ANSWERING MYSTERIES OF THE ORIGIN OF MATTER
by Anthony Paul Perella
All contents Copyright © 2003 Anthony Paul Perella
How Physical Particles Came Into Existence from a Dynamic, Original Source of Energy
The Metaparticle Theory began with a deciphering of certain brief statements about
the composition of matter, taken from the literature of an ancient era when there was no "physics" to contrast with "metaphysics".
Over a period of years we attempted to apply these clues, by trial and error, and later by computer simulations. Working specifically with the electron, new models of basic subatomic particles were produced.
They could easily be tested and and shown to be congruent with examples of actual particle behavior recorded by experimental physics. More surprisingly, our models immediately solved behavioral mysteries that had persisted for decades.
Thus metaparticle structure, though derived from a source beyond the strictly physical, is shown to apply empirically to the science of Particle Physics.
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
| THE METAPARTICLE THEORY WAS FIRST FORMULATED IN THE LATE SEVENTIES AND MADE PUBLIC IN 1983 BY ITS AUTHOR ANTHONY PAUL PERELLA. IT IS GIVEN IN COMPLETE FORM ON ITS HOME SITE: WWW.METAPARTICLES.COM E-MAIL: mail@metaparticles.com | COMPUTER CHARTS AND DIAGRAMS BY CHARLES BUEKER, SATELLITE DESIGN ENGINEER. THIS PRESENTATION IN DIGEST FORM INCLUDES UPDATES TO JAN. 1ST, 2003, WITH LINKS GIVEN TO HOME WEBSITE. (With subsequent additions). |
| STATEMENT OF NON-AFFILIATION: | |
INTRODUCTION
The author wishes to say at the beginning that he possesses no scientific credentials, and claims no namable source of metaphysical inspiration or illumination.
It was never thought initially that a simple new model of the electron, based on two points of energy rather than the conventional single point, would eventually be seen to have implications of such a widely inclusive nature. You are invited to reach your own conclusions as to the significance of such implications.
Our attitude has been that when sound, repeatable evidence exists favoring certain alterations in basic scientific concepts, an account of the findings should be made public and offered freely to those interested. And when the discovery holds promise of explaining how all elementary particles are produced, the data should be put before those capable of carrying new outlooks forward in the science of particle physics. It seems reasonable that such professionals, including mathematicians, cosmologists and astrophysicists, might eventually give it attention, even though we cannot put such data in mathematical form. And we continue to think the potentials of metaparticle origin and structure will be found interesting and hopeful to others also, including nonprofessionals like ourselves.
A very reasonable question that is asked about the theory goes like this:
If you start with an imaginary premise, tailored to fit certain "clues" of uncertain origin, how can you reach the point of confidence that your electron model is not fictitious? The answer: Because both its forms, two- and three-dimensional, fit known facts of electron behavior. And further, our models fit those facts better than the one-point model science made do with for decades -- despite creating many "enigmas" over which only quantum mechanics could build satisfactory bridges.
If an imaginary model works, it should no longer be thought fictitious. Especially not if supports the reality of the logical premise underlying it -- in this case a physically imperceptible "field" of dynamic energy whose laws dictated the eventual model. The process might be described as reciprocal evidence between causes and results.
Let me end by stating that the Metaparticle Theory is based on a substantive aspect of that primordial field of energy, and not on the conscient aspect also associated with metaphysics. Consequently the theory does not depend on either mysticism or religion. Nothing about it in any way diminishes, disparages, or encroaches upon them, nor need it ever do so. We strongly hope and believe the concepts of metaparticle structure will only enhance both science and religion, each in it its own sphere of serving the needs of humanity.
ELEMENTS OF THE PREMISE
Sources of Data, Scientific and Metaphysical
Unsolved scientific mysteries, particularly those relating to particle physics, provided the main impetus for the Metaparticle Theory from its beginning in ontological curiosity to the current state. It can now be presented as an organized series of inter-dependent arguments claiming, at its widest extent, that all matter originates in a substratum of undifferentiated energy underlying the universe -- non-objective, indefinable, but everlasting and ultimately real. We will be referring to this as the Dynamic Field.
Subatomic particles are taken in this theory to be the original and irreducible state of matter having organized structure. Consequently, it must be strongly evidenced here that fundamental particles such as the electron possess a structure that can most logically be seen as deriving from the imponderable but omnipresent substratum, rather than from "nothingness", or the spatial vacuum, as thought earlier by physics. This is our Premise.
