Yes. If at the moment of Creation, the “Big Bang” were formed both a vortex pair which became our universe and an “anti-universe;” and within this vortex pair were also created “mirror-image-vortex-particles” which we call “electrons and anti-electrons.” The tiny vortex particles which were in our universe oriented with one spin direction would have a maximum velocity and a minimum “mass.” These particles are “our” electrons. Their mirror-images would be decelerated to some minimum velocity and maximum “mass,” becoming the proton. In the companion “Anti-universe” the little basic particles would respond in the same way except the spins would be reversed.
If this analysis be true, it would almost make one consider believing in “Intelligent Design.” How simple and elegant can you get? Twin basic units with one transformed so that the two units can work together to form a multitude of different things rather than simply rejoining to their parent entity!
The ideas on which this is based come from the Motion in a Matrix Model wherein our existence is considered as the result of motions in a matrix. Considering of the relationship of Planck”s constant to angular momentum and the speed of light has led to the postulation of a “parent sized entity” having the dimensions in both centimeters and grans of (h/c)^0.5, which could be the “parent” or central entity, or “motion-association,” in the matrix. Now this entity has the characteristics of a spherical oscillator and a spherical oscillator, under certain circumstances might be considered as something which could be considered as either halving at any instant two halves or being sever-able into two “vortex-entities” spinning in opposite directions.
What we are actually postulating in our “debate” argument above is that we are somehow riding the expansion phase of perhaps the largest member of a family of entities related to the (h/c)^1/2 central “entity” and that within it are the remnants of other central entities which were split when this particular expansion phase started.
In other words we are in one side of a huge oscillator which is probably not split, which is populated by the split halves of many smaller oscillators. I’m sure that this explanation really did not add much to the debate argument; but it does serve several purposes. It does give some background for the conclusion that there probably do exist complementary; but, certainly far from identical universes, which may well cycle through some very long period. It gives a rationale for our conclusion that protons are “hidden anti-electrons,” and that these are the building blocks of all the other units within this “universe.”
Certainly, anti-electrons can be “hiding” in our universe, re-formed into the form of protons.
since the first part of this article was written, there have been additional developments which cause a slightly changed viewpoint from protons being “reformed anti-electrons” to the “parent entity” being reformed before the separation, so that, in our “universe” the anti-electron was not a major early component. This we will cover later. First, perhaps, we should look into some of the criticism which has been noted which would say that the anti-electron and proton could not have a connection.
One criticism is that the electron and anti-electron are not affected by the “Strong Nuclear Force.” To me this argument is “circular.” The “Strong Nuclear Force” was invented to explain proton-neutron interactions in nuclei as justification of the thesis that neutrons retain their identity in atomic nuclei and electrons do not. I prefer the simpler. reverse view. ” Electrons essentially retain their identities in nuclei. the Strong Force is an unnecessary complication.”
That the electron and anti-electron belong to different classes of particles is a classification problem which has no more validity than the basis of the classification. The same thing applies to the idea that the proton has quark structure and the electron does not. In this writer’s opinion, both the classification and the quark structure are ideas from the Standard Model which contains more than a good deal of very imaginative hypothesis.
The difference in mass was considered in the earlier part of the paper to be caused by the change of Kinetic Energy to mass by deceleration of the anti-electron. A colleague has pointed out that Kinetic Energy to Mass as permanent change would probably by produced by attempted acceleration of an object moving at a fixed velocity. The obvious case here would be an attempt to accelerate an object already at the speed of light. He suggests that the “shock wave” occurring at the instant of reversal through a “parent,” i.e., at the instant of the “Big Bang” was moving at nearly 1.5 times the speed of light. “Parent entities.” which could under other conditions be split into mirror image halves, were distorted. The half that would be moving in the direction of the shock wave being accelerated quickly to the speed of light then as quickly decelerated as it pushed against the rest of the matrix. The other half still being carried by the shock wave meets the front coming back. The result. which would be left behind after the shock wave has passed would be the distorted “parent entities,” which we know as neutrons. These then fall apart into electrons and protons, which rejoin to form Hydrogen atoms. By this explanation, what would have been an anti-electron appears as a proton, but the deformation, mass increase, occurs before the total separation.
The reasoning above is based on the fact that the momentum equation, m x v = p can be integrated to form two different energy equations. One is the familiar kinetic energy equation, KE = (mv^2)/2 and another energy equation which appears rarely, if ever, in the literature,
E = (vm^2)/2. The first equation says that as long as velocity can change, energy will be proportional to mass and the square of the velocity. However, if the situation arises wherein velocity cannot change, but there is some attempt to continue acceleration, the result will be a changing mass. As mass can be considered a vector associated with a rotating entity, what one may say is that attempted acceleration when velocity cannot chance will cause deformation of the entity.
The other bit involved in this reasoning is based on the idea that the basic “parent entity” of both the electron and anti-electron, and, in this case. the neutron, is a basic unit of all “Reality,” This basic parent unit just possibly may be the “(h/c)^0.5 ” unit, sometimes jokingly called elsewhere the “Sin-Vree Entity.”
Also, implied above is that our “Universe ” is that which is behind one side of a “Shock Wave” passing through the Matrix. At some point, the shock wave will dissipate its force, the Matrix will try to reform to perfection, it’s last “push” to perfection will start another shock wave…..
One might consider this shock wave to be the ultimate member of the “m x r = h/c” family anchored by one “dot.” This dot being possibly a “positron-anti-positron parent” at the center….
