The Heavens Declare His Handiwork

Previous Page               Next Page

Thomas Lee Abshier, ND

Author, Speaker
Naturopathic Physician

Christian Counselor

Medical Consultations

Marriage Counseling
Seminars, Speaker
Books, Articles
Audio, Video

(503) 255-9500
Portland, Oregon

Particle Physics

By: Thomas Lee Abshier, ND

Research in high energy particle physics has identified over 200 subatomic particles.  The particles are mapped and organized into groups much like the periodic table of elements.  As a result, the symmetry of the system illuminates the expected existence of a particle, which can then be found in the experimental of high energy particle collisions.  Such predictive power is a hallmark of a successful theory that reflects the nature of the universe.  And, while strongly suggestive of a fundamental theory, accuracy in prediction does not prove that the symbols used were in fact the fundamental patterns of creation.

The quark theory is a collection of rules of interaction which describe the phenomenon and patterns observed (e.g. conservation of lepton number).  The quark theory does an excellent job of predicting the allowable nuclear particle configurations, but it has little applicability in helping us deeply understand quantum mechanics, field theory, or relativity.

The Standard Model of particle physics gives quarks, leptons, neutrinos, and exchange forces the status of fundamental particles.  In comparison, the Theory of Absolutes postulates that electrons and positrons are the only fundamental particles.  Likewise, the Theory postulates that forces are mediated by fields which instruct and inform particles how to move.  The fields are themselves conscious entities, generated each moment by each particle.  The fields modify themselves each moment as they radiate spherically to reflect their diminished force at greater distances.

An important assumption of the Theory of Absolutes is that the particles of the Subatomic Zoo & Standard Model are complex assemblies of electrons and positrons.  This assumption of an electron and positron substructure appears to contradict the Standard model’s assumption of the quark, neutrino, lepton, and exchange forces being the fundamental particles.  But, throughout the body of this Theory we will the use this assumption, and continue to show how it produces a picture of explanatory consistency with the phenomenon.  

The Standard Model was postulated as an organizational system, similar to the Periodic Table of Elements, in order to give order to the Subatomic Zoo, which was being populated by a growing number of particles that were detected in the bubble chambers of the high energy particle physics labs.  The first particle accelerators were relatively low energy and accelerated protons or electrons into a metallic target such as a gold foil, which produced lower energy subatomic particles as collision byproducts.  But, as higher energy accelerators were built, protons (or other charged particles) were accelerated into an opposing beam of anti-particles at ever higher energies.  Such innovative experiments were successful in producing more energetic collision byproducts, and as a result the population of detected and identified particles has continued to grow and fill out the expected population of the Standard Model.

In the Theory of Absolutes, we hypothesize that this phenomenon of creating ever more energetic subatomic particles.  This postulate is rationalized by the following hypothetical assumptions:

  1. The colliding particles (e.g. protons, neutrons, muons, pions, etc.) are comprised of electrons and positrons in rotating configurations;
  2. The internal rotational energy of the colliding particles can be redistributed during collision into particles of higher and/or lower kinetic or rotational energy.
  3. The high kinetic energy of the colliding particles is stored in the surrounding Dipole Sea as Electrical and Magnetic Fields associated with the constituent electrons and positrons;
  4. The kinetic energy stored in the Dipole Sea around the colliding particles is available to convert the electrons and positrons in the Dipole Sea into real particles.

· This is a previously unrecognized type of Pair Production (normally seen associated with a high energy ã ray next to a heavy nucleus).

· Pair Production requires 1.022 MeV per electron-positron pair, thus higher kinetic energy particles will have more energy available to create more pairs, and thus particles with greater mass.

  1. The electron-positron pairs produced during collision may be incorporated into subatomic particles of different configurations.
  2. The kinetic energy of the colliding particles can be converted into electron-positron pairs, as well as provide enough rotational energy to maintain a separation (centrifugal force) to prevent these pair from falling back together and annihilating.  
  3. These rotating electron-positron pairs are formed in such a way by an appropriately glancing collision so as to produce a rotating ball of multiple electron-positron pairs, which in turn aggregate into a subatomic particle of varying degrees of stability.