Our evidence consists of showing, by means of computer simulations and comprehensible diagrams instead of by advanced mathematics, that many "mysteries of particle behavior", never solved through insufficient concepts based on wave/particle duality, are immediately solved by the two models of particle structure evolved and illustrated in this presentation.
What Science labels as "mystical" or "metaphysical" is automatically deprived of relevance in a system built upon empirical results.
However, metaparticle experiments do yield empirical results and are repeatable. This suggests, does it not, that although the substratum may not be "knowable" in the accepted sense of the word, it creates the knowable.
Therefore we predict that as long as it may take, the "Field" of absolute energy which sustains existence will some day be found as necessary to physics as it is to metaphysics.
Philosophical and Metaphysical Data
Since the Dynamic Field or substratum is visible only in the forms of physical particles produced from it, and further since one of the two poles of every such particle is totally imperceptible except through its effects on the other pole, whoever wishes to call this a metaphysical theory is certainly justified in so doing.
But what we actually have here is a body of physical evidence, supported by philosophical and metaphysical assertions coming from worldwide sources over several epochs. Largely by trial and error graphic models developed, and were gradually revealed to embody the true structure of the electron type of subatomic particles. So I think it justified to say the theory combines metaphysics as cause and physics as effects.*
Just a few years ago popularized scientific books were filled with discoveries increasing the number and types of particles, plus highly interesting and imaginative wave theories -- the stranger the better, according to physicist Niels Bohr.
Elementary particles were thought to consist of a single point-particle (or corpuscle) plus its "wave nature". Today it seems that behind the scenes as it were, the emphasis has shifted to more realistic particle structure, and relatively little is being publicized about probability waves, wave function collapse, et cetera.
There is nothing to be served by mentioning here all the books and other sources from which data about physical particles were obtained. But it will become evident throughout this presentation that we have made very little use of mathematics. Charles Bueker is well educated in fields of math useful to a mechanical engineer whose specialties lie in the area of satellite design. But I myself am responsible for the theorizing and I am, to put it gently, "mathematically disadvantaged".
Explanations of principles said to characterize the universal substratum are mostly metaphysical. They are essential to understanding metaparticles and must be given. But such explanations, even though I have labored to make them as clear as possible without overexplaining to readers, are difficult to condense. Consequently we give them in full in the section labeled DATA NOTES, hoping you will be interested enough in what the theory accomplishes to investigate them.
* I summarize the major structural principles within the term Divergent Balance.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The section following puts in seven consecutive steps the creation of an electron from the primordial dynamic energy of the substratum or Dynamic Field underlying space.
The sequential reasoning in the Seven Steps* is essential to the entire metaparticle enterprise. We are fortunate that no one has yet succeeded with arguments to invalidate the logic of their progression.
These steps comply with what I can only call abbreviated hints concerning the constitution of matter. Such metaphysical fragments of what could once have been wider teachings may go back millennia. Dates are uncertain, but it is beyond question that they antecede the historical beginnings of thought about atoms.
More detailed graphics depict the basic and augmented metaparticle models in the section following upon the Seven Steps. These include charts resulting from computer simulations.
Here now is the most concise synopsis of the metaparticle Premise that I can devise:
SYNOPSIS OF THE THEORY'S PREMISECreation of matter in the form of fundamental particles |
AXIOMATIC PRINCIPLES IN PREMISE INCLUDE:
-
The energy of motion in a Dynamic Field is primary and eternal
-
The "substantive" energy of that Field is homogeneous
-
Changes in the Field can occur only in dynamic intensity
-
In the creation of a primordial particle (metaparticle), energy taken from one point in the Field is added to a second point to create two poles in divergent balance
SEVEN STEPS IN THE PRODUCTION OF MATERIAL PARTICLES
FROM A NON-MATERIAL FIELD
The substantive source of the creative process is an endless Field of homogeneous motion-energy, called here Dynamic Field. Natural Laws and forces should, by the principle of primordial non-duality, be coalescent with the Field. See Data Notes for explanations regarding homogeneity, dynamic intensity, and Existence vs Being.
