Content uploaded by David Leong
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David Leong on Apr 06, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
THE FABRIC OF SPACE REVISITED THROUGH THE LENS OF DAO:
HIGGS FIELD AS THE NEW ETHER
David Leong
Charisma University, david.leong@charisma.edu.eu
Abstract: This paper explores the conceptual parallels between the Higgs field and the classical notion of the luminiferous ether,
situating the discussion within modern physics and ancient Dao metaphysics. While the ether was once theorized as a universal
medium for the propagation of light and later discarded following the Michelson-Morley experiment and Einstein's special relativity,
the Higgs field has emerged in contemporary physics as a space-filling quantum field responsible for mass generation through
spontaneous electroweak symmetry breaking. Drawing on references from scientific literature and popular discourse, this paper
examines how the Higgs field has been metaphorically described as a “new ether”—an omnipresent field underpinning material
reality.
To deepen this analysis, the paper adopts a Dao’s interpretive lens, viewing the Higgs field not only as a scientific construct
but as a modern echo of the ancient concept of Dao (道)—the ineffable, generative principle that gives rise to the ten thousand
things (wanwu, 萬物). Parallels are drawn between Dao’s notions of qi (氣) and xu (虛) (the fertile void) and the dynamic structure
of the Higgs field, particularly in its invisible yet formative role within the Standard Model. The spontaneous breaking of symmetry
is discussed in light of Dao’s notions of differentiation emerging from an undivided whole, where duality (yin-yang) arises from
the Dao as a spontaneous, self-organizing process.
By integrating scientific and philosophical paradigms, this paper offers a metaphysical reading of the Higgs mechanism as a
bridge between ancient and modern cosmologies. It argues that the persistence of ether analogies reflects a perennial human impulse
to conceptualize an underlying unity or substrate of reality. In doing so, the study contributes to an expanded ontology of space
that recognizes both the mathematical formalism of quantum fields and the metaphysical intuitions of classical Eastern thought.
Keywords: Dao, Ether, Higgs Field, symmetry-breaking, energy, mass, spacetime, Standard Model, Special Relativity
Introduction
In the evolution of theoretical physics, few concepts have demonstrated such a dramatic reversal of fortune as the
ether. Once central to classical physics as the hypothetical medium for light propagation, the ether was effectively
nullified by the Michelson-Morley experiment (Shankland, 1964) and ultimately dismissed with the formulation of
Einstein’s theory of special relativity (Einstein, 2007). In contemporary physics, the Higgs field has risen to
prominence as a scalar field permeating all space, instrumental in imparting mass to elementary particles (Della Negra
et al., 2012). Despite their vastly different theoretical underpinnings, parallels between the Higgs field and the ether
have resurfaced in scientific and public discourses. This paper investigates these comparisons, clarifies their
conceptual and empirical foundations, and examines their philosophical implications.
Once regarded as an indispensable construct in classical physics, the luminiferous ether was posited in the 19th
century as the invisible substrate necessary for the propagation of electromagnetic waves (Laviolette, 1985), analogous
to how sound requires air or water waves require a fluid surface. According to this model, the ether was imagined as
a stationary, frictionless medium that permeated all space, providing an absolute frame of reference and supporting
the high-frequency oscillations of light (Robinson, 2015). A critical corollary of the ether hypothesis was the
expectation of detecting an “ether wind”—a measurable variation in the speed of light resulting from the Earth’s
motion through the stationary ether (Ferraro, 2007). This notion was famously tested by Michelson and Morley’s
(1887) experiment, which employed an interferometric apparatus to compare the speed of light along different axes
of Earth’s motion. The experiment consistently failed to observe the predicted anisotropy, delivering null results that
severely undermined the ether theory (Michelson & Morley, 1887). The final blow came with Einstein’s (1905) theory
of special relativity, which abolished the need for an ether by asserting that the speed of light is invariant in all inertial
DAVID LEONG
__________________
Corresponding Author: Dr David Leong, PhD, david.leong@charisma.edu.eu, davidskleong@gmail.com
2
frames, thus eliminating the requirement for an absolute medium. From that point forward, the ether was broadly
rejected as a redundant and empirically unsubstantiated construct.
In addition to Western scientific and Chinese philosophical traditions, the concept of ether also features
prominently in Indian metaphysical thought, particularly within Sāṃkhya and Vedānta schools of Hindu philosophy.
In Sanskrit, ether is referred to as ākāśa (
), which denotes both “space”(Chinmayananda, 2022) and the “subtle,
all-pervading element” (Mukhopadhyay, 2019) through which sound propagates. As one of the five mahābhūtas (great
elements), ākāśa is conceived as the first and most subtle manifestation of matter, preceding air (vāyu), fire (tejas),
water (ap), and earth (pṛthvī) in the ontological order of creation (Crawford, 1994). It functions as the primordial
substratum that accommodates and enables the unfolding of the material world, much like the ether was envisioned in
classical physics (Raia, 2007) and like the Higgs field functions in modern quantum theory. Though ākāśa is not
measurable in physical terms, it is considered perceptible through the sense of sound (śabda-tanmatra)
(Mukhopadhyay, 2019), in contrast to Western models that were based on optical propagation. Indian philosophical
schools classify ākāśa into three distinct conceptual categories. First, traditions such as Nyāya, Vaiśeṣika, Pūrva
Mīmāṃsā, and Jainism conceive of ākāśa as an independent, all-pervading and eternal substance (Long, 2024),
essential to the fabric of the universe and non-atomic in nature. This closely parallels the classical ether’s framing in
19th-century physics as a continuous, non-material medium necessary for transmitting light. Second, the Sāṃkhya-
Yoga and Vedānta schools consider ākāśa an evolute (Dhar, 2024)—that is, a derivative or transformation of
something more fundamental, such as prakṛti (primordial matter) or brahman (absolute reality). This version aligns
with the idea of a field emerging from deeper laws of reality, not unlike the Higgs field, which itself arises from
quantum field dynamics to instantiate mass (Stöltzner, 2014). Third, some later Buddhist systems conceptualize ākāśa
as a mental construct, existing only as a conceptual designation within the framework of perception and cognition
(Lysenko, 2018). In this view, ākāśa resembles more a phenomenological category than a physical substrate.
Like qi (氣) in Dao’s thought, ākāśa is ontologically generative: it mediates between the unmanifest (the Absolute
or Brahman) and the manifest cosmos (Bäumer, 1996). Notably, while the classical luminiferous ether was eventually
discarded due to empirical failures, and the Higgs field is mathematically formalized and confirmed indirectly, ākāśa
continues to hold a symbolic, cosmological, and experiential significance within Indian epistemologies. When viewed
in parallel with the Higgs field’s quantum omnipresence and the qi’s dynamic flow, ākāśa offers another cultural and
metaphysical model of an invisible field that fills space, sustains motion, and supports structure and change. These
cross-cultural analogies underscore a universal philosophical impulse: to postulate an unseen, unifying medium or
field that underlies the observable world. Each tradition conceptualizes this medium in ways that reflect its distinct
ontological commitments—mechanical in classical physics, quantum-relational in modern particle physics, energetic
and relational in Dao, and elemental and acoustic in Indian cosmology.
Thus, while it is essential to respect the disciplinary boundaries between empirical science and metaphysical
traditions, the recurrence of ether-like concepts—whether as ākāśa, qi, or the Higgs field—suggests a persistent
intellectual archetype in humanity’s effort to understand the substrate of being and the architecture of space. Thus, the
intuition that space is more than a passive backdrop—that it may possess structure, dynamism, or latent properties—
has never entirely disappeared. In contemporary physics, the Higgs field has emerged as a compelling candidate for a
modern substrate, albeit one embedded within the sophisticated framework of quantum field theory.
