You are here: world-mysteries.com » science mysteries
Note: Experiments have revealed satisfactory results when the velocities of primary to secondary axial rotations are in a ratio of one to one-half, or 2 to 1.
* In the second edition of Metaparticles now on Web at www.metaparticles.com , Step 7 has been incorporated into Step 6.
THE METAPARTICLE STRUCTURE IN ITS TWO FORMS
Note that a metaparticle is not a new type of particle, but a binary, bipolar structural principle discovered in physical particles.
The electron, typical of particles having the archetypal structure shown here, normally travels through space in the Basic form of a dynamic disk as shown below (Fig.1 and Fig.2).
As metaparticle moves along arrowline, objective point will trace out the “wave-form” of a helix.
The Basic form shows vector orientation along its primary “spin axis.” This can be “up” or “down.” (Rotation can be clockwise or counter-clockwise.)
But that orientation disappears when the particle goes into double rotation in its spherical form* below (Fig.3). In the past, science’s structureless model of particles has required such explanations as “it is oriented in no direction,” or “in every direction.” The metaparticle’s alternating forms solve such paradoxes.
In the past, science's structureless model of particles has required such explanations as "it is oriented in no direction", or "in every direction". The metaparticle's alternating forms solve such paradoxes.
Dashline oval in Fig.3 shows another perimeter of sphere*, added for visual clarity.
*Computer chartings actually indicate a spheroid.
THREE-DIMENSIONAL ALTERNATE FORM OF ELECTRON
The movement of the objective pole of an electron (or similar particle) when it is involved in rotation on two axes is shown in Fig. 4. Arrows guide you through a very interesting and revealing pattern, in which the point-pole keeps to the surface of the spheroid form produced. Although rotation in particles is mentioned in recent publications for laymen, I've seen nothing about this form, which has been integral to the Metaparticle Theory since the early 80's.
The spherical form of an electron develops simply from its rotating disk, which in turn comes from a diameter linking polar points of energy. The two point-poles are bound together by a primordial principle Science might one day wish to consider -- divergent balance.
The computer rendition in Fig. 5 traces the pathway of an electron's objective point by enumeration. Having no hint of such structure, experimentalists have long had to abide with ever more ingenious wave theories that began to challenge the very conception of reality.
(Right here can be seen the primary cause of the "cloud of waves" concept and other wave theories which seem to be no longer in currency.)
But where intuition failed, the reliable predictions of Quantum Mechanics continued to provide what the work of science needed. Gradually, many scientists seemed to downplay understanding in favor of general utility. In recent instances, writers in the theoretical field are suggesting the idea that Quantum Mechanics might well be the actual controller of all universal laws and forces. (So I thought I had better start capitalizing it).
A TAOIST YANG & YIN SYMBOL
Comparison might suggest some connection. Did ancient sages somehow have knowledge of the basics of matter? Or is it just coincidence?
ENDING THE MYSTERY OF WAVE / PARTICLE DUALITY
There is very little doubt that certain foundational changes are being
investigated, tested, and accepted among leading lights in Particle Physics.
During the final years of the 20th century, veiled references began appearing in
science articles and especially on the Internet, with a sort of controlled,
scientific excitement glowing behind the veil. Momentous revelations are coming.
"Soon". "Before long". Nobody says when.
It's as though the Knights of the Round (or Discoid) Table cannot ride forth until they decide how to decorate their new horses. But all the inferences and official silences add up: Much indeed has to be revised, including the grand mystery of Wave/Particle Duality.
For decades Physics thought fundamental particles were composed of a single point possessing mass, charge, spin, etc. But certain experiments showed particles also act like waves. Eventually came the compromise: An electron, for example, was thought of as being sometimes a corpuscle and at other times as a sort of indefinite “cloud of waves”— “probability waves” that “collapse” into a point particle when you attempt measurement.
That gives us a fair synopsis of the wave/particle duality concept, leaving intact its traditional ability to be incomprehensible to all but the specially gifted. But when the powers finally concluded that particles like the electron have to possess an internal structure allowing rotation in place of a single spinning point, the need for a second point was unavoidable. (Physicists had always known a non-dimensional point can't spin, having no radius or axis, but quantum mechanics had let them get by without confronting that problem. Two points avoid it by allowing a diameter between them.)