Separative vs unitive forces (divergent balance) is a hitherto unknown principle detailed in Discussions section of www.metaparticles.com (an external link).
| 1. IN THE FIELD OF UNIFORM DYNAMIC ENERGY, A CHANGE OF INTENSITY IS CAUSED AT TWO POINTS. SEPARATIVE FORCE HOLDS THEM APART, BALANCED BY THE OMNIPRESENT UNITIVE FORCE SEEKING TO RESTORE FIELD HOMOGENEITY. | ||
|
Point a will become the visible "lesser" |
In considering these steps, please bear in mind the difficulty in applying “existence words” to a state of non-relative Being. (Example: the idea of “two points” in a field characterized as having "no dimensions" and occupying an "abstract" space.) | |
| 2. LAWS OF EQUILIBRIUM AND CONSERVATION DEMAND THAT THE CHANGING INTENSITIES TWO POINTS CAUSES ONE POINT TO HAVE MORE ENERGY, AND THE OTHER LESS ENERGY THAN THE BACKGROUND VALUE OF THE FIELD. THE SAME LAWS DECREE THAT ANY INTENSITY OF ENERGY ADDED TO ONE POINT BE SUBTRACTED FROM THE SECOND. | ||
|
The key factor in intensity as the only changeable element of the Field is explained in Data Notes under subhead of "The Primacy of Motion." |
Sequential steps are also misleading since they imply linear time. | |
| 3. SINCE DIFFERENCES CANNOT REMAIN IN THE HOMOGENEOUS FIELD, BOTH "POINT-POLES" ARE TRANSLOCATED INTO THE SPATIAL UNIVERSE WHERE OBJECTS CAN EXIST. THEIR CONTINUING LINKAGE ALONG A LINE OF OPPOSING FORCES BECOMES A ONE-DIMENSIONAL OBJECT, WHICH IMMEDIATELY BEGINS ROTATING TO BECOME TWO-DIMENSIONAL. | ||
 | The two poles of a forming metaparticle do not become farther apart when translocating into universal space (as the diagram suggests). | |
|
| ||
| 4. THE DIVERGENCE OF POLAR ENERGIES TO INTENSITIES BELOW AND ABOVE THAT OF THE FIELD BACKGROUND IS THE CAUSE OF A CONTINUUM OF ENERGY RANGES THROUGHOUT THE COSMOS. THIS FACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PARTICLE'S POLE OF GREATER ENERGY TO BE INVISIBLE TO CONSCIOUSNESS FOCUSED AT OUR PHYSICAL LEVEL.
| The Metaparticle Theory relates to primordial principles acting in logically restricted ways to produce particle forms that can exist in a universe of relationships among objects and forces. | |
| 5. THE OPPOSITE FORCES OPERATE AS A DIAMETER LINKING THE GREATER AND LESSER POLES. THE SEPARATIVE FORCE BECOMES RECOGNIZABLE AS ANGULAR MOMENTUM. THE COHESIVE FORCE, BEING INTERNAL, CANNOT BE ELECTROMAGNETIC. IT EXPRESSES THE PRIMORDIAL "UNITIVE" PRINCIPLE WHICH MAY BE AKIN TO THE EXTERNAL FORCE OF GRAVITY.
| Such details as the greater pole's invisibility, the "unitive" force compared to gravity, etc., are offered as hypotheses only. The invisibility of the greater point-pole of the metaparticle known as the electron is a fact, however, though explanations for the fact may differ. The essential principle of divergent balance is responsible for the greater pole's existence in a physically imperceptible range of energy. | |
| 6. ROTATION OF THE POLES AROUND AN AXIS PERPENDICULAR TO THE DIAMETER CREATES THE DYNAMIC FORM OF A DISK. THE STRUCTURE NOW POSSESSES TWO DIMENSIONS. | We contend that very fact is what led physics away from the truth of particle structure from the time the electron was discovered. | |
| [7. ]* THE GYROSCOPIC PRINCIPLE OF PRECESSION ALLOWS THE DISK FORM TO TAKE ON SECONDARY ROTATION AROUND AN AXIS PERPENDICULAR TO ITS DIAMETER. THIS ALLOWS A METAPARTICLE TO ASSUME THREE-DIMENSIONAL SPHERICAL FORM (FIG. 3)
|
In accordance with these 7 steps, the electron is indicated to be an example of a structural prototype originating in metaphysical reality. | |
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.)
Fig. 2a Graphic symbol for metaparticle
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.
Fig. 4
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).
Fig.5
In the computer chart above, No.1 at center is on closer,
front surface of dynamic sphere; No. 33 is on back surface.
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?
Fig. 6
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 may be that nobody yet knows exactly 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.
The "wave" is simply the pathway described by the point. One can't say it has
no reality, or you would have to say a bullet's trajectory or the orbit of the Earth around the sun is unreal. But though the point makes the wave, the wave does not make the point, so their "duality" does not give them equal reality.