Introduced in the 1960s and empirically confirmed through the discovery of the Higgs boson at CERN in 2012
(Fournier, 2012), the Higgs field is a scalar quantum field that permeates all space. Unlike the ether, it does not serve
as a medium for wave propagation; instead, it is responsible for spontaneous electroweak symmetry breaking, a
mechanism through which elementary particles acquire mass (Higgs, 1964). Central to this process is the field’s non-
zero vacuum expectation value, which breaks the original symmetry of the electroweak interaction, distinguishing
massive W and Z bosons from the massless photon (Englert & Brout, 1964; Guralnik et al., 1964). This mechanism
has no classical counterpart, underscoring the fundamentally quantum nature of the Higgs field.
Despite the theoretical and empirical distinctions, the analogy between the Higgs field and the classical ether has
surfaced in scholarly discussion and public discourse. Wilczek (2008) referred to the Higgs field as a “new ether”,
emphasizing its omnipresence and foundational role in shaping physical reality. Hockney (2013) similarly
acknowledged that the Higgs field, though rigorously consistent with relativity and gauge theory, evokes a conceptual
continuity with the ether, as it fills all space and underpins the material structure of the universe. While these
comparisons are primarily metaphorical, they reflect a deeper philosophical desire to articulate the nature of space not
as emptiness but as an active and constitutive element of physical existence.
This paper does not seek to equate the Higgs field with the ether in a scientific sense. Instead, it aims to explore
the ontological and epistemological resonances among three conceptually rich frameworks: the classical ether, the
quantum Higgs field, and the Dao’s concept of qi. While these concepts arise from vastly different intellectual
traditions—Western classical and modern physics on one hand and ancient Chinese metaphysical thought, including
Indian metaphysics, on the other—each attempts to theorize the unseen forces or fields that animate and organize
THE FABRIC OF SPACE REV ISITED THROUGH THE LENS OF DAO: HIGGS FIELD AS THE NEW ETHER
.
__________________
Corresponding Author: Dr David Leong, PhD, david.leong@canberra.edu.au, davidskleong@gmail.com
3
reality. The Dao in Chinese philosophy is not merely a metaphysical principle but a generative force from which all
phenomena emerge (Chai, 2014; Leong, 2024). In this light, the paper draws parallels between the Higgs field’s role
in symmetry breaking and mass generation and Dao’s ideas of differentiation arising from the undivided void,
particularly through the dynamics of qi and the interplay of yin (陰) and yang (陽).
The relationship between yin and yang is an analogical expression of spontaneous symmetry breaking as conceived
in the Higgs field. The state of perfect balance—taiji (太極), or the “Supreme Ultimate”—emerges from wuji (無極),
the primordial undifferentiated void (Adler, 2015). Wuji represents a state of pure potentiality, undivided and without
polarity (Patt-Shamir, 2020; Schöter, 2010). Taiji, in contrast, is the condition in which the dynamic interplay between
yin and yang begins to manifest, breaking symmetry (Wang, 2020). In differentiation and transformation over time,
this equilibrium must give way to a moment of disequilibrium, where either yin or yang begins to assert dominance,
even temporarily. Here, this paper argues that the disequilibria state (broken symmetry)—where the perfect symmetry
of taiji gives rise to asymmetry in the relative proportions of yin and yang—is the condition under which change and
manifestation unfold. In this process, the Dao is conserved but actualized into forms; the emergence of more yin or
more yang becomes asymmetrical; this is the generative principle through which the “ten thousand things” (萬物)
come into being (Dor, 2024). This concept provides a metaphysical analogue to spontaneous symmetry breaking,
where the Higgs field chooses a particular vacuum configuration among many symmetrical possibilities (Giacosa,
2009), thus differentiating masses and interactions in an otherwise symmetric theoretical landscape. In this context,
symmetry breaking in physics can be understood metaphorically through Dao’s polarity, where a balanced state (taiji)
is pregnant with the possibility of distinction and structure, and its imbalance—while seemingly asymmetrical—is, in
fact, the mechanism through which form and substance are created. The Higgs field’s non-zero vacuum expectation
value introduces asymmetry that gives rise to particle masses (Borrelli, 2015), so too does the imbalance between yin
and yang initiate the flux of qi, setting into motion the cosmic rhythms of transformation. This analogy thus reveals a
shared ontological intuition between Dao and the Higgs field, that being with mass arises from symmetry-break within
an underlying unity.
The author fully understands these frameworks' significant differences in scope, methodology, and explanatory
intent. The Higgs field is a rigorously defined component of the Standard Model, grounded in quantum field theory
and supported by empirical data. The ether was a mechanistic construct ultimately discarded by the scientific
community, while qi and Dao belong to a pre-scientific cosmology, operating more as experiential or symbolic
interpretations of reality than as formalized physical theories. However, this paper contends that comparing them
philosophically and metaphorically can yield valuable insights into the continuity of human attempts to conceptualize
the invisible structure and universal medium.
The structure of the paper is as follows: The literature review will first examine the historical development and
rejection of the ether, followed by a review of the Higgs field’s theoretical evolution and the revival of ether analogies
in modern dialogues. The paper will then introduce key concepts from Dao, highlighting their relevance in
understanding metaphors of flow, field, and generative space. Subsequent sections will explore how spontaneous
symmetry breaking and quantum vacuum structure may resonate with ancient ideas of form arising from formlessness.
Finally, the conclusion will reflect on how such cross-paradigmatic interpretations contribute to a broader
philosophical theorization of reality and consider their implications for scientific pedagogy, metaphysics, and
ontological inquiry.
Through this interdisciplinary engagement, the paper aspires to bridge scientific and metaphysical modes of
thought, revealing how the quest to understand the fabric of space—whether conceived as ether, field, or Dao—
continues to shape our deepest universe models.
Literature Review: Historical Development and Rejection of the Ether
The concept of the ether—or luminiferous aether—once occupied a central position in classical physics as a
hypothesized universal medium through which light and electromagnetic waves propagated (Whittaker, 1989). The
notion of a pervasive medium that fills space and underlies the structure of reality is not unique to Western physics; it
has deep roots in ancient philosophical systems, particularly within Indian metaphysics. In Hindu traditions, this
concept is expressed through the notion of ākāśa, commonly rendered as “ether” or “space”(Pokazanyeva, 2016). It
is recognized as the subtlest of the five great elements (mahābhūtas) and serves as the foundational substrate through
which sound is transmitted, and physical existence is made possible (Baindur, 2015). Within various schools of Indian
thought, ākāśa takes on different ontological roles: the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika and Jain systems regard it as an independent
and eternal entity; Sāṃkhya and Vedānta describe it as a derivative emanation of a more fundamental principle such
as prakṛti or brahman (Jhaveri, 1956); and in some Buddhist Abhidharma frameworks (Dhammajoti, 2020), it is
treated as a cognitive abstraction or as an unobstructed field allowing coexistence and movement. Despite these
divergent interpretations, a common thread persists: ākāśa functions as a necessary explanatory construct for spatial
extension, causal interaction, and the coherence of multiplicity. This mirrors, at a metaphysical level, the role that the
DAVID LEONG
__________________
Corresponding Author: Dr David Leong, PhD, david.leong@charisma.edu.eu, davidskleong@gmail.com
4
ether once played in classical physics—a medium invoked to make sense of how forces or vibrations traverse the void
(Close, 2007). While distinct in their epistemologies and cultural frameworks, both concepts reflect an enduring
impulse to account for an unseen, unifying continuum that mediates between form and force.
The ether emerged as a theoretical necessity after James Clerk Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory in the mid-19th
century (Sarkar et al., 2009). Maxwell’s field equations, formalized in 1865, described the behaviour of electric and
magnetic fields and predicted that electromagnetic waves would propagate through space at the speed of light
(Maxwell, 1865). Given that all known waves—mechanical, acoustic, and fluid—required a transmission medium, it
was assumed that light, too, required such a medium. This led to the postulation of a luminiferous ether, conceived as
an invisible, all-pervasive, and frictionless substance that filled the void of space and served as the carrier of light
waves (Doran, 1976). The ether was not merely speculative—it was integrated into the physical ontology of the time
(Builder, 1958). As Whittaker (1989) detailed, 19th-century physicists constructed increasingly elaborate ether models
to account for various physical phenomena. It was imagined to be rigid enough to support transverse light waves yet
paradoxically insubstantial enough to avoid resistance to planetary motion. This contradiction soon became one of the
ether theory’s significant weaknesses.
