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
drthomas@naturedox.com
Portland, Oregon

Particle Free Will
By Thomas Lee Abshier, ND


If the particle has the choice to move within well-defined limits, this latitude and requirement to move could be the driving force that governs the next position of the particle.  If each particle has such a free will choice to move within a boundary, the distribution of its free will may be constrained to follow a wave-like probability distribution of position.  And, since particles aggregate and function as units that are likewise subject to position-uncertainty, the individual particles may together meld to form a group-mind that also follows the rules of Uncertainty.  Such an underlying rule could be the method by which spontaneous particle decay may occur as the constituent sub-particles chaotically move outside of the bounds of attraction of the larger complex particle.

Regardless of the relationship of the particle’s programming regarding random motion, this discussion brings into question the possibility of choice and free will at the level of the particle, the particle group, and succeedingly more complex group-spirits up to molecules, plants, animals, and humans.  This discussion is important in that the question of human free will must be addressed.  In a world composed of particles, all of which are governed by law, free will can only exist when the spirit choose to act and create an effect outside of the cause-effect law to change the course of the mechanistic force-reaction sequence.  

All energy types, such as mass, particles, waves, and kinetic energy, may only aggregate into units related to Planck’s constant (ħ), which has units of joule-seconds.  The units of Plank’s constant imply energy that has duration of existence, which in turn implies a volume within which it must exist.  

As a result of these energetic limitations, the orbital electron can only acquire angular momentum equal to integer multiples of Planck’s constant.  In the case of the orbital system where each orbital can only occupy energy increments related to integer multiple of Plank’s constant, the radii available to orbital electrons will be limited to those which comply with the constraints of attraction, and momentum.  

The mass of an orbital electron moves at every moment, and it can appear literally in any position in space.  But, the locations of its mean position and the band of higher probabilities (say 1 SD from the mean), gives the general expected location of the electron as the Schrödinger Wave Equation (SWE) describes it.  

The Bohr atom, is computed based on electron orbitals occupying only the integer multiples of Planck’s constant.  In this model, the allowed amounts of angular momentum are given by the restriction on allowed energy levels.  Thus, the radius of orbital is determined by the interplay between the inward pull of the nucleus-electron attraction and tangential velocity of the electron with a given energy.  The perpendicular force needed by the electron-nucleus attraction to produce a circular orbital governs the radius of the orbital.  The Bohr model of the atom worked well in predicting the energy levels of the Hydrogen orbitals, but poorly in predicting the energy levels of the more complex, multi-proton and multi-electron atoms.  But, the SWE produced more accurate predictions of the orbital intervals, shapes, and angles, and has been adopted as the accepted model.

Apparently the electron orbitals do not obey the strict distance relationships expected by the Bohr model, and instead trace out other geometric tracks including: toroid, dumbbell-like, and spherical shapes.  These tracks reflect the probabilities of electron position being found inside orbits of these shapes as predicted by the SWE.  

The fuzziness of the position of particles (whether in linear flight as evidenced by the de Broglie wavelength, or the orbital position probability predicted by the SWE, or the confinement of mass energy to a space as predicted by the Uncertainty Principle) appears to have numerous factors contributing to this manifestation of random, wavelike distribution of position.  Each of these phenomena is subject to the energy-increment restrictions imposed by their relationship to Plank’s constant.  

The de Broglie wavelength is related to the amount of kinetic energy a mass possesses.  And, this same wavelike packet of kinetic energy can be forced into a circular motion where that energy distributes itself in a configuration consistent with the restrictions of circular velocity.

The question is, what kind of a basic understructure of the particulate world could manifest such a wavelike distribution of position?  We have considered the position-distribution due to a complex of macro and micro forces.  The restrictions of Plank’s constant that only allow energy to materialize only in certain levels appear to be based on a fundamental rule of space.  

But, the Uncertainty phenomenon may be explained by the fact that positive and negative DPs that were oriented in one direction, and hence part of a mass or wave, could in the next moment combine with another DP of opposite polarity, and in so doing drop out as far as their participation in terms of carrying a wave or mass.  This shifting ground structure of mass and waves may give them the effect of having a variable center, and hence the probabilistic location noted by experiment.

When particles are accelerated to significant percentages of the local speed of light in a macroscopic radius, the particle’s angular momentum will probably not coincide with angular momentum allowed by that space.  Thus, the angular momentum given to particles in such macroscopic experiments (i.e. particle accelerators) radiate a photonic energy, given the name “synchrotron radiation”.  Thus, we expect charges moving under the influence of a macroscopic angular acceleration to radiate.  Again, we observe this radiation effect as the velocity of the charged particles changes direction each moment under influence of the magnetic field of the particle accelerator.   

The kinetic energy E&B field associated with a moving charge propagates along a linear trajectory.  But, the mass energy (the aggregation of DPs polarized around the Central DP), and its associated kinetic energy field (the E&B fields produced in the space in reaction to the moving charge), can manifest anywhere within the space allowed by the Uncertainty Principle along that trajectory (which is simply a restatement of the deBroglie Wavelength of a particle with a certain velocity).  Unless an external force acts upon the particle, it will not diverge from its linear track.  All experimental evidence supports this hypothesis of linearity modified only by Uncertainty.  

The combination of the principles of linearity, uncertainty, and space-allowed angular momentum yield the effect of radiation from a charged body undergoing angular acceleration.  In a circular particle accelerator, the angular diversion of the charged particle mass from the allowable momentum-distance separates the kinetic energy field of the particle from the underlying moving charged-mass.  Thus, synchrotron radiation forms as the increments of kinetic energy fields are separated from the locus of the magnetically-bent track of the electron.  This separated kinetic field energy aggregates into photons and propagates tangentially from the track of the electron curvature, thus conserving the system’s energy.

Aside: First let us consider what would happen to the electron orbitals if the allowable quantum were smaller than that allowed by Planck’s constant.  We would see that the orbitals would shrink in their distance between each other, and that the ground level orbital would move closer to the nucleus.  

Thus, if space had no restrictions on the incremental size of energy quanta that could be carried, if any energy amount could be carried down to the ultimate infinitesimal, then no electron orbitals would exist.  An electron passing by an atom (if we can call it an atom in this system) would simply be absorbed into the nucleus.  Thus, electrons would not be able to hold their angular momentum at the various quantum levels, including the ground level, which would cause every orbital electron to collapse into the nucleus since no energy barrier would prevent the drop into the nucleus.  

If a charge passed by such a system, and was placed under angular acceleration due to the attraction of the nucleus, the electron would radiate at every moment regardless of its orbital radius or angular momentum.

A universe built where there was a continuous spectrum of allowable energies would not produce atoms.  But, if it could, it would be without incremental orbital energies.  Hence, elements would not have the characteristic light frequencies radiated from them under electric stimulation.  Elements in this world would not bond with their characteristic angles, and hence the carbon-based molecules of life would not form.  Likewise, if the universe allowed infinitely small increments of energy to exist as mass, then the energy gaps that prevented the decay of complex particles would be gone.  Every particle except the most simple would quickly disintegrate into radiation.  Thus, a minor modification of the subatomic world would change the entire universe.

The fact that complex particles cannot form without following a law that was embedded in the Universe that requires energies to only exist at certain levels gives evidence to the fact that there is Law, and a Lawgiver who purposefully gave it.  The universe did not have to be formed in the manner as we see it.  But, if the stringent parameters (physical constants) upon which this universe was built were modified even slightly, then life and matter as we know it would be totally impossible.  This does not mean that God exists, or that this universe and its laws are the only possibility that God could have used to manifest His creation, or that He created it all with us in mind.  Nevertheless, to the human perspective and common sense, it does seem likely that the universe was designed for the express purpose of providing man the opportunity to fully explore and experience a vast array of obstacles, needs, opportunities, adventures, behaviors, and possibilities of relationship and drama.  Those who oppose this point of view claim the universe was made without purpose, without a designer, and evolved without intent, and man is an accident, and that there is no purpose to his existence, and certainly no superiority in his mission or authority over the rest of life and creation.  Both perspectives can only be validated by faith.  Each side chooses different data sets, and accepts different pieces of data as valid or having significance.  Thus, as a believer in God, His sovereignty, and His role as Creator, I choose to look at the data as indicative of His purpose and evidence of His Law.

In particular, I look at the implications of Christ creating the universe; what is His ongoing obligation and role?  As the Creator, as the point of authorship and authority, it is His commands and rules that govern the actions and patterns of relationship of all particles.  And, this set of rules embedded in the smallest of particles that govern and direct their interactions, have implications at the highest order of organization; in particular in dictating the behaviors that man must follow for survival.  

