Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:43 pm +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Exploding dark islands?
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:14 pm +0000
Posts: 61
Urantia Book wrote:
"This process of cooling and contraction may continue to the limiting and critical explosion point of ultimatonic condensation." (458.6, 41:3.6)

The scientific method has revealed lots about the "cooling and contraction" of stars. For example, we now know that after a small to medium star burns through its available fuel, it can puff off an outer layer of gas, then shrink down to something the size of the earth -- a white dwarf. Bigger stars can "cool and contract" further; after some fireworks (core-collapse supernova) they can settle down as neutron stars, something heavier than our Sun, but only 10 km across.

But what happens to bigger stars, or to neutron stars that accumulate extra mass? Here, the plot thickens, and the UB predicts a surprise. First, what does science predict?

When we mix together current ideas about gravity with current ideas about neutrons, logic dictates that the forces holding up a neutron star cannot support more than about 2 or 3 solar masses (astrophysicists call this the TOV limit). So for example, if a stable neutron star steals gas from a binary partner, and its mass sneaks over this TOV limit, then gravity wins. The temperature of the neutrons jumps far beyond a billion degrees (the neutrons literally melt), and gravity starts to crush this once stable neutron star. Or as paper 41:3.6 puts it: "This process of cooling and contraction may continue..."

But only so far. Here's where the UB story differs from consensus science. Current physics has no mechanism to stop the collapse of a collapsing neutron star, so scientists generally assume that a singularity must form -- a so-called "black hole". But the UB adds to this picture a level of structure within leptons and quarks that easily resists this next level of collapse.

To understand how this lowest level of structure first resists -- then totally defeats -- gravity, we'll need some fresh ideas about space and mass and time. In the following graphics-heavy pdfs, I sketch out my current attempt to describe the UB story about such things (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, like-minded 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 peer-review, and to help adjust the ideas and presentation.

If you can, please help!
Nigel

PS: for an easy intro to the necessary background, try these two documentaries: (1) How small is the universe (2) Demystifying Higgs / Leonard Susskind


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 748
Hi Nigel,

I'll probably come up with a few comments. Here is one from page 4 of the B document.

Quote:
One prediction of Einstein’s theory was that the mass of a star should bend (the path through space) of light. This means that during a solar eclipse, the position of stars near the sun should seem to shift. In 1919, this shift was measured, and found to match. This apparent confirmation made scientists take seriously Einstein’s idea.


This might be far more detailed than you would like to publish to a broad audience. I assume that you're referring to the Solar Eclipse measurements taken and analyzed by Arthur Eddington. Actually the measurements did not match Einstein's predictions. Their was very little consistency between individual measurements so when they were taken as a whole and analyzed with modern techniques, the huge error bars completely ruled out the possibility of verifying General Relativity. They did indicate though, as we all know, that the Sun does curve the path of light rays.

Maybe a change of wording from "this shift was measured, and found to match" to "this shift was measured, and found to be somewhat compatible" would be fairer or more accurate.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 748
Quote:
And sure enough, when crossing through open space, “particles of light” are said to “proceed in direct lines”. But when ploughing through this “force blanket” of segregata, these tiny bullets start to wiggle, and we measure them as waves. (475.10, 42:5.14)


Here I don't think I would say "these tiny bullets start to wiggle" - the revelators seem to say that they still proceed in direct lines. But the repercussive effects in the force blanket, the perturbations "start to wiggle". Because of the difficulty of simultaneously or near simultaneously detecting the particle and measuring the wave many Physicists confuse the particle with the wave. Louis de Broglie was maybe the one who had the clearest concept of their separation.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:14 pm +0000
Posts: 61
Riktare - perfect! Exactly the sort of help I need :D

Please think of my current attempt as place-holders for concepts and explanations. There must be many places where my description falls short, or misses the point, or misses the opportunity to surprise. If you have time, any more suggestions will be warmly appreciated!

with thanks,
Nigel


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Riktare wrote:
Here I don't think I would say "these tiny bullets start to wiggle" - the revelators seem to say that they still proceed in direct lines. But the repercussive effects in the force blanket, the perturbations "start to wiggle". Because of the difficulty of simultaneously or near simultaneously detecting the particle and measuring the wave many Physicists confuse the particle with the wave. Louis de Broglie was maybe the one who had the clearest concept of their separation.


Just a reminder, de Broglie used the equivalence of the mechanical principle of least action in his 1924 thesis. This is the same as a particle taking the path of least time. This I had mentioned elsewhere and suggested a helical trajectory (a path of least time and a minimal surface) for particles of light. Fermat's principle applied to phase waves is identical to Maupertuis's principle applied to moving bodies. These trajectories of a helicoid are identical to the possible rays of the wave.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:14 pm +0000
Posts: 61
Hi all -- pleased to report some progress! The following set of scripts and YouTube videos attempt to set up a framework in which to explore the idea of ultimatons in physics.