A critical prediction of the ether hypothesis was an “ether wind” resulting from the Earth’s motion through the
stationary ether (Michelson & Morley, 1887). This would cause measurable variations in the speed of light depending
on the measurement direction. Michelson and Morley (1887) conducted an interferometric experiment to detect such
anisotropies. The Michelson and Morley’s (1887) experiment, designed to observe differences in light speed along
perpendicular paths, famously returned a null result—no variation in light speed was detected (Michelson & Morley,
1887). Despite efforts to explain the results through auxiliary hypotheses such as Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction (Bork,
1966; FitzGerald, 1889; Michelson, 1897), confidence in the ether began to wane.
The decisive shift came with Einstein’s (1905) theory of special relativity. By postulating the constancy of the
speed of light in all inertial frames and eliminating the need for an absolute frame of reference, Einstein (1905)
rendered the ether superfluous. In his words, “The introduction of a ‘luminiferous ether’ will prove superfluous since
the view here to be developed will not require an ‘absolutely stationary space’” (Einstein, 1905, p. 899). This marked
a paradigm shift: space itself was no longer viewed as a substance but as a relativistic and geometrically structured
manifold, culminating in the general theory of relativity where spacetime curvature replaced any ether-like substance
in explaining gravitation.
Despite its rejection in mainstream physics, the idea of the ether was not entirely discarded in all intellectual circles.
As Jammer (2013) noted, vestiges of ether-like thinking persisted, particularly in philosophical reflections on the
ontology of space. Later reinterpretations, such as Dirac’s (1951) suggestion of a “quantum ether,” reflected attempts
to reconcile quantum vacuum fluctuations with an intuitive medium. These efforts, however, were not widely adopted
in the formal development of quantum electrodynamics.
In summary, the ether's historical arc traces scientific thought's transformation from mechanical metaphors to
abstract field theories. Its rise and fall exemplify how scientific theories are shaped by empirical adequacy and broader
shifts in epistemic criteria, mathematical formalism, and philosophical presuppositions. However, the ether was
ultimately dismissed on empirical and theoretical grounds; its conceptual residue survives in ongoing metaphysical
questions about the nature of space, vacuum, and the possibility of a universal medium—questions now partially
reframed in terms of quantum fields and structures such as the Higgs field.
The Theoretical Evolution of the Higgs Field
The emergence of the Higgs field as a central component of the Standard Model of particle physics represents one of
the most profound theoretical developments in modern physics (Schmaltz, 2003). Originally proposed in the 1960s as
a solution to the problem of mass generation in gauge theories, the Higgs mechanism introduced a scalar field
permeating all of space, whose interaction with particles through spontaneous symmetry breaking provides the
mathematical and physical foundation for mass (Higgs, 1964). Though mathematically rigorous and experimentally
validated, the Higgs field has often been interpreted in public and philosophical discourse through metaphors and
analogies reminiscent of the older ether concept—an omnipresent field underlying physical phenomena. This section
traces the theoretical evolution of the Higgs field and examines the resurgence of ether-like metaphors in contemporary
dialogue, both as heuristic devices and as reflections of deeper ontological questions.
The theoretical origins of the Higgs field lie in the work of several physicists during the early 1960s, most notably
Peter W. Higgs, François Englert, and Robert Brout, who independently formulated mechanisms for spontaneous
symmetry breaking within gauge theories (Englert & Brout, 1964; Higgs, 1964). They aimed to reconcile gauge
invariance with the observed masses of the W and Z bosons, mediators of the weak nuclear force, which contradict
the massless predictions of unbroken gauge symmetry. In this mechanism, a scalar field (the Higgs field) acquires a
non-zero vacuum expectation value, thereby “breaking” the electroweak symmetry and endowing particles with mass
through their interactions with the field (Salam & Ward, 1994; Weinberg, 1967).
THE FABRIC OF SPACE REV ISITED THROUGH THE LENS OF DAO: HIGGS FIELD AS THE NEW ETHER
.
__________________
Corresponding Author: Dr David Leong, PhD, david.leong@canberra.edu.au, davidskleong@gmail.com
5
This conceptual innovation was subsequently incorporated into the Standard Model of particle physics, developed
throughout the 1970s. The electroweak unification, established by Sheldon Glashow, Steven Weinberg, and Abdus
Salam, demonstrated how the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces could be treated as different manifestations of
a single electroweak interaction, with symmetry breaking induced by the Higgs field providing the necessary
differentiation (Glashow, 1961; Salam & Ward, 1959; Weinberg, 1967).
Following its initial theoretical formulation in the early 1960s, the Higgs field became essential in the formal
synthesis of electroweak unification. Still, its conceptual development also paralleled significant advances in quantum
field theory (QFT) and the understanding of gauge symmetry. Central to this evolution was the recognition that gauge
invariance—a foundational principle ensuring consistency and renormalizability in field theories—was incompatible
with massive gauge bosons unless a mechanism could be found to circumvent the massless constraint without
sacrificing local symmetry (Englert & Brout, 1964; Guralnik et al., 1964; Higgs, 1964). The Brout–Englert–Higgs
mechanism (often collectively referred to as the Higgs mechanism) resolved this issue by showing that a spontaneously
broken symmetry could hide the massless nature of gauge fields beneath a new vacuum structure (Englert & Brout,
1964).
In a more technical sense, spontaneous symmetry breaking in gauge theories involves choosing a vacuum state
that does not exhibit the full symmetry of the governing Lagrangian (Guralnik et al., 1964). This means that the
underlying equations remain symmetric, but the system's physical configuration does not, giving rise to new dynamics.
The introduction of a complex scalar field with a self-interacting potential (typically the Mexican hat or wine-bottle
potential) allows the field to settle in a vacuum state that is not invariant under the original gauge transformations
(Englert & Brout, 1964; Guralnik et al., 1964; Higgs, 1964). The result is the appearance of massive gauge bosons
corresponding to broken generators, while unbroken generators yield massless particles (such as the photon in
electroweak theory) (Quigg, 2014).
Notably, incorporating the Higgs field into the Standard Model extended beyond mere theoretical utility. It was a
pivotal element ensuring the renormalizability of the electroweak interaction, a property essential for making
meaningful, predictive calculations. The work of ’t Hooft and Veltman (1972) demonstrated that spontaneous
symmetry breaking via the Higgs mechanism does not destroy the mathematical consistency of the theory. This
reinforced the model's legitimacy and paved the way for further unification efforts and experimental validation. In this
regard, the Higgs field was not only a proposed solution to the problem of mass but a linchpin in preserving the internal
coherence of the entire theoretical framework.
Parallel to its functional role in particle physics, the Higgs field stimulated a reevaluation of the concept of vacuum
in quantum theory. Traditionally regarded as empty or devoid of physical content, the vacuum in QFT emerged as a
rich, structured arena—populated with fluctuating fields and latent symmetries (Markkanen et al., 2018). The Higgs
field exemplified this shift, presenting a vacuum that actively shaped the behaviour of particles through its non-zero
expectation value. As Carroll (2013) contended, the Higgs boson discovery confirmed that the vacuum is not merely
a passive backdrop but a dynamic entity with ontological implications. The notion that mass arises from a field's
interaction with an invisible, space-filling structure challenges classical intuitions and invites deeper metaphysical
inquiry into the nature of emptiness, structure, and identity.
Moreover, the Higgs field’s success reinvigorated interest in the philosophy of symmetry, particularly in
discussions of how broken symmetries can give rise to physical phenomena. Kosso (1999) and Brading and Castellani
(2003) emphasized the significance of symmetry not just as a mathematical artifact and a foundational feature of
physical law. In this view, breaking symmetry through the Higgs mechanism is not merely a calculational tool—it
reveals something fundamental about how differentiation and diversity emerge in a universe governed by initially
uniform principles.
