Jump to content


Photo

Particle physics and the UB


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#1 HSTa

HSTa

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 426 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Finland

Posted 27 February 2011 - 05:02 AM

Mesotron, dynatron, penetron, barytron, heavy electron, yukon, U-particle and x-particle

This is an addition to my previous mail at the url:
http://www.urantia-u...h...ost&p=11506
and to other particle physics in the thread:
Solar constant' is an oxymoron, About our Sun

When I have studied particle physics in the 1930:ies it has become obvious, that all particle physicists around the world had a close collaboration, and they read all scientific papers that other scientists published. Today this isn't possible any more because of the very large amounts of papers published.

The particle physics in the Urantia papers is very clearly referring to the knowledge in the beginning of the 1930:ies, but it is also much different! I can see clear signs that the UB additions to the knowledge of the 1930:ies is becoming true.

We cant be sure about the specific sources used by The Urantia Book writers. Such sources need not to be published papers or books. Science and research is a continuous process, and it is often very difficult to determine, who come up with a principle, idea or measurement for the first time. For the records, I have included here some of the relevant papers.

My experience is, that there quite often appears references in the U-book that wasn't previously published in the scientific journals, before 1935. Anyway, publication is often a long process, and the ideas might have been around a longer time, before they are published as science.

In this mail I have collected the earliest appearance of:
- the expression mesotron
- a particle of mass 180 times that of the electron (this particle appears in physics even today!)
- Neddermeyer, Anderson and Yukawa, and others
- measurements of cosmic rays
- the ultimaton (neutrino) concept
- some modern references about these matters


Probably I copied the following quote (Glasstone 1940) from an old UB mail, many years ago:

Glasstone 1940 quotes S.H. Neddermeyer and C.D Anderson, 1937: experimental data 1937; average observed mass of "mesotrons" (150 + 220)/2 or about 185 times.


the year 1932:

http://www.auger.org/rays/1932.html
While watching the tracks of cosmic ray particles passing through his cloud chamber, Carl Anderson discovered antimatter in the form of the antielectron, later called the positron. A positron is a particle exactly like an electron, but with an opposite, positive charge.

A debate raged over the nature of cosmic rays. According to a theory of Robert Millikan, they were gamma rays from space -- hence the name "cosmic rays." But evidence was mounting that cosmic rays were, in fact, mostly energetic particles. (The New York Times 1932)


"Cloud tracks of cosmic-ray particles were first observed by Skobelzyn in 1929. ..."

Anderson and Neddermeyer, Int. Conf. on Phys., London, 1934:

Posted Image

Abstract
After reading Professor Bohr's address at the British Association last September in which he tentatively suggested the name "yucon" for the newly discovered particle, I wrote to him incidentally mentioning the fact than Anderson and Neddermeyer had suggested the name "mesotron" (intermediate particle) as the most appropriate name.

http://resolver.calt...UTHORS:MILpr39c

=

Posted Image


Mesotron, dynatron, penetron, barytron, heavy electron, yukon, U-particle and x-particle:

Letters to Editor
Nature 142, 878-878 (12 November 1938)

Mesotron (Intermediate Particle) as a Name for the New Particles of Intermediate Mass
CARL D. ANDERSON & SETH H. NEDDERMEYER

Abstract: THE existence of particles intermediate in mass between protons and electrons has been shown in experiments on the cosmic radiation 1. Since at present so little is known concerning the properties of these particles, for example, the exact value of the mass, the laws governing their production, their stability against disintegration, etc., it may yet be too early to assign to them a name. But inasmuch as several names have already been suggested, namely, dynatron, penetron, barytron, heavy electron, yukon and x-particle, it may be wise to consider the matter at this time.

References
1.For historical summary see Wentzel, G., Naturwiss., 26, 273 (1938); and Bowen, Millikan and Neher, footnote, Phys. Rev., 53, 219 (1938).

http://www.nature.co...s/142878c0.html


"The name 'mesotron' has been suggested by Anderson and Neddermeyer for the new particle found in cosmic radiation with a mass intermediate between that of the electron and the proton:

Homi Jehangir Bhabha is mostly known as the chief architect of India's nuclear programme. However, his contribution to India's development goes far beyond the sphere of atomic energy. He had established two great research institutions namely the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR), and the Atomic Energy Establishment at Trombay (which after Bhabha's death was renamed as the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC). He played a crucial role in the development of electronics in India. Bhabha was an outstanding scientist and a brilliant engineer. He derived a correct expression for the probability of scattering positrons by electrons, a process now known as Bhabha scattering. His classic paper, jointly with W. Heitler, published in 1937 described how primary cosmic rays from space interact with the upper atmosphere to produce particles observed at the ground level. Bhabha and Heitler explained the cosmic ray shower formation by the cascade production of gamma rays and positive and negative electron pairs.

