DO-IT-YOURSELF BRAINWASHING

INFINITE PARTICLE PHYSICS is not a mathematical theory, nor can its essence be stated in a rigorous, formal manner.  This deviation from several hundred years of scientific methodology, necessitated by the nature of the Theory’s concepts, imposes an interesting challenge.  Rather than being persuaded by strictly analytical arguments, you will have to become convinced of the Theory’s validity by a gradually developed appreciation of its pertinence, completeness, and fitness.  Your acceptance, if it comes, will probably be rooted in the aesthetic principle of parsimony, that is, finding that a wealth of understanding derives from a paucity of assumptions.

Assuming that you are persuaded to a deep study of this work, you will undoubtedly feel yourself in alien territory.  Instead of dif­ferential equations, matrix algebra, Lie groups, tensors, symmetries and symmetry breaking, you will be immersed in ECEs, defects, distortion patterns, slants, rearrangements, charge-exchanges, defect translocations, defect-pairings, paraxial and diagonal bonds, and, in general, three-dimensional geometric relationships.  Where concepts analogous to those in quantum physics are explored (e.g. spin, photons, matter-waves, energy, forces, fields, etc), these will usually be treated from a markedly different perspective.

There have been two compelling reasons for making this initial statement of my theory dominantly graphical: first, this is the mode of thinking to which my mind is best adapted, and second, the unique contribution of the Theory is to give us a paradigm for visualizing the baffling events in the microcosm, and pictures seem the best way of conveying this understanding to another mind.      

One cannot do creative work without being confronted by, and having to make, choices.  As this theory has evolved in my mind, I have reached many branch points where I have found more possibilities than Nature seems to use.  One has to be thankful for these riches, but it is often difficult to choose wisely among redun­dancies.  What seems to happen is that one makes choices in the ambience of current understanding, builds an elaborate super-structure upon this foundation, only to see everything collapse days, or months, later, when a new gestalt suddenly emerges from the clutter.  It is then back to the beginning, to an alternate choice, and the next building attempt. 

This refluxing process has been especially evident in my struggle to find the most plausible extrapolation of mass values vs. defect-pair spacings, because, here, the validation depends upon the choice one has made for the structures of the test particles, and these often have an embarrassing number of possibilities.  I have had similar dilemmas assigning the directions of slants, deciding about spins, ECE exchanges and charge-exchanges, and between single and multiple plane possibilities in nuclei.  In short, although I have spent more than three decades to reach the level of understanding revealed in this work, it is embarrassingly obvious that I have just scratched the surface, and have left many matters unexplored, or in an ambiguous state.

This brings us to a matter of protocol.  When one has useful things to say about a subject that he only partially understands, how much temporizing is useful to his readers?  My judgment is that it is demoralizing both to the writer and to the reader to have the uncertainties constantly brought into the foreground.  It seems far better to put the reader on his guard, and let him assume that every declarative sentence, no matter how forcefully stated, merely reflects my best current judgment.  I have tried to show all the possibilities at each explored branch point, and have revealed my reasons for the choices I have made.  Frequently I have pursued several possibility chains in parallel through several subsequent branch points.  Yet it was clearly not possible to pursue all the possibilities, and vast areas have remained unexplored.  Nevertheless, even in this early rough form, the Theory has yielded astounding insights, and has lead to persuasive demonstrations.

The greatest difficulty any new theory faces is proving that it is necessary.  It is obvious that the current theorists feel that they have met and vanquished nearly all the challenges which experimentalists have thrust before them.  Many of their theoretical predictions have been uncannily prescient, and phenomenally accurate.  Quantum physics is a marvelous creation of man’s intellect, one that has stood the test of countless challenges by renowned doubters.  It is not a static theory, but continues to evolve, the latest excitement stimulated by a breakthrough in the unification of Quantum Electrodynamics and Quantum Chromodynamics.  With literally thousands of first-rate minds constantly combing the idea-bank for misconceptions and errors, the physics community is justified in feeling relatively secure in its current paradigms.  This mood of self-satisfaction, while under­standable, is not ideal for the scientific revolutionary, whose aspira­tion is to alter thinking patterns.

What evidence of unsolved problems can be cited to support the revolutionary’s aspirations?

First, we lack visualizable concepts for all the forces---super-strong, strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravita­tional.  A similar lack exists concerning the nature of spin, matter-waves, particle creation and decay, photons, relativistic mass in­creases, and fission, and fusion processes.  And it would be fair to say we lack a theory of the nucleus, although several partially satisfac­tory models exist.  In spite of the startling success of the quark theory of particles, one would not be quibbling to say that it has become embarrassingly complicated, needing, as it does, at least twelve “fundamental” particles, each in three “colors”, whose interac­tions require the mediation of eight different gluons. 

Second, there are an embarrassing number of questions that current physical theorists have “swept under the rug”.  Here is what I think we would find under this rug:

Things Physicists Haven’t Yet Explained Convincingly

  1. How infinitesimal points (of matter, energy, & forces) can differ in physical properties

  2. What mass-energy is, and why it is conserved

  3. Why photons and particles exhibit wave-particle duality

  4. The origin and structure of matter-waves

  5. The origins and mechanisms of particle spins

  6. The 3-D structures of leptons, mesons, baryons, and nuclei

  7. The geometrical aspects and the mechanics of nucleon bonding in nuclei

  8. The nature of the destabilizing agents that cause particle & nuclear decays

  9. The hadron & nuclear structural configurations leading to various decay modalities

  10. The mechanics of electron capture by nuclei

  11. The structure of gravitational fields

  12. The structure of electrostatic fields

  13. The structure of magnetic fields

  14. The mechanics by which fields interact with particles to create accelerations

  15. The structure of particle momentum

  16. The structure of strong-force fields, and the reason for their limited range

  17. The interior structure of black holes

  18. The cause and structure of zero-point energy

In compiling this list, I am aware that many physicists would argue that it is not a scientist’s role to provide explanations.  Science should stick to “what” and “how much”, leaving “why” to philosophy.  I find this argument unappealing.  It leads ineluctably to the concept, “theoretical empiricism”, whose components are clearly contradic­tory.  If one considers a theory’s role merely to predict, this inconsis­tency might be tolerable; but, surely a crucial role of a theory is to unify, to bring together disparate elements of experience into a non-contradictory whole.  To accomplish this role, a theory must evoke concepts, which are gestalts, or mental constructs of meaning.  This second role of theory is dominant in the mind of a mature theorist, because he recognizes the need to satisfy the ineffable “Why?” that wells up in each of us.

INFINITE PARTICLE PHYSICS gives you the tools to do this, since all its phenomena, no matter how complex, can be traced back, ultimately, to interactions among a universe full of discrete infinitely-extending dynamic distortion patterns in the bipolar lattice of space.