The search for the Higgs boson itself, culminating in the 2012 announcement at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider,
represented a milestone in empirical physics and validated a decades-long theoretical edifice (Aad et al., 2012). The
boson’s mass, approximately 125 GeV/c², fits within the parameters predicted by the Standard Model. However, it
also opened new questions regarding the stability of the electroweak vacuum, the hierarchy problem, and the possible
existence of physics beyond the Standard Model (Chatrchyan et al., 2012). In this sense, the Higgs field’s discovery
completed a significant chapter in particle physics and simultaneously pointed to future theoretical challenges.
In summary, the theoretical maturation of the Higgs field reflects a confluence of mathematical rigour, conceptual
innovation, and empirical ambition. From its inception as a theoretical fix to the problem of gauge boson mass, it
evolved into a cornerstone of modern particle physics, reshaping our understanding of mass, vacuum, and the invisible
scaffolding of the universe. As the Standard Model continues to be tested and extended, the Higgs field stands as a
paradigmatic example of how abstract symmetry principles, combined with empirical discipline, can yield profound
insights into the architecture of reality.
DAVID LEONG
__________________
Corresponding Author: Dr David Leong, PhD, david.leong@charisma.edu.eu, davidskleong@gmail.com
6
The Dynamics of Dao: Flow, Emptiness, and Creative Emergence
The Daodejing (道德經), attributed to Laozi, stands as a seminal text in Daoist philosophy, offering profound insights
into the nature of existence through rich metaphors and nuanced language (Swartz, 2020). Central to its teachings are
concepts of flow, field, and generative space, which serve as foundational elements in understanding the Dao—the
fundamental principle underlying the universe. This section delves into these metaphors, exploring their significance
and the scholarly interpretations illuminating their depth.
Metaphors of Flow: Water as the Embodiment of Dao
Water is a pervasive and potent metaphor within the Daodejing, encapsulating the essence of the Dao's behaviour and
the ideal human conduct aligned with it. The text frequently extols water's attributes—its yielding nature, adaptability,
and capacity to nourish all things without contention—as exemplary qualities to be emulated. In Chapter 8, it is stated:
The highest good is like water. Water benefits all things and does not compete (Ames & Hall, 2003).
This passage underscores the virtue of humility and non-striving, suggesting that individuals should navigate life with
grace and without resistance, like water. Scholars have analyzed how Laozi employs the water metaphor to transform
the abstract concept of Dao into practical guidance for social and personal behaviour, emphasizing qualities like
softness (柔rou) and non-competition (不爭 bu zheng) (Niedenführ, 2024). Lai’s (2014) conceptual analysis further
elucidates that water occupies an essential position in the conceptualization of the Daoist worldview, particularly in
notions of 道(dao) and 德(de).
This paper contends that Chapter 8 of the Daodejing serves not merely as an exposition of dao and de but also as
a pivotal articulation of reality's fluid and oscillatory nature as perceived by Laozi. The chapter, translated as the verse
on water’s virtue, has traditionally been read as a moral injunction advocating humility, adaptability, and non-
contention. However, a closer philosophical reading reveals that Laozi presents an ontological framework that gestures
toward a deeper metaphysical insight: all phenomena follow a pattern analogous to the sine wave — a rhythmic
alternation of ascent and descent, fullness and emptiness, presence and absence.
Water, the central metaphor of Chapter 8, is not chosen arbitrarily. Laozi stipulated, “The highest good is like
water. Water benefits all things and does not compete. It stays in lowly places that others disdain. Therefore, it is close
to the Dao”. Water is both formless and persistent; it yields yet wears away the hardest stone; it is always in motion,
adapting to the contours of the world while remaining unchanged in essence. This reflects a profound intuition about
the nature of being — not as static substance, but as continuous flow and transformation.
In scientific terms, Laozi’s poetic description resonates with what we might call the wave-nature of phenomena.
While Laozi does not employ mathematical formalism, his analogical method prefigures what we now recognize in
wave functions in physics: oscillation, phase, and amplitude as intrinsic to the behaviour of systems. Everything arises,
peaks, and declines — a cyclical procession not unlike the sine curve in trigonometry or the probability waves in
quantum mechanics. By describing water’s capacity to flow downward, to assume any shape, and to nourish without
striving, Laozi intimated a universal principle of recurrence and return (fan 反), one that is embedded in the ontology
of Dao itself.
Therefore, Chapter 8 should be read as ethical counsel and as a critical philosophical juncture that encapsulates
Laozi’s cosmology (Xiaojiao, 2017). The wave-like behaviour of all things — their movement between poles of yin
and yang, of activity and stillness — is embedded within the very logic of the Dao (Schorre & Dunne, 2004). In this
sense, water is more than a metaphor; it is an epistemic and ontological model, standing in for a worldview that
understands reality as fundamentally dynamic and cyclical. The unspoken mathematics of Laozi’s vision lies in his
poetic allusions, which suggest a universe governed not by permanence but by rhythmic transformation.
Concepts of Field and Space: The Generative Emptiness
The Daodejing articulates a vision of the Dao as an all-encompassing, formless field (Leong, 2025; Pang-White,
2023)—a boundless source from which all phenomena emerge and to which they return. This notion is closely tied to
the concept of xu (emptiness or void), which is portrayed not as mere nothingness but as a fertile ground for creation
and transformation (J. Liu & Berger, 2014). Chapter 11 illustrates this through the utility of emptiness:
Thirty spokes share one hub. Adapt the nothing therein to the purpose in hand, and you will have the
use of the cart (Ames & Hall, 2003).
THE FABRIC OF SPACE REV ISITED THROUGH THE LENS OF DAO: HIGGS FIELD AS THE NEW ETHER
.
__________________
Corresponding Author: Dr David Leong, PhD, david.leong@canberra.edu.au, davidskleong@gmail.com
7
Here, the emphasis on the central void of the wheel highlights how emptiness is integral to functionality and
existence. This metaphor extends to the idea that the Dao's formlessness allows for manifesting of myriad things,
suggesting that space or emptiness is not a passive backdrop but an active, generative presence. Lu (2012) drew
upon Daodejing’s metaphorical use of water to clarify the fundamental philosophical tenets of Dao, highlighting the
inherent fluidity of existence and the virtue of non-resistance.
Generative Space and Creation: The Dao as the Source
The Daodejing addresses the theme of creation from the void, emphasizing the Dao’s role as the origin of all existence.
Chapter 42 describes the cosmogony:
The Dao gives birth to One. One gives birth to Two. Two gives birth to Three. Three gives birth to the
myriad things (Ames & Hall, 2003).
This passage portrays a generative process where the Dao, as an empty yet potent source, unfolds into the
multiplicity of the universe. The concept of creation ex nihilo in the Daodejing has been explored to understand how
the text frames the emergence of being from non-being, highlighting the Dao’s function as a fertile emptiness that
engenders all forms (Wang, 2018). The notion of fan (return or reversal) is also pertinent here, indicating a cyclical
process where all things revert to their origin after reaching an extreme point, underscoring the dynamic and
regenerative nature of existence (Girardot, 1988).
Relevance to Modern Scientific Paradigms
The metaphors of flow, field, and generative space in the Daodejing resonate with contemporary scientific concepts,
particularly in quantum science and cosmology. Dao’s depiction of an underlying field parallels modern
understandings of fundamental fields in physics that give rise to particles and forces (Nagashima, 2011).
Interdisciplinary research has explored these convergences, suggesting that the Dao philosophy can offer valuable
perspectives on the nature of reality and the interconnectedness of all things (Nelson, 2009).
The Daodejing employs rich metaphors and concepts to convey the Dao’s nature as a dynamic, all-encompassing
field from which all phenomena emerge and to which they return. By examining these metaphors, we gain insights
into the Dao views on the natural order, the role of emptiness in creation (Ma & Wang, 2024), and the harmonious
flow of existence. These ancient ideas continue to offer profound reflections on the structure of reality and our place
within it.