In Fig.7 that second point is shown as a white circle following the broken-line pathway. In the metaparticle it is diametrically opposite the known, physical point which carries the negative charge in an electron. They both rotate around an axis indicated by the arrow-line, which also represents the electron's direction of translation or travel. Note that each of the point-pathways describes a helix, so the entire particle translates through space as a double-helical "wave form".
Fig. 7 as shown does not impress one as looking like a wave. It does look more like the conventional idea of a wave when it is stretched out as in Fig.7a . But to get right to the cogent question that leads to solving the mystery of wave/particle duality, let's eliminate everything but the pathway of the black dot in Fig.7b. That represents the "wave track" made by the detectable point-pole of the electron (or lesser pole of the metaparticle-electron).
The questions: After the black dot passes any given position reached along
that black wave-line, the latter remains on the paper; but does it remain in
space? Does that wave-line persist in actual existence -- as the dot does? If
you say maybe it persists in the time aspect of spacetime, let me ask once more:
Even if in some sense it exists in the past and is projected in the future,
should the wave be granted a real existence equal to that of the particle?
In my unprofessional opinion the answer has to be No.
I do not subscribe to the idea that All Realities Are Created Equal, whether any historical celebrity ever said it or not. And in this particular case I would bet that Scientific Materialism does not fully believe it either.
All the above does not mean Science is going to declare that Wave/Particle Duality was a mistake. The concept's wording was never the mystery, nor was its rationale at the time it was proposed. The mystery was always that the concept could never be actually understood. (And I will even modify that by adding, Couldn't be understood by anyone who didn't make an A in Cosmiquantum Mechanics.)
Let me now make this clearer than I already have: Particle Physics would have arrived at its changes and would be almost ready to announce its new Standard Model if the originator of the Metaparticle Theory had drowned in a rainstorm a year before he started work on it. Such has never been in question.
The now and future question is this: How will scientists explain the way they are getting the "invisible" second point?
Particle Physics is not, of course, quite yet ready to entertain the "greater pole", "more intensity", "Dynamic Field" explanation provided by metaparticles. But -- again in my opinion -- things would turn out a lot easier and better in the long run if they could.
THE 2-D AND 3-D METAPARTICLE FORMS RESOLVE BOTH SIMPLE AND COMPLEX MYSTERIES
The most momentous example of a major particle mystery solved by metaparticle structure in basic, 2-D form was given in the Wave/Particle Duality section. Others could be mentioned in instances where the electron (representing a class of particles) is in orbit around a nucleus. But I have decided it might contribute more to our credit account in your mind if we outline a major, perennial, complex mystery that has tested the imagination of many a well-known particle physicist: the electron beam diffraction experiment. You'll see why this one is easier to visualize than it is to diagram for a computer screen.
Imagine a tube, representing an electron gun, projecting a beam of individual electrons. They must go through a tiny hole in a barrier to register as small dots of light on a phosphor screen. The electrons hitting the screen straight-on build up a bullseye in its center. But the rest of them make concentric rings around the bullseye, exactly like a target.
What could be causing this rather startling phenomenon? That is what so many theoretical physicists were straining their imaginations over for generations. They came up with one marvel after another, many seemingly preposterous but impossible to prove either right or wrong. As far back as 1985 books show that physics was applying the hypothesis of side-wise momentum to this problem (implying particles), yet at the same time declaring it was a wave interference phenomenon. No one seemed to know what might be causing the sidewise momentum.
We are of course convinced that the helical pathway of the basic metaparticle-electron will explain sidewise momentum and provide the final answer to this challenging puzzle. We have neither the equipment nor the mathematics to attempt a computer simulation ourselves. It would take an experimental lab. But here is what I wager -- figuratively speaking.
I'll bet Particle Physics already has the answer by now (1/03), and it is keyed to a new binary or two-point structure of fundamental particles. Repulsion between the negatively charged electrons in atoms of the barrier hole edge and the "lesser pole" of the incoming electron is responsible for the target pattern. Electrons in the gun's beam are deflected at various angles to strike the phosphor screen, building up the concentric rings.
Remember, there is no way we could know where Science stands, at the present moment, on the electron diffraction mystery. Yet I am so sure this problem can be satisfactorily solved only by the basic metaparticle structure that I am willing to gamble my (figurative) reputation on it!
