|
THE CREATIVE PRINCIPLE OF DIVERGENT BALANCE |
The following appears in the Six Steps section, Step 5: "Only if the rotation (of a metaparticle) were stopped would the unifying force coalesce its two poles into one point of Field intensity, thus returning it to the original homogeneous Field." In a larger sense, what does that imply?
The implication is certainly cosmic, though far from impending. If the rejoining of its poles would cause a single particle to disappear -- to wink out of existence and be absorbed in the unitary state of being -- the same should apply to every similar particle in the universe. All that is needed would be for the forces sustaining spin-rotation to be suspended. That would destroy divergent balance.
Actually, only the angular momentum force would have to relax, and a Great Cycle would be complete. Existence would again disappear into the permanence of Being.
In such a hypothesis is revealed an instantaneous way to end a universe without any sort of apocalypse.
But would such a withdrawal of a natural law or force imply a purposive agency behind the scenes in a universe?
It could be answered that no occurrence having cosmic implications suggests intelligent purpose to any greater degree than do hundreds of "anthropic" phenomena in the organization of a life-bearing planet, or a hundred more in the human body.
But such concerns are not paramount at present. Whether divergent balance has been overseen like a construction project or established from the recurrence of random events, it is employed here as a principle because certain necessities for primordial existence have pointed to it again and again. But the clinching need for this simple method of activating pairs of F-energy points, newly translocated from the Field, is the cosmic requirement for "twoness" in founding a universe.
The concept of ontological oneness may be understood as a measureless Field composed of an absolute, indefinable "substance" in which there is primal energy and the potential of all motion, but no differences. Such requirements dictate the forces needed to bring about, from an utterly homogeneous source, the differences, contrasts, and the eventual varieties of matter making up universal existence.
The necessity for twoness in the formation of fundamental particles is traced in the Six Steps section, but without its rationale, which must be given here.
Wholeness, sameness, absolute oneness can produce nothing until a difference -- a "second" of some kind -- comes into existence. Difference requires the space of dimensions and relations in which a universe evolves. When a single point is translocated from the Dynamic Field it must share a portion of its energy with a second point; otherwise the single point will remain identical with the Field's energy intensity and will immediately be reabsorbed.
A point having either less or more energy than the Field's (F) must be balanced by a companion point to total 2F -- the original energy extruded into the quantitative universe. The divergent pair can then sustain binary particle existence, with its interactions.
The Six Steps outline covers the continued development of a bipolar particle that will become an electron. But Step 2, in which the transfer of Field substance between the two points occurs, actually initiates divergent balance.
Intensity is used often herein instead of quantity because the nature of the Dynamic Field is absolute in its own state of Being. It follows, by necessity, that the idea of quantity cannot be applied until it can be expressed in terms of more and less. That is made possible only by the conditions of a relative universe.
|
|
FAST-FORWARD
FUTURE of the metaparticle
For a number of years, before and after Metaparticles appeared on the Internet in 2002, we had a certain amount of repeatable evidence that the structure of the electron was bipolar, with emphasis on balanced attract-and-repel forces maintaining a stable diameter.
In 2003 we published evidence showing that due to the "rotational spin" of the binary formation, the electron's two poles describe an undeviating double-spiral track when the particle is translating linearly in space. When in atomic orbit, the electron's double-spiral curves to enclose a circular or elliptical pathway centered on the nucleus.
As the above were applied to the principle of wave/particle duality, the following became evident and was claimed as valid in our published discussions: That in such instances of translation, the spiral progress described by the visible electronic pole is a wave by visual interpretation, but is at base the space-time pathway taken by that pole due to its rotation within a binary form. Our position was and is that in general the wave concept remains valid and useful. But its cause is more basic and more useful.
For that reason and others, we disagree with the view that an existing particle can vary its basic reality and alternate between a wave form and an identifiable, pointlike physical entity. It should be (and to some extent has already been) taken into scientific consideration for revision.
It can be seen that
when functional differences are introduced -- the electron's behavior requires
new interpretations. I will not attempt to analyze those requirements inasmuch
as they will be more evident to and better analyzed by physicists. Also it
is entirely likely that I have not yet become aware of all such behavioral
differences.