Thus, collisions between high energy protons and anti-protons can momentarily generate large assemblies of electrons and positrons.  The most particles created can be a simple pion, low energy quark, high energy quark, up to the Higgs Vector Boson, which is believed to be the most highly energetic and complex particle.  Physicists have speculated that these more complex and high energy particles may have existed in the primal universe when the energy density of the universe was much higher.  

The Particle Physicists and philosophers have attempted to understand the fundamental processes involved in assembling the particles of the Subatomic Zoo.  The Standard Model embodies the current accepted theory which attempts to explain the underlying structure of the particles of the Subatomic Zoo.  The Standard Model hypothesizes that the quark is the fundamental particulate unit which constitutes the subatomic particle’s substructure.  

The Standard Model, with its Up/Down, Strange/Charm, Top/Bottom quarks and anti-quarks produces a very symmetric organization of particles, and as a result provides the possibility of predicting the existence, or non-allowed existence, of the rest of the particles that will be found by experiment.  But, the question we must continue to ask as seekers of truth is whether the quark truly is the fundamental unit of construction of the universe.  The quark can be imbued with the same consciousness and ability to perform to a set of God-given rules, rule-oriented compliance.  Thus, if the quark theory ultimately proves to be Truth, it will not disturb the basic assumptions of the Theory of Absolutes that God created conscious particles that obey rules.  But, we are driven to know if the quark theory is an artifact of a more basic set of interactions associated with a more fundamental conscious particle.  We long to understand the true nature of reality, and this desire drives us on to determine that most foundational set of rules and particles that constitute the creation.

The limitations of the Standard Model are well elaborated in a 2004 issue of Scientific American.  The inability of the Standard Model to answer fundamental questions leads us to believe that it is probably a subset of a more general or fundamental theory.  Thus, physicists continue to search for the holy grail of a Grand Unified Theory, or Theory of Everything that allows us to live in a more predictable and understandable universe.  Quantum mechanics has given us an appreciation of the inherent complexity and uncertainty of the underlying processes of the physical universe, but it has also left us open to a spiritualization of this mysterious phenomenon.  As a result, the physicists have been exalted to the role of high priests in our secular humanist society.  A subculture of interlocking scientific priesthoods has formed to attempt to validate the thesis of evolution and the self-generating nature of the universe.

And, if such a theory of life were true, we should simply accept it, and order our lives accordingly.  But, if it is untrue, we should likewise ignore these alternate constructions of reality.  We all long for the sense of solid ground provided by actually understanding the universe as it is.  Such a map provides us with a proper guide to direct our future research, it helps us engineer the practical machines of life, and gives us a pattern by which to organize our social interactions.  

Thus, in the spirit of searching for the truth the Theory of Absolutes is proffered for examination as a map which may provide an initial examination for how the physical world is ordered on its most fundamental level.  Noting how the quark theory provides an excellent predictive capability for allowed and disallowed particles, we can assume that there is some fundamental structure involved which truly is involved in ordering the assemblage of subatomic particles.  But, we are not required to assume that the quark is the fundamental particle; only that it is a useful accounting tool.  In other words, the quark may be an assembly of electrons and positrons.  It may be that this subunit corresponds to a fundamental unit of subatomic particle construction.

Thus, the Standard Model could be interpreted as a subset of a theory where the quarks were comprised of electrons and positrons.  We could then interpret the elemental particles of the Standard Model as natural units that help us categorize the Subatomic Zoo in ways that reflect the allowable aggregations of quarks and antiquarks. This conceptualization has obvious benefits in terms of providing an overall simplicity and unification to the disparate fields of Modern Physics if the rules governing subatomic particles apply seamlessly to the equally thorny problems of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and Field Theory.

Occam’s razor dictates the choice of the simpler organizational model as the system more likely to correctly reflect reality.  Still, shortcut methods for prediction, such as the quark-based Standard Model, are valuable.  We must resist the temptation to give excessive generality to a useful algorithm, since utility does not prove that the symbols used to organize the predictive relationships are actually fundamental physical entities.