|
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. 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.
The Dynamic Field or substratum is visible only in the forms of physical particles produced from it. Further, since one of the two poles of every such particle has remained totally imperceptible except through its effects on the other pole, whoever wishes to call this a metaphysical theory is partly 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 the section labeled DATA NOTES, in synopsis form, as brief as is consistent with clarity.
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. Simple graphics accompany the Six Steps outline, and you will find them also in Discussions II, under the title DIVERGENT BALANCE. More detailed graphics depict the basic and augmented metaparticle models in the Section following upon the Six Steps. These include charts resulting from computer simulations. Here now is the most concise synopsis of the metaparticle Premise that I can devise:
AXIOMATIC
PRINCIPLES IN PREMISE INCLUDE:
| ||||||||