Resonances Between Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking and Daoist Concepts
of Form Arising from Formlessness
In contemporary theoretical physics, spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB) is a central concept in explaining the
emergence of structure and mass from an underlying symmetric, high-energy state (Liu, 2003). Closely tied to this is
the notion of the quantum vacuum, which, far from being empty, is understood as a seething field of latent
potentiality—a ground state from which particle interactions and phenomena emerge. This framework bears
remarkable philosophical resonances with ancient Daoist metaphysics, particularly the idea that form arises from
formlessness, a concept repeatedly emphasized in the Daodejing.
In quantum field theory (QFT), spontaneous symmetry breaking describes a phenomenon whereby the governing
equations of a system remain symmetric, yet the system’s ground state—or vacuum state—does not reflect that
symmetry (Milonni, 2013). The most celebrated instance of this is the Higgs mechanism, where the scalar Higgs field
possesses a symmetric potential, but the field “chooses” a specific vacuum state that breaks this symmetry, leading to
the emergence of mass in otherwise massless gauge bosons (Markkanen et al., 2018). This moment of differentiation
is not externally imposed but arises intrinsically from the potential landscape of the field itself (Stöltzner, 2014). The
implication is that the richness and diversity of the material world emerge from a background that is, in itself,
undifferentiated but primed for self-organization.
This ontological movement—from symmetry to asymmetry, from vacuum to form (Borrelli, 2021)—echoes the
Dao as the undivided source of all beings, from which the “ten thousand things” (wanwu, 萬物) are born (Shang,
2002). Chapter 42 of the Daodejing states: “The Dao gives birth to the One; the One gives birth to Two; the Two give
birth to Three; and the Three give birth to all things” (道生一，一生二，二生三，三生萬物) (Gu, 2009). This
progression suggests a void or unmanifest field—the Dao—that, while without form, is fertile and generative. It
metaphorically mirrors the vacuum structure of QFT, in which a field devoid of actual particles is nonetheless the
substratum from which all physical manifestation unfolds (Schroer, 2008).
DAVID LEONG
__________________
Corresponding Author: Dr David Leong, PhD, david.leong@charisma.edu.eu, davidskleong@gmail.com
8
Moreover, the Dao is characterized in Chapter 25 of the Daodejing as formless, yet giving form, shapeless, yet the
source of all shapes (J. Tan & Bao, 2022). It is described as before Heaven and Earth, suggesting its primacy and
transcendence of all dichotomies and structures (Michael, 2023). The quantum vacuum is not an absence but a
dynamical plenum, filled with potential fluctuations and zero-point energy (Aitchison, 1985); the Dao is not an empty
void but a mysterious, inexhaustible origin (Kohn, 2016). The term wu (無)—often translated as “non-being” or
“nothingness”—is better understood not as nihilistic emptiness (Tan, 2024) but as a generative matrix. Similarly,
“nothingness” is redefined in physics: vacuum states are quantum fields in their lowest energy configuration,
brimming with virtual particles and fluctuations (Aitchison, 1985).
The spontaneous nature of symmetry breaking also finds philosophical affinity in the Dao’s idea of ziran (自然),
or “self-so”/“natural spontaneity”. Just as the vacuum does not require an external force to break its symmetry—the
asymmetry unfolds as a natural consequence of internal conditions—so does the Dao operate without imposition.
Things arise “of themselves,” not from imposed causality but through spontaneous self-differentiation. Chapter 17 of
the Daodejing asserts that the best ruler is one whose existence is barely known by the people. The next best is one
who is loved. The next is one who is feared. The worst is one who is despised (Ames & Hall, 2003). This hierarchy
reflects Dao’s value of non-intervention and subtle influence, which is mirrored in the non-coercive unfolding of
physical laws from vacuum dynamics.
In philosophical terms, both frameworks challenge anthropocentric notions of creation as an act of imposition or
construction. Instead, they present emergence as a subtle, immanent process governed by principles intrinsic to the
underlying field or substrate. In Dao, the process is described in poetic and non-dualistic language (Peerenboom,
1992); in physics, it is articulated through Lagrangians, potential energy surfaces, and symmetry groups (Bulyzhenkov,
2018). Yet in both, there is an acknowledgement that being arises from non-being, not through force, but through an
internal dynamism that makes transformation inevitable.
This convergence has not gone unnoticed in scholarship. Capra (1975) was among the earliest to highlight parallels
between Eastern metaphysics and modern physics, arguing that the Dao principles of harmony, flux, and non-duality
resonate with the findings of systems theory and quantum mechanics. More recently, interdisciplinary thinkers such
as Bohm (2002) have elaborated how implicate order and quantum holism find analogues in Dao’s cosmology, where
the manifest world is an unfolding of deeper, invisible principles.
In conclusion, the correspondence between spontaneous symmetry breaking and the Dao cosmogenesis is more
than a superficial metaphor. Both systems conceptualize the emergence of differentiated reality from an
undifferentiated source. While Dao’s model employs poetic language and paradox to describe the mysterious origins
of form, modern physics invokes mathematical formalisms and symmetry groups. Despite their methodological
differences, they converge in suggesting that the structured universe is rooted in a primordial field of potential and
that differentiation is not imposed but emergent—a self-unfolding of the Real.
Cross-Paradigmatic Reflections: Toward a Broader Theorization of Reality
The juxtaposition of quantum field theory and the Dao’s metaphysics opens a fertile conceptual terrain for rethinking
foundational assumptions about the structure of reality. This intersection enriches philosophical discourse and
challenges disciplinary boundaries, inviting a reevaluation of the epistemological and ontological frameworks that
govern scientific and metaphysical thought. By drawing analogies between spontaneous symmetry breaking and the
Dao’s account of form emerging from formlessness, we are not conflating distinct traditions but engaging in a
productive cross-paradigmatic dialogue that foregrounds shared intuitions about emergence, indeterminacy, and the
dynamism of being.
One of the key contributions of such interpretive work lies in its potential to reframe scientific pedagogy. Modern
physics is often taught through a heavily formalized, equation-centric lens emphasizing calculational techniques over
conceptual grounding. While this approach is indispensable for technical proficiency, it may obscure the philosophical
depth of scientific ideas and their resonance with broader human inquiry. Integrating comparative metaphysical
perspectives—such as those found in Dao—can offer students alternative frameworks for understanding abstract
principles such as vacuum states, field potentials, and emergent order. These cross-cultural metaphors do not replace
scientific rigour but complement it, encouraging learners to view scientific models not as static truths but as dynamic
representations shaped by human cognition, language, and worldview. Engaging with ancient cosmologies that
conceptualize reality in terms of flow, potential, and spontaneous generation allows students to think critically about
the metaphors underlying contemporary science and cultivate a more nuanced philosophical literacy.
From the standpoint of metaphysics, these comparisons challenge the ontological dualisms that have long
characterized Western philosophy—particularly the divisions between being and non-being, substance and void, order
and chaos. Dao’s conception of the void (wu) as inherently generative contrasts the Cartesian notion of extensionless
space or the Newtonian absolute space-as-container (Freudenthal, 2012). In quantum field theory, the vacuum is no
longer empty but structured, imbued with latent energies and fluctuations that give rise to particles and forces. Both
THE FABRIC OF SPACE REV ISITED THROUGH THE LENS OF DAO: HIGGS FIELD AS THE NEW ETHER
.
__________________
Corresponding Author: Dr David Leong, PhD, david.leong@canberra.edu.au, davidskleong@gmail.com
9
systems agree that absence is not a mere negation but a condition of productive potentiality. This invites a
reconceptualization of substance and process, suggesting that what exists is less a set of discrete entities and more a
relational matrix of dynamically unfolding patterns.
Such insights resonate with process philosophy, particularly the work of Whitehead (1929) and his followers, who
view reality as constituted by events and relations rather than fixed substances. In this view, the Dao functions as a
metaphysical analogue to what Whitehead (1929) termed the creative advance into novelty, a processual unfolding
that defies static categorizations. Similarly, the quantum vacuum, as a generative substrate that continuously gives rise
to virtual particles and field excitations, can be seen as a physical instantiation of this metaphysical dynamism. These
convergences suggest a shared commitment to ontological relationality, in which the fundamental constituents of the
universe are not things but interactions, processes, and flows.
