One can't say it is mere convention that leads
physicists, trained in the most abstruse areas of mathematics, to
produce ultra complex "frameworks" aimed at becoming Theories
of Everything. The universe is ultra-complex. In particle
physics, where the emphasis is more on discovering so far "invisible"
building blocks to support such a predictive framework, at least
some theories are admittedly beyond the thorough comprehension of
their own creators.
By contrast the Metaparticle Theory is too simple
to appeal to those with a complex mind-set. Generally oriented towards
cosmogenesis, its specific focus is on particle creation before
the Big Bang. Our theory is in that sense introductory, and having
been tested and presented as a process of particle structure, leaves
the rest for Science to develop.
We say that matter is made of something absolute
and permanent, substantive from one regard and conscient from the
other. And we contend that the simplest kind of experiment, using
electron data taken directly from published scientific sources,
proves the electron possesses a binary structure (which I named
"metaparticle").
Well and good. But during recent years science
has given attention also to numerous behavioral problems in fundamental
particles. It is evidently now accepted that elementary particles
do have structure, and that internal rotation does belong in the
picture. That necessitates more than a single point-particle per
electron. And as for the cosmogenetic aspect of a metaparticle,
it's very simple indeed for an objector to mention the openly metaphysical
premise of our arguments and whisk them away with a gesture.
However, metaparticle principles have something
to contribute to the cumulative thought about wave/particle duality.
We've done that on this website. Here is something so simple and
evident that it's hard to ignore. I don't believe anybody
wants to whisk away a new understanding of wave/particle duality
based on demonstrable facts.
Waiting to learn from a redesigned CERN
Since the American false start at building a giant
accelerator-collider near Waxahatchie, Texas, hopes of discovering
particles essential to leading theories have been depending on Fermilab's
Tevatron and CERN's Large Electron Positron collider. Downtime for
repairs has handicapped the Tevatron, and the LEP is in process
of reconstruction to become a new and better Large Hadron Collider.
But since that will not get into operation until 2007 at earliest,
the game is reduced to waiting for CERN.
On the American scene particle theorists continue
to hope for miracles from Fermilab, but at the same time are depending
on the discovery of predicted particles at CERN. The results will
either free up or further delay issuance of a New Standard Model
of Particle Physics. Scientific celebrities such as Leon Lederman
estimate, however, it may take five to eight years before the world
can be told whether the heretofore unencountered particles have
been found. Other estimates are for ten or more years.
That last is what makes me uneasy. You may be here
to receive the news but I feel it in my genes that I don't have
ten years of future to play around with. If I am going to do any
rational predicting, I will simply have to fast-forward.*
* Time travel requires 19th century equipment
and H.G.Wells' operating instructions. With fast-forwarding all
you have to do is plug yourself into the VCR and think ahead.
Fast-Forward prognostications (based on independent
study)
From my fast-forwarded position (I am apparently
in a rowboat on Lake Geneva) I can immediately make one definite
prediction about which theory is most likely to win the hearts and
minds of Physics when CERN pulls back its curtains: It won't be
the Metaparticle Theory. But from this vantage point other probabilities
can be picked from the supercharged air. Most concern the three
theories regarded in 2003 as having great promise: Supersymmetry,
Higgs Field & Boson, and Superstrings.
I - If any new particle discovered is fit to be
the "companion" of any particle already known, it will
be claimed as a "sparticle" by Supersymmetry. Selectron,
smuon, sphoton, whatever. This will greatly help Supersymmetry in
its progress towards becoming the Theory of Everything (T.O.E.).
A great many companions will of course be needed. But there will
be time enough. Snare one bird and others are bound to be out there.
I see certain parallels between Metaparticles and
Supersymmetry. It is for reasons involving interior rotation that
the latter needs to confirm the existence of invisible companion
particles. These are, of course, theorized as already interacting
with the particles science knows of. (We, on the other hand, posit
an invisible second pole that does the same but has
always been an integral necessity in a bipolar structure created
as a whole.)
If Supersymmetrists were to acknowledge such a
parallel, they would probably say that their "second entity"
or companion particle should be easier to prove than ours, since
our greater pole has to consist of superphysical ranges of energy.
I agree. Scientifically actualizing our greater pole might present
extreme difficulties for presently available approaches. It is for
that reason that Metaparticles must for now depend for scientific
validity on inferred causative factors that
prove to dispel mysteries and
inconsistencies which long defied solution by theories using
the old Standard Model.
II - If the Higgs Boson is observed
somewhere in the collisions, it will be hailed as the famous "God
Particle" around which Leon Lederman's best-selling book revolves.
This will confirm the theorized Higgs Field, which
shows several concepts that are generally parallel with those of
the metaphysical Dynamic Field in Metaparticles. (I was completely
ignorant of Higgs theory until 2002, whereas it had been under development
for decades.) If CERN can prove the existence of the boson particle
to go with the field, Higgs enthusiasts should at least have the
inside track.
III - Superstrings. (Actually just Strings
unless a liaison with Supersymmetry is made possible, so I assume
they are both waiting for the same discoveries.) I realize I should
feel abashed at the fact that although every Science Editor in North
America raves about it on the dust jacket of Brian Greene's book,
The Elegant Universe, I cannot grasp much about
String Theory. Of course I prefer to think I could, but just
didn't, despite two vigilant readings.
This theory has had so much publicity that you
are probably quite familiar with it. So I will simply say two things.
First: Though String Theory is without doubt a captivatingly elegant
mathematical "framework" for a universe, I can't believe
they mean our universe. And second: So far in 2003
where I am from, not a single piece of evidence has been produced
to support any assertion or hypothesis in String Theory. However
(I added, biting my oar), it was said to be the leading theory.
So it will surely be in the running at CERN. If it fails to be chosen
then, surely bigger colliders will someday be built -- to give it
access to acknowledgeable reality.
Those are my predictions, based on gatherings from
the noetic atmosphere at Lake Geneva in the year... (Darn; I made
a note of that but left it in the boat.) As I wisely admitted earlier,
Metaparticles won't win. But on the other hand, Metaparticles has
a two-out-of-three chance of scoring high satisfaction for us anyhow.
If either No. I or No. II wins, we can (if still
able) celebrate. Either of those theories should still feature some
version of binary or bipolar structure
permitting internal rotation, or spin-angular momentum,
or whatever physics has decided to call it by then. We arrived at
these features through years of trying, and revising, and receiving
few answers indeed to our naive offers to prominent physicists.
The fact that scientists arrived at the same things without our
help shows their basic value. All concerned threw the same kinds
of rocks in the pond, but ours was too little to make a splash.
(And I might have been thrown in too if it had.)
Lately nothing we see on the Internet or in print
furthers the implication that a muon can take on a spherical
form by means of gyroscopic precession. But I predict you
will hear a lot about this third metaparticle feature within a few
years. Holding back on it now is understandable. Who needs to publicize
an "augmented" particle, rotating on two axes, before
an acceptable reason for its primary rotation has been established?
(Incidentally, in the preceding sections on Metaparticle Models,
our example is always the electron; but precession in the kindred
muon illustrates the phenomenon just as well.)
Getting to the point
Home now in 2003 and bereft of the exhilaration
of fast-forward, I find myself worried about String Theory. Brian
Greene has been given three hours on PBS's Nova, and he could charm
a bird out of what little intelligence it might have. One can't
say the String worldview hasn't been positively exposed to the public.
Well, if a situation like Prof. Greene depicts
should win the day, my rowboat will sit dead in the water for the
next century. The metaparticle structure of the electron, and quite
probably all basic particles, depends on the reality and efficacy
of points. String theory does away with points.
Why have I said that so weakly? I may not be a
Doctor of Philosophy but I am also not a bird. Let me try that again:
STRING THEORY ELIMINATES, DISCARDS, QUASHES, AND ERADICATES THE GEOMETRIC POINT.
