The Particle Hierarchy Paradigm

By Don Briddell

The Particle Hierarchy Paradigm is a way of understanding how nature determines the mass and energy values of particles as determined by experimental physics.

 

Field Structure Theory is a research project into fundamental form and structure. This paper will explore one particular problem in physics, that of th

• Language: English
• Publisher: Overboard Art, Inc
• Release date: Apr 12, 2021
• ISBN: 9781735704111

Book preview

Preface

It is a rather unfortunate fact (for mathematics) that much of the creative introduction of new geometric ideas is done by non-mathematicians, who encounter geometric problems in the course of their professional activities. Not finding the solution in the mathematical literature, and often not finding even a sympathetic ear among mathematicians, they proceed to develop their solutions as best they can and publish their results in the journals of their own disciplines.  Branko Grunbaum (1981)

Lord Kelvin and Peter Tait at the turn of the 20th century, gave up on working with macroscale materials to see if knots on a string could reveal something about the structure of the elements. Since then efforts to make macroscale models of particle and atom structures have been abandoned. With the advent of Quantum Mechanics, the only analytic used by physics has been mathematics. Begun in the nineteen-fifties, a cadre of enthusiasts began considering the world of form and structure and began developing a new analytic that came to be known as Design Science. Buckminister Fuller, Kenneth Snelson, William Katavolus, Arthur Loeb, Joseph Clinton, Jay Kappraff, Haresh Lalvani, John Bell, Stanley Wysocki, Roger Tobie, and I among others, took up structural studies in the fifties and sixties.

Structuralists are design scientists who study structure as a stand-alone science in its own right. Structuralists build macroscale models, mostly three-dimensional, that look for insights about the natural order of our world. The realization is that macroscale modeling of forms and structure have relevance to structure at all scales of reality.

The purpose of this book is to explain why and how structure analytics modeled in the macroscale can and has revealed the architecture of fundamental mass and energy.

Relying on math to understand fundamental structure has revealed much about nature, but in the end has proved problematic. Mathematics led those doing fundamental physics down a rabbit hole and into probabilities, chance and random behavior, a world foreign to our macroworld. Most physicists today believe that fundamental reality can only be known by the use of arcane probability mathematics. Determinism is dead as far as physics is concerned. What is worse, the physics community insist their predicament of seeing the world as governed by chance and probabilities is the only view allowed.

Einstein questioned the practice of allowing mathematics to lead before there was structural understanding. Using mathematics, physics has concluded that nature at its fundamental level is indeterminate, that it’s governed by chance. Determinism once held as sacred in the Industrial Age became blurred in the Quantum Age to such an extent that physics abandoned it. The only way the math being used could bring order to the world of atoms and particles was to understand reality in terms of probabilities. With probabilities, nature is understood in generalities and determinism became essentially crowd control; what individuals (atoms and particles) in the crowd were up to remained a mystery.

Physics reasoned that since discrete notions about the microscale structure were not understandable with an analytic imported from macroscale experience, implied that microscale and cosmic scale of reality did not share some kind of unity. The math they developed for all things small and all things large was incompatible. Not noticed was the fact that what was going on in the macroscale has not been properly understood. This realization was a major shock to me. It meant mathematicians and society for that matter was holding wrong assumptions about the nature of reality. To question the major underlying assumptions of one’s view of reality is another shock even greater than the one just mentioned. To surmount basic assumptions is truly challenging.

What got missed at the macroscale was that the math developed for physics was based on the behavior of objects in a field, not on the behavior of a field itself. Western culture never even suspected the reality of energy fields until Michael Faraday demonstrated them as a reality around 1850. Still today what I call field consciousness has not been assimilated into the Western mode of consciousness. Westerners dwell on objects in a field, not the field in the object. It is the Eastern modes of consciousness that specialize in field consciousness. I have gone into this issue extensively in a larger book to follow this book and will not dwell on it further here. It is sufficing to say this issue exists and needs attention.

Science began with the study of objects, not with the study of fields. It encountered fields not through the efforts of the mathematician, but rather through the efforts of an experimenter, Michael Faraday, working with macroscale materials. The existence of fields was not the invention of mathematicians. That came later once Faraday experimentally discovered them.

Fields can only be seen by implication. To the naked eye they are invisible. They are revealed by how they affect matter and this is what Faraday did. Now days, fields are fully respected for their primary role in the affairs of the objective world, but until the discovery of fieldstructures, there has not been a way to model a field empirically. With Field Structure Theory, we can actually see how fields operate.

Physics has neither been able to explain why particles have mass, nor has physics shown how those values came to be. This is because objects (particles) are derived from field energy. The problem has been that physics has assumed objects create fields. While fields and objects are inseparable, it is a mistake, as will be seen here, to give objects (particles) a causal status. If you can’t explain how particles get their mass and energy, the universe will remain a mystery. We have descriptions, but not explanations. It is time for an explanation!

To address this problem, this book will introduce structural physics, a new way of doing physics. The fieldstructures made with material objects that you will see in this book, link fractal number patterns to patterns found in nature. Structural physics is interested in the mechanics of how action forms fields. Structural physics has found that structures properly built in the macroscale utilize the same structural system nature uses throughout the universe. Energy in the form of electromagnetic loops and the effect those energy loops have on the Plenum¹ from which they are derived, reveal the relationship between field energy and particle mass.

In his book entitled Six Easy Pieces, Richard Feynman, a Nobel Laureate in physics said in regards to a discussion on the gravity force, "All we [physicists] have done is to describe how the earth moves around the sun, but we have not said what makes it go. Newton made no hypothesis about this; he was satisfied to find what it did without getting into the machinery of it. No one has since given any machinery...The great laws of mechanics are quantitative mathematical laws for which no machinery is available. Why we use mathematics to describe nature without a mechanism behind it, no one knows. We have to keep going because we find out more that way."

The machinery, as Feynman calls it, is the issue. Field Structure Theory (FST) will reveal this machinery and apply Tometry to understand the mass and energy values that have been experimentally found by physics. Tometry is a new analytic designed to replace geometry. By following the old math and forcing it to adhere to a flawed understanding of structure, physics has ended up with three theories, (the microscale [quantum mechanics], the macroscale [classical mechanics], and the cosmic [General Relativity]. These theories do not relate to one another. The reason physics has not succeeded in producing a successful Unified Field Theory, or what has been pompously called The Theory of Everything, is due to the lack of understanding structure. Physics has wonderfully weighed, measured, and timed the fundamental aspects of nature and given us descriptions any theory of structure will have to collaborate. The explanation of how the universe works as a unified whole is still wanting.

It is now the structuralist’s turn to have a crack at it. The problem is how does nature determine the mass and energies of particles? We know what the values are, but not how they are determined theoretically. Physics found out these values mostly through experiment, not through a far-reaching theory. It is now time to address not what the numbers are, that we know, but how they come to be.

Structural physics, as delineated here, has constructed a particle hierarchy. Unable to penetrate the wall of mystery that seems to surround reality, structural physics has returned to natural forms and structures to do fundamental research. Unlike physics, which sees the problem in terms of particle objects, field theory sees the problem in terms of energy fields; particles being condensed fields of energy. Radiant energy is deployed energy; deployed from condensed fields. A proton is a condensed field. Destroy a proton, as can be done by contact with an anti-proton, and the condensed fields of both the proton and anti-proton convert into radiant gamma rays revealing that all form is energy whether bound or unbound. To understand energy is to understand fields. It is imperative to have a structural understanding of how to model a field, structurally.

Structuralists have gone back to model making within the protective domain of nature to see what went wrong with the quantum particle approach taken by physics. To do this a method had to be found that would allow the structural physicist to model a field, preferably at the macroscale so what is happening can be observed. This idea that there was such a thing as a macroscale model of microscale reality has long been discounted as foolishness by physics, once Lord Kelvin and Peter Tait gave up on tying knots on string at the beginning of the last century.

By only working with natural forces and materials, structural research is prevented from introducing the unnatural to satisfy conjecture. If we are to know how the universe works, we have to develop an analytic to interpret our observations. Western science chose mathematics as the tool to probe fundamental physical reality, in part because modeling with macroscale materials was seen as ineffective. FST saw that the problem was not with materials as such, but with the structural system science was assuming to be correct. Physics could not figure out how to model fields with materials so they quit trying. From the FST perspective, science failed to realize how fields extend to everything at all scales and materials. The structural system capable of modeling fields at the macroscale with materials awaited the discovery of Tometry, nature’s analytic.

After spending a hundred years, science is beginning to see it’s not the objects in the field, but the field in the objects that will get us somewhere. The core of the problem, as I see it, has been that physics has been asking the wrong analytic to solve how the universe was thought to work, when the question of structure had not been properly understood to begin with.

Stanley Wysocki and I at Pratt Institute in 1965 began working with paper, wire, plastic tubing, wooden dowel rods and rope; hardly the tools of the trade in physics. We found these materials entirely capable of modeling basic structure that was not limited by scale. Almost immediately we began discovering structures previously unknown, as far as we could tell. It never ceased to amaze us how there could be families of form and structure yet undiscovered. The prevailing opinion in 1965 science was that a theory of form and structure could not be consummated using macroscale forms and structures. Buckminster Fuller and Kenneth Snelson were belittled for trying. The macroscale world was too different from what was being encountered in the microscale and cosmic scale to have any relevance. So, we became foolish and tried it anyway. Almost immediately we discovered fieldstructures, a new family of knotted loop three-dimensional geometric forms.