Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Sun Dec 15, 2019 2:17 pm +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Quanta
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 949
That's a good find.

Quote:
77:6.2 (862.6) Among the children of Adamson there were just sixteen of the peculiar progenitors of the secondary midwayers. These unique children were equally divided as regards sex, and each couple was capable of producing a secondary midwayer every seventy days by a combined technique of sex and nonsex liaison. And such a phenomenon was never possible on earth before that time, nor has it ever occurred since.

77:6.3 (862.7) These sixteen children lived and died (except for their peculiarities) as mortals of the realm, but their electrically energized offspring live on and on, not being subject to the limitations of mortal flesh.


Does that mean, possibly, that the secondary Midwayers aren't required to breath and that the substance of their bodies doesn't suffer the chemical process of oxidation?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:14 pm +0000
Posts: 210
Location: Left Coast
Riktare wrote:
no sophist wrote:
Classic physics calls these members electrons, are electrons different sizes?

According today's Physics, electrons are all identical. Any one can be substituted with any other. But remember that inside an atom electrons tend to lose their individuality and function as a cloud of energy rather than a point particle. This is well known in Quantum Mechanics.

Quote:
And what about the idea of revolutionary rates? Are these axial or orbital or both?

IMO it involves not only axial and orbital "spin" rates but the "spin" of components internal to an electron or neutron or proton.
Nigel has talked a bit about chirality which consists of not only a revolution of a subparticle but a change of direction of the subparticle's trajectory as it is spinning due to external or internal forces. When the revelators say "revolution", they apparently include in that meaning what we now call "spin". A spinning particle doesn't necessarily have a fixed axis and is not necessarily rigid. A cloud of electrons within an atom certainly moves around the core of the atom but it doesn't quite have a fixed axis and is not a rigid structure.

Remember too, that the revelators talked about both a Physical Controller and Morontia Controller working in conjunction to modify many different revolution rates at the same time evidently. That would be necessary to avoid the dissolution of the particles being operated on.

Quote:
What about different sizes?

Sizes are generally governed by the quantization principles that underlie Quantum Mechanics. Quantization keeps energy from being dispersed into space and allows the material universe to exist as a "going concern" as the revelators and as Physicist Sir James Jean put it.


More stuff related to size:
Trying to decipher 42:4.14 while thinking about quanta:
“Such wavelike energy ripples are 860 times the diameters of the ultimatons, electrons, atoms, or other units performing.”
I finally figured where the number 860 comes from but can’t put together it’s significants in regard to the truth that the authors are trying to reveal to us.
The number 860 = 2 X PI X 1/137 and 1/137 represents “the fine structure constant”

Here is the explanation of this constant from Wikipedia:
In physics, the fine-structure constant, also known as Sommerfeld's constant, commonly denoted by α (the Greek letter alpha), is a dimensionless physical constant characterizing the strength of the electromagnetic interaction between elementary charged particles. It is related to the elementary charge e, which characterizes the strength of the coupling of an elementary charged particle with the electromagnetic field, by the formula 4πε0ħcα = e2. Being a dimensionless quantity, it has the same numerical value in all systems of units, which is approximately
1/137.

Anybody want to unpack this for me??

Another quanta reference (imho) comes from 42:2.22 “ These power directors themselves are energy catalyzers; that is, they cause energy to segment, organize, or assemble in unit formation.”

Unit formation to me means foundational order or fundamentally quantized.

After this I’m a bit lost.

Anyone???


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 966
Riktare wrote:

Does that mean, possibly, that the secondary Midwayers aren't required to breath and that the substance of their bodies doesn't suffer the chemical process of oxidation?


yeah they don't breath but utilize something other than the "nonbreather" types do. i dont know about oxidation but they're immortal and will "humanize" on the mansion worlds when released from earth duty.

Quote:
49:2.25 There are six differing types of animal and mortal nutrition: The subbreathers employ the first type of nutrition, the marine dwellers the second, the mid-breathers the third, as on Urantia. The superbreathers employ the fourth type of energy intake, while the nonbreathers utilize the fifth order of nutrition and energy. The sixth technique of energizing is limited to the midway creatures.



couple of quotes regarding the fine structure constant/alpha:

Quote:
“Alpha sets the scale of nature -- the size of atoms and all things made of them, the intensity and colors of light, the strength of magnetism, and the metabolic rate of life itself. It controls everything that we see. ... In 137, apparently, science had found Nature's PIN Code.”
― Frank Close, The Infinity Puzzle: Quantum Field Theory and the Hunt for an Orderly Universe


Quote:
“A joke made about the famous English physicist Paul Dirac (1902-1984), one of the founders of quantum mechanics, says that upon arrival to heaven he was allowed to ask God one question. His question was: "Why 1/137?”
― Mario Livio, The Golden Ratio: The Story of Phi, the World's Most Astonishing Number


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 949
no sophist wrote:
Trying to decipher 42:4.14 while thinking about quanta:
“Such wavelike energy ripples are 860 times the diameters of the ultimatons, electrons, atoms, or other units performing.”
I finally figured where the number 860 comes from but can’t put together it’s significants in regard to the truth that the authors are trying to reveal to us.
The number 860 = 2 X PI X 1/137 and 1/137 represents “the fine structure constant”


We're getting into some really nice things here :) The 860 reference was also first published by Sir James Jean. It's a simplification of course, but probably a rather good one. To understand better, we might remember that the revelators tell us that electricity is not a primary form of energy but a secondary one. They also tell us that magnetism and matter are unified with electricity - all are essentially different forms of the same thing. That would appear to be: 42:2.12 (470.3) b. Gravity energy which has inherent 42:2.11 (470.2) a. Puissant energy

So space is pervaded with a "powerful-directional, mass-movemented, mighty-tensioned, and forcible-reacting energy". The great shame of 20th century Physics is that it did not keep pace with the very best minds of the 19th century. James Clerk Maxwell clearly understood that space has all of those 4 aspects described and such was the basis from which he derived his model and mathematics of electricity, magnetism and light energy. He expressed that "tension" in the fabric of space lay behind the behavior of Electromagnetism and clarified the rules of such behavior.

This is not especially simple because some of the tensioned forces work at right angles to the movement of electric particles or energy. That effectively creates a torsion (which tends to spin free particles). More to come shortly in a follow up post...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:14 pm +0000
Posts: 210
Location: Left Coast
Riktare wrote:
no sophist wrote:
Trying to decipher 42:4.14 while thinking about quanta:
“Such wavelike energy ripples are 860 times the diameters of the ultimatons, electrons, atoms, or other units performing.”
I finally figured where the number 860 comes from but can’t put together it’s significants in regard to the truth that the authors are trying to reveal to us.
The number 860 = 2 X PI X 1/137 and 1/137 represents “the fine structure constant”


We're getting into some really nice things here :) The 860 reference was also first published by Sir James Jean. It's a simplification of course, but probably a rather good one. To understand better, we might remember that the revelators tell us that electricity is not a primary form of energy but a secondary one. They also tell us that magnetism and matter are unified with electricity - all are essentially different forms of the same thing. That would appear to be: 42:2.12 (470.3) b. Gravity energy which has inherent 42:2.11 (470.2) a. Puissant energy

So space is pervaded with a "powerful-directional, mass-movemented, mighty-tensioned, and forcible-reacting energy". The great shame of 20th century Physics is that it did not keep pace with the very best minds of the 19th century. James Clerk Maxwell clearly understood that space has all of those 4 aspects described and such was the basis from which he derived his model and mathematics of electricity, magnetism and light energy. He expressed that "tension" in the fabric of space lay behind the behavior of Electromagnetism and clarified the rules of such behavior.

This is not especially simple because some of the tensioned forces work at right angles to the movement of electric particles or energy. That effectively creates a torsion (which tends to spin free particles). More to come shortly in a follow up post...


Yeah, powerful, directional, mass movement.
Also: from 42:4.
Light, heat, electricity, magnetism, chemism, energy, and matter are—in origin, nature, and destiny—one and the same thing, together with other ma- terial realities as yet undiscovered on Urantia.

This really don’t belong in the skeptics column.

I believe they are telling us that what we perceive as motionless matter, no matter what it’s form, when we dig into its form and structure we find that it is in fact in motion. Motion - as it originates is an Absonite thing.
This fine structure thing, the way the authors present it tries to present a coupling between wave and particle as well as absonite and finite.
I also found the Compton Scatering thing that I think applies here but still sorting through it.
So the authors also I believe tell us that quanta is an expression of individuality imho and not unity. And that the physical make up of matter is arranged in quanta “unit formation” but the presumed ideas about quantum mechanics don’t necessarily govern the way we think it does.
Are the strong and weak forces really real or just a clever construct that tries to explain how this all works?
So motion can be understood as a footprint of the absonite in the finite.
No wonder we have such difficulties doing direct observation of motion of fundamental particles.
Everything is a motion, relative to the Isle which is the “only” stationary thing.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 949
The energy tension inherent in space could be likened to a body of water. The body stays fairly immovable because the forces of gravity holding the water pressed against the Earth's surface and the inter-molecular forces hold each water molecule at an even distance from other molecules. The water is mightily-tensioned, but nearly as mightily so as space... When a boat is propelled through the water, water molecules are forcefully displaced and local increases of tension are produced. Those changes cause stress against the equilibrium that existed. The molecules are bound elastically to the whole body of water. The stress that arises causes a counter force to push the displaced water molecules back to where forces become equalized. That counter force rebounds causing the actual wave.

If the boat travels straight the wave becomes fairly trivial. What happens if the boat starts turning ever more sharply into its own turn? The wave trough becomes deeper and deeper until the boat turns so sharply a wave cannot be produced that forces the water outward. The water and elastic energy inside the turn becomes trapped. This is an analogy for quantization. The diameter of the boat's turn will depend on how heavy the boat is, how fast it is traveling and of course the effect of gravity and inter-molecular forces.

One can argue that the proper definition of electric charge is a discontinuity of polarization. Google will provide you a great many references that do not really define or clarify what charge is but rather give some idea of a charge's behavior. That is a serious retrogression in understanding IMO. But some knowledgeable researchers do keep alive a solid understanding:

https://books.google.se/books?id=ysMf2p ... ty&f=false

This is important because it leads us to understand how quantization is involved in producing a charge. The principles are quite similar to the analogy above. That point or line (where the inner and outer pressing forces are equalized) is where the discontinuity lies.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Quanta
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:14 pm +0000
Posts: 210
Location: Left Coast
A couple ideas I get from this water/boat analogy:

The body of water at rest is like the force charge of space.
When the Power Directors (or other similar beings) start manipulations of ultimatons, tensions happen.
The water waves created are a result of the motion of the propellor.
The waves created by photons or other little critters are a result of the motion of the particle.
But both are distinct, the wave and particle are not one and the same.
We are told in the revelation that particles travel in a straight line and that the perceived wave is because of interaction of other things.
Question is: who or what is making particle or propellor move?
It’s the subject of causation, something missing from today’s science.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Quanta
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 966
the wave-like excitation of the space blanket bit makes sense but i think the papers say charge (and everything else) is produced by the association of clustering ultimatonic axial velocities:

Quote:
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. 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.
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.


it'd be interesting to know what we call the ten modified electrons....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Quanta
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:14 pm +0000
Posts: 101
Makalu wrote:
"it'd be interesting to know what we call the ten modified electrons..."

Interesting indeed, Makalu! Current standard theory predicts that a truly tiny change in an "internal property" of an electron can turn it into a neutrino. In other words, a tiny modification to a standard electron can (effectively) neutralize both its mass and charge :shock:

Keeping in mind that both electrons and neutrinos are "fermions", if a tiny rotation of a neutrino (turning it into an electron) can expose a full electron's worth of electric charge, plus a full electron's worth of energy (0.5 MeV), makes one wonder if other slight modifications can turn either of these into quarks... ?

Thinking of that first family of fermions {electron, e_neutrino, up-quark, down-quark}. If we add their anti-versions, plus say a sterile neutrino or two, can we imagine this set as 10 variations on an "electron theme"?

Recall that paper 42 (describing the clustering of huddling ultimatons) was presented in 1934. Consider the physics of the day: Pauli had shown the neutrino to be "necessary" in 1930, and Dirac's positron had just been discovered (1932). In a 1934 paper, Fermi presented the mathematics that made Pauli's neutrino consistent with Dirac's positron. If these first three fermions are in fact all variations on a "electron theme", given our ultimatonic model for matter, do you think we can group all fermions as "modified electrons (42:6.5)" ?

Nigel


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Quanta
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 966
thanks for the pointers, nigel. i'd say the answer to your question is yes we could group all fermions as "modified electrons", but i have more questions than answers myself.

is it possible that the "anti-particles" should be viewed as not different particles but instead the "anti" being a property like charge?

given the ultamatonic model...hmm well the line between fermions and bosons becomes blurry to me lol. i guess ultimatons are force carriers and an electron could be considered a collective excitation? And an electron quasi-particle could represent a real particle?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Quanta
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:14 pm +0000
Posts: 210
Location: Left Coast
Sorry if I get a bit lost here - no real science background.
But - I ask myself why just ten variations of the electron?
You would think that 100 ultimatons could have an enormous amount of possible arrangements.

Also - so much focus on the electron.

What say you about this quote from the same paper?
“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.”

Ultimatons spread or cluster with their axial revolutionary velocity.
Then they say this velocity determines charge of the different electronic units.
I don’t think they refer to fragmented electrons, do you??
There’s more in the quote but then there is this from the same paper:

“Each atom is a trifle over 1/100,000,000th of an inch in diameter, while an electron weighs a little less* 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 two to three** thousand times more.”

I’m led to believe that 100 ultimatons also make up the nucleus of the atom.
If I interpret this close to correct - the difference in mass and size as outlined in the above quote is strictly based on the axial rotation rate of the ultimatons??? In other words, the nucleus is larger and more massive based on the axial rotation velocity of 100 ultimatons??

The quote above is from the guardian plates - from the original printing and the asterisk shows what was targeted forchange in later printings. Not certain why some editor decided he was smarter than the authors but there is a good reason I suppose.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Quanta
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 966
i'll give it a shot with my limited understanding...

the possible arrangements would be governed by quanta for sure and possibly by the proclivity of other ultimatonic behavioral properties for constructive/stable arrangements. not to mention the underlying physical construction of the cosmos is decimal.

the nucleus is comprised of proton/neutron (a difference of charge only) and the mesotron, and we aren't told anything about their ultimatonic construction. but to my way of thinking whenever 100 ultimatons huddle it would be an electron and not any other particle. i think the mass of the proton would be related to linear gravity and the interatomic forces.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Quanta
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:14 pm +0000
Posts: 210
Location: Left Coast
Just to follow up on the edit that happened to the revelation, again - here is the edited version that happened with the second printing:

477.1) 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.

And here is the original from the first edition:

477.1)43:6.7 Each atom is a trifle over 1/100,000,000th of an inch in diameter, while an electron weighs a little less* 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 two to three** thousand times more.

The asterisks show original and it makes me very curious why the editors chose to change “more” to “less” in regard to the electron and omitted the three thousand so it just reads almost two thousand as opposed to two to three thousand??

Here’s my thoughts and I’d need to research to prove it but I’m already going brain dead.
Recall how nice it feels to think about the implications of nature’s pin code, 137, or 860. It feels good because it helps confirm what Is known?
But the information in the above quote is not so complementary to what we already know so the editors made a major change in order to make this information fit with standard model, already known information.
The edits are significant and alter the information big time.
Anybody ever dig into this?
I’ll bet the edits make the hydrogen atom fit what’s known so we feel good about it.
Come on you physicists, help out here.
Just my opinion.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Quanta
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 949
From what I've heard the text of the first 3 parts of the book was transcribed by hand. The stenographer was rather concerned about making a mistake and it may have been that the transcribed text was not always clearly legible. Apparently members of The Foundation early considered "more" to be a mistake in this case. The comparative mass of each particle was surely known prior to 1935.

An electron's mass is approximately 9.11*10^-31 kg
A hydrogen atom's mass is approximately 1.67*10–27 kg

So an electron weighs about 1/1800 as much as a hydrogen atom (it weighs more than 1/2000th of a hydrogen atom).


Last edited by Riktare on Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:57 am +0000, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Quanta
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 966
well the cosmology is not inspired and human sources were used whenever sufficient and the human sources for much of paper 42 and the particular section in question were eddingtons "stars and atoms" and james jeans' "the universe around us"

the original source reads: "weighing no more than 1/1,840 of the lightest atom". the first edition was just wrong since 1/1840th is bigger than 1/2000th and the error was carried over to that being between 2 and 3 thousand when its actually just under 2000.

current measurements tag it at 1/1,836. close enough for the intended purpose of satisfying basic curiosities about the subatomic world....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: fanofVan, Google Feedfetcher, Majestic-12 [Bot]


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