A lot of academics besides Greene have been contributing
to String
Theory for years, and the consensus seems to be that points are
not
measurable and for good scientific purposes do not exist. Does
that
imply that nothing actually exists unless it can be measured? I
am not
suggesting that any physicist, no matter how theoretical, would
champion
such a notion. But it seems that plenty of them are willing
to duck the
issue altogether when asked if the concept of points enters in any
way
into the structure or substructure of strings. Suppose, for
example,
you are reading in string literature about fundamental partIcles
and
simply wonder, in a perfectly normal way, what the basic one-dimensional
filaments ("strings") making up electrons are themselves
made of?
Well, that kind of wondering turns out to be a
no-no. They say that not
only is a string not a point-particle, but what we have been assuming
to be point-particles are actually strings. Consequently any question
you might be composing in regard to the composition of a string
would be irrelevant. Yes, strings do have spatial extension, they
say, but strings are indivisible. They are not made up of anything
smaller, and so your irrelevant question about substructure is also
without content. Just think "ultimately fundamental",
and don't ask.
I always thought that measurable or not, points
were the bedrock of
geometry. But then I also thought a one-dimensional string
would be a
line, conceivable as an infinite series of points, even if the string
was
a "filament". Maybe I'd better just hide behind
Euclid and hope that
the concept of points as underlying the structure of particles will
not
be officially abolished. (Could they actually do that?)
From the metaparticle frame of reference, two points
in substantive
balance maintain the interface between permanence and change, and
are
thus paramount among mechanisms of existence. Rule out points
and we
wouldn't have much left to work with.
I have read in many a commentary that particle
mathematicians do not
like infinities and try to eliminate them. Could it be that String
Theorists have managed to accomplish this in creating an "elegant
framework" for a universe? Could they be leaving behind
some important
earthly realities in achieving such elegance? To me, floating
on the
future threshold of CERNic revelation, this all seemed serious and
vaguely threatening to everything in general. But back here in 2003
I
recall some other features of the String Theory and can again enjoy
the
comfort of may-not-happeness. String math causes the theory to require
seven dimensions in addition to the four we have become
used to. It seems those extra dimensions aren't actually doing anything
but are "curled up". Maybe just waiting for us to evolve
out of the present inelegant situation.
Also there is the matter of needing a really SUPER
collider, one the
size of Jupiter at least. The String opposition say one that big
would
be required to prove the reality of anything as small as the basic
strings on which literally everything would depend. (As it now does
on
points, be it said.)
I suppose I was overawed at being told how vast
are the areas of physics
and mathematics which must be mastered in order to understand String
Theory. (It didn't help to be told then that nobody does.)
I emerged unsure whether the quantum math of String Theory exerts
its rule over natural laws, or only "governs" the activities
of particles, or both. But no matter which way it is claimed, I
am sure there are good reasons for questioning any such hierarchy.
_ _
_ _ _ _ _
_
Looking at the bright side
Suppose CERN warms up, accelerates its opposing
particles to a speed that would alarm Einstein, and nothing new
pops out? All return home in wrinkled suits and ask, Where do we
go from here?
I have a suggestion for Supersymmetry and Higgs
theories. (None for Strings on the supposition they will have instead
a few succinct suggestions for me.) Hello, I will say. I understand
you both have long been looking for a particle, particles, or other
small "companions" to supply the other end of a radius
or diameter permitting internal rotation in a revised micro-structure.
May I suggest the greater point-pole of our theory? This could be
an addition that completes your micro-entity without having to call
it a metaparticle. (And without constantly searching for more "sparticles".)
I will then continue, swiftly so they cannot with
dignity interrupt: You already have the lesser, recognized point-pole
which is in need of a companion. The greater pole will be in a fundamentally
interactive and useful "divergent balance" with it, and
the two will never part. Furthermore, there is no charge and no
walking in your parade; my wife and I will become mendicants in
the Falkland Islands. Incidentally, you already have the goods.
Every fundamental particle comes equipped with the highly energetic
though invisible "greater pole" we are offering you. Free.
Then I will wrap it up with a suave yet compelling
close; perhaps something like, "What is your answer?"
(No sale.)
