...a ,,limit of fractionizing, at ultimate entities, then the mathematical magnitude of the multiplicity of the ultimate entities ill be finite. But a a finite mathematical multiplicity either added or mulptiplied or fractioned or combined ith other finite mathematical multiplicity it is impossible to give rise to an infinite mathematical multiplicity. There is no any mathematical operation so as x y or x y - x and y being mathematical variables hich can represent some domains of mathematical quantities numbers.Local Conclusion a finite multiplicity cannot substantiate a combinatorial or structural qualitative infinite diversity. Combination of n entities taken n times, if n is finite, cannot result in an infinite multiplicity. Moreover, there is xn so as the physical combination of n taken x times is physicaly divisible, disintegrable, fisionable etc. ,,...But, ith the hole this success, the model of quarks presents a paradox even ith the bighest accesible energies, obtained in the existent accelerators, until no it as proved impossible to be fragmented a hadron in its constituent quarkseinberg, 1984. ith other ords, the quarks put us in the folloing situation. By their statute of ,,ultimate constituents of hadrons, of fundamental entities, it is pushed in prime plane the dicontinuity of existence. But by their inseparabity it attracted our attention on the fact that e are placed, simultan, also in the presence of continuity. Biris, 1989 einberg said only that ith the bighest energies that e actualy can cause, e cannot frgmentate a hadron. Biris tried to extend the einbergs idea, giving the unargued impression that the quarks are absolutely inseparable. But he netheir argued hat is the absolute limit of the magnitude of the energy that can be caused by any absolutely possible accelerator nor argued that there can be no other superior ays for the disintegration, decomposition, and fision of mater. On the other hand, he rote all this as university professor of philosophy not as physicist, but, hoever, he does not considered the hypothesis that if quarks ould be absolutely inseparable, they ould cannot be only cognitive or artificial entities or constituants That is, if a hadron ould be an unstructural or uncomposed entity, the quarks property cannot be only the properties of only an imagined fragment of the hadron On the other hand, ho can prove that even a string, if exist such a thing, is absolutely unfisionable On thing is clear, Biris sustained that a hadron is both continuous quarks inseparability and discontinuous composed by a multiplicity of quarks. But if a hadron is structured or composed entity, then it contain a multiplicity. Any objective multiplicity suposses the possibility of a differentiation. Ho can be a succesion of to quarks continuous If they boundaries are partialy stuk together That is, this continuity ould mean that there is no any empty or free space beteen that parts of their boundaries But then ho can be argued that such a succesion is not only one uncomposed entity If the quarks boundaries are absolutely uncomposed and if beteen some parts of their boundaries there is not any free space that can substantiate a discontinuity, hat is the other possible ay for the argumentation that there are to quarks and not only one entity That is if in the boundaries of this quarks there is no any spatial loop and if beteen that parts of their baundaries there is no any spatial loop and if the quarks center is not differentiable physicaly, not only geometricaly, from its boundary, then hat is the other possible ay for the argumentation that there are not only one entity Moreover, if the hypothesis of string is true, then because of their internal tiny loops the existence ill be discontinuous... The field at the microphysic level cannot any more be imagined as a vector, as a line of force, because the lementary particle should not be imagined as a geometric point, as a point of substance, cause it does not have dimensions and form. The particle resembles ith a ,,bright point, here, in fact, it is not seen a ,,point, but a ,,litle sun, therefore a field, here e have not a singularity, but a multiplicity. Biris, p.164e can observe in the previous fragment fundamental errors of judgement did by the actual dean Biris. Fundamental, therefore important, because I do not ant to exagerate the importance of some litle errors. The principle of non-contradiction is a fundamental principle of thought and reality, not only of language. That is, no mater ho vaste physical informations has the dean or other philosopher, if misinterpretate, by fundamental errors of judgement, and puts them in a rong frameork. a He rote that the field has not ,,dimensions and form, but if no mater hat has no any dimension, and therefore form, cannot exist, cannot be a physical object. There can be no even an empty space so as its volume or the area of its surface is absolutely null. b he rote that the field is ithout ,,dimensions and form, but then he also rote that the field resembles ith a ,,bright point. But any point has dimension and a geometrical form. This person is sanec He rote that the point is not a point, but a ,,litle sun, then a field, here e do not have a singularity, but a multiplicity. Multiplicity And does not have dimensions and form A ,,litle sun, therofore a field... But the sun is a star hich contains many atoms of hidrogen and helium, not a field. In this ,,hot pointof the research from the domain of quarks the idea of field can help, of field as dialectic totality. And e ish to underline this aspect the research at the level of quarks requires a dialectic conception of the field, not the theory of field in the traditional sense. For the discontinuity hich is manifested by quarks at this elementary level of the matter in depth enters in contradiction ith the continuity hich results from the funciary inseparability. ,,The paradox observed by physicists in the behavior of quarks is the expression of this deep contradiction beteen discontinuous and continuous, beteen the particles discreet and the fields continuity. Biris, p.163The quarks are and are not elementary particles. Are fundamental particles in the sense that their constituants ere not discovered yet, do not have structure. But are not particles, are not discreete entities, because are inseparable, represent a field. ... The field of quarks expresses, thus, a holomer, an existence hich blends in a close unity, synthetical, both the continuous and the discreete, both the particle and the field, an self-consistent existence, in hich the part has the poer of the hole, therefore a field hich distributes itself ithout to divide itself. Biris, p.164I cannot believe hat rote this person. It is perplexing and shocking, from a genuine philosophical and logical principle of consideration and evaluation. You see clearly that he is the fan of a fundamentally contradictory dialectic ...
Download