This is going to sound dumb, but why can’t a Higgs boson particle be large enough to view? And why can’t a single cell be large compared to my height? Why do they exist in a state that is always smaller than my eyes can see? What is setting the scale on which everything is measured?

I am reading a book called Meselson, Stahl and the Replication of DNA. So far the book is good at explaining to a amateur the research that found the structure of DNA. In chapter one they are using X-rays to find the DNA in a single cell. It’s brilliant. But would it seem brilliant as the research is being conducted? Wouldn’t it be boring to measure with X-rays? But it worked and I guess that’s why it became awesome.

While I was doing research about cells and particles I came across the God particle who’s name has nothing to do with religion and named improperly. And I rediscovered a protein that resembles a cross. I know you guys are already aware of this protein. I find this interesting and it is easy to research because one only has to type a question into Gemini.

But I am interested in this for the same reason I was interested in Gematria and that is to find a pattern that unites the scientific with spiritual. The spiritual may have many implications in the science.

I want to treat genetics as a form of cryptography. Genetic patterns are found all the time, but I am not a biologist and the genetics might as well be written in a different language. What if we had build blocks and made genetic patterns as common as the cryptogram in the newspaper?

That is why I have an interest in biology. I know on a science forum this isn’t the preferred method of conducting scientific. But I don’t think it breaks the scientific method.

1 hour ago, Trurl said:

but why can’t a Higgs boson particle be large enough to view?

Because it’s a local excitation of a quantum field, like all other elementary particles too.

Also, the Higgs is electrically neutral, short lived, and couples to particles that allow for rest mass - thus, even if it was “big enough”, you still wouldn’t see it visually, as it does not absorb or emit photons.

I know Swansont has brought this up numerous times.

The questuion 'Why' is Metaphysical, or Philosophical; Science deals with 'How' things work.

12 hours ago, Trurl said:

This is going to sound dumb, but why can’t a Higgs boson particle be large enough to view? And why can’t a single cell be large compared to my height? Why do they exist in a state that is always smaller than my eyes can see? What is setting the scale on which everything is measured?

Scale, as in scaling, is one reason why a cell can’t be bigger.

12 hours ago, Trurl said:

I am reading a book called Meselson, Stahl and the Replication of DNA. So far the book is good at explaining to a amateur the research that found the structure of DNA. In chapter one they are using X-rays to find the DNA in a single cell. It’s brilliant. But would it seem brilliant as the research is being conducted? Wouldn’t it be boring to measure with X-rays? But it worked and I guess that’s why it became awesome.

What’s boring about using x-rays?

I want to treat genetics as a form of cryptography

It’s already referred to as the genetic code, but you need more than “let’s treat it like cryptography”

@Trurl

You have asked several apparently unconnected questions in your opening post which I find prretty confusing.

The short answer to seeing the Higgs Boson is that it does not interact with (real) photons, which your eyes use to see by.

So even if we could find some electromagnetic radiation of short enough wavelength it wouldn't 'see' the boson.

As regards pattern recognition, cryptography, DNA and modern Physics I recommend yo get a copy of Liam Graham's book "Molecular Storms"

“Liam Graham has that rare ability to take a seemingly staggeringly complex subject – life itself – and strip it down into a set of smaller problems. He then shows you, by argument, analogy, vivid examples and good-humoured persuasion, that each of these smaller problems is much more manageable, and can be related back to a few key concepts. Taken one at a time, each then becomes a staging point in your journey towards understanding the big picture.  Like all the best guides, his enthusiasm and sense of wonder are infectious.” Stephen Wright, Professor of Economics, Birkbeck College, University of London.

Liam inquires into all this in a digestible manner.

There is also some additional material on his website

The Material World - Molecular Storms

The Physics of Stars, Cells and the Origin of Life

12 hours ago, Trurl said:

And why can’t a single cell be large compared to my height? Why do they exist in a state that is always smaller than my eyes can see? What is setting the scale on which everything is measured?

The premise is wrong. There single cells that are visible by eye, and even some that are larger than you. Egg yolk is the ovum, essentially a single cell. Visible to the naked eye and chances are decent that you have already seen it. Cells that are larger than you, include slime mold, where large cells up to something like 10sqm or some Caulerpa species, which are single celled and have a reported length of something like 2 m, I think. And the explanation is also easy. Big things are more difficult to maintain than small things. But also not impossible.

15 hours ago, Trurl said:

In chapter one they are using X-rays to find the DNA in a single cell. It’s brilliant. But would it seem brilliant as the research is being conducted? Wouldn’t it be boring to measure with X-rays? But it worked and I guess that’s why it became awesome.

I don't think so. What has been done is to crystallize DNA and then using X-ray crystallography to identify its structure. It is not done in cells. You are probably confusing it with something like unit cells, which are the crystal lattice units. The whole crystal is of substantial size, and growing them at decent quality is rather challenging (Franklin did the diffraction analysis, though I am not sure whether she or a student created the crystal). And yes, X-ray crystallography still follows the same principles and is still the gold standard for structure determination.

But it seems to me that you are conflating things and try to mystify them to make them more in line with your understanding rather than try to understand and thereby demystify these concepts. (like the genetic code: 3 bases-> 1AA, not really cryptic).