OUR LEADING DISSOLVER OF MYSTERIES IS THE SPHERICAL FORM
Puzzling observations regarding the orientation or "spin vector" of particles began cropping up before the middle of the last century. Even then there was uncertainty about whether particles were spinning or rotating, and some theorists implied both, but without explaining how or why, as far as I could tell. But it seemed generally accepted (by science writers, at least) that an electron could be imagined as "spinning" around an axis, either clockwise or counter. Which way determined its spin vector.
The upshot that concerns us here is that when Experimenter A measured the orientation of a particle, he reported it had definite spin vector, up or down. Meanwhile Experimenter B has been measuring another electron with identical equipment and conditions, and she reports hers shows no orientation in any direction. Or perhaps, she adds, it is oriented "in every direction".
Even for an alert browser reading this sort of thing, the word mystery tends to come to mind. Stephen Hawking seemingly confirmed the mystery in A Brief History of Time (1988), when he wrote that quantum mechanics contradicts the picture of particles as tiny tops spinning around an axis by indicating that spinning particles display no distinct axis.
The two metaparticle forms account for a distinct answer, however. One sees immediately in the basic model (Fig. 8) that rotation around an axis by two points (one of them invisible) accounts for up or down spin vector. But to explain Experimenter B's strange case of either no-which-way or every-which-way, the basic model has to take on secondary rotation or gyroscopic precession, becoming a dynamic sphere.
Evidently an electron can be held static in either basic or augmented form by
an electromagnetically generated field in a laboratory. Let's not neglect to
Fig. 8 Fig. 9
Precession* causes the basic disk to begin rotating on secondary axis 2 - 2a, while its two poles continue their revolution around the arrow axis. This results in a constantly changing spin vector and explains why Experimenter B's electron has become "disoriented".
* Brookhaven National Laboratory announced in 2001 that precession had been observed in the spin of a muon (heavier electron)'. They intimated such discovery might challenge the Standard Model of particle physics. I have as yet encountered nothing else relating to a particle's ability to assume spherical form, which has been a major aspect of metaparticle structure since the late seventies.
NOT UNTIL DECEMBER, 2002, DID THE SPHERICAL METAPARTICLE SOLVE THE "ELECTRON ROLLOVER" MYSTERY
Stephen Hawking remarks the fact (in A Brief History of Time) that particles of spin-½, such as the electron, do not look the same if you turn or roll them over through one complete revolution; you must put them through another 360°. We thought we had this puzzle solved ten years ago. We wondered why nobody applauded. Well, I had it wrong.
But now we have it right. (Let celebrations begin)
This is a tough one in the solvable-sans-math category. Let me put it simply enough to make an intellectual flinch:
The answer to this mystery lies in the ratio between the first rotation (poles spin to create a dynamic disk around the primary axis) and the secondary rotation, known in this case as gyroscopic precession. The disk itself revolves at a slower rate of velocity to make a dynamic sphere. The ratio between the first and second rotations is 1 to ½ or 2 to 1. At that particular ratio the electron rolls over and comes around right-side-up at 360 degrees.
Something has disturbed the normal course of events. We contend it does not take large-brain mathematics to decide the culprit is the device generating the magnetic field. But without knowledge of the electron's alternate spherical form, math would probably give just a working solution but not an understanding of the cause. (I will refrain from discussing why this took me ten years to get right.)
All along the secret was this: The electron changes from basic to spherical form when forced to roll around in a clock-like circle. All would be well except for the theoretical fact that the magnetic field device slows down the velocity of the secondary rotation, so it is no longer in the ratio of 1-to-2 with the inter-polar primary rotation. The ratio changes to 1-to-4.
While finding this out I also discovered first-hand a benefit of mathematics: It saves an awful lot of words and drawing pictures. Four of us worked on this, doing trial-and-error. I never saw so much paper with disks and poles and arrows rolling around. Here is an example of what I believe is all one can actually study without danger of developing inter-polar vertigo:
Following the black (visible) pole you can see it makes two complete revolutions around the inter-polar axis. That is 720°. But primary rotation of the poles is not what determines the up-or-down orientation of the particle. The turning over of the disk does that. The slowly tilting arrows show the disk has turned only 90° -- and is upside down -- even though the experimenter's device shows 360°.
Now the likelihood is very great that this mystery is solved by the influence of the rollover device on the metaparticle's secondary rate of rotation. But we are not claiming a complete solution yet on a technicality: We can't get a particle physicist of the experimental mode to tell us what we need to know about that magnetic field "device". Does it not have to turn over itself in order to turn over the electron?
