Yes, Higg’s particle is a “scalar particle”, but what is a “scalar particle”?

I heard a Swedish phycisist on the radio today trying to explain what Higg’s particle is. He said that it’s a “scalar particle”. And, as far as I understand, that is correct. A “scalar particle” is exactly what a so-called Higg’s particle has to be in a theoretical context. But, he didn’t explain what a “scalar particle” is.

The properties that makes a “scalar particle” a “scalar particle” is that it resides between reality and abstraction. It so-to-speak has one foot in reality and one in abstraction. This property appears to make it able to bridge the fundamental difference between reality and abstraction. The problem is, however, that it CAN’T bridge the difference between reality and abstraction for us, but instead IS a bridge between reality and abstraction for us, that is, that it leads our focus from reality to abstraction, and abstraction is, as Bertrand Russell demonstrated with his paradox, paradoxically contradictory. A “scalar particle” thus isn’t the solution for the standard model in physics, but is instead actually the way out of it by making it paradoxically contradictory.

No, Higg’s particle is actually an emergency solution attempting to save the standard model of physics. This attempt is, however, counterproductive, since there is and always will be a fundamental difference between macrophysics and microphysics in that a single particle in macrophysics is several particles in microphysics, and that a single particle in microphysics thereby is a paradoxically contradictory particle in macrophysics. Reality is thereby simply incomprehensible in a rational  sense, ie, as an explanation, and thus not paradoxically contradictory as Higg’s particle-ists (and cladists) claim (assert) it is. This fact is also supported by the fact that quantum mechanics is correct, although incomprehensible.

So, the Swedish phycisist was right: Higg’s particle is indeed a “scalar particle”, but this fact does not mean that it can bridge reality and abstraction, as he and all other Higg’s particle-ists claim, but instead that it leads our focus from reality to abstraction, thereby leading us into a belief that that it indeed can bridge the difference between reality and abstraction, that is, Higg’s particle-ism. It thus leads us from science into belief in a FEELING that it solves all problems when it actually LEADS US INTO an insoluble problem (ie, a paradox). A “scalar particle” is thus a difficult thing to handle. This kind of thing is actually in need of a thorough philosophical discussion rather than an empirical search for it. The fundamental question about it is that if it is an “exitation in the Higg’s field”, as the physicist in the radio claimed, then, what is a Higg’s field? Is it the same thing as the old ether field (as Tertiusgaudens suggested in a comment on this blog)? If so, what is the ether field?

Another contribution to understanding of conceptualization http://menvall.wordpress.com/