There is such a thing as very strong evidence that still lacks proof.
Sometimes "very promising" evidence.
There is also suggestive data and implications that still lack strong evidence.

Metaparticles now has a good bit of each.

Early in the last century, experimental measures were undertaken to affirm that in the formation of a hydrogen atom, its single electron begins orbiting the proton-nucleus in a circle (above). Since the great Danish physicist Niels Bohr was involved, the term Bohr Circle came into use.

The usual proving procedure was to direct radiation such as x-rays around the hypothesized position of the circle. When an electron was encountered, the contact was plotted at that position on a chart -- as a dot.

Detection procedures did indeed reveal the electron's presence at many points indicating the Bohr Circle. Our research turned up "charts" that seemed to have missed the point of the investigation altogether. But there were a number in which the dots were thick enough to delineate the circular pathway taken in a large percent of the electron's orbital rotations.

The trouble was, about half or so of the dots missed the immediate vicinity of the circle, and many also were scattered through the areas inside and outside it. Of particular note was that the outmost and inmost dots occupied positions at the same maximal distance from the circle itself.

Thus came about a long-lived "mystery of particle physics". How could the model of an electron as a single spinning point account for such charting results? Authors of various books current in the late seventies offered little or nothing in the way of speculative solutions. But in one such volume its co-authors did prove bold enough to declare outright that the mystery was "without an answer" and would obviously "always remain so".

The best orbiting electron chart we were able to obtain in research was the one in Fig. 9. It had evidently originated at an East Coast university. The number of particle positions was literally countless. But this only added to the mystery. Our metaparticle model at that time was without a clue concerning the distance between its poles; this chart showing a heavy concentration along the Bohr Circle implied an extremely short diameter, which would put the poles almost in contact. And along with this puzzler came the same sort of planned/random sprinkling of dots at much greater distances on both sides of the circle.

It was six years into the new century before something arose that put together the picture. I happened to read somewhere, in regard to wave theory, that unlike other particles the electron's "wave" behaves anomalously in regard to its amplitude: It never varies. Except in cases of temporary interference, its radius remains the same -- while variations in frequency occur as usual.

I'm sure every particle physicist knows of the above deviation, and probably has an explanation for it; but I found only that one mention, which omitted an explanation. (Now that we have an explanation of our own, we've stopped looking.)

THE REASON WHY AN ELECTRON'S AMPLITUDE STAYS THE SAME IS BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE PROPERTY OF A WAVE.

SIMULATED RANDOM SAMPLING

These two charts, plus the other accompanying graphics, are crucial in making our case for "strong evidence" indicating metaparticle structure. That is the reason for belaboring details in the graphs. Apologies to professionals.

The red overlays link "outmost" plots on either side of an electron's spiral, circling orbit. Only these determine the particle's amplitude when their "link-lines" are perpendicular to the direction of orbital translation.

It is not that the electron is diverted from the spiral path; it's that the path's minor deviations during hundreds of circuits cannot be shown on the chartings.

Such deviations do not destroy the "double-spiral".

Even though we know that our opinion in the matter of evaluating evidence may carry very little weight with scientists, I will end now with the same confidence we felt beginning it.

Considering the Bohr Circle charts to be our "strongest" evidence, we have devoted most space to that area of explanations. The factor of divergent balance as the maintainer of a binary particle has, after years of my own opacity regarding Charles Bueker's computer simulations, been confirmed in a rational, reciprocal manner: The hypothesis that a metaparticle's existence depends on an unchanging though seemingly wavelike spirality has been fortified. And from an alternate view, the fact that the electron's amplitude does not significantly vary fits the evidence together.

In conclusion I will only note in brief some other pieces of evidence backing metaparticle structure.