Maybe we will never know. "Metaphysicists" are not popular with Physicists. And that's a problem (not a mystery) we can't solve.
- - - - -
PS - The Fig. 10 sequence only takes you half-way. Should you desire a fuller exposition, and are willing to risk inter- polar vertigo, click on the "Double Rotation" topic at our home website: www.metaparticles.com .
They say every Parisian could recognize Napoleon's horse. Its exercise groom would often water it at a certain trough on the Boulevard Saint-Germain. A street artist whose setup was on a nearby bridge did an ink sketch of the horse at the trough one day. He hung the sketch from his umbrella on the bridge and sold dozens just like it. Eventually "the Emperor's horse" became a sort of local landmark.
A few years later the famous artist Delacroix was passing along the Boulevard Saint-Germain and saw Napoleon's horse drinking at the trough. From quick sketches done on several such occasions he eventually did a large oil painting which was displayed in the Louvre.
Now the question: Even though strolling foreigners sometimes remarked that the street artist's sketch must be a cheap copy from the Delacroix in the Louvre, is it strange that nobody ever suggested Delacroix might have copied from the street artist?*
*(No; it is not strange; the very idea is preposterous.)
Is it a mystery that art-wise Parisians never referred to this instance of similarity as being a coincidence? After all, they would say, "it is the same horse."
The analogy is imaginary but applies, as I think you may agree, to instances
of similarity evident in the two lists of structural foundations below. One
concerns metaparticles and the other is a best-guess list of particle features
that I think are likely to show up in the new Standard Model of Particle
Physics. I am predicting that two or three features will be very similar between
the two listings, though others will probably not be. Of course, if there are no
similarities at all, there goes the metaparticle's chance of earning a footnote
in the history of science.
Having finally gotten all that into visibility, I will now take the leap and commit the Metaparticle Theory to the prediction that Numbers 3 and 4 (definitely) plus No. 5 (very probably) are the particle features in both lists that will prove to be essentially the same or quite similar. I will also volunteer to admit that in these three cases, Metaparticles has a predictive advantage by having been first to start down this road.
You will naturally think it curious that a small squad of piccolo players should have any kind of advantage over the All Universities Marching Band, but here is why we do:
What is important and what just "has significance"?
When Physics adopts new particle models you can depend on it that those models will do the work Particle Physics demands. Importance is awarded either by great numbers of people or by smaller numbers of very influential people. In this case both can be counted on.
From such a viewpoint the Metaparticle Theory will probably be seen as important only to the extent it is congruous with the prevailing new models. But if Metaparticles can continue on the sidelines as an alternate approach to understanding certain aspects of universal existence, then its basic principles will retain significance. In this case that means promise for the future of science; promise for the expansion of understanding.
Metaparticle solutions to mysteries is a small thing compared to the significance of its originative principles. In the field of scientific inquiry and in the future tense, these could hardly be more significant. One naturally wishes to know exactly why. My answer has to be this: Because the metaparticle origin of nature's fundamental building blocks offers, for the first time since Particle Physics became a science, a provable linkage between empirical physics and substantive metaphysics.
Which sounds very impressive. But it will mean little until science begins to use that linkage. And in my opinion science will not pick up something unless it is wearing its own gloves.
A dozen years ago, scientific interest in the mystery of quintessence or dark matter had scarcely begun. Today considerable progress has been made relating to the problem of "the expanding universe". But we out here in our relative ignorance have been getting overstuffed with the negatives and underfed with positives. There has been a spate of featured articles in news and science magazines on this subject. Ever enamored of the sensational, writers have chosen the most negative possibilities, treating them as though they were certainties. They have displayed a sort of depressing enthusiasm in depicting a distant future in which no whisper of life remains, no stars, no light, only the scattered dust of galaxies in unending darkness.
But there are now specialists in cosmology, astrophysics, and astronomy who are interested deeply in a brighter picture. They are looking for and turning up promising leads toward finding more matter, new sources of energy and gravitation to offset galaxies speeding away from each other as though seeking solitude.
This is where Substantive Metaphysics comes in - if science ever opens a door. I've mentioned it before but just let me now state its distinction from Conscient Metaphysics as a bi-partition:
In a minimum of words, it is the substantive aspect of metaphysics which holds future promise as an expanded and entirely proper domain for scientific progress.
Hypotheses and theories concerning "quantum vacuum energy" in space, new implications of the zero concept, and the granting of a sort of "lesser reality" to virtual particles -- these and other important lines of inquiry are now underway. They tend to imply a future in which perhaps the greatest cosmic mysteries will be put in retreat. Such a future will, I dare to predict, have need of an expanded conceptual framework by which science can more effectively deal with higher ranges of matter/energy.
The metaparticle view of matter and its origin is founded in the progressive cycles made possible by a permanent, undiminishing source, the Dynamic Field. It is, in its full extrapolations, a very optimistic view. The galaxies will return! Life will continue! (If you don't agree, would you please not say so until I have left the room?)
- - - - -
Every man who continues to call himself a philosopher, regardless of what others may choose to call him, should allow himself at least one high-sounding aphorism.
To conclude these Conclusions, here is mine:
- - - - - - -
DATA NOTES: Philosophical & Metaphysical
The Premise of a theory employing deductive reasoning is taken as being
axiomatic as the source of postulates derived from it. In this case the Premise
can be stated only as a composite of related metaphysical concepts, which
depend on their physical applications for worldly credibility.
Sources of Data
In Western metaphysics can be found a wealth of studies devoted to the nature
of being, and seeking definition of an underlying, basic substance. Ontological
inquiry began with ancient Greeks such as Heraclitus and Pythagoras and was
continued in later centuries by philosophers including Spinoza, Hegel,
Descartes, and Leibnitz.
In the absence of modern scientific concepts I was unable to come upon anything in classical inquiries I could relate directly to the creation of particles*. But as you will see, the Metaparticle Theory does provide new evidence that reality includes both matter and spirit. To be more precise, it deals with matter as a fundamental reality, created from the substratum's substantive aspect by natural laws, and differing from its conscient aspect, for ages called spirit, only in quality of energy and consciousness.
In a short but incisive book comparing Western with Eastern religions, the Christian humanitarian Albert Schweitzer concluded that while West surpassed East in the teaching and practice of ethics, East surpassed West in the extent and depth of its metaphysics. This influenced me to enter the multi-currented seas of Eastern mysticism, yoga, Zen, and doctrinal writings. The voyage was far from wasted, but as for gaining a useful insight into cosmogenesis I learned most about "nothingness".
Both Vedantic and Zen literature led me at length to understand why nothingness or "voidness", as in satori and samadhi, a seemingly infinite field of emptiness is beheld, but comes to be known as complete fullness. Later I discovered the explanation for this lies in the concept of field homogeneity.
Another of the major clues sustaining my efforts stemmed from the Brahmanic term mulaprakriti, meaning root-matter. This source proclaimed, without elaboration, that materiality is composed of two ingredients held firmly in an enduring relationship, without which neither could remain in existence; and that these two, termed "spirit and matter", are actually two poles of the same eternal substance.
In the historical literature of Western mysticism I found a very interesting and reassuring account. The medieval German ecclesiastic Meister Eckhart recorded in detail from his inner experiences the same phenomenon I had noticed in Eastern sources: "voidness". A relatively few explorers of consciousness in the West have referred to this experience as "the zero state", "Space consciousness", etc., but Eckhart termed it "the Godhead". He emphatically distinguished this sense of a shining emptiness from the "awareness of God", though his consciousness spontaneously alternated between the two states. According to him, "God has all the glory", while "the Godhead seems as empty as though it were not."
Such East-West coincidences, as the dubious would surely call them, were further reinforced in the writings of my own mentor, Franklin Merrell-Wolff**, now departed. His term for that state of consciousness (which unlike Eckhart he preferred over the highest ecstasy and bliss) was "the High Indifference." It took me, incidentally, quite a long time to recognize an important hidden meaning in the latter word.
It was also in a book published in the West that I came upon another brief but cogent clue which I could not have done without. It appears in the first volume of The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky. It says in essence that the three main characteristics of "the Absolute" are abstract space, duration, and motion.
Being and Existence
No doubt semanticists can distinguish between being and existence, though
Webster's Unabridged Dictionary does not. Yet the difference becomes indirectly
apparent when the Latin origin existere is given as meaning
"stand forth." The distinction is indispensable to this exposition,
because its entire process depends upon the fact that existence is not the
same as Being. (I capitalize the word to get away from worldly usages.)
