Before something can change, before something can act or be acted upon, it must exist.

It's a rather simple axiom, logically self-evident since any who might dissent must believe in things that don't exist. If it is true; however, the implications are enormous. It means some of the most fundamental precepts of contemporary cosmology and particle physics are seriously flawed.

The premise that the Universe was ushered into being by some primordial nascent event is a common assumption that appeals seductively to human intuition. Science and religion seem to agree the physical presence of the cosmos must be the product of an ancient omnificent manifestation. Most secular scholars calculate it all began about fourteen billion years ago. Religious models depict a much more recent event. While it may be tempting to defer to the ostensibly superior wisdom of scholarly pundits with names suffixed with magna cum laudinous strings of academic labels, the unfortunate truth is that the mindset of modern academia is mired in the myth of "Creation", a popular but illogical superstition that continues to obstruct the progress of human enlightenment.

The simple logic that destroys the mythology of Genesis and mathology of Big Bang isn't rocket science:

Existence in the absence of change is possible, change in the absence of existence is not. The fact that existence is required in order for change to occur means cause and effect is derived from existence. This is the antithesis of the premise that existence is derived from cause and effect. The cosmos didn't suddenly change from a condition of non-existence into a state of physical being. Existence is not a condition. It is not a state of being. It is the phenomenon of being, itself. No phenomenon can be the product of its own subordinate derivative, and the illogicalities that belie any premise of creation are quite obvious:

If there ever was a time when non-existence prevailed then neither matter-energy (basically the same thing according to Einstein) nor space-time (ibid) would have existed. The cosmos would not have just been empty, there would have been no cosmos and no place for existence to begin. If we disregard this absurdity and continue to presume the physical presence of the Universe was created, the implied existence of some form of creative impetus suddenly violates the contention that nothing pre-existed the event of creation. Even if we ignore both of these logical incongruities, the contention that existence requires creation means that whatever sired the Universe must have been the product of a predecessor which, in turn, had to be similarly predated by an eternal procession of ancestry. The perpetual spiral of chicken-and-the-egg redundancy resulting from a cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence implies no logical beginning.

The phenomenon of existence is reconciled with the canons of logic by a principle, not a process. That principle is embedded within the very architecture of existence. It governs the entire realm of cause and effect. Its structure is found at the heart and soul of every equation. It's a familiar axiom, universally known and accepted. Its presence is ubiquitous, yet since the advent of scientific inquiry, its true significance has remained undiscovered.

Ironically, the solution to the enigma of existence lays hidden in plain sight.

It's not by mere coincidence that mathematics - the language of science - encodes its logic into a device called an equation which requires its elements to be equivalent on opposite sides of the argument. Sir Isaac Newton codified this essence of natural balance with a law of physics that states every action precipitates an equal and opposite reaction. For every left there exists a right. For every too there is a fro. For every up there is a down. For every measure of distance point 'A' is separated from point 'B', point 'B' is an equal and opposite distance from point 'A'. For every positive numeric value there is a negative equivalent and for every vector in our three dimensional world there exists a reciprocal. This obvious, but often ignored, element of equilibrium courses throughout the entire fabric of the Universe.

There are obviously reciprocal equivalents for every quantitative value and spatial attribute in the cosmos, but what if the same paradigm of natural balance also applies covertly to the realm of qualitative values? For every quality there would have to be an opposite. Indeed, the Standard Model of contemporary particle physics does portray the material world as paired sets of fundamental particles and anti-particles, structureless fungible building blocks that include a handful of quarks and leptons and a small assortment of force carriers. Strangely, there seems to be a lot more matter than anti-matter floating around the cosmos and if two independent particles were truly opposite existences rather than just elements in opposing condition, then instead of simply changing state from mass to energy on contact, their properties should entirely negate each other. No mass and no energy should remain; they should cease to exist without a trace.

The cosmic imbalance between matter and anti-matter and the fact that what the Standard Model calls annihilation is nothing more than mere conversion are problematic. The intuitive assumption of particle physicists is that qualities and anti-qualities must be disbursed between independent existences as separate particles and anti-particles, but there's another possibility. What if qualitative balance exists within the physical boundary of each entity?

If such qualitative symmetry exists, then each fundamental particle must have some form of substructure, dependent qualities and anti-qualities that cannot exist apart from the whole. We wouldn't normally be able to tell a quality from its anti-quality by just looking at it, but with the use of a little color coding I will attempt to illustrate how it may be possible for reciprocal qualitative values to exist within the physical boundaries of a single entity.

Rational Conjecture: The Substructure of a Fundamental Particle

Assume BLACK represents a null color value.

Within the realm of subtractive colors, the opposite (negative) of the color quality MAGENTA is GREEN. Equivalent proportions of MAGENTA and GREEN produce BLACK. But GREEN is, itself, an equal mixture of the colors CYAN and YELLOW.

Just as the quantitative value of Ø is equivalent to two opposing numbers (+1) + (-1), the qualitative value of BLACK is equivalent to its three opposing colors MAGENTA + CYAN + YELLOW. All of the opposing sub-elements must be present in precisely equal proportion in order to reciprocally balance each other and maintain a neutral value. Of course the number of opposing sub-elements within a fundamental particle may not be limited in scope to just two or three or any other finite number.

Reciprocal balance requires the qualitative value of every instance of being within an entity to have an opposite equivalent - but that doesn't mean the quality of each point of existence has a diametric opposite (two defined points offsetting each other). Opposing sub-qualities of any fraction of an element may be disbursed throughout the remainder of the entity. Just as the colors in the illustration above, if any fraction of the color wheel is removed, the sum of the remaining colors would not be 'perfectly black', its value would be something other than neutral and a law of nature would be broken.

The substructure of a fundamental particle is not comprised of independent elements that could exist separately on their own. The very existence of each point within the entity is co-dependent upon the existence of the remainder of the parcel. Every physical instance within the element is an interdependent contributor to its neutrality; and it is this reciprocal balance - not structureless homogeneity - that defines it as a single existence, an element comprised only of itself, a unique integral of null value.

There is a basic law of physics that states two things cannot simultaneously occupy the same space. But two points of being within a fundamental particle are not two individual things, they are two instances of the same existence - mutually co-dependent parts of the same elemental identity. The rules of conduct within an entity may be very different from those that govern the interaction between two entities. Internally, an entity's sub-qualities may have the ability to morph or blend like the illustration above to produce a spectrum of different conditions or states of being - a limitless variety of shades and colors.

Entities must be truly 'in-dividual'. They are not comprised of independent components, so no portion of an elementary entity could ever be separated from the remainder. When a composite is severed, as in slicing a loaf of bread or tearing a piece of paper, gravitational forces holding independent particles in proximity to each other are overcome by the force of the device used to separate the material. But the field of existence within an entity is continuous. To cleave a fundamental particle, something must be inserted between two of its continuous points. Two independent existences cannot occupy the same space, so the point you are attempting to cleave would simply move. To sever an entity at a point within its domain would require the point of separation to physically cease to exist, and if change is a function of existence, then before the most infinitesimal point of being could be annihilated, it would lose its ability to change or be changed. Similarly, if all the sub-qualities within an entity tried to self-annihilate by receding into a single non-dimensional point, it would lose its ability to change or be changed before it reached annihilation (existence is required in order for change to occur).

Natural balance defines an entity - not homogeneity. Unlike those simplistic examples of structureless and fungible particles touted by the Standard Model of Particle Physics, reciprocal symmetry suggests a limitless spectrum of dynamic elements both material and ethereal in nature, a wondrous cosmic fabric of infinite variety.

For every value V( + ) there exists an equal and opposite value or set of values V( - ) such that: The sum of the values is null

Time and space did not "begin" and fundamental particles have sub-structure. That uniquely self-justified and intrinsically logical primordial element we call "nothing" is simply an abstract interpretation of the natural equilibrium that pervades the structure of the Universe. In the form of reciprocal balance, "nothing" is, in fact, the common essence of every element in the cosmic spectrum and it is the fulcrum of an eternally balanced perpetual system.