But, the Bible (as the inspired Word of God) gave special rules to govern men’s behavior, and requires him to modify his basic flesh/animal instincts to follow the way of God.  Thus, God, as Christ, The Logos, created the physical universe with one set of laws, and then set man in among the creation, and gave him the command to follow a different set of laws.  This tension between man’s inner drive and his pull to follow the Way of God is the primary play around which the drama of man is organized.  

What place did Christ play in entering His creation as a man, living a perfect life, and then dying as a sacrifice?  He set up a cause and effect universe, where good and evil reaped its own just reward.  Imperfection in following His way produced the result of separation from fellowship with God.  The creation was made to be a place where God could love and be loved.   The stakes of following vs. rebelling were high, separation or fellowship with God.  The platform was set, and God as Christ entered the Earth stage.   It was impossible for man to live up to the standards of actual godliness.  Christ, as a man, walked the walk of perfection, and then died unrighteously at the hands sinners.  He rose from the dead and showed that His path was open, that it was possible to live a perfect life and overcome the natural sequence and consequences of the Law.  

The way of Christ is grace.  As the author of the universe, He has established the way of truth, and he wants all men to follow His way.  But, men fail.  Those who are sincere, who are truly trying to follow his Way, who call upon His spirit to possess their lives, are those whom he will give clemency, grace, unmerited favor.  Those who rebel will be separated from His fellowship.  The sacrifice and perfection of Christ’s life gave Him the right and authority to judge the hearts of all men as to their level of sincerity in pursuit of His heart and Way.

Thus, man was made to be a special companion to God.  We see evidence of a purpose and designer, and a special place for man given the beauty of this world, the freedom of motion, thought, and speech, man’s position in the middle of the octaves of size between the smallest subatomic increment and largest universal dimensions.  

If this is a conscious universe, and the universe was programmed to follow the laws of the Lawgiver, then the universe is a reflection of His nature and will for humanity as a challenge, satisfaction, and fulfillment.

Because all the orbital electrons in a multi-electron atom interact with each other, and because of the higher charge of the heavier element nucleus, the average locus of each of the electron orbitals is modified.  Thus the Schrödinger Wave Equation and the other fine structure equations are needed to account for the interactions between the orbital electrons and multiple charges of the nucleus.  The magnetic fields and electric fields of the electrons and nucleus likewise modify the space around the nucleus, which results in the deviation of the predictions of the orbital energies predicted by the Bohr Atom model.  In a simple orbital system like the Hydrogen atom, the interactions between the nucleus and the electron collapse to the rules predicted by the Bohr Model.  In more complex systems, the Schrödinger Wave Equation, and its modifications account for other subtle interactions and forces that predict and describe the allowable quanta of energy that space can hold.

The very nature of an orbital electron is to deviate from the tangential/linear trajectory at each moment.  Angular velocity would cause the Kinetic E&B field to separate from the trajectory of the mass if these two entities (mass and kinetic fields) had no mechanism by which to adjust and reconnect due to deviations of the trajectory from absolute linearity.  But, particles are able to reconnect mass and kinetic field when the orbital deviation lies within the limits of uncertainty at each moment.  Thus, the orbital electron does not radiate photonic energy if the orbital velocity is within the allowable energy quanta of space.

The understanding of this anomaly of orbital non-radiation resolves when considering the spatial deviations allowed for by a quantum of energy as per the Uncertainty Principle.  The Uncertainty principle allows a deviation from linearity at each moment for both linear and orbital masses.  Thus, as long as the angular deviation from linearity does not exceed the allowable Uncertainty, the mass and kinetic field may stay entrained, and energy is not radiated from the orbital electron.  The Uncertainty Principle allows an electron mass and its Kinetic Energy Field to re-manifest in coincidence with the next orbital position along the orbital at each moment, even though the orbital track did not follow the linear path being directed by the kinetic energy Field.  The Uncertainty Principle allows for the electron to manifest within a spatial increment for a given momentum.  The Uncertainty Principle: ħ = Dx∙Dp, indicates the possibility that kinetic energy of the orbital electron can be bent by an amount Dx so that the particle and its field energy coincide even though they are not identical.  

If the Kinetic Energy Field cannot maintain connection with the mass, then an increment of that Kinetic Energy Field will disconnect from the mass, and the orbital will drop down to a lower allowed quantum level.  The energy dissociated from the orbital electron will carry away the quanta of energy as a photon equal to the energy difference in the two orbital levels.  Some disturbances cause the activated orbital electron to jump out of its allowable orbital level and radiate.  The effect causing this deviation may be a random fluctuation of fields in that space that produces a force on the orbital electron mass and moves it outside of its allowable increment of displacement for that angular momentum.  As a result, the electron is in an orbital space which is not supported by the uncertainty principle, and as it curves due to its orbital velocity and force of attraction to the nucleus, it loses contact with its Kinetic Energy Field, and that increment of energy leaves the space as a photon with an energy associated with the differential between the activated orbital and the next allowed orbital energy.