I would, however, like to retract an opinion published on this site. Due to my natural inclination to repress gravitas in favor of levitas, I satirized recently published explanations regarding intrinsic angular momentum, and spin, in an hypothesized new model of the electron. In the first place, the clearings in my forest failed to include data to the effect that angular momentum has a long history of acceptance as an intrinsic factor. And secondly, my own theorizing depends in great measure on the numerous intrinsics necessary to the "Dynamic Field" underlying the entire Metaparticle theory. (Incidentally, nobody in science has shown a negative reaction to this matter; but that would be showing interest, wouldn't it?)
Actually, I now think it may be likely that the intrinsic spin of the point particle can coexist with the "rotational spin" of a binary structure.
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
| I am setting forth at this point several of the most pertinent items of evidence that we think advance the readiness of metaparticle principles and details for scientific development. As interdependent elements of the same entity they fit no consecutive order. |
| A. |
The formerly unexplainable deviations as charted in orbiting electron positions indicate a pathway having an unchanging maximum width, determined by position chartings on either side of the Bohr Circle.
|
| B. |
This phenomenon, for decades termed an unsolvable mystery, is most credibly explained by the evidence of a double-spiral track made by the two poles of a binary particle spinning around the Bohr Circle as an axis.
|
| C. |
Though one track is not itself ascertainable, it is functionally implied. The other is fully so, even though it had been justifiably taken to be a "wave form" of the electron. Reciprocity is shown here by the logic that the visible, or detectable pole could not travel in such a spiral (rather than wave) pattern without a cause; and that the simplest cause is its being affixed to its opposite pole by balanced forces in operation along its diameter. These intrinsic forces rotate the binary system to form two spirals.
|
| D. |
The above is, again, reciprocally supported by the seldom-mentioned fact that the amplitude of an electron's "wave" always remains the same (barring outside interference). This phenomenon is the result of balanced binary rotation.
|
| E. |
If there exists a better competing hypothesis to account for a particle's spiral translations, our research capacity cannot find it. Balanced bipolar rotation is relatively simple and offers interesting extrapolations. Any functions attributable to the second or invisible pole are likely to have more bearing on the idea of a hyper-spatial continuum.
|
| F. | The rotation of the perceptible pole may be seen as a contributing cause for probability patterns involved in quantum-mechanical predictions; whether the invisible pole has any further bearing on that procedure is unknown. |
|
||
The above have been offered as validations, not as proof. Other instances of data deserving the label EVIDENCE appear under that section title and also in the Six Steps Section.
It may be helpful in approaching the continuum topic if I list the five general guide-rules I have found most applicable. I have never seen these identified as "Laws", but then I've never seen such a listing.
(1) No point nor points constituting the Field can leave it except by assuming the conditions of existence, the basic demand of which is differences among fundamentals allowing relationships.
(2) The concept of quantity pervades a universe, though it is totally absent from the Field that produces universes.
(3) The essential, unchanging value of the Field's dynamic energy remains indeterminable by any means possible in the realms of existence.
(4) Consciousness is an aspect of being, but its actions in existence suggest reasons for experiencing life.
(5) Nothing that participates in existence is without some degree of materiality.
May I add, in closing this part of the "discussion", that the other part will concern problems and ideas -- and more precisely future possibilities -- relating to the "invisible second pole" of the electron. To those who have chiseled into stone the conviction that all metaphysics is hogwash -- and will be taking temporary leave -- I bid you a respectful adieu: You are, in my opinion, right about a good deal of it. I will try to restrict the plausible to the rational for those who take the ride.
|
THE WORLDFIELD CONTINUUM PROPOSITION
|
|
Please note that this topic is not being put forward as a synopsis of hypotheses seeking either proof or falsification. We are fully aware of the various mind-sets and defensive attitudes that guarantee initial rejection from practically all sides. But physics and cosmology are now quite evidently edging closer to what in the near future may become something akin to a standard model of specific energy ranges in the spatial background. It seems probable that a corresponding material continuum may follow. |
Rationale of the Role of Binary Particles in Building a Continuum
If you should quickly conclude that you are devoting only a little break-time to this, fine. I'm asking you to keep track of the airy patterns made by juggling invisible ten-pins, while I keep assuring you they have at least a future bearing on hyper-physics. (Which itself is an uncoined word that you and your peers may be far from approving.)