The idea is to describe (predict) ultimatonic foundations, sufficient to explain current standard models in both cosmology and particle physics.

Here are links to the YouTube videos:

Videos:
Part 4A - Foundations (v2)
Part 4B1 - Mass and Matter (part 1)
Part 4B2 - Mass and Matter (part 2)
Part C - Exploding Dark Islands (v2)

Playlist: Urantia Book Cosmology

For reference, and to make it easier to discuss particular issues, the following PDF versions (used as scripts for the videos) contain exactly the same text/narration as the videos, together with corresponding pics:

Scripts:
Part 4 A: Foundations (PDF)
Part 4 B: Mass and Matter (PDF)
Part 4 C: Exploding Dark Islands (PDF)

In the upcoming "Part 4 D", I'll attempt to bring together some of the threads left dangling in the above.


PS: The above cosmological speculation (i.e. Part 4) follows on from Parts 1, 2 and 3 (links below), which explore the more personal side of the 5th epochal revelation:

Videos:
Part 1 - Universe Frames (v3)
Part 2 - the Personal Universe (v3)
Part 3 - a Family Affair (v3)

Playlist: The Urantia Book and Personality

Scripts:
P1: Universe Frames (PDF)
P2: the Personal Universe (PDF)
P3: a Family Affair (PDF)

Given the preliminary stage of this work, I can easily adjust stuff. So if anyone has ideas on what to change, improve or delete, or just general criticism, please let me know!

with thanks,
Nigel


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:14 pm +0000
Posts: 61
Regarding possible connections between ultimatons and current scientific work, the idea of "ghostly axions" -- appearing mysteriously within a "primordial condensate of charge" -- is becoming a favored contender for explaining two types of invisible mass that seem to be shaping (a) galaxies and (b) large scale structure.

And in his 2005 book, "A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down", Robert Laughlin (Nobel/Physics 1998) hinted that electrons might emerge from "hundreds of such little ghosts, linking arms". He (and others) seem to be one small step from the UB idea: that the quantized complexity of fermion properties might emerge from "clusters of clusters of huddling ultimatons".

Using current terminology, we might think of ultimatons as "axionic preons".

Nigel


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 748
Thanks for the links to the presentations Nigel. They are brilliant and a great catalyst for thinking further.

I was a bit surprised by the mention of Chiral Oscillation (in 4A). I don't think that's a well known concept in the mainstream but invoking it as a possibility might explain some perplexing particle behaviors.

What do you think of this attempt to build a fresh mathematical framework that can model spinning or orbiting particles and fields in a way that does not assume compliance to the principle of Lorentz Invariance, i.e. that "relativistic effects" emerge in the macroscopic world and are not germane to elementary particle physics?
http://www.espiritfort.com/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:14 pm +0000
Posts: 61
Riktare wrote:
Quote:
"I was a bit surprised by the mention of Chiral Oscillation (in 4A). I don't think that's a well known concept in the mainstream but invoking it as a possibility might explain some perplexing particle behaviors."

Thanks for noticing, Riktare! By chiral oscillation, I have in mind the rapid flipping between left- and right-hand states used in the standard model for defining a "mass" for fermions (e.g. electrons). In effect, the rate of such flipping, with respect to a condensate of weak hypercharge (Higgs type field) defines that now-famous inertia-inducing interaction.

PS: still amazes me how similar such a field of (primordial) weak hypercharge sounds to the Urantia book's own "primordial force-charge" (segregata). Of course, the crucial difference being that segregata is locally localized (by that tag-team of Primary and Associated master force organizers), whereas the standard model Higgs type field is assumed to be global (hence the vast over-estimate for the amount of energy pervading space. In the UB model, such energy density is manifest only within the cyclones spun up by those Force Organizers...)

For anyone familiar with standard model particle physics, this similarity becomes the punchline for video 4B, Mass and Matter ( part 1, part 2 ).

You asked:
Quote:
"What do you think of this attempt to build a fresh mathematical framework that can model spinning or orbiting particles and fields in a way that does not assume compliance to the principle of Lorentz Invariance, i.e. that "relativistic effects" emerge in the macroscopic world and are not germane to elementary particle physics?"

http://www.espiritfort.com/

Those 3 brief pages are beautifully presented! Is this your work? Regarding how best to represent "spinning or orbiting particles and fields", the geometric algebra refined and promoted by David Hestenes strikes me as an even more appropriate language. Like quaternions generalize complex numbers (and are ideal for describing spacetime rotations), the rotors etc. of geometric algebra generalize quaternions (!). Something like this may be required to untangle that perplexing absonite "pre-echo of the finite" (1159.6, 105:7.1) :-s

From the above wiki link,
Quote:
"Rotors are a generalization of quaternions to n-dimensional spaces.

