Home › Forums › Science & History › Particle mass and ultimatons

AuthorPosts

Nigel NunnParticipantElsewhere, Dr Phil Calabrese asked the question:
[PC]: “If an electron is built from 100 ultimatons, and a proton weighs 1800 times as much, does this mean a proton is built from (1800 x 100) = 180,000 ultimatons?”
To answer this question, we need to connect something revealed by the Urantia Book (the ultimaton) with something we can measure in the lab (inertial mass). If we can do this, we’ve begun to connect the UB’s ultimatonic scheme with the standard model of particle physics.
First thing to note is that the proton now appears to be an extremely stable structure (halflife > 10^30 years) involving three smaller parts… which raises a few more questions: (a) why is this structure so stable, (b) what gives this structure its mass, and (c) what do we mean by mass?
Regarding what we mean by mass, in particle physics mass implies two things: (1) resistance to acceleration (f = ma) and (2) a measure of energy (e = mc^2). So when we say an electron has a mass of 0.5 MeV, that’s a short way of saying that an electron’s properties are associated with 500,000 electron volts of energy (whatever energy is). Dividing 0.5 MeV by c^2 converts this measure of energy into a measure called “inertial mass”. It’s this inertial mass that determines an electron’s resistance to acceleration, and this resistance can be measured precisely.
PS: why this resistance (inertial mass) should be so precisely correlated with another quantity (gravitational mass) remains a mystery.
Regarding (b), what gives this proton structure it’s measured mass of energy (938 MeV), the current consensus is that a small part comes from the (intrinsic) masses of three quarks {u, u, d} = {2, 2, 5} MeV, another part comes from the kinetic energy of the relativistic motion of these quarks, and the rest comes from a local (and highly variable) field of gluons that locks the quarks into the proton structure.
I sketch out this scheme on pages 51 – 54 of this PDF.
Regarding (a) why is this structure so stable, let’s put that down to excellent design, and perfection of technique!
So Phil’s question about a proton’s mass becomes a question about the mass of its component quarks:
“Why does the {u} quark have a mass of 2.3 MeV, four times greater than the electron (0.5 MeV)?”
(continued… 2)
Nigel NunnParticipant(p2, continued from above)
But just when we’re ready to ask that question, we bump into a problem. The scientific method has revealed three types of electron, each apparently identical except for one thing: their masses are different.
The normal electron found in matter has a mass of about 510,000 eV/c^2, or 0.5 MeV. A second type of electron (the muon) has a mass of 105 MeV, or 200 times more. And a third type (the tau) has a mass of 1777 MeV, more than 3000 times greater than the normal kind. All three flavours of electron have the same quantum properties of charge, helicity and chirality. So what could possibly cause such a difference in their mass?
But the problem gets worse. Not only do electrons come in three flavours, quarks do too. As most of us know, physicists have found three complete families of these leptons and quarks. Here’s a table of their masses:
You can see the problem: some unexplained difference between the {electron} and the {tau} causes the mass of one to be more than 3,000 times greater than the other. Likewise, the masses of the otherwise identical {up} and {top} quarks differ by 75,000 times. (And notice that Zboson with a mass of 91 GeV… sure the range of the weak interaction is short, but 91 GeV to flip a quark? Locally, that’s quite an explosion.)
So far physicists have failed to find a mechanism that could cause this difference in mass, so these (apparently arbitrary) numbers are put into the model by hand. Students learn to live with this, but for researchers at the cutting edge, this ignorance is unacceptable, and unsettling.
* * *
Looking at that table of (apparently arbitrary) masses reminds us of the confusion faced by physicists in the 1960’s. Accelerators were producing an overwhelming number of particles, and at first researchers could do little more than try to catalogue the new species into a particle zoo. Then in 1964 GellMann and Zweig showed that if these “hadrons” were in fact built from more primitive particles, the entire zoo could be very neatly explained (see Eightfold Way). These more primitive parts became known as quarks, and starting in 1968, experiments began to confirm the quark theory.
(continued… 3)
Nigel NunnParticipant(p3, continued from above)
So here we are, once again faced with a mysterious pattern of particles, but at the next level down (and at much higher energies). Why three families of leptons and quarks? Why such wildly different masses? Why does a lefthand electron state interact with weak hypercharge (zilch) while a righthand state does not? Why do quarks feel the strong force while leptons (electrons and neutrinos) don’t?