_ _
_ _ _ _ _
_
As I sign off from the fun and anxiety here, there
is one thing I would most like to leave with you. Seriously. I believe
it could, if scientifically investigated, be of considerable future
importance.
From your visit to this website I assume you have
a continuing interest in the progress of science. Consequently you
may have formed the impression that through the present transition
period, Metaparticles will continue to be publicly ignored by Particle
Physics. (If you are in that science, it will be more than an impression
-- as it is with me.)
Current Internet research is encouraging to the
extent that "metaphysics" is less often used in the stereotyped
meaning of anti-scientific teachings. More writers than before seem
willing to popularize their subjects by suggesting connections between
physics and wider metaphysical issues that may also interest their
readers.
However, it is not the metaphysical elements of
our theory which act as the main factor in its official disregard.
The fact that metaparticles make no secret of their wholly metaphysical
origin would not, I predict, prevent employment of the Dynamic Field
concept if found advantageous. Science could merely "materialize"
the Dynamic Field, perhaps after the pattern set by the earlier
concept of the Higgs boson field.
No, the biggest obstacle to Metaparticles is not
its metaphysics, nor its unattempted application to photons, quarks,
etc., nor its intolerable lack of mathematics. What is truly beyond
the pale is its author. Particle science enjoys high prestige, has
its own traditions, is devotedly wedded to higher math, and is known
for its special aversion to nonprofessionals with theories. The
very idea, then, of an incomplete quasi-theory, advanced by a person
without graduate credentials or even a related occupational background,
must strike the orthodox as close to obscene. For any such person
to be considered as having produced anything faintly influencing
the hardest of all sciences would be, to say the least, embarrassing.
But not to worry. At this period in history it
would be less likely for Metaparticles to enter the recognizance
of science than for a draft horse to enter the Belmont Stakes.
And quite sincerely, that is fine with us. The
three principles of bipolar structure, binary
rotation, and three-dimensionality by
precession are becoming embedded in particle physics. We
have seen this happening and that is enough reward.
I would have to fast-forward a very long way to
forecast anything further. It could easily be eight or ten years
before a powerful enough collider might provide the information
particle physics is hoping for.
Over that much time an unauthorized and little-publicized
theory could fade entirely away. The second principle in metaparticles,
divergent balance, apparently has no parallel concept
in particle physics. I would hate to see it bypassed for more centuries,
due mainly to the amateur status of an explorer who stayed with
it -- using the high-tech method of trial-and-error -- until something
worked.
Divergent balance is covered as best I could in
the Discussions. But in few words I will summarize here that it
is an enduring structural balance resulting between two points ejected
from a zero/infinity field of dynamic energy into objective spacetime.
This balance is achieved when a force of separation within the field
causes a partial transfer of intensity from one point to the other.
This can vary in amount or percent, which determines the identity
of the resulting fundamental particle. (Of course, divergent balance
might require its own math.)
If Science can ever accept the practical value
of differentiating between substantive and conscient metaphysics,
they could employ divergent balance to solve many more mysteries
than those associated with wave theory alone. They could postulate
a rotation dependent not on an entire "companion particle"
or upon loops in a string, but on a bipolar balance between angular
momentum and a primal attractive force yet unidentified.
Divergent balance is well worth keeping in some
sort of unofficial hold file while things are developing at Geneva
and Fermilab. Because if it is what I think it is, divergent balance
may be a key principle in producing the material particles from
which we and the worlds are made.
_ _
_ _ _ _ _
_
So. The times are uncertain and dangerous. The more
people who have a copy of the divergent balance data, the better
the chances it will survive until Science has finished trying substitutes
and investigates it with their own methods. All the material I can
provide appears in the Premise, Data Notes,
and Discussions sections. You can get a complete, clear,
free printout of our entire website (or just specific sections)
by clicking onto the link below.
Just save it somewhere, please? The archivists
who come for it when all is well again may decorate your statue
with gratitude!
| Wishing you the
best, with thanks... |
| |
Anthony Paul Perella |
| |
August,
2004 |