When the kinetic field energy of the orbital is appropriate for the level of uncertainty of the space, then the kinetic field of the orbital electron does not dissociate and radiate away as a photon.  But, increments of energy that do not meet the criteria for an allowable energy packet-increment do not re-associate with the mass, and that increment radiates away.  

The ground level electron-nucleus orbital configuration is the lowest orbital energy that a particular electron, in a particular orbital can hold.  Thus, the ground level energy will be maintained indefinitely, unless the electron is dissociated from the orbital by the addition of energy.  Such energetic addition may arrive by particulate or photonic collision, and may give the orbital electron sufficient energy to rise to another higher allowed energy level.  With sufficient energy added to the orbital electron, it can be removed completely from the orbital system, a process known as ionization.  Orbital electrons that acquire sufficient energy to rise to the new allowable quantum energy level will be stable as long as they are undisturbed by outside collisions and fields, or internal deviation from its orbit due to the forces from other electrons in the orbital system.  

The activated orbital can also decay if its deviation in position due to Uncertainty drops it out of the energy well of the allowed orbital to an unoccupied lower level.   The Uncertainty principle offers us a tool that has been shown to have great empirical validity.  The mechanism of its action is not well understood.  The bottom line is that particles of a given energy remain stable if that energy is confined within the increment of space allowed by the Uncertainty principle.  But, since particles can deviate from this distance by the application of an outside force, or possibly the cancellation of the central DP of an electron mass, the particle could find itself in a position that is not supported by the space, and result in a photon decay.

Entanglement: The paired, opposite spin, electrons of an electron orbital are entangled.  Likewise, photons can be entangled.  The electrons flowing together as Cooper Pairs are entangled as they flow in a superconductor.  Bell’s theorem and Bell’s inequality deal with the phenomenon of entanglement and particles which change state instantly at distances too far separated to do so by ordinary speed of light communication.  Einstein, Podulsky and Rosen criticized quantum mechanics (the EPR Paradox) as incomplete.  They felt that reality demanded a fundamental causal mechanism for the Uncertainty Principle.  Thus, for uncertainty and entanglement to be fully complete, they felt that the theory needed the introduction and incorporation of a “hidden variable” to conform to local realism.  Einstein criticized quantum mechanics because of its apparently non-causal implications and called entanglement “spooky action at a distance.”  

In the Theory of Absolutes we have attempted to identify as many hidden variables as possible to provide an explanation of causality in as many areas as possible.  In the case of uncertainty, we have simply noted that God-given laws of nature allow for mass and energy to re-manifest at random locations within certain limits.  

As noted, the variability of position of the Uncertainty Principle may be due to a principle of “particle consciousness”, or as an effect that result from other more fundamental rules followed by the particles.  Any program can be embedded in the mind/spirit of a particle capable of cognition and independent processing.  

Regarding entanglement, this may also be another type of program that is allowed as a principle of conscious execution of the particles, or as in the case of Uncertainty, may be a secondary effect following from more primal principles.  Note that entanglement is not eternal: entanglement between particles is broken when sufficient energy is applied to either one of the particles in an entangled system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox#Locality_in_the_EPR_experiment

Uncertainty Principle: The momentum and location of a target particle are impossible to exactly measure at the same moment by a test particle.  This does not mean that the particles do not have a definite location and momentum at each moment.  Rather, the Uncertainty principle involves recognizing the impossibility of measurement of both the velocity and the position of the particle at the same time.  It is an unattainable experimental outcome because the test particle inherently influences the velocity and position of the target particle.  The inaccuracy in measurement has nothing to do with method or instrumental precision; it has to do with the underlying physical reality and nature of measuring a particle’s properties of velocity and position by using another particle.

