Letters to a Human Being

2  Particle formation

Dear Human Being,

So, to understand a human being, let’s begin with particles. You are totally made of particles, and so is the rest of the universe. It’s therefore a very good place to start. It’s the only meaningful place to begin.

And let’s begin at the very beginning. Let’s go back as far as we can---and realize first that particle formation can occur only with motion. Nothing can be done without motion. Nothing can happen without motion. Also, it’s just as necessary to realize that this motion must be motion with order. Order can come only from order. Particles manifest order---for example, all protons are almost identical to all other protons; all electrons are almost identical to all other electrons; and so on. So, to form the particles of the universe that we know, the motion to do so obviously must exist beforehand. And it must be motion with order---It must be a type of motion that can form particles. We need to discover this motion and this order. And we can.

In addition, it is very important to realize that particles of mass such as protons and electrons---after being formed or combined---cannot stay together unless required to. If particles are formed, they must remain formed to constitute mass. Recall that many particles formed in particle accelerators remain together as particles for only the tiniest fractions of a second before losing their formation. And just as only motion can form particles, only motion can perpetuate or continue that formation. And this motion must be motion with order---to perpetuate order. These characteristics of formed particles are exceptionally important and eventually contribute to even greater understanding. You will see exactly what I mean.

To continue, we will proceed by analyzing actual experimental or historically observed results. There is a very important and well-known experimental observation that has been misunderstood since the 1930’s. It will be re-interpreted here for you---correctly for the first time---to reveal new and vital information. Atoms consist primarily, as you know, of electrons, protons and neutrons. According to the Standard Model of Particle Physics, electrons are elementary or fundamental particles---and protons and neutrons are not. In other words, Science is unaware of another particle inside electrons.

That electrons are classified as elementary particles is a profoundly important assertion. If it is wrong, the implications are practically endless for Science. They are endless. And this claim could not be more wrong---because electrons are not elementary particles. In fact, chemical interactions, heat, light, vision, and life---the entire universe---all depend on the electron NOT being an elementary particle. It is also the most important source of independent motion in the universe, making life possible. It’s time for humanity to understand the electron. Consider experimentally the following. I think you will be profoundly surprised at the results.

When electrons are accelerated in particle accelerators to almost the speed of light, it has often been observed that they gain mass---in fact, they are sometimes known to become THOUSANDS of times larger (Calder, 1979). That this experimental procedure exists is especially fortuitous, although so far it has been totally misunderstood. The obvious response to this conspicuous increase in the mass of electrons is, of course: Why?

There is only one reasonable way to explain this increase. And the importance of the correct explanation cannot be overestimated. It leads to significant new insights about the universe and therefore about humanity.

This dramatic enlargement of electrons is currently explained by the idea that some of the motion given to these electrons is being converted into mass---based on the current assertion in Science that energy and mass are ultimately the same and interchangeable. But consider this claim very carefully: NO PROCESS has ever been provided---or even offered---to explain the conversion. Why not? If this were a legitimate claim, a process would be responsible. And it would be possible to understand it.

No process has ever been (or ever will be) provided to explain the conversion of motion into the mass of electrons---or any other particle---for a very obvious and compelling reason: There is no process because there is no conversion. And the reason could not be simpler: motion and mass are not the same. We cannot even begin to imagine motion becoming mass or motion as mass---or mass becoming motion or mass as motion. Can you? No one can explain this relationship as a unity because it is not a unity. It is a magical idea. And therefore there must be another explanation.

Let’s ask the question again: What is the real process for the increase in mass of electrons accelerated in particle accelerators? There has to be one. And, in fact, one is possible---and in fact, only one is possible. This is true because the only realistic explanation is that, instead of a conversion process, additional mass is being added to electrons. What could be simpler? What could be more reasonable? And it can be explained.

Here is the new understanding. Electrons in particle accelerators are being accelerated by something from electrons (and protons). These electrons (and protons) are arranged in particle accelerators to provide the electrical and magnetic influences that give the electrons their motion. The obvious question to ask is: What are these influences?

The undeniable fact is that SOMETHING IS COMING FROM ELECTRONS (and also from protons) when electrons (and protons) are used to provide acceleration. These are smaller components of electrons (and protons) that can provide motion to electrons needing acceleration. What do we call them? Let’s call them particles as a working idea until they can be proven not to be---particles smaller than electrons and never understood before.

We can already state that these previously unknown particles have motion---or they couldn’t give new motion to the electrons being accelerated. An ENORMOUS conclusion then follows: the motion of these unknown particles must be spinning---because linear motion cannot exist inside a particle---inside an electron or proton or inside any other particle. Linear motion obviously requires space for forward motion to occur. In addition, linear motion cannot be stored. Spinning motion can, however, easily be stored---obviously a fact of the greatest significance in this case (and far beyond). And, spinning motion CAN impart linear motion! It is undeniable that the linear motion imparted to electrons in particle accelerators MUST be imparted by spinning motion. No other conclusion is possible (since this motion comes from electrons and protons not in contact with electrons). And by this conclusion the universe significantly begins to reveal itself in many ways.

This rationale constitutes a different and new direction than the one taken by Science in the early 1900’s when Planck discovered that light is discontinuous---different from the unfortunate direction taken that eventually included the concepts that mass and energy are interchangeable and electrons are elementary. The rationale being discussed here is the direction that should have been taken then. In fact, notice that the following explanation is a quantum explanation---although different from the standard quantum theory---of electrical charge and also of electrons themselves. A quantum theory of gravity, heat, chemistry, electricity, magnetism---and the energy of life---also emerge, one by one. A different quantum theory of the entire universe emerges, beginning with the electron. It is the correct quantum theory, which is in fact far more extensive and reasonable than the current one. Let’s see where this new direction leads.

Another equally profound conclusion follows immediately from the above analysis: These new unknown particles are not only spinning---they are spinning at the speed of light. This is because they can accelerate electrons in particle accelerators to almost that speed and no more. This conclusion immediately suggests that, given the prevalence of protons and electrons in the universe, the spinning motion of these tiny fundamental particles is the origin of the speed of light in the universe---no small understanding. It is also the reason that the speed of light is found all over the universe, since electrons and protons are found all over the universe. (This is also why the speed of light can be found all over the earth in fire, or from any substances that can produce a spark.) Quite simply, it explains the reason for the speed of light. Notice also that it introduces a second great physical constant: the speed of light as spinning motion in addition to that speed as a linear constant, already so well known.

Clearly, this is a new level of order---a far more basic one---not known before. Further, it is completely logical and therefore understandable. Let’s see where it goes.

The prohibition given in 1905 that matter cannot travel at the speed of light thus seriously retarded the progress of Science---delaying the discovery of the reason for the speed of light and the universality of the speed of light, delaying the discovery of these tiny spinning fundamental particles, and, as we shall see, much more. This was an arbitrary prohibition. What else can move besides matter? (When this prohibition was given in 1905, the paper it was written on was made of particles of matter spinning at the speed of light. Everyone reading the paper was made of particles of matter spinning at the speed of light. Everyone not reading the paper was made of particles of matter spinning at the speed of light. Matter was moving at the speed of light everywhere in the universe.) So the prohibition was more than a little wrong.

As if having stumbled onto a great treasure, and we have---a scientific treasure---we now get TWO more conclusions. The first is that this rationale, which is perfectly reasonable, is the explanation for the tremendous energy, related to the speed of light, known to exist in mass but never explained before---assuming temporarily that both protons and neutrons are also made of these new unknown particles spinning at the speed of light. (We will address this topic imminently.) Note that this explanation is the first one relating the energy in mass to the speed of light by an actual and reasonable physical cause and effect relationship that can be understood.

The second additional conclusion possible is that we now have a very good idea about how light is ACCELERATED---by tiny unknown fundamental particles, spinning at the speed of light, which impart that motion. Such a process is inherently obvious by this rationale, and there is no other explanation for how light can acquire either its motion or the rate of that motion---the familiar speed of light. (Current Science implies that motion at this speed is somehow automatic, or instantaneous, without any mechanism at all---but is this reasonable? A second fundamental principle explaining the universe---in addition to the one that order can come only from order---is also simple and reasonable: Received motion is imparted motion. In other words, if light has motion, it received it. Didn’t it? And if not, where did the motion come from? Magic is not an option.)

The universe becomes significantly more understandable by even the suggestion of this simple process regarding the acceleration of light---and of the origin of the speed of light as well and the universality of the speed of light. There is no reasonable explanation in Science now for any of these.

And so, back to the original question: Why do electrons significantly gain mass in particle accelerators? The answer is: by a recombination process. The tiny spinning particles from electrons (and protons), which are able to impart their motion to electrons, are also understandably able to adhere back onto electrons by their spinning motion. They have the motion to do so, and they have the ability to do so. The tiny fundamental particle with its spinning motion is the agent of the increase in mass. The combined mass of many of them adhering back onto electrons explains the increase in mass of electrons. The correspondence is actually perfect: spinning particles from electrons are cohering back onto electrons. What rationale could better explain an increase in the mass of electrons? (Especially when there is no other explanation that makes any sense.)

Notice that this process not only makes sense, it’s easy to understand. As stated before, it is a recombination process. Because tiny spinning particles from electrons (and protons) are rejoining electrons, they are recombining.

Notice---and no conclusion in Science has ever been more important---that this process is a particle formation process. Recall the importance of particles to the universe and to humanity. Notice also that the existence of this particle formation process suggests, again for the first time, a particle formation process for ENTIRE electrons. There is no particle formation process in Science now. And the absence of one is the single greatest deficiency ever in Science---because the universe consists so importantly of particles. Keep in mind that this particle formation process also suggests the particle perpetuation process---in other words, the process that maintains particles once they are formed. It is how combined particles stay together after they are formed, and is the simple and natural consequence of particle formation the way it occurs. After particles are formed by spinning motion at the speed of light, there obviously is an abundance of residual spinning motion able to continue or perpetuate that formation. (Notice the simplicity of this unification.)

Official Science needs to consider again how particles are held together. Further, Science significantly does not state where electrons and protons get the motion that is observed in the manifestation of electrical charge---or for any of the four basic forces that scientists enumerate. This is a critical omission, because motion cannot be created (or destroyed). The spinning motion of the fundamental particles---stored within particles by the process of particle formation introduced here---eliminates that deficiency. At this point, it would be useful to realize that, by explaining the increase in mass of electrons accelerated in particle accelerators, without intending to we have uncovered a phenomenon that can also explain the nature of electrical charge and magnetism---which Science has in fact NEVER explained accurately before! Science has never accurately identified the exact nature of these attractions and repulsions! One cannot over-emphasize the importance of this development. It opens the universe to far more understanding. (Once again, you cannot truly understand just a little of the universe.)

Continuing with particle formation, consider also that no other reasonable particle formation process and particle perpetuation process---other than these---are even conceivable. You might find it interesting to try to think of another one that makes sense.

One more thing---notice the general unification: the unification of particle formation and particle perpetuation and particle acceleration in the sense that the identical spinning motion of the identified fundamental particles does all three. And electrical charge and magnetism certainly must also be added to these as well. This fivefold unification is indicative of the unsuspected efficiency of the universe which ultimately is necessary to explain life and so many galaxies.

I think now you already know a lot more