. More ex- perimental data are needed to constrain and guide possible generalizations of the standard model of particle physics, and reveal the mechanism behind nonzero neutrino masses. Here, the physics associated with searches for the violation of lepton-flavor conservation in charged-lepton processes and the violation of lepton-number conservation in nuclear physics processes is summarized. In the first part, several aspects of charged-lepton flavor violation are discussed, especially its sensitivity to new particles and interactions beyond the standard model of particle physics. The discussion concentrates mostly on rare processes involving muons and electrons. In the second part, the sta- tus of the conservation of total lepton number is discussed. The discussion here concentrates on current and future probes of this apparent law of Nature via searches for neutrinoless double beta decay, which is also the most sensitive probe of the potential Majorana nature of neutrinos. arXiv:1303.4097v2 [hep-ph] 29 Mar 2013 1 1 Introduction In the absence of interactions that lead to nonzero neutrino masses, the Standard Model Lagrangian is invariant under global U(1)e × U(1)µ × U(1)τ rotations of the lepton fields. In other words, if neutrinos are massless, individual lepton-flavor numbers { electron-number, muon-number, and tau-number { are expected to be conserved.
    [Show full text]
  • The Conventional Wisdom of Globalisation Is, by Now, Well-Known
    University of Warwick institutional repository This paper is made available online in accordance with publisher policies. Please scroll down to view the document itself. Please refer to the repository record for this item and our policy information available from the repository home page for further information. To see the final version of this paper please visit the publisher’s website. Access to the published version may require a subscription. Author(s): Watson, Matthew Article Title: International Capital Mobility in an Era of Globalisation: Adding a Political Dimension to the 'Feldstein–Horioka Puzzle' Year of publication: 2002 Link to published version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9256.00139 Publisher statement: The definitive version is available at www.blackwell-synergy.com “International Capital Mobility in an Era of Globalisation: Adding a Political Dimension to the ‘Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle’” Matthew Watson1 Published in Politics, 21 (2), 2001, 82-93. Description Matthew Watson reviews the literature on international capital mobility to conclude that ideas about global capital market integration have an independent causal impact on political outcomes which extends beyond that which can be attributed to the extent of their actual integration. Abstract The debate about the scope of feasible policy-making in an era of globalisation continues to be set within the context of an assumption that national capital markets are now perfectly integrated at the international level. However, the empirical evidence on international capital
    [Show full text]
  • New Insights to Old Problems
    New Insights to Old Problems∗ T. D. Lee Pupin Physics Laboratory, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA and China Center of Advanced Science and Technology (CCAST), Beijing, China Abstract From the history of the θ-τ puzzle and the discovery of parity non-conservation in 1956, we review the current status of discrete symmetry violations in the weak interaction. Possible origin of these symmetry violations are discussed. PACS: 11.30.Er, 12.15.Ff, 14.60.Pq Key words: history of discovery of parity violation, mixing angles, origin of symmetry violation, scalar field and properties of vacuum arXiv:hep-ph/0605017v1 1 May 2006 ∗Based on an invited talk given at the 2006 APS Meeting as the first presentation in the Session on 50 Years Since the Discovery of Parity Nonconservation in the Weak Interaction I, April 22, 2006 (Appendix A) 1 1. Symmetry Violations: The Discovery Almost exactly 50 years ago, I had an important conversation with my dear friend and colleague C. S. Wu. This conversation was critical for setting in mo- tion the events that led to the experimental discovery of parity nonconservation in β-decay by Wu, et al.[1]. In the words of C. S. Wu[2]: ”· · · One day in the early Spring of 1956, Professor T. D. Lee came up to my little office on the thirteenth floor of Pupin Physical Laboratories. He explained to me, first, the τ-θ puzzle. If the answer to the τ-θ puzzle is violation of parity–he went on–then the violation should also be observed in the space distribution of the beta-decay of polarized nuclei: one must measure the pseudo-scalar quantity <σ · p > where p is the electron momentum and σ the spin of the nucleus.
    [Show full text]
  • The Masses of the First Family of Fermions and of the Higgs Boson Are Equal to Integer Powers of 2 Nathalie Olivi-Tran
    The masses of the first family of fermions and of the Higgs boson are equal to integer powers of 2 Nathalie Olivi-Tran To cite this version: Nathalie Olivi-Tran. The masses of the first family of fermions and of the Higgs boson are equal to integer powers of 2. QCD14, S.Narison, Jun 2014, MONTPELLIER, France. pp.272-275, 10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2015.01.057. hal-01186623 HAL Id: hal-01186623 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01186623 Submitted on 27 Aug 2015 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/273127325 The masses of the first family of fermions and of the Higgs boson are equal to integer powers of 2 ARTICLE · JANUARY 2015 DOI: 10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2015.01.057 1 AUTHOR: Nathalie Olivi-Tran Université de Montpellier 77 PUBLICATIONS 174 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Available from: Nathalie Olivi-Tran Retrieved on: 27 August 2015 The masses of the first family of fermions and of the Higgs boson are equal to integer powers of 2 a, Nathalie Olivi-Tran ∗ aLaboratoire Charles Coulomb, UMR CNRS 5221, cc.