Your 3-page intro ends with the following teaser:
Quote:
"We no longer approve of their use since the underlying physical processes and proper mathematics are now known. A great deal of detail on this point will be forthcoming. We will likewise see where certain limitations of the Dirac Equation arise."

You have my attention :smile: Can you elaborate?

with thanks - Nigel


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 748
Quote:
By chiral oscillation, I have in mind the rapid flipping between left- and right-hand states used in the standard model for defining a "mass" for fermions (e.g. electrons). In effect, the rate of such flipping, with respect to a condensate of weak hypercharge (Higgs type field) defines that now-famous inertia-inducing interaction.


How you describe chiral oscillation sounds as though the situation may be somewhat akin to how the "mesotron" is said to very rapidly transfer charge between a proton and neutron. But if that happens within an electron then the electron's substructure would seem to contain at least 2 major subportions, each of which can "catch" energy or charge or another elementary particle temporarily.

Quote:
Regarding how best to represent "spinning or orbiting particles and fields", the geometric algebra refined and promoted by David Hestenes strikes me as an even more appropriate language. Like quaternions generalize complex numbers (and are ideal for describing spacetime rotations), the rotors etc. of geometric algebra generalize quaternions (!)


I've looked a bit at Hestenes' work. For the moment though, the nomenclature looks too abstract. It hides the things you really want to see and work with directly if you are looking to really understand electromagnetic phenomena (including QM and elementary particles) from what I can gather. Since I don't believe there are more than 3 people on the planet who have even started to really flush out the deeper details of electromagnetic phenomena using more or less standard nomenclature (quaternions, etc.,) I don't currently see any practical value in working beyond that. The situation may be like a toddler trying to ride a bicycle before it can stand on its own 2 feet. We may find that quaternions more than amply provide all of the mathematics needed even if it can be inspiring to look way, way beyond what we can imagine.

I think it makes sense to separate the "dabblers" from the masters of moving charges. Most of us here probably know the names associated with the revelators' characterization of the faintly glimpsed findings of 'relativity'. What many don't know is that there were masters of the art.

Louis de Broglie was one, but he was a mild mannered man who who allowed "dabblers" to dissuade him from fully pursuing his exploratory program. J. J. Thompson was another. J. J.'s son was one of the first to discover and investigate "electron waves". J. J. was retired by then but became so intrigued he offered his own derivation of the effects of moving charges.

Had J. J. gone just a very little bit further he would have positively identified the physical origin of the lambda variable used within the Lorentz Transformation. That mathematical derivation is key to understand what is real and what is mysticism in "Special Relativity". It is also key to understanding what is correct and what is incorrect in much of today's physics. De Broglie studied the Dirac Equation possibly deeper than anyone else, including Dirac. He identified some fatal geometric flaws. If you are interested in such details I think I will need to email you the relevant papers.

P.S. The "real" effects of 'relativity' are recursive in nature. So that might play into your very intriguing reference to transcendentals being a “pre-echo” of the finite.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:14 pm +0000
Posts: 61
Riktare wrote:
How you describe chiral oscillation sounds as though the situation may be somewhat akin to how the "mesotron" is said to very rapidly transfer charge between a proton and neutron. But if that happens within an electron then the electron's substructure would seem to contain at least 2 major sub-portions, each of which can "catch" energy or charge or another elementary particle temporarily.

Again, well-spotted! To me, this seems like the place to try bridging standard Higgs physics with the Urantia book's "100-ultimaton" (42:6.5) electron: Simply let Dirac's electron be what his model describes -- a tangle of your "sub-portions", overlayed; literal clusters of clusters of axionic preons, bound into Weyl's spinors. Which Dirac's model simply "re-binds" into physics' first fermion, the electron.

As you may have noticed, I end video 4B part 1 with this phenomenon (the chiral oscillation of this multi-component Dirac fermion), then replay the core and continue for the first 70 seconds in video 4B part 2. This fresh perspective -- onto two sides of the Dirac coin -- may be enough to launch native physics into its next stage. The trick will be defining a mechanism (like the quark confinement of QCD) sufficient to confine those sub-portions. Given that it will need to manage caged segregata, such a mechanism may involve energies hundreds (or thousands) of times stronger than that required merely for gluing quarks into hadrons.

Regarding those "masters of moving charges", Hestenes appears to have spent his last few decades trying to expose the real implications sitting unseen within the insights of de Broglie and Dirac :biggrin:

Riktare wrote:
"If you are interested in such details I think I will need to email you the relevant papers."

Yes, please do!

with thanks,
Nigel


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group