Being, in its cosmic sense, remains hidden. Existence "stands out" to
be objectively knowable.
Point and Field Aspects of Being
A dimensionless point, a "field" of such points, and space itself could be shown to be the same, I believe-if there were motive enough for the argument. What is essential to this theory, however, is the concept of a Dynamic Field, "composed of identical points," "filled with the same intensity of energy," and "occupying abstract space."
I should call your attention to the fact that all the words within quotation marks above are inappropriate to the very idea I am trying to get across; namely, a field of pure Being which underlies our universe of existing things. Our words are perforce "existence words"; we don't have many "Being words" (though the Sanskrit language did).
There can hardly be a more abstract subject than the Dynamic Field, also known by other names such as Parabrahm, the Godhead, the High Indifference, the Absolute. We shrink from the abstract, the non-material, because we are immersed in materiality and a large part of the human race believe that is where all of reality resides. But there have still been many who have penetrated in consciousness to a sort of cosmic reflection of the Dynamic Field, and those who could say anything at all about it have said it was maximally real. So let's adopt both viewpoints for a moment and see if the word homogeneous can do double duty here. We know what it means: all of it the same; uniform throughout. That's the existence meaning. But it's also the Being meaning.
The Dynamic Field should not be thought of as encompassing all the aspects of metaphysical reality. It is beyond the objective universe, but as will be indicated by the physical results of this theory, the Dynamic Field provides the basic materials and energies of the universe. Consequently, in metaphysical thought of both East and West, it holds a cardinal position which corresponds to omnipresence in trinitary systems. Where it is said to be characterized by duration, motion, and "abstract space", I found the latter term to be completely beyond my understanding until I realized it was another way of saying space minus the concept of dimensions.
(W) All we can cause or can observe is variety
- Sir Oliver Lodge
(E) Motion is all-pervading and absolute rest is
- Koot Hoomi Lal Singh
My friend the British philosopher Ernest Wood wrote, in one of his many theosophical books, his definition of a perfect motion. He said a perfect motion would move in every direction, simultaneously and at infinite velocity, returning to its point of origin in no time. The result would seem to be identical to the "dynamic stillness" spoken of by the German-Tibetan lama Anagarika Govinda. Perhaps the two taken together can give us some impression of the absolute motion of the Dynamic Field.
It may be pertinent, in view of recent (2001) news coverage of experiments at temperatures nearing absolute zero, to recall that although molecules can be stilled, atomic and particle motions continue.
Given the non-dimensional nature of the Field, we can see that the modes of motion we are familiar with would be impossible there. No velocity, no expansion or contraction, no changing of position, no vibration. Yet energy has to be intimately associated with the homogeneous motion of the Field. And also imperative is the ability of innate laws and their forces to cause changes in the Field-without which nothing would ever happen!
Now I would say it's close to impossible (for me, at any rate) to imagine a motion that doesn't move in any way or direction. Furthermore, increase or decrease in motion is wedded in our minds to velocity - which is likewise ruled out. What is left? Well, the energy "intimately associated with motion."
We can imagine a change in energy that does not involve spatial dimensions. The single example that qualifies, I believe, is intensity. As we shall see, that concept will work. If there can be a change in the Field's eternal background motion at a point or at countless points, such change can only be one of intensity. Although quantity of energy may seem to be only an "existence concept," it is certainly legitimate to associate energy quantity with its intensity without bringing in ideas of volume in spatial terms. Consequently we can deal with "more energy" and "less energy"-always in relation to the Field's background (which remains forever indeterminable). We can confidently refer to the metaphysical energy-of-motion as dynamic intensity. And we know balance is essential.
The Laws of Conservation and Equilibrium are both metaphysical and natural laws. They clearly apply in this theory. There is an even more basic metaphysical law for which I have never encountered a recognizable name. This hypothetically supreme law stems from the fact of ultimate non-dual Unity. It operates as a cohesive "unifying force" that underlies but is not the same as electromagnetism. As it applies to the seven-step, being-to-existence transition, this is the force which would cause paired points of different intensities to reunite if a separating force were withdrawn. In light of recent views expressed in particle physics literature, one could speculate that the physical force of gravity may be an extenuated, weakened effect of this unifying force, and also that the strong nuclear force may closely correspond to it.