It was Bhabha who suggested the name 'meson' now used for a class of elementary particles. When Carl David Anderson (1905-91) discovered a new particle in the cosmic radiation with a mass between that of electron and the proton he named it 'mesoton' which was subsequently changed by him to mesotron presumably at the advice of Millikan. Bhabha in a short note to Nature (February 1939) proposed the name 'meson'. In this note he wrote: "The name 'mesotron' has been suggested by Anderson and Neddermeyer for the new particle found in cosmic radiation with a mass intermediate between that of the electron and the proton. It is felt that the 'tr' in this word is redundant, since it does not belong to the Greek root 'meso' for middle; the 'tr' in neutron and electron belong, of course, to the roots "neutr" and "electra".... It would therefore be more logical and also shorter to call the new particle a meson instead of a mesotron." Anderson's particle (mu-meson) was first thought to be the particle predicted by Hideki Yukawa (1907-81) that was thought to carry the strong nuclear force and hold the nucleus together. However, later when it was found that its interaction with nucleons was so infrequent it became doubtful whether it could perform the role described by Yukawa, that is to act as nuclear 'glue'. This was finally resolved when in 1947 C.F. Powell discovered a particle again in cosmic radiation with a mass of 264 times that of the electron (pi-meson or pion). Pion interacted very strongly with nucleons and thus filled precisely Yukawa's predicted role. Mu-meson or muon is the decay product of pi-meson.

http://www.vigyanpra...a/BHABHANEW.HTM



On the Mass of the Mesotron:

Nishina Memorial Foundation 2008

The Editror , 585

On the Mass of the Mesotron
Since we published the results of the mass determination of the mesotron, the existence of which had theoretically been foreseen by Yukawa, we have been continuing the same experiments with the Wilson cloud chamber.
...

According to the range-energy curve for the proton given by Livingston and Bethe we calculate the mass of the particle by using the above values of IIp and range and obtain

M = (170 +/- 9) *m , ........................ (1)

where m is the mass of the electron.

At the end of the range the photograph shows no sign of an electronic track, which would prove the disintegration of the mesotron.

(also calculated in this paper):

M = (180 +/- 20) * m, .........................(4)

by: Y. Nishina, M. Takeuchi, and T. Ichimiya

Cosmic-Ray Sub-Committee of Japan Society for the Promotion of Scientific Research.
Institute of Physical and Chemical Research (RIKEN)
Tokyo, Japan,
January 31, 1939

http://www.nishina-m...ndation2008.pdf



Yukawa Hall Archival Library (1934):
http://www2.yukawa.k...n/archives.html

The paper publisher one year later (1935), was slightly modified:

Interaction of Elementary Particles, H. Yukawa (1935):
http://web.ihep.su/d...ukawa35/eng.pdf

Recent particle physics:

INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR PHYSICS CONFERENCE
HIDEKI YUKAWA AND NUCLEAR PHYSICS
Tokyo, Japan, June 3-8, 2007

http://www.ccsem.inf...paperYukawa.pdf

2 PRODUCTION

Thanks to Yukawa, the search for cosmic-ray particles with masses in-between (this is the origin of ‘mesotron’, now meson) the light electron, me, and the heavy nucleon, mN, (proton or neutron), became a very hot topic, during the first third of the XXth Century. This intermediate mass value was deduced by Yukawa from the range of the nuclear forces.

“In this paper the authors improved the mass measurement of their previous particle (with positive charge) and concluded that the result obtained, m = (180 ± 20) me, was in good agreement with the value of the [4] negative particle. The masses of the negative and positive particles had not to be different. The meson theory of the strong nuclear forces proposed by Hideki Yukawa…”

CONCLUSIONS ON THE GOLD MINE OPENED BY HIDEKI YUKAWA:

How to study the new world: QGCW With the advent of the LHC supercollider, we propose the development and the realization of a new technology able to implement the collision between different particle states (p, n, pi, K, my, e, gamma, ny) and the QGCW in order to study the properties of the Quark-Gluon-Coloured-World (QGCW) [42, 43].

7 REFERENCES
[1] Interaction of Elementary Particles H. Yukawa, Part I, Proc.
Physico-Math. Soc. Japan 17, 48 (1935);
Models and Methods in the Meson Theory H. Yukawa, Reviews of Modern Physics
21, 474 (1949).
[2] Note on the Nature of Cosmic Ray Particles S.H. Neddermeyer and C.D.
Anderson, Phys. Rev. 51, 884 (1937).
[3] New Evidence for the Existence of a Particle of Mass Intermediate
Between the Proton and Electron
J.C. Street and E.C. Stevenson, Phys. Rev. (L) 52 1003 (1937).
...
[41] Complexity Exists at the Fundamental Level
A. Zichichi, in Proceedings of the 2004–Erice Subnuclear Physics School.
‘How and Where to go Beyond the Standard Model’, The Subnuclear Series
Vol. 42, page 251, World Scientific (2007).
...


But the cosmic ray particle of mass 180 times that of the electron, was neither a myon nor a pion, as many sources even today declare.

A detailed analysis [41] shows that the experimentally observable quantities, which characterize the existence of ‘Complexity’ in a given field, do exist in physics; the Yukawa gold mine is a proof of it. This means that ‘Complexity’ exists at the fundamental level, therefore, totally unexpected effects should show up in physics:

-Effects, which are impossible to be predicted on the basis of present knowledge.

The eta', thanks to its strong gluonic component, is the Yukawa particle in the QCD Era.

The complexity introduced by the U-book, about an electron built up as a condensate of 100 ultimatons,
is a very important addition to the erroneous theories about neutrinos!

Edited by HSTa, 27 February 2011 - 08:30 AM.


#2 ubizmo

ubizmo

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 February 2011 - 10:56 AM

A detailed analysis [41] shows that the experimentally observable quantities, which characterize the existence of ‘Complexity’ in a given field, do exist in physics; the Yukawa gold mine is a proof of it. This means that ‘Complexity’ exists at the fundamental level, therefore, totally unexpected effects should show up in physics:

-Effects, which are impossible to be predicted on the basis of present knowledge.

The eta', thanks to its strong gluonic component, is the Yukawa particle in the QCD Era.

The complexity introduced by the U-book, about an electron built up as a condensate of 100 ultimatons,
is a very important addition to the erroneous theories about neutrinos!


I'm no particle physicist, but if I'm not mistaken, the very existence of a fundamental level is still a disputed point. The UB, of course, asserts that there is such a level, so that should be considered a fairly strong prediction, supported by the research cited here.

Todd

#3 HSTa

HSTa

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 426 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Finland

Posted 01 March 2011 - 12:20 PM

It has been proposed that gravity (on very small and very long distances) has to be modified according to the Yukawa-type potential:

Posted Image

The Urantia Book quotes:

(478.5) 42:8.1 While gravity is one of several factors concerned in holding together a tiny atomic energy system, there is also present in and among these basic physical units a powerful and unknown energy, the secret of their basic constitution and ultimate behavior, a force which remains to be discovered on Urantia.

(482.3) 42:11.5 Linear-gravity response is a quantitative measure of nonspirit energy. All mass — organized energy — is subject to this grasp except as motion and mind act upon it. Linear gravity is the short-range cohesive force of the macrocosmos somewhat as the forces of intra-atomic cohesion are the short-range forces of the microcosmos. Physical materialized energy, organized as so-called matter, cannot traverse space without affecting linear-gravity response. Although such gravity response is directly proportional to mass, it is so modified by intervening space that the final result is no more than roughly approximated when expressed as inversely according to the square of the distance. Space eventually conquers linear gravitation because of the presence therein of the antigravity influences of numerous supermaterial forces which operate to neutralize gravity action and all responses thereto.

My comment: A potential is approximately proportional to the inverse distance, but the corresponding force is approximately proportional to the inverse square of the distance.
= = =

Examples of gravity anomalies:

Modelling the Pioneer anomaly as modified inertia
M. E. McCullochArticle first published online: 16 FEB 2007
http://onlinelibrary...1433.x/abstract

As the anomaly was growing, it appeared that the spacecraft were moving more slowly than expected. Direct measurements of the spacecraft's speed using the Doppler effect demonstrated the same thing: the Pioneers were slowing down more than expected.
http://en.wikipedia....Pioneer_anomaly

The flyby anomaly is an unexpected energy increase during Earth-flybys of spacecraft. This anomaly has been observed as a shift in the S-Band and X-Band Doppler and the ranging data. Taken together it causes a significant unaccounted velocity increase of over 13 mm/s during flybys.[1]
http://en.wikipedia....i/Flyby_anomaly

Overview:
Scalar-vector-tensor gravity theory[2], also known as MOdified Gravity (MOG), is based on an action principle and postulates the existence of a vector field, while elevating the three constants of the theory to scalar fields. In the weak-field approximation, STVG produces a Yukawa-like modification of the gravitational force due to a point source. Intuitively, this result can be described as follows: far from a source gravity is stronger than the Newtonian prediction, but at shorter distances, it is counteracted by a repulsive fifth force due to the vector field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STVG

#4 ubizmo

ubizmo

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 March 2011 - 01:11 PM

(482.3) 42:11.5 Linear-gravity response is a quantitative measure of nonspirit energy. All mass — organized energy — is subject to this grasp except as motion and mind act upon it. Linear gravity is the short-range cohesive force of the macrocosmos somewhat as the forces of intra-atomic cohesion are the short-range forces of the microcosmos. Physical materialized energy, organized as so-called matter, cannot traverse space without affecting linear-gravity response. Although such gravity response is directly proportional to mass, it is so modified by intervening space that the final result is no more than roughly approximated when expressed as inversely according to the square of the distance. Space eventually conquers linear gravitation because of the presence therein of the antigravity influences of numerous supermaterial forces which operate to neutralize gravity action and all responses thereto.

[snip]

Overview:
Scalar-vector-tensor gravity theory[2], also known as MOdified Gravity (MOG), is based on an action principle and postulates the existence of a vector field, while elevating the three constants of the theory to scalar fields. In the weak-field approximation, STVG produces a Yukawa-like modification of the gravitational force due to a point source. Intuitively, this result can be described as follows: far from a source gravity is stronger than the Newtonian prediction, but at shorter distances, it is counteracted by a repulsive fifth force due to the vector field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STVG


I'm way out of my depth here, but is the main idea that the UB's "antigravity" force may be this conjectured repulsive fifth force? If so, that's pretty exciting. I'm not sure whether the fifth force could count as "supermaterial" however.

Todd

#5 HSTa

HSTa

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 426 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Finland

Posted 01 March 2011 - 03:12 PM

I'm way out of my depth here, but is the main idea that the UB's "antigravity" force may be this conjectured repulsive fifth force? If so, that's pretty exciting. I'm not sure whether the fifth force could count as "supermaterial" however.

Todd



OK Todd, Your comments often activate our discussion!

Antigravity need not be anything mystical. It has been observed for instance in rotating disks at a very low temperature.


UB (101.3) 9:3.3 Antigravity can annul gravity within a local frame; it does so by the exercise of equal force presence. It operates only with reference to material gravity, and it is not the action of mind. The gravity-resistant phenomenon of a gyroscope is a fair illustration of the effect of antigravity but of no value to illustrate the cause of antigravity.

Antigravity is just any force acting in the opposite direction to gravity!

In a nucleus of an atom the strong force might be both attractive and strongly repulsive.

I have noted that there is a similar curve for the gravitational Roche limit as for the nuclear forces. The gravitational Roche-limit is also descried by the UB, but I would rather not go into that now.

Although the following is already old science it describes the Yukawa force as a function of distance:

http://www.nature.co...45156a-f1.2.jpg

http://www.nature.co...445156a_F1.html

At distances of a few fermi, the force between two nucleons is weakly attractive, indicated by a negative potential. According to Hideki Yukawa's model, this force is mediated by the exchange of particles known as mesons. The pi-meson, or pion, the lightest of the mesons, accounts for the attractive force at the largest distances where it is felt, whereas heavier mesons (rho, omega,sigma ) take over closer in. The picture changes abruptly, however, below a separation of just under 1 fermi. Here the force becomes strongly repulsive, preventing nucleons merging. Ishii et al.1 provide the first theoretical
calculations from quantum chromodynamics, the theory of the strong force, that reproduce the empirical form of this potential.


But the UB-predictions of forces departing from Newton's law have become actual science, whatever the explanation is!

My intent was to describe some more of the older particle history , and my UB-model of the Electron also.

Edited by HSTa, 01 March 2011 - 03:16 PM.


#6 ubizmo

ubizmo

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 March 2011 - 03:25 PM

Ahh, okay, now I see what you're getting at. Sometimes a single word in the UB causes me to halt in my tracks, to try to decide whether or not I really know what it means. "Supermaterial" is one such word. Of course, there are some (many) passages where the density of such words is too great and, although my eyes pass over the page, I can't truly be said to be reading.

Todd

#7 HSTa

HSTa

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 426 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Finland

Posted 02 March 2011 - 09:13 AM

Had the Urantia Papers appeared a few years earlier, there would have been considerable confusion in the names of uncharged particles. The scientist who first proposed the existence of neutrinos, Wolfgang Pauli, actually used the name neutrons (Neutronen).

- Wolfgang Pauli originally used the name "neutron", in 1930. In the German language: "elektrisch neutrale Teilchen, die ich Neutronen nennen will"

- Enrico Fermi renamed this particle "neutrino" , in 1932

It is very obvious that the modern neutrino concept appears in the Urantia Papers without using the expression neutrino. But where modern physics uses the word neutrino, the UB concept is a little further explained. Even some of the modern neutrinos might be composite particles. Some of the expressions in the UB are reminiscent of the original name by W. Pauli:

- ultimatons
- small uncharged particles
- tiny particles devoid of electric potential
- such particles readily escape from the solar interior

The neutrino was always an interesting particle since it was proposed by Wolfgang Pauli in a famous letter from December 4th, 1930 from Zuerich to a conference in Tuebingen. The letter started with "Liebe radioaktive Damen und Herren" and proposed a new particle which he called "neutron" to conserve energy and angular momentum in the beta decay. Enrico Fermi renamed this particle "neutrino" after the neutron had been detected by Chadwick in 1932. In 1956 the neutrino was then finally detected experimentally by Reines and Cowan. Soon afterwards one realized from the 60Co beta decay that the neutrino was left-handed and the antineutrino right-handed and parity was violated in the weak interaction.

http://www.uni-tuebi...ec/purpose.html

Pauli 1930 Original in the German language: "elektrisch neutrale Teilchen, die ich Neutronen nennen will...":

http://www.symmetrym...book_letter.pdf

Translation:
QUOTE
[This is a translation of a machine-typed copy of a letter that Wolfgang Pauli sent to a group of physicists meeting in Tübingen in December 1930. Pauli asked a colleague to take the letter to the meeting, and the bearer was to provide more information as needed.]

Copy/Dec. 15, 1956 PM:

Open letter to the group of radioactive people at the Gauverein meeting in Tübingen.

Physics Institute of the Eidg. Technischen Hochschule, Zürich
Zürich, Dec. 4, 1930
Gloriastrasse

Dear Radioactive Ladies and Gentlemen,

As the bearer of these lines, to whom I graciously ask you to listen, will explain to you in more detail, because of the "wrong" statistics of the N-and Li-6 nuclei and the continuous beta spectrum, I have hit upon a desperate remedy to save the "exchange theorem" (1) of statistics and the law of conservation of energy. Namely, the possibility that in the nuclei there could exist electrically neutral particles, which I will call neutrons, that have spin 1/2 and obey the exclusion principle and that further differ from light quanta in that they do not travel with the velocity of light. The mass of the neutrons should be of the same order of magnitude as the electron mass and in any event not larger than 0.01 proton mass. - The continuous beta spectrum would then make sense with the assumption that in beta decay, in addition to the electron, a neutron is emitted such that the sum of the energies of neutron and electron is constant. Now it is also a question of which forces act upon neutrons. For me, the most likely model for the neutron seems to be, for wave-mechanical reasons (the bearer of these lines knows more), that the neutron at rest is a magnetic dipole with a certain moment µ. The experiments seem to require that the ionizing effect of such a neutron can not be bigger than the one of a gamma-ray, and then µ is probably not allowed to be larger than e^(10-13cm). But so far I do not dare to publish anything about this idea, and trustfully turn first to you, dear radioactive people, with the question of how likely it is to find experimental evidence for such a neutron if it would have the same or perhaps a 10 times larger ability to get through [material] than a gamma-ray. I admit that my remedy may seem almost improbable because one probably would have seen those neutrons, if they exist, for a long time. But nothing ventured, nothing gained, and the seriousness of the situation, due to the continuous structure of the beta spectrum, is illuminated by a remark of my honored predecessor, Mr Debye, who told me recently in Bruxelles: "Oh, It's better not to think about this at all, like new taxes." Therefore one should seriously discuss every way of rescue. Thus, dear radioactive people, scrutinize and judge. - Unfortunately, I cannot personally appear in Tübingen since I am indispensable here in Zürich because of a ball on the night from December 6 to 7. With my best regards to you, and also to Mr. Back, your humble servant.

signed W. Pauli

[Translation: Kurt Riesselmann]

http://www.symmetrym...translation.pdf

Wolfgang Pauli was very interested in the fine structure constant:

Probably Sommerfeld introduced the very interesting constant "alpha" as the ratio of the speed of the electron in its ground state in the Bohr-atom relative to the speed of light. In modern cosmology and Quantum electrodynamics the fine-structure constant is generally considered to be the coupling constant of the electromagnetic field.

Wolfgang Pauli wrote: " The theoretical determination of the fine structure constant is certainly the most important of the unsolved problems of modern physics." (From page 158 of the book "Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist", Vol. 1, edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp, edition published 1959.)

Alpha (or 2 * pi / alpha ~ 860) is a pure universal number, and might be used in most cases in stead of the Planck constant, which is dependent on our definitions in The International System of Units.

http://physics.nist....ants/alpha.html

#8 ubizmo

ubizmo

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 March 2011 - 09:28 AM

So, would you say that the UB's statements about ultimatons are in reasonably good accord with we what know about neutrinos? I seem to remember that some knowledgeable people thought that we were still a long way from knowing what the ultimatons might be.

Todd

#9 HSTa

HSTa

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 426 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Finland

Posted 03 March 2011 - 07:38 AM

So, would you say that the UB's statements about ultimatons are in reasonably good accord with we what know about neutrinos? I seem to remember that some knowledgeable people thought that we were still a long way from knowing what the ultimatons might be.

Todd


What I meant and said, Todd, was that the modern neutrino concept is covered very well by the Urantia Papers! Although the expression neutrino never appears in the UB.

It is also highly remarkable, that the UB obviously mentions several types of neutrinos small uncharged particles and tiny particles devoid of electric potential, in addition to the ultimatons which are the most fundamental, uncharged and indestructible small particle (condensation) components.

When the first edition of The Urantia Book appeared in 1955, there existed no evidence, or even hints at the existence of several neutrino types:

Experimental demonstration of neutrino flavors
In 1962 Leon M. Lederman, Melvin Schwartz and Jack Steinberger showed that more than one type of neutrino exists by first detecting interactions of the muon neutrino (already hypothesised with the name neutretto[8]), which earned them the 1988 Nobel Prize. When the third type of lepton, the tau, was discovered in 1975 at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, it too was expected to have an associated neutrino (the tau neutrino). First evidence for this third neutrino type came from the observation of missing energy and momentum in tau decays analogous to the beta decay leading to the discovery of the neutrino. The first detection of tau neutrino interactions was announced in summer of 2000 by the DONUT collaboration at Fermilab, making it the latest particle of the Standard Model to have been directly observed; its existence had already been inferred by both theoretical consistency and experimental data from the Large Electron–Positron Collider.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino

(contains lots of relevant information and references)


But it is true even today, that neutrinos (especially low energy neutrinos) are very hard to detect.

The UB mentions decay chains of radioactive particles and there is a slight difference to the corresponding contemporary scientific decay products:

UB (479.3) 42:8.5 The presence and function of the mesotron also explains another atomic riddle. When atoms perform radioactively, they emit far more energy than would be expected. This excess of radiation is derived from the breaking up of the mesotron “energy carrier,” which thereby becomes a mere electron. The mesotronic disintegration is also accompanied by the emission of certain small uncharged particles.

The neutrinos produced in contemporary scientific notations are theoretical deductions; we cant actually see how many neutrino decay products or what types, are produced in a certain process. But the end product often includes an electron (lepton) , like the UB said.

My summary of The neutrino concept in The Urantia Papers is found here:

http://kotisivu.dnai...or/neutrino.htm

The fine structure constant, (alpha or 2*pi/alpha ~860) is today known as the coupling constant of the electromagnetic field. Therefore it is interesting that the UB mentions ultimatons in connection to the coupling constant, and at the same time says that the ultimaton is without an electric charge!

I'm able to interpret this that the UB hints at magnetic properties of ultimatons, like W. Pauli originally did for the neutrino.!

The number 860 and the fine structure constant:

The Urantia Papers p. 474: "The quantity of energy taken in or given out when electronic or other positions are shifted is always a "quantum" or some multiple thereof, but the vibratory or wavelike behavior of such units of energy is wholly determined by the dimensions of the material structures concerned. Such wavelike energy ripples are 860 times the diameters of the ultimatons, electrons, atoms, or other units thus performing. The never-ending confusion attending the observation of the wave mechanics of quantum behavior is due to the superimposition of energy waves: Two crests can combine to make a double-height crest, while a crest and a trough may combine, thus producing mutual cancellation."

http://kotisivu.dnai...et.net/adslfor/


The following UB quote is also highly interesting (to a cosmologist):

UB (473.4) 42:4.6 Gravity presence and action is what prevents the appearance of the theoretical absolute zero, for interstellarspace does not have the temperature of absolute zero. Throughout all organized space there are gravity-responding energycurrents, power circuits, and ultimatonic activities, as well as organizing electronic energies. Practically speaking, space is notempty. Even the atmosphere of Urantia thins out increasingly until at about three thousand miles it begins to shade off intothe average space matter in this section of the universe. The most nearly empty space known in Nebadon would yield aboutone hundred ultimatons — the equivalent of one electron — in each cubic inch. Such scarcity of matter is regarded aspractically empty space.

The neutrino content of space has been long assumed to exist but difficult to detect, because we don't know what type of radiation to search for in the case of the neutrino background. The now popular dark matter of space might have to do with this neutrino (ultimaton) content of space?

So, we might already have detected ultimatums without knowing it yet.

I have never been a particle physicist, but I have tried to follow the theoretical steps in this field of physics, since I made my first experiments with a cloud camber in school about 1959 to 1960:

Posted Image

I'm the young man on the picture, holding a slide rule in my hand, next to the teacher in physics.

In this cloud camber I could see tracks of alpha particle, secondary space particles, and possibly zigzag tracks of electrons. I also performed some crude determinations of the electron mass in a magnetic field. Also gamma quanta appeared in this simple cloud camber, as small ionization points.

More about the UB electron model later.

Edited by HSTa, 03 March 2011 - 07:58 AM.


#10 ubizmo

ubizmo

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 March 2011 - 09:30 AM

My summary of The neutrino concept in The Urantia Papers is found here:

http://kotisivu.dnai...or/neutrino.htm


Thank you, that letter is very helpful for putting things in perspective. The neutrino content of "most empty space" is certainly a striking convergence.

The neutrino content of space has been long assumed to exist but difficult to detect, because we don't know what type of radiation to search for in the case of the neutrino background. The now popular dark matter of space might have to do with this neutrino (ultimaton) content of space?


Yes, I was going to ask you about dark matter, since I know there has been increasing discussion of it in recent years. I don't know if the "dark gravity bodies" of the central universe are relevant to the dark matter question. In fact, I'm not sure that the very idea of centrality is meaningful in recent cosmology.

Todd

#11 HSTa

HSTa

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 426 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Finland

Posted 03 March 2011 - 11:07 AM

Thank you, that letter is very helpful for putting things in perspective. The neutrino content of "most empty space" is certainly a striking convergence.



Yes, I was going to ask you about dark matter, since I know there has been increasing discussion of it in recent years. I don't know if the "dark gravity bodies" of the central universe are relevant to the dark matter question. In fact, I'm not sure that the very idea of centrality is meaningful in recent cosmology.

Todd



The matters you mention are highly interesting things mentioned in the UB and they are to some degree covered in earlier threads on this forum. I probably will write more about them late. As I'm going to do some travel with my family (inside my county) soon, it would be better to give a glimpse of the UB Electron model now, as we are discussing particles in this thread.

Already in 1983 several Finnish newspapers published pictures my Electron model according to the UB. The following is the url of the Electron model, and related concepts, that I wrote in 1997:

http://kotisivu.dnai...lfor/index.html

I updated my electron page in 2006, with The mathematical model of the self-rotating electron: Rotating , mentioned by Tomonaga:

The Nobel Laureate Sin-itiro Tomonaga, a colleague of Yukawa, said:

“ But Yukawa didn't predict a particle 180 times the mass of the electron.
(Sin-itiro p. 179): "Therefore, Yukawa arrived at the idea that there should
exist a yet-to-be discovered charged boson, the heavy quantum, and that this
particle shuttles between the neutron and proton. He concluded that if this
particle has a mass about 100 times as large as that of the electron, then the
effective range of the nuclear force is on the order of 10E-13 cm".

Tomonaga also discusses the “The selfrotating Electron”; and
“meson theory“, on pages 112, 131 ,150, 161, 162, 179-83, 229-30, 244”

From: "THE STORY OF SPIN" by Sin-itiro Tomonaga (translated by Takeshi Oko), The University
of Chicago Press, 1997

This post has been edited by HSTa: Mar 10 2010, 03:26 AM


Posted Image

UB (473.3) 42:4.5 Throughout all space, cold and other influences are at work creatively organizing ultimatons into electrons. Heat is the measurement of electronic activity, while cold merely signifies absence of heat — comparative energy rest — the status of the universal force-charge of space provided neither emergent energy nor organized matter were present and responding to gravity.

UB (476.7) 42:6.5 Mutual attraction holds one hundred ultimatons together in the constitution of the electron; and there are nevermore nor less than one hundred ultimatons in a typical electron. The loss of one or more ultimatons destroys typical electronic identity, thus bringing into existence one of the ten modified forms of the electron.

