Particle Accelerator

Most Basic Particles (MBPs)

The Emergence Model is a derivative of this concept and the intrinsic nature the MBP imbues, almost in its entirety. What is here is basic. Considerably more work needs doing and done by the international community at large. We can only encourage as many as possible to register here and engage this material.

Concept Basics

The genesis of the Most Basic Particle (MBP) concept flows from Thought Experiment 0004 Something vs Nothing where the smallest something definable is a “Most Basic Particle” or ‘MBP’. ‘Nothing’, as a concept, is very difficult for humans to grasp and it took McGowen, years ultimately conclude that space was dimensionless nothing and therefore could not influence anything. That in turn required 100% of everything real be defined as a function of the something that did exist. The smallest divisible component then can best be described as a ‘Most Basic Particle‘ or ‘MBP‘. Any successful division of anything real only serves to improve the precision defining MBPs, it does not change the definition nor does it change their intrinsic nature.

The Original Systems Reivew

The question pursued by SolREI’s original systems review became aware of and pursued the intrinsic nature of a “Most Basic Particle” which if successfully defined could be described such that everything real could be made manifest. The result of that systems review was The Emergence Model of Particle Physics (e.g. the holistic combination of M5 and M6). The original systems review notes are online here as: The Elegance of Reason: Discerning Patterns of Earth’s Emergence, ISBN 9780977229239, 828 pages, 2012, 5th Edition version 42. Discussions therein on MBPs begins on page 100 of those notes.

Traditional Concept Contemplation

The User Library has papers discussing the various positions many have held over the years and we encourage users to review that material. Understanding the challenges tradition face requires recognition of Langer Epistemology Errors and in a broader sense too Elegant Reasonism as an epistemology in its own right. How the realm in which we exist is perceived will determine how anyone answers this question or describes this concept. This is where Elegant Reasonism as an investigative epistemology comes into its own and does what traditional epistemology have failed to do for centuries. How this specific concept is articulated is a function of which traditional epistemology is employed. And while I am completely capable of articulating those ensuing discussions SolREI management policy is not to place them here. The policy rationale being taken is that these are personal questions and that each individual must wrestle and it is not our place to tell them what to think. We can provide the tools, methodologies, processes, technologies, and epistemology for analytical reconciliation but it is up to the individual whether or not to employ them (e.g. how to think, not what to think). Our mission is not to undermine traditional belief systems. Rather our objective is to empower individuals seeking truth as a function of the actual real unified Universe. Whether or not that describes you is your choice, not ours.


The science of mathematics applied here is standard logic calculus, but the meaning of the two terms being compared mode shifts depending on the fundamental interpretation of foundational context (e.g. the set of models employed). The emergence of mathematics can be seen through MBPs as fundamental integers which are configured into higher ordered constructs by The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance forming all architectural mass comprising everything real. This process then manifests an entanglement gradient converging toward individual MBPs and emerging from there all higher ordered constructs culminating in supermassive black holes which are just as subject to those fundamental processes as everything else real. Consequently we are able to characterize the unified Universe Bang to Bang.

Fundamental Physics

Physicists are likely the most impacted set of scientists by this accomplishment if for no other reason than they previously believed they were working directly with reality and we now recognize through Susanne K Langer‘s work that is not necessarily the case. Few recognize just how bitter a pill all this is to swallow than we do. We accomplished unification years before we even recognized we had done it exactly because we too were in denial. Scientists are human too and have all the same foibles. Consequently those who newly encounter all of this are likely to move through the stages of grief and the depth of impact will be a function of the vested effort relative to and respective of their status quo investment to date. Therefore the company strongly encourages everyone to wield Elegant Reasonism transformationally and with great empathy and compassion.  In any event we must now recognize the implications which abstractions hold for the science of physics, especially the specialization area of astrophysics. All of these science areas are impacted because the set of constructs considered to be real changes EIM to EIM. Elegant Reasonism provides us the process & mehods to pursue investigations while seeking truth as a function of the unified Universe. The analytics involved help us to navigate the Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart and get to a fully compliant Treatise.