Moreover, these reflections have implications for ontological inquiry more broadly, especially as contemporary
thought grapples with the limitations of mechanistic reductionism and the growing relevance of non-linear, complex
systems. Dao’s worldview emphasizes spontaneity (ziran), interdependence, and balance, and it offers a mode of
understanding that accommodates ambiguity and paradox—qualities increasingly recognized as intrinsic to complex
adaptive systems. Rather than seeking linear causality or binary oppositions, Dao’s thought models a relational
ontology in which opposites co-generate and transformation is constant. When viewed through this lens, quantum
indeterminacy and field fluctuations are not anomalies to be domesticated but expressions of a fundamentally open,
self-organizing, and reflexive universe.
Finally, engaging these cross-cultural metaphysical frameworks may encourage a paradigm shift in
conceptualizing knowledge. Insofar as the scientific enterprise aspires to universality, it must remain open to insights
from diverse philosophical traditions that have long grappled with the fundamental questions of being, knowing, and
becoming. In this sense, comparative philosophy becomes not merely an academic exercise but a methodological
imperative for a more integrative and reflexive science. Such an approach would deepen our understanding of concepts
like mass, field, and vacuum and illuminate the metaphors that structure our cognitive engagement with the cosmos.
In sum, the alignment of ideas from quantum field theory and Dao’s metaphysics is not merely coincidental or
poetic—it reveals a deep-seated human impulse to comprehend the invisible forces that underlie and generate form.
By exploring these resonances, we enrich our scientific and philosophical vocabularies, fostering a more holistic vision
of reality that affirms the unity of knowledge across cultural, disciplinary, and ontological divides.
Conclusion
The task undertaken in this paper has been an attempt to reweave fragments of intellectual tradition into a coherent
philosophical tapestry. By juxtaposing the Higgs field of modern quantum physics with the ether of classical science
and the generative formlessness of the Dao in Chinese metaphysics, this paper has engaged in an act of interpretive
synthesis—one that may challenge disciplinary purists, but which aspires to a more expansive horizon of
understanding.
While the Higgs field remains, in technical terms, a Lorentz-invariant scalar field introduced to preserve gauge
symmetry and provide mass to W and Z bosons through spontaneous electroweak symmetry breaking, its ontological
implications cannot be wholly contained within mathematical formalism alone. The fact that it permeates all space,
remains invisible yet foundational, and enables the very structure of matter to cohere has prompted scientists and
commentators alike to evoke metaphors of the “new ether”. Though imprecise from a physicalist standpoint, these
analogies reflect a deeper epistemic urge: to name the nameless substrate, to comprehend that which sustains the
visible from behind the veil of the void.
The effort to name the nameless is both a linguistic necessity and a philosophical paradox. This is poignantly
articulated in the opening lines of the Daodejing, where Laozi commented, “The Dao that can be spoken is not the
constant Dao; the name that can be named is not the constant name” (Chapter 1). While acknowledging that the
ultimate source is beyond designation, “as a name, I call it Dao.” This act of naming is not a claim to definitional
precision but a provisional gesture—an invitation to perceive what is beyond conceptual grasp. In this spirit, the
metaphor of the Higgs field as a “new ether” is not an empirical assertion but an attempt, however tentative, to
comprehend that which sustains the visible from behind the veil of the void—the Daodejing gestures toward the
generative substrate of reality without offering causal explanations or mathematical formalisms. Rather than defining
the origin of the Dao, the text points toward its operation in the world through succinct, evocative imagery. For
example, Chapter 8 compares the highest virtue to water: “The highest good is like water. Water benefits all things
and does not compete.” It does not mention flux yet conveys the essential quality of constant motion, responsiveness,
and adaptability. These descriptions convey the felt experience of cosmological flow without recourse to analytical
decomposition, much as contemporary physics might characterize quantum vacua through equations, while
philosophical discourse recognizes the metaphysical challenge of describing a field that cannot be observed directly.
DAVID LEONG
__________________
Corresponding Author: Dr David Leong, PhD, david.leong@charisma.edu.eu, davidskleong@gmail.com
10
In both cases, what emerges is an ontological humility. Whether through the poetic concision of the Dao’s scripture
or the symbolic abstraction of modern physics, the effort to name, describe, or model the invisible reveals not just the
limits of knowledge but the enduring human impulse to gesture toward the Real—even as it evades capture in word
or number.
In this gesture, modern physics echoes what sages articulated millennia ago. The Daodejing opens with a paradox
that speaks directly to the limits of discursive knowledge: “The Dao that can be spoken is not the eternal Dao”. Yet,
paradoxically, the text proceeds to speak, offering images and metaphors of flow, emptiness, and spontaneity arising
to point toward an origin beyond naming. The Dao, as a self-generating, undifferentiated totality from which wanwu
(ten thousand things) emerge, invites metaphysical speculation and ethical alignment: to live in accord with the Dao
is to allow form to arise from formlessness without imposing artificial order. This interplay of formlessness and form
is mirrored in spontaneous symmetry breaking, where a field initially in a symmetric vacuum state transitions into a
particular configuration that defines the properties of matter. In both systems—the Dao cosmology and quantum field
theory—the structure of reality is not externally imposed but internally emergent. The cosmos is not built as a machine
but unfolds as a relations field.
Some may argue that cross-cultural and cross-epistemic interpretations risk inaccuracy, conflation, or dilution of
rigorous standards. Yet this concern, while valid, can be tempered by recognizing that the differences we guard so
closely—between science and metaphysics, East and West, knowledge and belief—are human constructions shaped
by language, history, and epistemological commitments. These boundaries are not immutable and are often drawn
more to exclude than to understand. When we step back from disciplinary certainties, we can see the commonalities—
the metaphors, intuitions, and questions—that bind these traditions in their shared aspiration to comprehend reality.
The purpose of this paper has not been to resolve these traditions into a single, monolithic truth but to hold them
in conversation—to allow resonance without reduction and analogy without appropriation. In doing so, it offers a
model for how scientific inquiry and philosophical reflection can be mutually enriching. Science, after all, is not
merely a collection of equations but a mode of wonder, an evolving dialogue with nature’s intelligibility. Likewise,
philosophy, at its best, is not the rigid defence of abstract categories but a search for depth, coherence, and the unseen
patterns beneath the seen.
This dialogue can—and must—extend into education and how we train new generations to think about matter,
space, and meaning. It suggests that the physicist and the philosopher, the sage and the scientist, are not opposites but
co-travellers, tracing different paths through the same landscape of being. Their languages differ, and their tools
diverge, but their impulse is the same: to make sense of a cosmos that exceeds all final explanations.
In the end, if the Higgs field can be seen not just as a field of mass but as a metaphor for hidden coherence, and if
the Dao can be read not merely as a mystical abstraction but as a principle of emergent structure, then we may find
ourselves converging—not in doctrine, but in dialogue. Such convergence is not a closure but an opening to new
models, new metaphors, and a renewed sense of intellectual and spiritual humility in the face of a universe that
continues to elude and inspire.
Conflicts of Interest
The author declares that there are no conflicts of interest in this work.
THE FABRIC OF SPACE REV ISITED THROUGH THE LENS OF DAO: HIGGS FIELD AS THE NEW ETHER
.
__________________
Corresponding Author: Dr David Leong, PhD, david.leong@canberra.edu.au, davidskleong@gmail.com
11
References
’t Hooft, G., & Veltman, M. (1972). Regularization and renormalization of gauge fields. Nuclear Physics B, 44(1), 189–213.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(72)90279-9
Aad, G., Abajyan, T., Abbott, B., Abdallah, Khalek, S. A., Abdelalim, & Bansil, H. S. (2012). Observation of a new particle in
the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC. Physics Letters B, 716(1), 1–29.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020
Adler, J. A. (2015). On Translating Taiji. On Translating Taiji. Returning to Zhu Xi: Emerging Patterns within the Supreme
Polarity, 51–82.