You might see the rotating electron by pasting the following url into your web browser:

http://kotisivu.dnai...or/electron.avi

In reality this rotation speed probably is beyond human imagination.

As you might notice, noting can be taken away or added to the electron model, without completely disturbing this fully symmetric minimum energy sate of the ultimatons!

PS: the electron model is built up according to the formula (3^2 + 4^2 + 5^2 +5^2 +4^2 + 3^2 = 100)
The two colors in my picture describes spherical ultimatons spinning in opposite directions.
Perhaps also the electron is built up from 6 quarks on top of each other?

Edited by HSTa, 03 March 2011 - 11:26 AM.


#12 Guest_rich.sachs_*

Guest_rich.sachs_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 May 2011 - 12:20 PM

i'm most impressed with the ultimaton, which scientists don't know about, that there's one-hundred of them per electron. 42:6.4 The ultimatons, unknown on Urantia, slow down through many phases of physical activity before they attain the revolutionary-energy prerequisites to electronic organization. Ultimatons have three varieties of motion: mutual resistance to cosmic force, individual revolutions of antigravity potential, and the intraelectronic positions of the one hundred mutually interassociated ultimatons.

42:6.5 Mutual attraction holds one hundred ultimatons together in the constitution of the electron; and there are never more nor less than one hundred ultimatons in a typical electron. The loss of one or more ultimatons destroys typical electronic identity, thus bringing into existence one of the ten modified forms of the electron.

what are the ten modified forms of the electron, i don't think science knows this either and tub doesn't tell us what they are or what that means to the different elements in the periodic table, the atoms.

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. The entire segregation and grouping of electronic matter, together with the electric differentiation of negative and positive bodies of energy-matter, result from these various functions of the component ultimatonic interassociation.


Mesotron, dynatron, penetron, barytron, heavy electron, yukon, U-particle and x-particle



#13 -Scott-

-Scott-

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,023 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Camping, Hiking, Soccer, Movies, Games,

Posted 31 May 2011 - 03:05 PM

Amazing stuff HSTa, I was wondering what you thought of some of Chris Halvorson's works in regards to science in the U.B. I know he has a P.H.D in Physic's and has made some interesting connection's with the u.b and science as well. I am assuming you know some of his work? haha I am just messing around with the font, no disrespect intended.

One of his theory's that has interested me is how animal species can undergo "phase change's" Ie. Twins/Coloured Race's etc. Much similar to water turning into steam at a specific temperature because of the master physical controller's slight influence on the physical system's. He said that all it would require is the Physical Controller's to apply a constant force to the physical system (animal life) and that the Physical Controller's wouldn't even have to change the "dial" sort of speak just like the Dial on a burner to turn water into steam. So that when the -sudden- phase change happen's it only happens once and at a specific -range- ie 100 Celcius....anwyays I know there are a few other scientist's in the U.B community with some good info out like Kermit, but I don't think I have seen as bold and attractive of scientific theory's as Chris has made in relation to the U.B.

Edited by boomshuka, 31 May 2011 - 03:24 PM.

If one man craves freedom -- liberty -- he must remember that all other men long for the same freedom

#14 Nelson G

Nelson G

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:Pianos fast cars and airplanes.

Posted 19 October 2012 - 10:23 PM

I'm no particle physicist, but if I'm not mistaken, the very existence of a fundamental level is still a disputed point. The UB, of course, asserts that there is such a level, so that should be considered a fairly strong prediction, supported by the research cited here. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Interesting you should put it that way. Maybe 2500 years ago Democritus - with his thought experiment - proposed a fundamental, indivisable a-tom. He imagined a knife cutting cheese over and over again till he ran into something that could not be cut. He considered mind to be superior to sensory input - he considered sensory input as bastard data - he knew the mind was superior. (do ya think the cosmic mind may have been at work here as well as his own?) But the Greeks of those days had no alternate measuring devices so he was stuck in his head. I draw strong parallels to how difficult it can be to observe atomic particles as observation changes the nature of the thing being observed. Can we trust our modern measuring devices? Can our senses interpret the data accurately? Democritus did not know the details of the modern day standard model and it may be the quark that turns out to be his a-tom. Even so, the quark has no mass, nor does it have dimension - it is a mathematical point, something that his imaginary knive would not connect with. Put a couple of them together and we have a proton that does have mass and dimension, something cuttable - go figure.

Edited by Nelson G, 19 October 2012 - 10:29 PM.

Life often gives us our greatest gifts brilliantly disguised as our worst nightmares.

#15 Alina

Alina

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,393 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:UNIVERSO
  • Interests:*

Posted 20 October 2012 - 10:35 AM

Hello Nelson!
a contribution: :)

René Descartes, French mathematician and philosopher of the seventeenth century made a great contribution to the discovery of physical laws that led to the idea that the universe was a machine. Newton and other scientists of the eighteenth century solid set of materialism and its corollary, the principle of causal determinism, which is the idea that all movement can be accurately predicted, given the laws of motion and the initial conditions of the objects.
Today quantum physics has revolutionized the way we see the reality of classical physics, since objects or particles that behave like quantum, have the following properties:
1) A quantum object (for example an electron) may be in more than one place simultaneously.
2) A quantum object can not be said to be manifested in the ordinary space-time reality until it is observed as a particle.
3) A quantum object ceases to exist simultaneously here and elsewhere has existence, although we can not say that toured the space between the two places.
4) A demonstration of a quantum object produced by our observation, simultaneously influence his twin correlated, no matter how far it may be from.