In the 1980’s, researchers began to ask what seemed like a logical question: are leptons and quarks built from smaller parts? After all, the Dirac electron was already modelled as a mixture of 2 bosonlike pairs of Weyl fermions. Shouldn’t elementary particles be more… elementary? (see page 32 of PDF).
Attempts were made to model leptons and quarks as composites of more primitive “preons”. In this first generation of “preon theories“, leptons and quarks were generally modeled as triplets of exotic quantum states. But no matter what was tried, such schemes could not be made to work.
The problem? Too much energy. No one could come up with an acceptable way to confine (“bind“) the enormous energies such primitive particles implied. Lack of success caused interest to fade. When string theories began to catch on, preon models were discarded as neat and logical solutions… that simply failed to work.
But what if we could find a way to bind these enormous preon energies?
As I understand it, the Urantia Book offers a solution via what we might call “earned knowledge” (1110.2, 101:4.9).
In the Urantia Book scheme, the ultimaton becomes the primitive particle those preon models need. And by huddling (478.4, 42:7.10), the associated ultimatonic energies can be “bound” — locked into tiny clusters from which standard model particles are made.
Now, to allow ultimatons to huddle, Phil points out that all we really need is for an ultimaton’s periphery to be “spinning“, and for its core to be “mutually attractive“: a spinning periphery can push ultimatons apart, while mutual attraction draws them together. The result? Clusters of ultimatons, huddling.
To a condensed matter physicist, what Phil is describing is a quantized superfluid vortex, as I try to indicate on pages 14 – 17 of this PDF. For reference, here’s the diagram from page 17:
PS: the vortex on the left should be thought of as [not quite finite], i.e. possessing absonite extension off our measurable manifold. And by “sequester“, I mean sequester onto what we might call the Supreme’s “membrane of finite creation“.
Ok. What we need now is to show how mass enters this Urantia Book scheme.
If we think of mass as “response to gravity“, then the UB describes two distinct types of “gravity” and “response”. The first is called “absolute“, a measure of absolute response to the [source and center of gravity]. It’s this sort of mass that individual ultimatons are said to have.
The second type (of gravity and response) is called “linear” (described in 12:3 as “an interactive phenomenon… “). It’s this second type of mass, this linear or interactive response, that the “Higgs mechanism” was invented to explain.
This is what I’d like to look at next.
Nigel
Nigel NunnParticipantBefore going on, looks like I should clarify a few things. Phil replied:
[PC]: “As I read the very interesting and informative discussion on the greatly differing masses of various quarks that together make up one of 3 types of electrons, […]“
Phil, that table above (in 2nd post) presents some details of what’s called the “standard model” of particle physics (not to be confused with standard model of cosmology). In this standardmodel scheme, those three flavors of electron (electron, muon, tau) are all considered to be “elementary” (i.e. not made from smaller parts). Likewise the neutrinos (4th column in the fermion group of the table). Likewise the three families of quarks: {u,d}, {c,s}, {t,b}. Note, these “families” are found along rows of the fermion group in that table.
The three types of electron and the three types of neutrino are all classified as leptons, so the fermion group in the table can be divided into leptons and quarks.
In this scheme, composite particles like protons, neutrons and mesons (plus dozens of other high energy, shortlived species), are built up by combining those nine quarks.
Ok, so the idea here is that (a) the 3 neutrinos, (b) the 3 electrons and (c) the 9 quarks are all thought of as elementary particles (i.e. not made from smaller parts). Now add (d) those 5 particles thought to mediate the electroweak and strong interactions (photon, W+, W, Z, gluon — see bosons in table), and we find the standard model has (wait for it)… 19 elementary particles.
It was this proliferation of (apparently) elementary particles that encouraged scientists to search for more fundamental physical features to explain the nature of these 19 tiny particles, and why the leptons and quarks appear to be grouped into three distinct families (the rows in the fermion group of the table).
One possible explanation is that all these particles are actually different modes (harmonics and windings) of extended Planck scale things called (open and closed) strings. This line of thought gave rise to various string and braneworld theories. Some physicists see these string theories as a logical extension to the standard model — (in brief) string theories simply extend the pointlike standardmodel particles into little strings (and adjust the nature of space).
In a similar sense, we might see the Urantia Book’s ultimatonic scheme as a future extension to string theory: the “strings” of string theory become like “strings of pearls”, where the pearls are ultimatons. Such ultimatonic pearls, cleverly sequestered and strung together by manipulating axial velocities and orientation, kickstart my speculations about clusters of huddling ultimatons.