Binary particles lead to something else you had probably rather not welcome to reality anytime soon. As for "building a continuum" -- that proposes the Earth we do know something about is the bottom step in a sort of visionary staircase.
But again, please note: Visionary is one thing, mystical is another. We will not be discussing "superhuman entities", or heavenly vistas, or either the possible or impossible inhabitants of such a continuum. The subject here is what such a continuum might be made of, not who might live there or why. And...are important parts of our earthly electrons to be found there?
Again, The Necessity for Differences
It seems a lot of scientists think a universe begins, in effect, from nothing. That does provide latitude for the imagination. But then imagination is squelched when you can't imagine "nothing". Beginning with an absolute unity that is homogeneous, your first problem has to be imagining that. Next comes how to get some differences started. (That is, if you really want an interesting place to be alive in; if you're the type who'd be satisfied with permanent nirvana, you don't really need a universe, do you?)
Start with an all-inclusive unity and you'll find you need duality, triplicity, multiplicity, etc., if you're ever going to get a complex enough universe to evolve a brain in. A brain housing a mind -- if that's not asking too much.
Do you agree that duality should be producible first from that "unitary reality"? Well, not really, you say: If two somethings (such as energetic points) are producible, why not start with a few googols-worth of single points? Some can be negative, some can be positive...things like that. Eventually everything needed gets made. Why not? Laws will develop, genes will form, etc.
Sorry, but if your universe is to be a self-reconstituting one, Laws will already be there -- from the previous universes. A more practical term for the beginning phase is Original Condition. Not the original condition of the permanent Field, but the original condition of states of existence coming out of it. Should that happen to be a singularity, into which everything that is going to be anything is packed into a point of practically no size, then the Big Bang starts everything for us. Where the singularity came from fades into insignificance as really big phases take place; a universe develops, black holes, dark matter, dark energy enter the picture.
And sure enough, it all suddenly begins speeding up. Gravity is in short supply. The galaxies expand farther apart (to be doubly certain we can't get there), and some begin wondering if there is going to be enough Space for all this. And they're the bright-enders.
Those evidently in command of predictions could be called dark-enders. TIME Magazine, in their issue of Jan.22/07, has allowed them to forecast, once again, our jolly distant future. The word DARK appears four times in the 2½ by 4½-inch article. Eventually there comes relief in the absolutely dark situation facing us only a few hundred billion years from now,. As a friend's little boy of scientific promise put it, everything starts expanding the other way. At the end? The Big Crunch. We all get together again. What a marvel!
But enough. Let's finish up this project of a fundamental particle coming into existence.
Send out two points and fix them so they stay fixed.
If cosmic and natural
Laws are like templates, forces which can be thought of as the working implements
of Laws set these two points at a precise distance apart. This makes the diameter
of a binary particle, which will become identified as an electron. A muon,
or a tao, may have diameters that differ a bit from the electron's; we have
no data on this. It appears that mass is usually the prime identifier.
Now comes the part that troubles me. I am calling it the "easy mathematical way" out of irony, since to anyone as math-free as I am it might be considered impossible.
Perhaps it could be put like this: All you have to do is locate some tiny part of an electron. Any such part of a particle would have the same energy or mass that equals the original Field value plus the value transferred from its "lesser pole" as in Step 2 of the SIX STEPS section.
Whatever that amounts
to will be the same for any such "greater pole" discovered. For
example, suppose the transfer was 50 percent of the lesser pole sent to its
opposite. That would make the greater pole's value equal the Field value plus
half that value (x) received in the transfer. I can't be sure, of course,
but I think that ought to add up as (F + x). Fine. But how do you get something
representing the Field value?
Why is one pole of a bipolar, binary, otherwise perceptible, fundamental
particle invisible?
Witless as it sounds, it's invisible because we can't see it, and it's imperceptible because our best hyper-physical devices can't yet perceive it. What has to be prohibited is the still widespread affliction that makes people tell other people that if you can't see it or perceive it somehow, it "isn't real'". (No one reading this is so afflicted, of course.)
Where is the blooming thing, then?