    [Show full text]
  • The Standard Model Part II: Charged Current Weak Interactions I
    Prepared for submission to JHEP The Standard Model Part II: Charged Current weak interactions I Keith Hamiltona aDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, UK E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: Rough notes on ... Introduction • Relation between G and g • F W Leptonic CC processes, ⌫e− scattering • Estimated time: 3 hours ⇠ Contents 1 Charged current weak interactions 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Leptonic charge current process 9 1 Charged current weak interactions 1.1 Introduction Back in the early 1930’s we physicists were puzzled by nuclear decay. • – In particular, the nucleus was observed to decay into a nucleus with the same mass number (A A) and one atomic number higher (Z Z + 1), and an emitted electron. ! ! – In such a two-body decay the energy of the electron in the decay rest frame is constrained by energy-momentum conservation alone to have a unique value. – However, it was observed to have a continuous range of values. In 1930 Pauli first introduced the neutrino as a way to explain the observed continuous energy • spectrum of the electron emitted in nuclear beta decay – Pauli was proposing that the decay was not two-body but three-body and that one of the three decay products was simply able to evade detection. To satisfy the history police • – We point out that when Pauli first proposed this mechanism the neutron had not yet been discovered and so Pauli had in fact named the third mystery particle a ‘neutron’. – The neutron was discovered two years later by Chadwick (for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize shortly afterwards in 1935).
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Subatomic- Particle Spectrometers∗
    IIT-CAPP-15/2 Introduction to Subatomic- Particle Spectrometers∗ Daniel M. Kaplan Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago, IL 60616 Charles E. Lane Drexel University Philadelphia, PA 19104 Kenneth S. Nelsony University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 22901 Abstract An introductory review, suitable for the beginning student of high-energy physics or professionals from other fields who may desire familiarity with subatomic-particle detection techniques. Subatomic-particle fundamentals and the basics of particle in- teractions with matter are summarized, after which we review particle detectors. We conclude with three examples that illustrate the variety of subatomic-particle spectrom- eters and exemplify the combined use of several detection techniques to characterize interaction events more-or-less completely. arXiv:physics/9805026v3 [physics.ins-det] 17 Jul 2015 ∗To appear in the Wiley Encyclopedia of Electrical and Electronics Engineering. yNow at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, MD 20723. 1 Contents 1 Introduction 5 2 Overview of Subatomic Particles 5 2.1 Leptons, Hadrons, Gauge and Higgs Bosons . 5 2.2 Neutrinos . 6 2.3 Quarks . 8 3 Overview of Particle Detection 9 3.1 Position Measurement: Hodoscopes and Telescopes . 9 3.2 Momentum and Energy Measurement . 9 3.2.1 Magnetic Spectrometry . 9 3.2.2 Calorimeters . 10 3.3 Particle Identification . 10 3.3.1 Calorimetric Electron (and Photon) Identification . 10 3.3.2 Muon Identification . 11 3.3.3 Time of Flight and Ionization . 11 3.3.4 Cherenkov Detectors . 11 3.3.5 Transition-Radiation Detectors . 12 3.4 Neutrino Detection . 12 3.4.1 Reactor Neutrinos . 12 3.4.2 Detection of High Energy Neutrinos .
    [Show full text]
  • De Re and De Dicto: Against the Conventional Wisdom1
    Philosophical Perspectives, 16, Language and Mind, 2002 DE RE AND DE DICTO: AGAINST THE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM1 Kenneth A. Taylor Stanford University 1. Preliminaries Conventional wisdom has it that there is a class of attitude ascriptions such that in making an ascription of that sort, the ascriber undertakes a com- mitment to specify the contents of the ascribee’s head in what might be called a notionally sensitive, ascribee-centered way. In making such an ascription, the ascriber is supposed to undertake a commitment to specify the modes of presentation, concepts or notions under which the ascribee cognizes the ob- jects (and properties) that her beliefs are about. Consequently, it is widely sup- posed that an ascription of the relevant sort will be true just in case it specifies either directly or indirectly both what the ascribee believes and how she be- lieves it. The class of “notionally sensitive” ascriptions has been variously char- acterized. Quine (1956) calls the class I have in mind the class of notional ascriptions and distinguishes it from the class of relational ascriptions. Others call the relevant class the class of de dicto ascriptions and distinguish it from the class of de re ascriptions. More recently, it has been called the class of notionally loaded ascriptions (Crimmins 1992, 1995). So understood, the class can be contrasted with the class of notionally neutral ascriptions. Just as the class of notional/de dicto/notionally loaded ascriptions is supposed to put at semantic issue the ascribee’s notions/conceptions/modes of presentation, so ascriptions in the relational/de re/notionally neutral class are supposed not to do so.
    [Show full text]
  • XIII Probing the Weak Interaction
    XIII Probing the weak interaction 1) Phenomenology of weak decays 2) Parity violation and neutrino helicity (Wu experiment and Goldhaber experiment) 3) V- A theory 4) Structure of neutral currents Parity → eigenvalues of parity are +1 (even parity), -1 (odd parity) Parity is conserved in strong and electromagnetic interactions Parity and momentum operator do not commute! Therefore intrinsic partiy is (strictly speaken) defined only for particles AT REST If a system of two particles has a relative angular momentum L, total parity is given by: (*) where are the intrinsic parity of particles Parity is a multiplicative quantum number Parity of spin + ½ fermions (quarks, leptons) per definition P = +1 Parity of spin - ½ anti-fermions (anti-quarks, anti-leptons) P = -1 Parity of W, Z, photon, gluons (and their antiparticles) P =-1 (result of gauge theory) (strictly speaken parity of photon and gluons are not defined, use definition of field) For all other composed and excited particles e.g. kaon, proton, pion, use rule (*) and/or parity conserving IA to determine intrinsic parity Reminder: Parity operator: Intrinsic parity of spin ½ fermions AT REST: +1; of antiparticles: -1 Wu-Experiment Idea: Measurement of the angular distribution of the emitted electron in the decay of polarized 60Co nulcei Angular momentum is an axial vector P J=5 J=4 If P is conserved, the angular distribution must be symmetric (to the dashed line) Identical rates for and . Experiment: Invert 60Co polarization and compare the rates under the same angle . photons are preferably emitted in direction of spin of Ni → test polarization of 60Co (elm.
    [Show full text]
  • First Determination of the Electric Charge of the Top Quark
    First Determination of the Electric Charge of the Top Quark PER HANSSON arXiv:hep-ex/0702004v1 1 Feb 2007 Licentiate Thesis Stockholm, Sweden 2006 Licentiate Thesis First Determination of the Electric Charge of the Top Quark Per Hansson Particle and Astroparticle Physics, Department of Physics Royal Institute of Technology, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden Stockholm, Sweden 2006 Cover illustration: View of a top quark pair event with an electron and four jets in the final state. Image by DØ Collaboration. Akademisk avhandling som med tillst˚and av Kungliga Tekniska H¨ogskolan i Stock- holm framl¨agges till offentlig granskning f¨or avl¨aggande av filosofie licentiatexamen fredagen den 24 november 2006 14.00 i sal FB54, AlbaNova Universitets Center, KTH Partikel- och Astropartikelfysik, Roslagstullsbacken 21, Stockholm. Avhandlingen f¨orsvaras p˚aengelska. ISBN 91-7178-493-4 TRITA-FYS 2006:69 ISSN 0280-316X ISRN KTH/FYS/--06:69--SE c Per Hansson, Oct 2006 Printed by Universitetsservice US AB 2006 Abstract In this thesis, the first determination of the electric charge of the top quark is presented using 370 pb−1 of data recorded by the DØ detector at the Fermilab Tevatron accelerator. tt¯ events are selected with one isolated electron or muon and at least four jets out of which two are b-tagged by reconstruction of a secondary decay vertex (SVT). The method is based on the discrimination between b- and ¯b-quark jets using a jet charge algorithm applied to SVT-tagged jets. A method to calibrate the jet charge algorithm with data is developed. A constrained kinematic fit is performed to associate the W bosons to the correct b-quark jets in the event and extract the top quark electric charge.
    [Show full text]
  • Jesus: Teacher of Alternative Wisdom”
    First Congregational United Church of Christ – Eugene, Oregon WHO WAS THAT GUY? A Youth/Adult Study Based on the Book “Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time” by Marcus J. Borg 6 “Jesus: Teacher of Alternative Wisdom” The strongest consensus among Jesus scholars today is that Jesus was a teacher of wisdom. There is virtually no disagreement on this point. Basically, wisdom is about how to live one’s life in accord with reality. Central to it is the notion of a way or a path, indeed of two ways or paths: the wise way and the foolish way. Teachers of wisdom speak of these two ways , commending the one and warning of the consequences of following the other. There are also two types of wisdom and two types of teachers. The most common type of wisdom is conventional wisdom; its teachers are conventional sages. This is the mainstream wisdom of a culture, it’s “what everybody knows,” a culture’s understandings about what is real and how to live. The second type is a subversive and alternative wisdom. This wisdom questions and undermines conventional wisdom and speaks of another way, another path. Its teachers are subversive sages. Lao-tzu spoke of following a “way” that led away from conventional perceptions and values toward living in accord with “the Tao” itself. At the center of the Buddha’s teaching is the image of a way, “the eightfold path,” leading from the world of convention and its “grasping” to enlightenment and compassion. The wisdom of the subversive sage is the wisdom of “the road less traveled.” And so it was with Jesus: his wisdom spoke of “the narrow way” which led to life, and subverted the “broad way” followed by the many, which led to destruction.
    [Show full text]