Before the listing that follows, may I ask you to bear one thing in mind. Through the years of this theory's development, my goal was to put together logical reasons showing that a viable physical particle could be produced out of a non-material, non-relative, permanent Field in only one way. I expected that way would be simpler, more reasonable, and would explain more than any other.
No matter how hard they might be to grasp with our earth-trained faculties, I felt the essential Dynamic Field concepts had to be presented - intelligibly if possible - before asking readers to apply judgement to the Seven Steps. I hope that has been done. But I still want to convince those willing to think about it further that each factor in the process is there by necessity - meaning it couldn't work any other way. I will attempt that here:
Once it has been caused to arise, no slightest difference can remain in the homogeneous Field. (Otherwise no "sameness throughout".)
Such a difference has to occur in the slightest item, which is a "point of presence". (What could be more basic than such a point?)
In a Field without dimensionality, a point cannot become different by changing its position or size, but only by a change in the intensity of its energy - which means more intensity or less intensity than the value of the Field background. (What other change is possible?)
A point having an intensity different from that of the Field must leave the Field together with another point in balance with it* -- if an electron or similar elementary particle is to be created.**
Therefore the future electron's two points of difference, even though
metaphysically balanced, must enter existence in company with a force
keeping them together and another force to keep them apart - as outlined in
the seven Steps.
I hope I have been able to show in the above that the major developmental factors followed in the creation of particles, from a reality thought a few years ago to be "nothing",*** have been dictated by logical necessity.
* Divergent balance is a principle lying at the very root of the Metaparticle Theory. In my justification of it in Discussions, it will become evident why, for the sake of quicker grasp of the basic creative divergence, I have begun with two points in the Field rather than with the concept of one point which becomes polarized to become two.
** The accepted rule that electrons and other particles always have twins of opposite electric charge, such as electrons and positrons, is not to be confused with the pairs of balanced, dynamic points composing each particle itself.
*** I can still hear Carl Sagan talking on his TV series about the Big Bang. He favored the idea that hydrogen atoms were compressed together to make the cosmos-creating explosion. "And where did the hydrogen atoms come from?" he would ask. And then, spreading his hands, "They must have come out of nothing!" (Incidentally, the present theory holds that primordial space, plus the particles created to become compressed into a singularity, preceded the initial Big Bang.)
With Metaparticles as of now well introduced, I find I must add
a paragraph here.
It deserved a prominent place on the first page of Data Notes, but in my earlier researches I simply never encountered any reference to it.
Attributed to Anaximander, a Greek philosopher of the 6th century B.C., the concept is very pertinent to metaparticle principles. Anaximander, a student of Thales, described a basic, primordial "element" that differed from "all the heavens and worlds" created from "its infinite nature". He said this apeiron was an "eternal and ageless substance" encompassing all worlds, to which its "infinite motion" gave birth.
This compares so closely to the Dynamic Field premise of the Metaparticle Theory that I feel somehow guilty for not knowing about it years ago. But I guess one can't read everything, especially without an Internet.
When the binary structure of particles is shown to correct the insufficiencies of wave/particle concepts from the recent past, long-lived mysteries begin to disappear. Super-efficient math based on quantum and probability theory answered problems and allowed correct predictions before a more accurate understanding of particle structure had arrived. Quantum mechanics provided results, but in many cases no understanding of cause.
Particle Physics and Cosmology are near the point of revealing new theories and perhaps new principles. These steps will allow conceptual understanding to overtake pragmatic efficiency and promote progress. Metaparticles has sought to make its contributions from beyond the city walls of science. There may be facets of each which reflect each other.
Copyright © 2003 Anthony Paul Perella
|This is the first electron diffraction
pattern obtained in the atomic cluster
research laboratory. The sample is
a thin film of polycrystalline gold
and each diffraction ring is due
to scattering from a specific plane
|Pure thallous chloride on a Vinylec (Polyvinyl Formal)
substrate mounted on a 200 mesh copper grid. Produces sharp lines for
accurate determination of lattice spacings ("d" values) for use
as an electron diffraction calibration standard.
|A typical electron diffraction pattern for a crystalline
specimen is shown here.
|Transmission electron diffraction is highly sensitive to
surface structures which consist of only a few layers of atoms. Shown here
are the intensities from the Ge(111)4x4-Ag surface reconstruction recorded
on a film negative with an exposure time of just 16 seconds.