six steps in the
production of material particles
from a non-material field
in the making of a new universe the initial condition is a field of motion/energy in abstract space. this is homogeneous and everywhere without emptiness; but for a universe to exist there must be differences.
from the perspective of human thought, the problem is how to bring about, from the substance of the field and nothing else, basic particles of matter with inherent differences in energy and attributes. these will allow interrelations with other particles and the building of forms, some of which may respond to forces and complexities allowing life.
systems of natural laws, developed in and passed on from previous universes, gradually assert control over the new panorama of existence. to theorize these six steps it is not mandatory to presuppose a conclusive, knowable cause for the eternal series of universes interlinked in great cycles. laws provide templates through which a universe is controlled.
it is, however, necessary that all phenomena of a sustainable universe be covered, one way or another, in the system of laws -- despite unsettled arguments concerning purely random events.
on the other hand, there are rational hypotheses that accommodate established facts of science and are consistent with processes by which the unending field provides the materials and quantities of universal existence.
|step 2 :||
translocation from field to space
if the field of being is duration without time, motion without dimensions, and consciousness without an object, it must also be totally homogeneous. if anything is to happen, it can't be instigated by the field, which could be better imagined as the inexhaustible supply house of existence. but its "being" never, as its essence, exists in the universes produced from it.
everything we ourselves are interested in demands existence, and existence demands differences. whether the eventual details of metaparticles turn out to be right or wrong is comparatively unimportant. what is undeniably important is to find the simplest way difference can (lawfully) appear out of a field of non-difference. it must be found in the immediate origin of matter, leading to the development of atoms, molecules, stars, and eventually sentient life.
otherwise what could fully reward a long evolution through the conflicts of differences?
all can agree, i hope, that some action, some force has got to stir up things in the supply house and get primitive objects out of it. minds long gone tried to name such a force, but all we need now is just "a force". (the very problem of where any such force would come from when only dynamic stillness is available in the field...is a problem which this writer would like to see solved -- by someone else.)
regardless of how cutting-edge theorists may be thinking of it these days, we will continue to insist that an absolutely basic field can be best understood as composed of points. not strings, not any kind of definitive forces, but dimensionless points.
let's say a force
will now translocate* two points. just moving them causes potential
dimension and specific position, so they can't stay in the field of
sameness. they are translocated into the spatial field of existence,
which will eventually accommodate a universe.
step 3 :
determination of greater and lesser poles
the charged point of an electron was long ago assigned a negative value, but only by virtue of labeling it so. we have in the metaparticle a bipolar structure, one pole of which is well evidenced by science, while there is as yet no discernible evidence for the other. but even at this stage it is logically implied.
a good amount of time has for the past several years been spent philosophizing and assuming the best about current scientific hypotheses, especially ones that might favor our situation. all to make a "scientific" case for our missing "greater poles" that possibly inhabit more rarified regions of space.
at length i saw such an approach is premature. physics is only now becoming definite about the nature and category of virtual particles. they are certainly not going to welcome anyone's guesswork about an unconfirmed version of space whose contents are beyond any presently suspected category.
so i can only put it like this: our particle has two poles and one of them is already known to be the "point particle" bearing a negative charge. if there is no second pole to fit our bipolar hypothesis, we will be just 50% short of correctitude and can turn our website into an anti-nihilism blog.
but if things collide right, that second pole, by all indications, ought to be positive and should also be "up there" in great abundance. so we can just label it "greater" until the crucial evidence comes in.
step 4 :
polarization in binary form
the binary form of the metaparticle version of the electron is similar to stellar binary systems, composed of two stars "circling each other" around a center of gravity.
gravity must also play a role, but the point-poles of the microscopic metaparticle must rotate around a center somewhere along the system's diameter. this for the most part should be determined by the point of balance between an enhanced* magnetic attraction and the angular momentum of rotational spin. (this is not to be considered the entire picture of "divergent balance", covered in step 5.)
we venture the suggestion that although spin has been currently better explained than in the past by attributing it to "intrinsic angular momentum", binary rotation provides another option. intensity of motion, intrinsic to the essential field, is shared by the two poles in rotary balance; this factor could be taken as the cause of the spin's beginning. angular momentum might then be seen as the result rather than the cause of spin, but would still be vitally important to the metaparticle's existence.
the basic reason for theorizing the binary form has been to provide the likeliest solution to a number of "scientific mysteries" in the behavior patterns of the electron. these answers depended upon computer simulations done by our consultant, charles bueker. they have provided clear data in every case undertaken in regard to problems which for decades were referred to by scientists as "insoluble".
