Friday, September 7, 2007

An Elementary Particle with Two Properties (conclusion)

The first question, of course, is what two properties should the particle have? If you look at the properties science makes up and assigns to particles, you’ll end up scratching your head. As in any endeavor, the first thing to do is to make sure we’re asking the right question. Here we want a particle that will describe all of operating reality, so the question becomes, what do we know about operating reality?
We know that operating reality, the galaxies and star systems they contain, are located in empty space, or in my vernacular, nothing. Going back to the definition of the universe in the Introduction, the universe is essentially matter in nothing. That matter comes in two forms, the solid matter that makes up the stars and the planets and the matter that make up the electromagnetic emission fields active stars and planets produce. As we are hypothesizing a universe that is made up of a single particle, the matter and whatever makes up the electromagnetic emission fields, are made up of the same particle, the basic element of matter.
The planets and stars and the electromagnetic emission fields they produce are grossly different manifestations of the same particle, but they should tell us something about the properties that particle needs if it is going to explain both.
Starting with solid matter, what do we know about it? We know one thing and one thing only about solid matter. Whatever it’s made of is conglomerated together and if it conglomerated together, it is held together by something. In today’s science, that something is the strong force, but the strong force wasn’t made up to hold matter together, it was made up to explain why like-charged protons in the nucleus of the atom didn’t fly apart. There is no explanation what holds the neutrons together other than, perhaps, the weak force made up to explain atomic decay.
With matter being held together, the basic particles that makes up matter must be attracted to one another. That’s a pretty simple proposition, so why not just make it one of the properties of the elementary particle?
It’s not a property without its limitations. I always find this difficult to explain, but using magnets as an example, let’s lay out several hundred identical coin-shaped magnets on a table. If we pick up two of the magnets, they will readily clamp together. If we add a third, it will clamp together with a little less force. Holding the magnetic chain vertically, we keep adding magnets to the bottom of the chain. We eventually reach a point at which the chain will hold no more magnets. The weight of the overall combination has overcome the ability of the magnetic force to hold it together.
What should we call the property of attraction of the elementary particle we are conceptualizing? I long ago termed this property the particle’s affinity propensity. Instead of saying the particles attracted one another because that's too much like opposites attract, I defined affinity propensity as the particle's affinity for occupying the same space as any other particle. While that gets us away from saying the particles attract one another, that’s clearly the result of each particle pressing to occupy the space of all other particles.
What does this have to do with our magnetic chain?
When two particles come together, the combined structure of the two has twice the affinity propensity of each individual particle. However, some of the affinity propensity of each particle has been used up holding the combined structure together. Of course, we aren’t dealing with a table full of magnets, we are dealing with particles the size of electrons, very, very small bits. In fact, I define the elementary particle’s size as being just large enough to define nothingness because we have defined nothingness by the existence of matter.
As more and more particles come together into a sphere, and they form a sphere because particles form on a surface in all directions, and all directions of a surface form a sphere, each particle adds affinity propensity but uses up some of the affinity propensity of both itself and the sphere in holding it to the growing sphere. Like the weight overcoming the magnetic chain’s magnetic ability to stay together, eventually the sphere doesn’t have enough affinity propensity to attract additional particles and it is as large as it can get.
This brings up two very important points, First, because all of the elementary particles are identical with an identical amount of affinity propensity, the resulting spheres, I refer to them as units, will be identical, or close to identical, all other factors considered (and we’ll cover those factors in the next chapter on the atom).
Of primary importance, though, the question that should have been hovering in the background of everyone’s mind is, what force are they holding themselves together against? The magnets were fighting weight, but here weight isn’t a factor. Why don’t these particles, with their affinity propensity, simply form a gigantic sphere, soaking up all the elementary particles in the universe into one big structure? What are they fighting against? What force is attempting to keep them from forming into the structure in the first place so that the particles have to use up their affinity propensity to form into the structure?
To answer this question, and find the second property of our basic particle, we have to look at the second form of matter, the electromagnetic emissions produced by the stars and the planets undergoing combustion. And here, we’ll have to take a small side trip into the word combustion. Most people are under the mistaken assumption that combustion is defined by the presence of oxygen, that when something burns, when it is undergoing combustion, it requires oxygen. This, of course, rules out calling what stars do as combusting, or undergoing combustion.
This sets combustion off from the fission or fusion process. Using labored reasoning, and the fact that science can only measure the elements on the surface of stars, and that element is hydrogen, science concluded, after the successful fusion process that supposedly occurs in a hydrogen bomb, that the sun's emissions are the result of fusion. Thus, in using a single particle to explain fire here on Earth (for which, by the way, science has no coherent explanation) and the fire that is burning on the surface of the sun, I have the same gut reaction I get when I claim that both light and electricity have induction fields around them (a subject that will become extremely important when we discuss gravity). Instead of attempting to follow my reasoning, and evidence, to the contrary, people tend to discount everything when I say that stars and the planets are combusting.
However, the dictionary definition of combustion is a chemical process that produces heat and light. It uses oxidation as an example, but the definition of a chemical process is not necessarily limited to oxidation. While fusion is not considered to be a chemical process, the scientific explanation for fusion is totally conceptual, and its application to the surface of a star ad hoc, we call it a hydrogen bomb, stars have hydrogen on their surfaces, therefore they’re the same. Science has no coherent explanation for what is happening for when something is burning. When we get to the chapter on field replacement, we’ll see exactly what makes a log burn on Earth and the sun burn in space.
Returning to the electromagnetic emissions themselves, what is the one thing we know about them that is factual? Things like being wave particles are conceptual, and specific characteristics such as those of light (diffraction grating, for instance) are factual, but not general. What is the one fact we know about the electromagnetic spectrum that is universal?
We know its speed!
What does knowing its speed tell us? It tells us that light moves from one place to another. Under Newton’s particle view, just like the planets, light didn’t need a source of motion. When light became a wave, its movement could easily be ascribed to a disturbance in an aether made up to account for its wave features. Toward the end of the 19th century, Maxwell produced his equations that placed light within the confines of the electromagnetic spectrum (light was still a wave), but these equations do not explain why light moves other than to produce a hazy picture of magnetic and electrical fields interacting with each other.
In short, no one has an inkling why light, or electromagnetic emissions, move.
Why not just admit that they are made up of a particle (which Einstein proved with his photoelectric effect), drop the wave idiocy, and assign the property of motion to the particle?
If we adopt motion as a property of our particle, then we have something that the affinity propensity has to overcome and which would therefore limit the size of the units the particles would form. We have a single particle with two opposing properties, one property tending to bring the particles together, the other seeking to have the particles return to their normal speed, which I call the particle’s at rest speed because when the particle is traveling at what we consider the speed of light, it is at rest with itself in so far as being able to move without hindrance. What better situation. All of matter has stored energy in it, the energy inherent in each of the particles that make up the matter, to overcome the affinity propensity and return to its at rest speed.
Isn’t this simply a physical description of Einstein’s e=m equation where the square of the speed of light merely demonstrates the staggering amount of energy stored, or rather at rest motion, overcome, by the affinity propensities that hold the matter together?
Of course, as soon as we have opposing properties in the same particle, we have two overriding questions, how did the particles come together in the first place or how do the affinity propensities overcome the at rest motion and how do the particles come apart or how does the at rest speed of the particles overcome their affinity propensities? How does matter come form in the first place and dissipate in electromagnetic emissions?
We won’t be able to answer these questions until we construct an atom and then subject it to field replacement.

No comments: