The Structure of the Electron

The Willow File

What we perceive as an electron is merely an “eccentricity” or one aspect of what an electron really is. This not only touches on our theories about time but also affects our experience of time. What we call the electron is this thing at the center (see Fig. 1).

It exists in our world because of the relationship between the surrounding things, which we do not perceive. That is, the electron is the core of something we do not see. In our world, we perceive the electron in only one state or stage. If an electron appears to our instruments with a spin in one direction, it simultaneously possesses another spin in the opposite direction. Because of this, it appears to us as if cells move in only one direction, but in reality, they move simultaneously in another direction as well, in terms of energy and entropy.

Whenever it appears that a cell loses energy to some degree, it is in fact being rebuilt in opposite portions, due to the dual nature of the electron.

Although the electron can be broken down into even smaller particles, there remains a final thing that is indivisible. One could call this the “heart” of the electron. And yet it depends on the orbital units that we do not yet understand. The electron derives its validity from these surrounding particles and the forces between them. It is like a balloon that is caused to bulge in one direction, for instance by being compressed.

The bulging part of the electron is the part we perceive, but the other part is also present. It is like a pressure point — it pushes things into our world, in this or that direction. What we perceive as the electron is not made of the same substance as these orbiting particles; rather, it is primarily an effect.

The electron not only spins in both directions but also pulses inward and outward. The right-handed spin promotes growth in our world, but when viewed as a whole, it represents a kind of pulsation. How many orbiting particles? That is still unclear. It is not necessarily seven, as shown in the illustration, but it is neither just one nor as many as a hundred.

It is the relationship between these units and their movements that produces the electron we perceive. It’s like a tipi, with the visible electron as the peak. And then there is another tent and another peak on the opposite side, associated with antimatter**, only the configuration is truly multi-dimensional — i.e., the orbiting units are neither on a single plane, nor does the tent have a flat base. In this way, there is a kind of polarity. It is another side of the electron.

Inside matter, then, antimatter is inherent, and within antimatter, matter is latent. The electron connects both. But since we cannot experience antimatter in our reality, it appears to us as if there are two different things. Currently, it is only one force expressing itself in two different ways. To use the balloon analogy again, it’s like air being released in different directions, and this happens all the time. There is a constant give-and-take with respect to the whole. The matter/antimatter model is only an extremely primitive version of a much larger matter. There are also significantly different aspects at work within the electron and even within cellular structure. Electrons are living things.

An electron is what one perceives at a given moment in time — that is, it is only one version of the time point being perceived. The electron itself not only exists outside of these conditions but even outside the parameters being used. The electron only appears as an electron within our space-time coordinate system.

Elsewhere, it exists as something entirely different. So when we see it, we are only seeing an eccentricity or one aspect of something else entirely — and that we call an electron.

With our instruments, we see only an appearance, a trace of something else.

There are also left-handed and right-handed cells. Again, what we perceive as a cell is only a particular effect via the coordinates through which we perceive it. Still, we could influence the behavior of cells and electrons if we realized that we are perceiving only a trace of them. We could record where they really are and in what way they actually exist. As long as we interpret them by how they appear to us, and not as traces of something else, we will never suspect their true nature. We are seeing a phantom image, and as long as it works for us, we don’t question it further.

(Rob: Seth said something about this in his new book — the one that will appear in 1976.)

In the case of diseased cells, we could learn how to influence the behavior of electrons in the present by charting a course into the past and thereby influencing the cellular structure. As soon as a cell becomes diseased, you are dealing with an electron exhibiting eccentric behavior. We could figure out, from the perspective of the present, how to actually map the cellular structure of the past and then take actions that would truly change the arrangement of electrons in the cell from the past — thereby producing healing.

But this cannot be done if one believes that the electron is merely a particle, as we currently perceive it. In other words, this means that if one changes the structure of the electron, one changes the interrelationships among the orbital units. This change would require the application of energy.

When we think of a right-handed motion, we tend to think that we are moving forward in time. And since we are now speaking of illness, a process of time reversal may be necessary — i.e., going back to the time when the illness did not exist. That would involve aligning with the electron at a different position in time.

The entire question of time itself is tied to electrons. More precisely, it is tied to the spin of electrons. It may be possible to construct a chamber that allows electrons more freedom. Whatever we do in our handling of electrons, we end up giving them too little freedom, and we predefine how they are allowed to appear. (Something here about an electron trap — possibly a potential funnel.)

If we gave electrons more freedom, they would influence our perception of how we experience time.

There is an analogy here between electrons and fleas. It is as if we set up a trap or chamber to observe the flea at a particular point — and that’s what we call a flea (electron). The way the measurement is performed forces the electron to appear in a specific way, but in reality, it is darting around, seemingly in many places in rapid succession. If it were seen on a broader scale, it would be even more active and not so inert.