"Quantum physics has led many physicists to think that realism is anything wrong item that has never taken into account the role of consciousness. The alternative proposed by some modern physicists material realism is a monistic idealism in which mind and matter are part of a singlereality. Here, instead of asserting that everything is made of matter, rather asserts that everything exists and is
manipulated from consciousness. This is not to say that the matter is unreal or illusion perceived by consciousness,but its reality as matter is secondary to that of consciousness, which is really the basis and foundation of all existence. "

(191.7) 16:6.4 There exists in all personality associations of the cosmic mind a quality which might be denominated the “reality response.” It is this universal cosmic endowment of will creatures which saves them from becoming helpless victims of the implied a priori assumptions of science, philosophy, and religion. This reality sensitivity of the cosmic mind responds to certain phases of reality just as energy-material responds to gravity. It would be still more correct to say that these supermaterial realities so respond to the mind of the cosmos.


(195.7) 16:9.1 The cosmic-mind-endowed, Adjuster-indwelt, personal creature possesses innate recognition-realization of energy reality, mind reality, and spirit reality. The will creature is thus equipped to discern the fact, the law, and the love of God. Aside from these three inalienables of human consciousness, all human experience is really subjective except that intuitive realization of validity attaches to the unification of these three universe reality responses of cosmic recognition.




Greetings,

Alina
***

Edited by Alina, 20 October 2012 - 11:08 AM.


#16 Louis aka loucol

Louis aka loucol

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 100 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Florida
  • Interests:Science Philosophy and Religion as they relate to The Urantia Book

Posted 24 October 2012 - 03:42 PM

Hi All:

Here is an interesting quote from TUB.

42:6.7 Each atom is a trifle over 1/100,000,000th of an inch in diameter, while an electron weighs a little more than 1/2,000th of the smallest atom, hydrogen. The positive proton, characteristic of the atomic nucleus, while it may be no larger than a negative electron, weighs almost two thousand times more.

I do not believe this is consistent with the Standard Model. I have been thinking of a particle that can be consistant with this statement and I realized that the idea of the Anu, a vortical particle that has motions of a tornado with internal and external whirls. The external vortex is analogous to the electron and an the tighter inner vortex the proton, neutron, mesotron complex. Maybe it is all just one particle with these complex motions. TUB states that 100 ultimatons compose an electron, but what of the proton? Could not the proton also be a part of the motion of the ultimaton? Perhaps the proton inner spin (nucleus) of motion with nearly 2000 greater angular momentum? Anyone else with comments? :)

Regards, Louis
His Will Be Done

#17 Rick Warren

Rick Warren

    Rick Warren

  • Administrators
  • PipPip
  • 9,923 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 26 October 2012 - 03:20 AM

I too have wondered about the makeup of the inner atom's parts, Louis. The Revelators don't mention them, best I can tell...And I suspect all those things physicists call quarks, charms and such, are really particle fragments. They don't even expect that the electron is divisible, do they?

#18 Nigel Nunn

Nigel Nunn

    Poster

  • Administrators
  • PipPip
  • 1,118 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 26 October 2012 - 07:23 AM

PS: we have a model that builds matter from little "tri-poles" of huddling ultimatons. It seems to work, reproducing what physicists measure. First thing though, is mapping Orvonton. A couple of infrared surveys are currently under way (e.g. APOGEE and VISTA). From these we may map enough anomalous Cepheids to show a "length far greater than the breadth" (167.18) 15:3.2

watch this space.
Nigel

#19 Louis aka loucol

Louis aka loucol

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 100 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Florida
  • Interests:Science Philosophy and Religion as they relate to The Urantia Book

Posted 26 October 2012 - 10:34 AM

Hi Nigel, Rick, Alina and All:

Does this model that Nigel mentions have the electron equal in size to the proton, as TUB states? I would think that the authors are helping us to come up with a model consistent with this statement from TUB. And do you think that TUB hints at what relationship there exists, if any, between the proton and the ultimaton? Are there 100 ultimatons in a proton spinning 2000 times faster, or does the the proton (and neutron) have a make-up of 200,000 ultimatons? Charge may just involve right or left spin. Any thoughts on this. TUB also states that gravity is the sole control of energy-matter. This does not seem to be consistent with the nuclear forces of the standard model. So, a true model model of matter must be explained using only gravity as a cohesive, controlling force in order to be consistent with TUB.

Regards, Louis

Edited by loucol, 26 October 2012 - 10:36 AM.

His Will Be Done

#20 Nelson G

Nelson G

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:Pianos fast cars and airplanes.

Posted 26 October 2012 - 12:09 PM

I too have wondered about the makeup of the inner atom's parts, Louis. The Revelators don't mention them, best I can tell...And I suspect all those things physicists call quarks, charms and such, are really particle fragments. They don't even expect that the electron is divisible, do they?

I like that idea: We build expensive machines that crash protons together and assume that the resulting fragments are the more fundamental building blocks of matter when in fact they are only fragments. Who said that there is a fundamental indivisable particle anyway?
Life often gives us our greatest gifts brilliantly disguised as our worst nightmares.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users