Aitchison, I. J. R. (1985). Nothing’s plenty the vacuum in modern quantum field theory. Contemporary Physics, 26(4), 333–391.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00107518508219107
Ames, R., & Hall, D. (2003). Dao de jing: A philosophical translation. Ballantine Books.
Baindur, M. (2015). Nature as Elemental: The Matter of Nature (pp. 65–79). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2358-0_4
Bäumer, B. (1996). Kalatattvakosa (Vol. 3). Motilal Banarsidass Publishe.
Bohm, D. (2002). Wholeness and the implicate order. In Psychology Press. (Vol. 31, Issue 10). Psychology Press.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9112/31/10/042
Bork, A. M. (1966). The" FitzGerald" Contraction. Isis, 57(2), 199–207.
Borrelli, A. (2015). The story of the Higgs boson: the origin of mass in early particle physics. The European Physical Journal H,
40(1), 1–52. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjh/e2014-50026-9
Borrelli, A. (2021). Between symmetry and asymmetry: spontaneous symmetry breaking as narrative knowing. Synthese, 198(4),
3919–3948. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02320-8
Brading, K., & Castellani, E. (Eds. ). (2003). Symmetries in physics: Philosophical reflections. Cambridge University Press.
Builder, G. (1958). Ether and Relativity. Australian Journal of Physics, 11(3), 279. https://doi.org/10.1071/PH580279
Bulyzhenkov, I. (2018). Cartesian Material Space with Active-Passive Densities of Complex Charges and Yin-Yang
Compensation of Energy Integrals. Galaxies, 6(2), 60. https://doi.org/10.3390/galaxies6020060
Capra, F. (1975). The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism.
Shambhala Publications.
Carroll, S. (2013). The Particle at the End of the Universe: How the Hunt for the Higgs Boson Leads us to the Edge of a New
World. Dutton.
Chai, D. (2014). Meontological generativity: a Daoist reading of the thing. Philosophy East and West, 303–318.
Chatrchyan, S., Khachatryan, V., Sirunyan, A. M., Tumasyan, A., Adam, W., Aguilo, E., & Da Costa, E. M. (2012). Observation
of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC. Physics Letters B, 716(1), 30–61.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021
Chinmayananda, S. (2022). Vishnu Sahasranama. Central Chinmaya Mission Trust.
Close, F. (2007). The void. OUP Oxford.
Crawford, S. C. (1994). Dilemmas of life and death: Hindu ethics in a North American context. State University of New York
Press.
Della Negra, M., Jenni, P., & Virdee, T. S. (2012). Journey in the Search for the Higgs Boson: The ATLAS and CMS
Experiments at the Large Hadron Collider. Science, 338(6114), 1560–1568. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230827
Dhammajoti, K. L. (2020). Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.013.682
DAVID LEONG
__________________
Corresponding Author: Dr David Leong, PhD, david.leong@charisma.edu.eu, davidskleong@gmail.com
12
Dhar, U. (2024). Philosophy: Theory and Praxis: An Analytical Study of the System of Yoga. UMA DHAR.
Dirac, P. A. M. (1951). Is there an Æther? Nature, 168(4282), 906–907. https://doi.org/10.1038/168906a0
Dor, G. (2024). Unlocking the Chinese Gate: Manifestations of the Space" In-Between" in Early China. State University of New
York Press.
Doran, B. G. (1976). Origins and Consolidation of Field Theory in Nineteenth-Century Britain: From the Mechanical to the
Electromagnetic View of Nature. In Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Volume 6 (pp. 133–260). Princeton
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400886395-004
Einstein, A. (1905). The special theory of relativity. Ann Phys, 17, 891–921.
Einstein, Albert. (2007). Ether and the Theory of Relativity. In The Genesis of General Relativity (pp. 1537–1542). Springer
Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4000-9_34
Englert, F., & Brout, R. (1964). Broken Symmetry and the Mass of Gauge Vector Mesons. Physical Review Letters, 13(9), 321–
323. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.321
Ferraro, R. (2007). In Search of the Ether. In Einstein’s Spacetime (pp. 17–46). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
0-387-69947-9_2
FitzGerald, G. F. (1889). The ether and the Earth’s atmosphere. Science, 328, 390–390. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ns-
13.328.390-a
Fournier, D. (2012). Performance of the LHC, ATLAS and CMS in 2011. EPJ Web of Conferences, 28, 01003.
https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/20122801003
Freudenthal, G. (2012). Atom and individual in the age of Newton: on the genesis of the mechanistic world view (Vol. 88).
Springer Science & Business Media.
Giacosa, F. (2009). Spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry, and eventually of parity, in a model with two Mexican hats.
https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-009-1199-4
Girardot, N. J. (1988). Myth and meaning in early Taoism: The theme of chaos (hun-tun) (No. 1). Univ of California Press.
Glashow, S. L. (1961). Partial-symmetries of weak interactions. Nuclear Physics, 22(4), 579–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-
5582(61)90469-2
Gu, M. D. (2009). The theory of the dao and taiji: A chinese model of the mind. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 36(1), 157–175.
Guralnik, G. S., Hagen, C. R., & Kibble, T. W. B. (1964). Global Conservation Laws and Massless Particles. Physical Review
Letters, 13(20), 585–587. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.585
Higgs, P. W. (1964). Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons. Physical Review Letters, 13(16), 508–509.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.508
Hockney, M. (2013). The god equation. Magus Books.
Jammer, M. (2013). Concepts of space: the history of theories of space in physics: third. Courier Corporation.
Jhaveri, I. H. (1956). The concept of ākāśa in Indian philosophy. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 37(1/4),
300–307.
Kohn, L. (2016). Science and the Dao. Lulu.com.
Kosso, P. (1999). Symmetry arguments in physics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 30(3), 479–492.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0039-3681(99)00012-6
Lai, K. L. (2014). Conceptual Foundations for Environmental Ethics: A Daoist Perspective. In Environmental Philosophy in
Asian Traditions of Thought (pp. 173–195). SUNY Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781438452029-012
Laviolette, P. A. (1985). An Introduction to Subquantum Kinetics. International Journal of General Systems, 11(4), 281–293.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03081078508934918
THE FABRIC OF SPACE REV ISITED THROUGH THE LENS OF DAO: HIGGS FIELD AS THE NEW ETHER
.
__________________
Corresponding Author: Dr David Leong, PhD, david.leong@canberra.edu.au, davidskleong@gmail.com
13
Leong, D. (2024). Re-Contextualizing Leadership Theories Through a Quantum Perspective on Dao/Yijing. Journal of
Management, Spirituality & Religion. https://doi.org/10.51327/OFAV9641
Leong, D. (2025). BRIDGING EAST AND WEST: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF HEIM’S 12 MULTIDIMENSIONAL
UNIVERSE THROUGH THE LENS OF DAO AND BUDDHISM ON CONSCIOUSNESS AND REALITY.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5178484
Liu, C. (2003). Classical Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking. Philosophy of Science, 70(5), 1219–1232.
https://doi.org/10.1086/377402
Liu, J., & Berger, D. L. (2014). Nothingness in Asian philosophy. New York: Routledge.
Long, J. D. (2024). Discovering Indian Philosophy: An Introduction to Hindu, Jain and Buddhist Thought. Bloomsbury
Publishing.
Lu, Y. (2012). Water Metaphors in Dao de jing: A Conceptual Analysis. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 02(04), 151–158.
https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2012.24020
Lysenko, V. G. (2018). Mind and Consciousness in Indian Philosophy. Russian Studies in Philosophy, 56(3), 214–231.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2018.1459378
Ma, Y., & Wang, H. (2024). A pedagogy of emptiness: a daoist perspective. Asia Pacific Education Review.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-023-09920-7
Markkanen, T., Rajantie, A., & Stopyra, S. (2018). Cosmological Aspects of Higgs Vacuum Metastability. Frontiers in
Astronomy and Space Sciences, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspas.2018.00040
Maxwell, J. C. (1865). VIII. A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
London, 155, 459–512. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstl.1865.0008
Michael, T. (2023). Laozi’s Conception of Justice in the Daodejing: Distinguishing the Constant Dao from the Dao of Heaven.
Religions, 14(6), 771. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14060771
Michelson, A. A. (1897). The relative motion of the Earth and ether. American Journal of Science, 4(18), 475–478.
Michelson, A. A., & Morley, E. W. (1887). On the relative motion of the Earth and the luminiferous ether. American Journal of
Science, 3(203), 333–345.
Milonni, P. W. (2013). The quantum vacuum: an introduction to quantum electrodynamics. Academic press.
Mukhopadhyay, A. (2019). Quantum Reality and the Theory of Śūnya. In Quantum Reality and Theory of Śūnya (pp. 47–89).
Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1957-0_5
Nagashima, Y. (2011). Elementary Particle Physics: Quantum Field Theory and Particles V1 (Vol. 1). John Wiley & Sons.
Nelson, E. S. (2009). Responding with Dao: Early Daoist ethics and the environment. Philosophy East and West, 294–316.
Niedenführ, M. (2024). Relational and Transactional Rationalities in Chinese Thought and Social Practice (pp. 213–244).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-75725-9_11
Pang-White, A. A. (2023). Ecological Implications of the Logic of Non-Duality. Asian Studies, 11(2), 175–200.
https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2023.11.2.175-200
Patt-Shamir, G. (2020). Reading Taijitu Shuo Synchronously: The Human Sense of Wuji er Taiji. Dao, 19(3), 427–442.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11712-020-09735-y
Peerenboom, R. P. (1992). Nonduality and Daoism. International Philosophical Quarterly, 32(1), 35–53.
https://doi.org/10.5840/ipq199232152
Pokazanyeva, A. (2016). MIND WITHIN MATTER: SCIENCE, THE OCCULT, AND THE (META)PHYSICS OF ETHER
AND AKASHA. Zygon®, 51(2), 318–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12259
Quigg, C. (2014). Gauge Theories of the Strong, Weak, and Electromagnetic Interactions. Princeton University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400848225
DAVID LEONG
__________________
Corresponding Author: Dr David Leong, PhD, david.leong@charisma.edu.eu, davidskleong@gmail.com
14
Raia, C. G. (2007). From ether theory to ether theology: Oliver Lodge and the physics of immortality. Journal of the History of
the Behavioral Sciences, 43(1), 18–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbs.20207
Robinson, A. (2015). Einstein: A hundred years of relativity. Princeton University Press.
Salam, A., & Ward, J. C. (1994). ELECTROMAGNETIC AND WEAK INTERACTIONS (pp. 210–213).
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812795915_0029
Salam, Abdus, & Ward, J. C. (1959). Weak and electromagnetic interactions. Il Nuovo Cimento, 11(4), 568–577.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02726525
Sarkar, T. K., Salazar-Palma, M., & Sengupta, D. L. (2009). Who Was James Clerk Maxwell and What Was and Is His
Electromagnetic Theory? IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, 51(4), 97–116.
https://doi.org/10.1109/MAP.2009.5338690
Schmaltz, M. (2003). Physics beyond the standard model (Theory): Introducing the Little Higgs. Nuclear Physics B -
Proceedings Supplements, 117, 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0920-5632(03)01409-9
Schorre, J., & Dunne, C. (2004). Yijing Wondering and Wandering. Arts of China Seminars.
Schöter, A. (2010). The Yijing as a Mathematical Metaphysics (Issue June). http://www.yijing.co.uk
Schroer, B. (2008). STRING THEORY, THE CRISIS IN PARTICLE PHYSICS AND THE ASCENT OF METAPHORIC
ARGUMENTS. International Journal of Modern Physics D, 17(13n14), 2373–2431.
https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271808014217
Shang, G. (2002). Embracing differences and many: The signification of one in Zhuangzi’s utterance of Dao. Dao, 1(2), 229–
250. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02857097
Shankland, R. S. (1964). Michelson-Morley Experiment. American Journal of Physics, 32(1), 16–35.
https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1970063
Stöltzner, M. (2014). Higgs Models and Other Stories about Mass Generation. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 45(2),
369–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-014-9259-3
Swartz, W. (2020). Reading philosophy, writing poetry: Intertextual modes of making meaning in early Medieval China (Vol.
111). BRILL.
Tan, C. A. L. (2024). Freedom’s Frailty: Self-Realization in the Neo-Daoist Philosophy of Guo Xiang’s Zhuangzi. State
University of New York Press.
Tan, J., & Bao, X. (2022). Reexamining the Different Paths to the Dao of the Daodejing. Religions, 13(12), 1216.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13121216
Wang, J. (2018). Re-interpreting Dao De Jing from an Ecological Perspective. Comparative Literature Studies, 55(4), 812–823.
https://doi.org/10.5325/complitstudies.55.4.0812
WANG Tongjun. (2020). The Dao of Mathematical Creativity, Symmetry Theories, and Yin-Yang Philosophy With Their
Classroom Applications. Management Studies, 8(5). https://doi.org/10.17265/1539-8072/2020.10.005
Weinberg, S. (1967). A Model of Leptons. Physical Review Letters, 19(21), 1264–1266.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.19.1264
Whitehead, A. N. (1929). Process and reality : an essay in cosmology; Gifford lectures delivered in the University of Edinburgh
during the session 1927-28. xii, 547 p.
Whittaker, E. (1989). A history of the theories of aether and electricity: vol. I: the classical theories; vol. II: the modern theories,
1900-1926 (Vol. 1). Courier Dover Publications.
Wilczek, F. (2008). The lightness of being: Mass, ether, and the unification of forces. Basic Books (AZ).
Xiaojiao, C. (2017). Paradoxes in the Textual Development of the Laozi: A Closer Examination of Chapters Eight and Twenty-
Four. Frontiers of Philosophy in China, 12(3), 393–407.
THE FABRIC OF SPACE REV ISITED THROUGH THE LENS OF DAO: HIGGS FIELD AS THE NEW ETHER
.
__________________
Corresponding Author: Dr David Leong, PhD, david.leong@canberra.edu.au, davidskleong@gmail.com
15
Dr David Leong, PhD
University of Canberra
Email: david.leong@charisma.edu.eu, davidskleong@gmail.com
David Leong, PhD, is an entrepreneurship theorist with over twenty-five years of practical
experience as a serial entrepreneur. His entrepreneurial journey commenced shortly after obtaining
his Bachelor of Business Administration degree from the National University of Singapore in 1994.
Dr Leong has been the driving force behind the inception of no fewer than fifteen ventures,
traversing sectors that include corporate finance, consultancy in business and marketing, technology
solutions, asset management, and human resources.
Acknowledged as an authoritative figure and thought leader in the business domain, Dr Leong's
expertise is frequently solicited by local media outlets like The Straits Times, Business Times,
Lianhe Zaobao, and Channel News Asia, particularly for his insights on economic trends, political
analyses, and human resources developments- https://peopleworldwide.com/images/pdf/2024.pdf
His academic endeavours are focused on the study of entrepreneurship, while he also has a scholarly
interest in the ancient Chinese Yijing (Book of Changes), exploring its intersections with
contemporary scientific fields such as quantum physics.
Dr. Leong is a prolific contributor to academic and professional literature, authoring numerous
articles and book chapters that span his diverse research interests. He has also penned a book titled
“Uncertainty, Timing and Luck on Quantum Terms in Entrepreneurship”, which delves into the
nuanced interplay of chance and strategic decision-making in the entrepreneurial landscape-
https://www.amazon.com/Uncertainty-Timing-Quantum-Terms-Entrepreneurship/dp/1636483534
For a more comprehensive overview of his work and contributions, please refer to
https://peopleworldwide.com/davidleong.html