According to the little I have learned, and most of that not first-hand, there is more to this solar system than the astronomers think. To save words, kindly picture a good, round fishbowl. Now please fill the bowl with golf balls. Meta-balls, actually; smaller-sized golf balls. (Not meatballs--please!) Next put in as many marbles as will fill the spaces between the Meta-balls. Since there will still be room, pour in bee-bees. And lastly, fill to the brim with fine sand.
What you have now is a limited space full of smaller and smaller materials. (All workable in their own ways, of course.) The four materials interpenetrate each other throughout the entire space involved. No, this is not an original idea, but it is easy to imagine. So imagine it now as the same space but filled with different-sized particles: so drastically diminishing that the golf balls rarely even notice the marbles and are totally oblivious of the sand grains..
The above admittedly insults the concept of a worldfield continuum. However, it can help make some points:
| • |
Let's recall for a moment that the metaparticle-ized electron's two poles stay exactly the same distance apart for the lifetime of their association. The diameter along which balancing forces are applied -- and around which binary rotation makes the pathways of the poles describe "double spirals" -- also sets the constant width (maximum, hump-to-hump) of their "amplitude" -- a fact generally ignored throughout physics literature. (According to our two researchers.)
|
| • |
Consequently the diameter length has to remain the same. Otherwise it would be stretched and compressed at times, thus destroying the all-important balance between interpolar attraction and intrinsic angular momentum.
|
| • |
All of which means that whatever range of matter that invisible pole may be inhabiting, it has to stay a diameter-length close to its opposite pole. You can imagine what a problem that poses. But let me just say there is a rational and useful way around it.
|
| • | The salient challenge, of course, is to find one of these "missing poles" and identify it as such. If it were in the physical environs of Earth, wouldn't it already have been discovered during the search for the "missing partner-particles" postulated by Supersymmetry? If it's not here, maybe it's in another worldfield. The second pole of the electron is not an illusion; it exists. |
If the electron-pole that is already a scientific fact is imagined as a small
golf ball in the fishbowl, the pole that's missing could be a marble, or a
bee-bee, or even a grain of sand. I'm sure we are not alone in hoping nothing
we are looking for is too small to be noticed in the riot resulting from two
protons colliding.
If the electron is shaken up to such an extent that its two poles unite... that would also be a problem. If they do come together, they will disappear into the Field. But as they say, you've got to have collisions.
Though it's still hypothetical,
doesn't all this suggest, or hopefully imply, that wherever there is an unobtrusive
half-particle, it really ought to be carrying a positive charge?
That would seem to un-mystify quite alot.
Let's say that plenty of points representing hypothesized '"missing poles" of physical particles are encountered, and some of them can be ascertained as carrying (F + x) value.
If that happens,
the Metaparticle Theory will be proved, and perhaps a couple of other theories
along with it! ...(Unless what's been discovered is a God Particle in
disguise.)
A bit earlier I should have said we would be sure to put things very clearly when we got to here. Well, I will.
| • |
The metaparticle version of the electron has solved several of the bothersome "mysteries" that used to haunt particle physics. Recently we solved a few more. But did science want them solved? Hasn't physics been doing very well without a correct understanding of electron structure?
|
|
| • |
It is quite understandable why scientists of every specialty would want any major changes in the understanding of fundamental particles to be disconnected in every possible way from amateur sources. That distinctly includes me. How clear does one have to be?
|
|
| • |
So I will disconnect -- under the right circumstances. I will not move to the Falkland Islands nor to the island of South Georgia nearby. I'll go into what I will do, if there is interest. But I can assure you it will have naught to do with money -- to or from. But if you can provide acceptable mathematics, all credits and rewards will be entirely yours.
|
|
| • | As for the worldfield continuum, I am aware of awesome things mathematicians have done, even though I have no idea just how they did them. Locating and identifying a point having F+x value, when you don't know what F is worth, seems almost infuriatingly impossible to me. But if a daring mathematician can put some kind of measurement value on the Field (F)...without infuriating Wotan or Zeus...I'm willing just to watch -- however it comes out. | |
Metaparticles Supporting
Data follows on next page
e-mail address: mail@metaparticles.com
For a free, full-color printout of Discussions III (as a .pdf file): Click
Here
For a free, full-color printout of entire website (as a .pdf file), Click Here
copyright © 2007