Mode Shifting Mathematical Proofs

There are several aspects from The Emergence Model which require careful handling. Mode shifting concepts is the most direct implication. Many of these concepts are introduced In Unfication’s Wake, Part 02: Mode Shifting Mathematical Proofs. Here just know that the actual science or mechanics of mathematics does not change. What does change are the meanings behind different variables and traditional/historical constants used in astrophysics.

Mode Shifting Concept Context

The Emergence Model today employs three ‘concept sieves’ which must simultaneously mode shift:

(M1) The basic description of The Classic String, assures that we have a collection of attributes that represent a foundation for further discussion regarding this construct in both M1 and M2. We said that in the context of Thought Experiment 0004 ‘Something vs Nothing’ discussion that our most basic particle was alone in its own local frame absent absolutely everything else which constitutes Thought Experiment 0033 ‘A Single Particle In a Frame’. Classically the most basic particle is considered to be a kind of material that is line-like, being evenly distributed over a line. ‘Evenness’ implies perfection rarely seen in nature. I would contend that we cannot depend on that evenness and that we must provide a character consistent with what we empirically find in nature. The classic definition talks about stretching it with tension T consistent with the aforementioned character. If we cannot depend on material having evenness, and I contend we cannot, then we also cannot contend that the tension force T is evenly distributed throughout the material of the string. I contend that this imperfection is the intrinsic source of the vibrations set up in strings under tension. The total energy in the string then is described by Concept 0028. These same imperfections in the material are what setup the polarizing bias of the material such that one end has a tendency to want to couple over and connect with its opposite end. What is not clear is if the concept of “charge” flows from this or if it flows from the ‘symmetry’ (or lack thereof) of the peculiar entangled structure be it an intrinsic knot or higher order entity. Likely it will be some blend of both.

(M5) Saliently we also said that the MBP was a Rope Segment (in Knot Theory) and not the Rope Length from which structures like the Unknot are formed. Traditionalists might find it easier to think “String” = “Unknot”, but know that the rope length can form knot invariants beyond the complexities of the Unknot that may make the most ardent investigator have pause. The permutations of structure flowing from Knot Theory (p 608) stagger the imagination. While fundamentally we need to remember Proposition 10: Structures of the most basic particles equals properties, here that is not our quest. Here our quest is to posit the ‘intrinsic nature of the most basic particle itself’. The set of properties available to us are described later in the section Physical Properties (p 459). How we describe its intrinsic nature must be consistent with those features or those properties are wrong. That is to say that set of recognized properties must derive their attributes fundamentally from the MBP as configured by The Entanglement Function (p 682). Given that we have been familiar with those properties for a very long time, and they are withstanding modern scrutiny, we must view any material violating those properties with a great deal of skepticism. Having said that we must too make sure that we are too performing a complete systems review into those properties but in the full and holistic context recognizing that The Emergence Model is “Fully Coupled” (p 435).

Despite the many difficulties in describing physical characteristics at this scale, there are certain aspects we can deduce and declare. We know that the intrinsic nature of the most basic particle must, minimally, be consistent with:

Concept 289: Mass
Concept 293: Rest Energy Mass Equivalence
Concept 394: The Electric Constant (Vacuum Permittivity)
Concept 397: Fine Structure Coupling Constant
Concept 399: The Magnetic Constant (Vacuum Permeability)
Proposition 57: Infinite compressibility does not exist in nature
• Consistent with our understanding of Temperature (See Thermodynamics)
• Table 55: Typical Chemical Bond Lengths and Energies
• Table 67: Prime Knots with six or fewer crossings

Developing the Concept Treatise

The previous section does a simplistic task of Recognition of the issues. Conducting such recognition under the purview of a Systems Review would employ the ISO 9001 Unification Tool or its equivalent. Working through the Illumination phase then completes associated Translation Matrices consistent with the definitions installed in the unification tool meeting QMS standards. Obviously the degree to which these various tasks are completed are a function of the original investigation’s objectives and goals. Our original objectives and goals were simply to complete the quest so this discussion could be articulated here to the degree it is and while we may have more information than is published here, what is here is the official statement and it may be updated as civilization as a whole gains more insights and cognition over fundamental issues.

