**Chapter III**

Adam: Well, do you remember where we left off?

Max: Not exactly, so I was hoping maybe you could summarize
what we covered.

Adam: ...we saw that wave and field form
are independent of the quanta that give them reality [Chapter II] and,
regardless of their quanta, existing entities have a field form,
just as occurring entities have a waveform [Introduction]. We found that
material field entities exist and store energy, while radiation
wave entities occur and store mass. ...

Max: ...you make all of this sound simple but
I don’t find it so.

Adam: Ontology can appear complex, yet I believe that many
parts of it are simple. It seems complex because it is unfamiliar
and does not conform to our commonsense and rather naive
perceptions of what exists and what occurs. But it is simple in
that its fundamental principles are few and are valid regardless
of quanta. But our analysis has just begun.

Max: So, what do we cover today?

Adam: Velocity: I want to examine the nature of velocity for
both matter and radiation quanta. However, the term
"velocity' is specific to transit over space, so we need
to generalize this.

Velocity is progression over space, but since ontology does
not favor one dimension over another, we should say that some
entities have progression over space, while others have
progression over time. The common description of progression over
time is "aging." A field entity, gas or solid
object/particle, is an existence and, as such, progresses over
time; a wave entity is an undulatory occurrence and necessarily
progresses over space. ...

Now, a stationary particle as a field and a photon as a wave
progress without limit over time and space, respectively, until
their identity terminates: the particle exists and so ages over
time while the photon occurs and so speeds across space. Such
identity termination depends on a change in the mass/energy
measure of the entity. The stationary particle changes its
identity when it loses or gains stored (potential) energy; the
photon changes its identity when it gives up part or all (the
case for annihilation) of its stored (relativistic) mass. Think
of a Feynman diagram where photons or particles are represented
as straight lines and where those straight lines terminate at a
vertex which represents a change of mass/energy.

<omitted...>

Max: You keep characterizing a field entity as stationary
*[aside to the reader: projectile motion is only considered in
subsequent chapters]*, but I don’t see how that applies
to radiation wave entities, which are anything but stationary.

Adam: Good point. When I describe a field-particle as
stationary with respect to an observer, I mean it has zero space
velocity relative to that observer. Of course, this field does
have a significant velocity in time. In fact, if you think about
it, a field-particle at zero space velocity is moving across time
at the maximum rate: set that field-particle into space motion
and special relativity tells us that its clock--its rate of time
progression--slows down. This tells us that a space-stationary
field has the absolute minimum (zero) space velocity and the
absolute maximum time velocity, and this provides the clue for
characterizing the wave side of reality. An electromagnetic wave
must have the absolute maximum space velocity and the absolute
minimum (zero) time velocity. Photons moving at the speed of
light don’t age; their clocks come to a halt. Photons are
stationary in time just as static fields (particles) are
stationary in space.

A matter field that is space-motionless relative to an
observer (no kinetic energy), has zero space progression and
maximum time progression for that observer. A photon wave,
necessarily time-motionless relative to an observer, has maximum
space progression and zero time progression.

This kinematic symmetry is, of course, no accident. Perhaps we
can examine it more closely next week.

<omitted...>

If you detect a photon via its crossover absorption [on a material barrier] and then
pronounce the photon to be particle-like (exists) because you
receive momentum and a space measure (location) from its
absorption, then you might as well detect a material object
(space-stationary particle) via its infrared radiation emission
and pronounce the object to be wave-like (occurs) because you
receive a frequency measure and a time location from its
emission.

Max: Okay I can agree with that part. I am intrigued by your
parallel concept that intensity of a potential entity determines
crossover rate for both emission and absorption. This might unify
the probability concepts that physicists use so freely. But what
about probability as it relates to a speeding electron rather
than to a photon?

Adam: Up to this point I have maintained that any entity with
rest mass, such as an electron, be treated as a stationary field.
I think I shall be ready to lift that restriction next week.

<omitted...>