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 point is real in energy and duration; the wave has a subsidiary reality as the space-time track, past and future, of the point. But since the point-particle is always in rotation, creating the wave, both co-exist simultaneously and are both significant. |
STRANGE BEHAVIOURS
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 remember,
as I sometimes do, that particles are extremely small objects. Scientific techniques keep improving, so I should only say I think they still can't tell whether the particle they constrain for experiment is being held static in an oriented or disoriented condition. Not until they probe it by some means such as x-rays, photons, etc. But when Experimenter B can't find any vector in her captive electron, we contend the doubly-rotating, spherical, metaparticle model is responsible. The rapid rollover of the metaparticle disk to make the spherical form is indicated in Figs. 8 and 9. For diagram purposes it shows the particle as though moving left to right; but in the grip of the magnetic field the particle will "rollover" in place.
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:
- You are holding an electron static in a magnetic field generated by a "device". (We don't know what they use now.)
- Your electron shows an "up" vector. (So we know it's a basic metaparticle with two poles rotating on an axis (Fig. 8) and starting to roll over (Fig. 9).)
- With your device you cause the electron to "roll over in place".
(You can't watch it do this, of course.) You stop the process after one complete rollover, do your measuring, and find the electron is now upside down. You are puzzled; it should be right-side-up again. - Undaunted, you repeat the rollover another 360°. Amazing; the electron now shows the proper up-vector again. You report this and change your field of research.
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:
Fig. 10
| Basic metaparticle electron with "up" orientation | Magnetising device imposes rollover, causing change to spherical form | At ratio 4-to-1, when point-pole has circled once the disk has made 1/4th a rollover | Device now shows 360° rotation, but electron shows "down" vector |
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 .
CONCLUSIONS
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.
(But I will no doubt keep on saying Just wait -- it will someday turn out to be the same horse.)
| FOUNDATION PRINCIPLES OF METAPARTICLES | BEST-GUESS LIST OF PARTICLE FEATURES IN NEW STANDARD MODEL |
| 1 - The basic reality of a Dynamic Field underlying all existence. | 1 - If an ultimate origin of particles will now be theorized, it may call upon concepts such as the "quantum vacuum" as energy source, but surely not the Dynamic Field of substantive metaphysics. |
| 2 - A principle now called divergent balance, first described in 1983. It keeps the poles of a particle both together and apart, dividing their energies in a metaphysically balanced way that assures stability. | 2 - Known or previously theorized forces will be postulated to maintain particle structure, but certainly not the metaphysical principle of divergent balance. |
| 3 - The resulting bipolar structure of particles in the electron category, and probably also particles similar to those in certain ways. The presence of diameter in metaparticles permits internal rotation to replace the former concept of a spinning point. | 3 - At least two points or nodes of energy will be found indispensable for internal rotation, perhaps a binary or bipolar structure, perhaps another physical possibility; but in the electron one node will have to be the negatively charged point. |
| 4 - The necessity for one pole of a metaparticle (which I call the second or "greater" pole) to be physically imperceptible, except by inferred influences. | 4 - A second node of energy in stable association with the visible or perceptible node will have to be physically imperceptible - otherwise it would have been discovered a century ago. |
| 5 - The ability of a basic, two-dimensional metaparticle to assume spherical or spheroid form; it does this by taking on precessional rotation on a second axis. (Precession is a known gyroscopic phenomenon discovered to apply at the particle level quite recently, but incorporated in structural metaparticle models in 1983.) . | 5 - Alternate 3-dimensional form employing the physical principle of gyroscopic precession.
|
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:
- No. 3:
A new Physics model can hardly stick with the old single-point electron, which over the years was responsible for dozens of quandaries and incredible wave theories. Such were entertained mainly due to the powers of quantum mechanics to bestow plausibility. If internal rotation is to become doctrine, the rotating particle has got to have at least two poles. (Or "nodes of energy" - always with that hedge.) - No. 4:
If one pole of a particle were not "invisible", Physics would never have been saddled with the single-point model. Whatever their term for it, Science seems to be stuck with an invisible, hard to reckon with, basic element in many of their particle models. (But it could eventually open many cosmic doors!) - No. 5:
The 3-D alternate form. If in 2001 the Brookhaven Laboratory hadn't announced their discovery of precession in muon behavior, Physics might have gone ahead with their new Standard Model without it. If they delay their announcement much longer, the spherical form might be one of the reasons. The Science of Particle Physics can't get by with a bunch of diagrams the way we try to, you know. Just think of all the functional details that have to be nailed down in connection with this concept alone. Just think of the math! (But don't expect me to.)
0 comments:
Post a Comment