step 5 :
the hardest thing for an amateur theorist to survive is the automatic dismissal with which most scientists react when anything even implying metaphysics comes up. the bones of hundreds of otherwise living amateurs attest to their inability to get a wise audience before defecting to other climes.
so why not just make a prediction which will be ignored as wild, but which could come true while you are still around? (if you're young enough.)
it has been prophesied as follows: physicists, cosmologists, and others will soon find themselves investigating locales of space that are materially specialized. considering the complex particles that will be colliding at cern, scientists will find it hard not to categorize certain discoveries as "hyperphysical states of matter".
it is therefore my own cheerful prediction that hyper-physicists will some day be living among us in worldfields made mostly of just such "substantive" material. because, among other good reasons, it is better for the human race to be inhabiting a bang-proof worldfield when a big bang redistribution of the run-down universe is coming due.
then there is the problem of double duty. the metaparticle's greater pole is neither visible nor as yet detectable in our physical worldfield. this is not because it doesn't exist, but because its energy intensity does not allow it to function within all ranges of just plain physical matter. yet it must remain very close, in micro-distance, to its lesser pole -- which is plainly physical.
this brings in the subject of other ranges of materiality which are not "supernatural" (in any of that word's illegitimate meanings) but are also not "ponderable" (hard if not impossible to perceive with current physical instruments or the brain and senses). such hyperphysical regions are quite real, however; and quite definitely needed. if a universe is to be granted any justification, it should be materially equipped with environs and instruments permitting experiences of more meaning and satisfaction than have thus far appeared hereabouts.
if the greater pole of a metaparticle cannot be perceived in this physical worldfield, it has to be found, in the last analysis, to exist in a hyperphysical worldfield. scientists are now on the threshold of being assured such "orders of space" are real in the discriminative sense. evidence has also come from at least a million near-death experiencers. in the latter case to no avail, however, because each and every one of their experiences is ruled useless because of being "subjective". i admit i would prefer to dodge the entire matter of evaluating subjectivity if i were a scientist. but doing so leads eventually to the de-valuation of consciousness itself. apparently that result does not present much of an obstacle to some scientific thinkers, who go bravely marching on towards a theory-of-everything-except-consciousness. since the latter has come to be evaluated as an illusion, it should not be allowed to stand in the way of wherever one's work is heading. apparently.
the "double duty" idea is based on the very backbone of metaparticle structure -- which is bipolarity. the lesser pole with its charge stays engaged in magnetic and other involvements -- the sort of activity that keeps ordinary physicality going. the invisible greater pole is, at the same time, playing the same role, we surmise, in a much less ponderable worldfield interpenetrating with ours. that's the double duty.
is it totally beyond conception that the electron and particles of similar structure represent a practical way of serving two worlds with one fundamental entity? even, perhaps in a sense, linking the two?
as the above are covered by "divergent balance".
| two-dimensional basic metaparticle functioning as an electron|
the metaparticle is not a newly discovered variety of subatomic particle, but a newly theorized, structural prototype applying to elementary particles. such fundamental entities as electrons, muons, and neutrinos were for most of the 20th century thought to have no internal structure at all. in the standard model of decades past (now in process of revision), the basic point of energy in the electron had to be considered the sole location and possessor of that particle's major attributes. there was no place else to put them, so to speak. consequently this single "point particle" had to accommodate the electron's mass, charge, spin magnitude, spin orientation, momentum, and practically its entire behavior. increasingly, "wave functions" were called upon to share in such an overload.
the hidden reason for such situation, according to metaparticle principles, was the undiscovered fact that many elementary particles are actually binary, bipolar systems in which the pole of greater energy is "invisible" in our physical range of matter.
this structural feature has been shown, in repeatable experiments, to solve a good many mysteries and enigmas in particle physics. most employed logical implication backed by computer simulations. the evidence was first presented in correspondence and unsolicited mailings to a number of professional physicists during the late eighties and nineties. none has been published or referred to until this website opened in 2002.
the bipolar particle
structure also makes possible, by gyroscopic
precession, the temporary conversion of an electron or muon to a
in accordance with the above steps, and evidenced
by computer simulations, the electron is indicated
metaparticle structure follows on next page
e-mail address: email@example.com
for a free, full-color printout of six steps (as a .pdf file): click
for a free, full-color printout of entire website (as a .pdf file), click here