Concept Treatise

(M5) What is clear to me, is that the balance of this blend is essentially and intrinsically responsible for any character of the concept of Severance (p 714). And as such “Severance” flows from the intrinsic character of the most basic particle. Because MBPs are defined as they are, individual MBPs or MBPs being individually represented as constituents within configurations of higher orders are given the symbol ℝ or ℜ. Using the symbol ℂ, implies a higher ordered set of so configured MBPs. That is
to say an architecture of MBPs comprised of constituent Multiplicities, Structure and/or Architecture.

As “a measure” in the context of Thought Experiment 33: Single Particle In a Local Frame the most basic particle (MBP) is consistent with the Dirac Delta Function. Where the MBP is 1 and everywhere else in the local frame is zero (0). The argument here is the MBP is a subset A of the real number line R, and returns δ (A) = 1 if 0 ∈ A, and δ(A) = 0 otherwise. In fact this is one of the definitions of the Dirac Delta Function, where δ is the symbol for an “impulse”. Holistically herein we can observe one cannot directly measure ‘nothing’. We also observe that the “origin” or geometric basis point of any MBP configuration construct of Multiplicities, Structure and/or Architecture (p 104) is consistent with the origin of the real number line, to which the number zero is a place holder. Therefore, the single MBP in Thought Experiment 33:
Single Particle In a Local Frame is consistent with these observations and therefore meets the criteria of the Dirac Delta Function if only in that regard. We should too observe and understand that The Entanglement Function (p 682) is a continuous complex integral limited by Severance (p 714). The delta function, against a continuous function can be properly understood as a Stieltjes Integral given by Concept 0004.

Known Unknowns

(M5) More research is needed on the intrinsic nature of MBPs as defined by M5 in order to gain resolution on The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance resulting in complex configurations of architectural mass manifesting everything real. While we can observe and inventory known supermassive black holes departing the known Universe (e.g. ‘our’ Universe) in order to gain perspective on the number of such objects that might exist beyond our particle horizon that number remains a known unknown. The degree of precision may also be a known unknown. We leave to others to contemplate these issues.

Summary Conclusions

The implications of these contemplations are:

  • the ultimate size and age of ‘the’ unified Universe is staggeringly huge and ancient in the extreme. So much so that the answers to these questions lay beyond our particle horizon and that simple fact makes the real answers there philosophically unknowable to science. What we do know is that it is larger and older than any number known to science.
  • experiments must be specifically designed in the context of the unified Universe because many insights are discernible in no other manner.
  • Unification integrates everything real and that single insight demands being enabled by the process rather than rote recitation from a single domain of discourse or detail set.
  • Insights here ripple systemically through out all human endeavor and for that reason we mode shifted The Baloney Detection Kit to help others reassess information they engage.

Executive Summary

Most Basic Particles (MBPs) are a natural derivative hypothesis resulting from Thought Experiment 0004: Something vs Nothing since the smallest something is the nearest to nothing philosophically possible which may ever enter science for any reason. Our original systems review stubbed its proverbial toe on all of this by accident. We just happened to pause long enough to see what caused us so much pain. We recognize that Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) establish and otherwise make manifest fundamental foundational interpretative context. The Emergence Model happened to be our answer to reconciling requirements given us by the unified Universe. Specifically; the ability to employ a common geometric basis point for all real objects, and the ability to fully couple everything real in all reference frames and those accomplishments were enabled by the core constituent {of The Emergence Model} construct we call: Most Basic Particles (MBPs). The Emergence Model is holistically represented by two EIMs: M5 and M6, together those models are The Emergence Model and that holistic view is not represented exclusively by either individually but only by the holistic whole. The reasons we discuss M5 more than M6 are beyond the scope of this article here but are information sciences based and deal with a few of the issues discussed in Thought Experiment 0004: Something vs Nothing.


Shop Now!

#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #MBP #MostBasicParticle #M5 #M6
%d bloggers like this: