I don't know how to describe what little insights I have. I get deeply embarrassed when I think of my presumptions in trying to explain anything at all - let alone something of such profound importance as this field. And all with so little evident schooling or ability. And then I'm caught up again in the beauty and simplicity of all those patterns that I'm compelled to make yet another attempt to describe it all. The solutions are classical. Yet it seems that I can do this vision, this solution, no justice at all. This is my Hell. It is holds me locked in a dilemma that has doggged my best efforts for all these many years.
The real problem is this. I know of no-one who has proposed such eccentric properties to a single particle that it can have a field condition distinct with properties that are entirely reversed from it's 'out of field' condition. It's not the same thing as holding an electron bound in a bubble chamber. It's far, far stranger than that. The proposal is that the particle in the field is cold and fast and small - and out of the field it becomes hot and slow and big. And then there are other required eccentricities. Correspondences. Synchronicities. It needs must sustain a field condition that is mathematically perfect. Yet that very perfection intrinsically generates its required imperfection. It repels and attracts - both. The strings are held bound - locked in a formation as strong as Sydney Harbour Bridge. South to North, head to toe, in an uncompromising military formation. And in a line that can be as short as the space between two atoms or as long as the entire length and breadth of our universe. And all sizes in between. In that head to toe formation - that necklace - that linear formation, it is propelled into an orbit at extraordinary velocities by the sheer repulsion to all those other strings in that field formation. Yet within that repulsion is enough attraction to hold the field bound. Perfect charge distribution in whole and in part. Those long necklaces group together. Chokers of pearls piled against more chokers of pearls. Break those strings and the entire formation collapses in a cascading miracle of matter made manifest in our own time frame. We see this as sparks from a fire, the glow in flux, the vast clouds of our nebulae. And then that glow fades - the fire cools, the nebulae recongregate - all against varying times that span infinity itself. Those miraculous little pearls cool. They regain their formation and their velocities. They again dip back to enjoy a field condition where they simply hide outside our time frame and disappear from our world. No longer are they in our dimensions. And then they busily engage with each other in that field condition. A structured background as perfectly assembled as a sonnet - and as breathtakingly economical as a haiku. As classical as is required for perfect conservation of energy.
So. How does one reduce such a vision into the dry and accurate language of applied physics? The concept itself may very well be reduced to a mathematical formula. But at what price? I would hope that the field itself can be conceptualised. That way it can be better shared by many. Else it may drift into the dry abstractions that our physicists require - which will devolve and damage this vision and condemn it to obscurity. And it is a classical solution. It seems that Einstein did well to object to our quantum resolutions. If any of these insights are correct then God indeed does not play dice.