PS: referring to that image above of an (absonite) vortex in segregata, think of the axis of rotation pointing off the plane of 3space. Recall that the source and center of absolute gravity has no position (see Foreword:4.12) or location (see 11:2.10) in space.
(reply continued…)
Nigel NunnParticipant(… continued reply)
Phil also raised the issue of what it means for an axis to be “perpendicular to the mass“, related to “why gravity always acts preferentially in the plane perpendicular to the mass (126.5, 11:8.9)“? On this question of mass, Phil wrote:
[PC] “… , a clue that the UB gives for where all this mass is stored is that there is an “axis perpendicular to a mass”, any mass. Therefore I take the orbiting and spinning of some toroidal space zone of unit size to be proportional to, to actually define, a unit of ‘mass’.”
Phil, in the context of ultimatons, such a quantized type of mass (“toroidal space zone of unit size”) would be intrinsic to the associated spinning ultimaton. I get the feeling you may be identifying that ultimatonic property which responds to absolute gravity (rather than the “interactive phenomena” associated with linear gravity). This gets even more interesting when we put your idea beside the concept of a particle taking along with it the space it occupies:
(1297.7, 118:3.6) “[…] Hence, when a body moves through space, it also takes all its properties with it, even the space which is in and of such a moving body.”
Since your spinning “toroidal space zone of unit size” appears to be involved in defining the (absolute) mass of the ultimaton, it seems quite reasonable for this property to move along with the ultimaton. Nicely done!
Phil continued:
[PC]: “These masses (being vectors) can carry magnitudes depending greatly on the velocity and size and distance from the nucleus of spinning about those various axes. So “mass” must be defined in terms of a space content motion around an axis, as a vector quantity.”
Here I think it’s worth distinguishing between an “absolute mass” thus linked with space, and various “interactive properties” associated with the chiral oscillation of composite particles in a field of primordial charge (segregata). See pages 2226, and 2930 of the PDF.
To reinforce Phil’s idea, and to show how intimately rotational velocity is connected to the properties of ultimatons, it’s worth reflecting on these statements:
(75.6, 15:8.3) “Evolving energy has substance; it has weight, although weight is always relative, depending on revolutionary velocity, mass, and antigravity.”
(476.5, 42:6.3) “[…] Ultimatons are capable of accelerating revolutionary velocity to the point of partial antigravity behavior, […]”
(476.6, 42:6.4) “The ultimatons, unknown on Urantia, slow down through many phases of physical activity before they attain the revolutionaryenergy prerequisites to electronic organization.”
(476.8, 42:6.6) “Ultimatons do not describe orbits or whirl about in circuits within the electrons, but they do spread or cluster in accordance with their axial revolutionary velocities, thus determining the differential electronic dimensions. This same ultimatonic velocity of axial revolution also determines the negative or positive reactions of the several types of electronic units. […]”
(478.4, 42:7.10) “[…] But some of this electronic unpredictability is due to differential ultimatonic axial revolutionary velocities and to the unexplained “huddling” proclivity of ultimatons. Other influences […] .”
* * *
Another interesting point Phil makes is this:
[PC]: “Two such masses orbiting the same nucleus in the same plane but in opposite directions could together form a particle with twice the mass but zero net angular velocity (since the vectors cancel). But the mass is proportional to the square of the orbital velocity no matter which direction. The net angular velocity must be related to the net charge I think.”
What Phil describes here is actually not only a neat way to explain charge, but even the difference between fermions and bosons: if we have two chiral clusters of huddling ultimatons, each cluster will have its own local axis and angular velocity. But by folding two such complementary clusters over each other, their fermionic properties can be masked, and we get a boson.
For those familiar with superconductivity of electrical charge, think “Cooper pairs”…
Nigel
michael_of_nebParticipantMr. Nigel Nunn,
I just recently got the address of your YouTube from Gard Jameson, who leads my local reader’s group here in Las Vegas. Sorry that my poverty prohibited me from attending your meeting.
I would like to introduce myself.
My name is Michael Pitzel.
I go by michael_of_neb. I was born in NEBraska.
I would like to discuss a proposed topology of the Ultimaton.
(Hint: it is NOT Phil Calabrese’s ball or sphere model.)I invented the (trademarked) TRIMOBIUS(R). It’s US Patent number 4,138,744. The “secret” of making this structure can be found it its patent, which can be found on the web.
It is a structure made by connecting all of the edges of a triangle in a single threedimensional geodesic.
There are 4 ways to do that. These 4 ways are left and right handed, Type I and Type II.
Once a Trimobius has been created, it has a handedness that cannot be changed without tearing it apart.
The structure’s inside is its outside.
It is the closure of a mobius band, the familiar symbol of infinity.
There is a point – that I call it’s “singularity” – in which all three points of the triangle come to a single point. Of course, as created by men, the structure is “flawed”, and the flawless structure cannot be made by the hands of man, and so what I believe is the topology for the Ultimaton is only a model, not the thing itself.
The “singularity” can be mapped to a “flat” 7space as a single point, making the singularity, and only the singularity, which is “central” to the structure, a point part of what could be called “Paradise.”
This single point of impingement upon the flat sevendimensional space makes space respiration a simple mapping.
Because of its unique shape, it “huddles” quite nicely with others of itself. In fact, it can be made as a Type II model into the shape of a glove.
Because of its topology, which is a triunity, it conforms to the concept of a trinity inspired “slice” of space, and not just 3space, but any 3dimensional “slice” of any n dimensional space.
Because of its topology, it is “contractible”, which is a terse yet profound necessity, given that the universe likes to squeeze its particles rather firmly. The structure has a suitably named point of contraction because of it contractibility, which the ball and sphere do not possess. Look it up.Because the angle of the point of singularity can be anything from nearly 0° to nearly 180°, the structure’s behavior is substantially determined by the information contained in the point of singularity, making it possible for the Hadron Bag model to yield many simple convenient schemes for appropriate angular solutions. These angular solutions point to some rather interesting experimental methods for theoretically grasping “zero point energy.”
Because the structure can be “stretched” as well as contracted, it conforms to the Lorentz requirements of special and general relativity. This includes its use as a possible topological approach to the interior of a socalled black hole.
Because the singlesidedness of the structure can be modified by a multiplesidedness model that preserves mapping, the structure can preserve numerous methods of information content and conveyance.
The structure “works” as shown in from three to seven dimensions.One of the “flat” unconnected models of the structure looks more like the Star of David than a triangle.
As a toy, the Trimobius(R) looks like a classic wizard’s hat. (The London Inner Circle and the International Brotherhood of Magicians both gave me membership in their groups because they had no previous record of this structure in their rather old and replete records.)Because of the concepts of “ball” and “sphere”, the following is a profound consequence of this topology.
A 2sphere is a 1ball filled in. A 3sphere (bowling ball) is a 2ball (bubble) filled in. A 4sphere is a Trimobius(R) filled in. A strangeattractor of the structure, in rotation about the point of singularity or the point of contraction generates a “sphere” in whatever dimension it is embedded. Using this analogy, the “center” of this sphere of rotation could be the “singularity”, and hence the “center” of it could be its “connection” to the “flat” seven dimensional universal model of “paradise.”
Also, therefore, analogously, a Trimobius(R) can be consider to be a single sheet of a 3ball. This in turn makes this model a good one for the birth of a specific new model for morontia spacial math.I hope that you find this object and concept interesting.
In the name of the Father.
MichaelPS. My email [email protected]. I would welcome your input.
Nigel NunnParticipantHi MichaelofNebraska – thanks for the fascinating intro to your work!
As I’m sure you know, there’s quite a range of competing models for such Ndimensional particles. Admittedly, few start with the necessary paradisiacal foundation (!), but some do capture elements of both your model, and that implied by the Urantia book.
For us, the real challenge is not merely to promote our particular variation on this theme, but to show how we might extend the current standard models of physics into these uncharted depths. For example, how do you envisage ultimatonic structure within leptons and quarks? My current attempt is summarized in the following graphicsheavy pdfs:
Links to first 3 (of 4) parts:
Notes P4 A – Foundations (2.55MB)
Notes P4 B – Mass and matter (2.44MB)
Notes P4 C – Dark islands (2.16MB)Plan is to record these animated slides for YouTube, to help break the ice. Eventually, likeminded readers might begin to have a real discussion about these as yet unexplored aspects of the fifth epochal revelation. But before I go further, I need someone familiar with current standard models to peerreview, and to help adjust the ideas and presentation.
If you can, please help
Nigel
PS: for some helpful background, see these:
(1) BBC – How small is the universe
(2) Stanford – Demystifying Higgs 
AuthorPosts
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.