By probing the space of a target particle, its velocity and position will be altered.  A high velocity test particle will tightly localize the position of the target particle, but will give less information about the target’s velocity.  Likewise, the low velocity test particle more tightly measures the target’s velocity, but poorly localizes it.  Thus, the momentum of the target particle interacts with the momentum of the test particle in a predictable manner.  This interaction has been quantified in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which is stated as a product of the uncertainty of the position and uncertainty in momentum of the target producing a product equal to Planck’s constant.  ∆x ∙ ∆p = ħ/2

This describes the Uncertainty Principle in a laboratory test context, but why does a single particle give evidence of these properties when in a particle is alone (particle decay or particle size), or when in a system of particles (electron orbitals)?   Thus, what is the fundamental mechanism operating behind the Uncertainty so as to display this wide range of properties?

Clearly each particle is influenced at each moment by the forces around it.  One type of de-localizing force is the collision with another particle.  Another type of de-localizing influence is the proximate passage of fields, which is the effect mediating particle collision.

Particles influence the position of other particles (this includes the influence of the DPs that constitute a particle on other DPs composing that particle).  Likewise, fields passing by or through a particle influence the next location of that particle (this includes static fields such as the magnetic and electric fields of a nucleus affecting the probability of location of the re-manifestation of orbital particles, and particles composing the nucleus).  

The Schrödinger Wave Equation describes the probability of finding an orbital electron in a particular position over the entire volume of all space.  And in the simplest case of the Hydrogen atom, the SWE collapses to yield the same results as the Bohr atom, predicting the same orbital energy as observed and predicted by the Bohr model for a Hydrogen Atom with its single electron and single proton.  

But, in a multi-orbital, multiple-nucleon atom, the interactions between electrons disturb the position of the orbital electron away from the locus predicted by the (pure centrifugal force vs. electrostatic attraction) Bohr orbital.  The SWE predicts the probability of a particular electron in each orbital being at any particular location better than the Bohr model for multi orbital atoms.  And, because of the allowable quanta of energy available to each electron orbital, the electrons do not have intermediate orbital energies.  

On a macro level, the location of the electron appears indeterminate, and the temptation is to mystify the electron’s (and other particle’s) location as being inherently without physical location.  But, the reality is much more mundane, each orbital electron has a probability of being in a particular location because of the complex interaction between the electrons, nucleus, and the other orbitals.  Every electron actually exists, and has an actual location at every moment.  But, predicting where that particle will be at any moment (prior to the arrival of that moment) is indefinite (probabilistic only) because the DPs re-congregate to re-form the particle at each moment based on: 1) the sum of the forces acting on the particle, 2) the new location of the Central DP based on its momentum, and 3) the new location of the Central DP based on its annihilation and reformation at a new location within the bounds of its Uncertainty.

When there are multiple forces acting on the orbital electron, the net effect is to alter the mean orbital radius of all the electron orbitals.  When considering all these modifying factors, the SWE, plus all the additional modifications to the equation to consider all the forces acting on the orbital electrons, it is then possible to accurately predict the energy of activation, and hence the differential of energy release, between orbitals.

Computation of the DeBroglie wavelength of the electron predicts a wavelength of the electron that corresponds to the interference pattern produced by a dual slit interferometer.  And, the most surprising aspect of this experiment is that the pattern produced by the electrons passing through the dual slit interferometer produce the same wave-like interference pattern on the screen even when the electron flow rate is constrained to a single electron entering the slits at a time.  

This effect appears because the Kinetic Energy Field in the space surrounding the electron is in effect a continuation of the substance of the mass of the electron.  The instantaneous actual manifested position of a moving electron is therefore a combination of the mass energy and its own Kinetic Energy Field (these two parameters both taken into consideration by the computation of momentum).  Thus, the moving electron manifests in a wavelike manner across the entire target of the dual slit interferometer.  The electron mass and its Kinetic Energy Field interacts with the atoms and the fields of the slits to produce the effect of a particle interfering with itself.  Thus, the wave-like nature of the particle is illustrated, but it does not preclude the particle having an actual position at each moment.  Thus, the electron IS a particle, with a location at each moment, but its own Kinetic Energy Field influences the distribution of possible localization of the Central DP at each moment in such a way as to be distributed over space in a manner that gives it wave-like properties in interaction.

A corollary effect related to the dual slit interferometry experiment, and predicted by the de Broglie wavelenth is that the effective wavelength of velocity of the electron will be progressively smaller as the electron travels faster.  As evidence of this phenomenon, we see in electron microscopy that the higher energy electron will have a higher velocity and shorter wavelength.  

This all gives evidence to the fact that at any moment a particle has a definite momentum and position; there is no fundamental uncertainty as to the position of any DP, or particle of mass, nor any fundamental uncertainty in its momentum.  Rather, the complexity of the underlying interactions with regards to the regrouping of the mass around a new Central DP at each moment produces a statistical manifestation of velocity and position when the constituent DPs are under the highly disordering influence of a passing particle or wave.  And, because of the quantum restrictions of space regarding the energy content of a particle or wave packet that energy will necessarily be spread out over the volume allowed for that energy.  

Thus, when at a macroscopic level we attempt to measure the velocity and momentum of the particle, we find that the manner in which the particle re-aggregates follows the relationship of the Uncertainty principle: Dx ∙ Dp = ħ/2.  The interplay between position and momentum reflects the fact that these two quantities represent two parameters around which particles must organize to satisfy energy holding requirement of space, which in turn governs the manifestation of the particle in terms of its static and dynamic manifestation.

The orbital electron assumes its primary trajectory (position and velocity) in an orbital system in response to the nucleus-electron electrostatic attraction.  That trajectory is then modified according to its relationship with the forces exerted by it from other fields and particles within the orbital system; forces coming from outside the orbital system; the movement of the Central DP due to its constant annihilation with the DPs of the Sea, and re-appearance at a distance; and the restrictions of position associated with the allowable energy and space restrictions.

The product of the uncertainty of the position and momentum always equals a given total quantity.  The underlying particulate-force structure that supports this manifestation reflects the facts that the DPs composing the subatomic particle can be dispersed and reformed within limits.  The dispersal of position and momentum has a statistical spread, which is dependent upon the particular momentum (and mass energy) and position of the particle at any moment.

This possibility of the particle manifesting momentarily in a variety of positions opens the possibility of these constituent particles being outside of the attractive forces that bind its constituent parts.  The fact of particle decay, and decay half-life, reflects the fact that the force holding together the components of a larger sub-atomic system (e.g. nucleus, or nucleon, or zoo particle, can be breeched by probabilistic internal variability in position.  The decay of particles into their constituent parts in this manner has a decay half-life predictable on a statistical basis because of the probabilistic behavior followed by a particle with such an internal energy and volume.

This phenomenon occurs as particles move between two places without overcoming the energy-barrier separating these two states.  A heavily commercialized device that depends on tunneling is in the Field Effect Transistor.  The gate is polarized to oppose the flow of current, but is sufficiently thin that the large current flowing between the collector and emitter (and tunneling across the gate) is effectively modulated by the signal voltage applied across the gate.  The collector to emitter current must tunnel through the gate to flow, and the amount of current that tunnels is determined by the energy barrier produced by the signal voltage modulating the opposing polarization of the gate.  Thus, the gate provides an impediment to the flow of current, but one that can be overcome by the voltage of the collector to emitter.  The CE voltage is pulling electrons across the energy barrier of the gate.  The effect of the high CE voltage across the gate is to create a high population of electrons on the upstream side of the gate, and a high population of holes on the downstream side of the gate.  The electrons on the upside of the gate do not have enough energy to actually flow through the region of the gate, since the voltage barrier presented by the gate is larger than the CE voltage.  But because the gate is thin in the direction of the CE voltage, and because the electrons inherently move in their position at every moment by the inherent uncertainty of the electrons, and because the CE voltage is constantly moving the electrons in the CE voltage direction, the random relocations of the electrons, plus the force of the CE voltage, cause the CE electrons to tunnel across the gate.  The fundamental assumption of this explanation/mechanism is that electrons move in a stepwise manner in their moment-to-moment transit through space.  One mechanism that may underlie this phenomenon is the recombining of the central Negative DP with a Positive DP from the DP Sea.  This would happen because the CE voltage would pull the Negative DPs toward the downstream of the Gate, and likewise leave the upstream populated with a higher concentration of Positive DPs.  Thus, the central Negative DP could combine with a semi-free Positive DP, and thus leave the organization-energy of the electron-mass in space, but without attachment to a particular central Negative DP.  The direction of movement of the central Negative DP as it annihilated gives the electron-mass organization energy a vector of velocity.  This volume of DP correlation, freed of its underlying central underpinning of the free Negative DP can now propagate through space unhindered by the need to overcome voltage barriers.   Thus, an electron correlation volume will continue to travel at the speed of light in the direction of its initiation, and re-form into an electron mass around a new central Negative DP on the opposite side of the Gate.  This same dissolution-neutralization and reorganization-reformation sequence is the mechanism operating underneath the uncertainty type phenomena, and produces the SWE probability distribution of particles and deBroglie wavelength of moving particles.