Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:46 am +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




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

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:14 pm +0000
Posts: 152
Location: Left Coast
I was thinking there was a yet to be developed ultimaton physics in paper 42 that would upgrade our current physics.
:?


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

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 2938
Urantia Foundation

Standard Reference Text (SRT)
SRT Committee Considerations and Changes to the Urantia Text

Purpose of the Standard Reference Text Committee:

Excerpt from the Standard Reference Text Committee Draft Report, December 2008:
Since the first edition of The Urantia Book, published in 1955, a number of changes have been made over the years. At this time, Urantia Foundation is on its 19th printing of The Urantia Book and the Urantia Book Fellowship on its 4th printing. Each version has been revised, creating the need to review the changes made, including changes in the:

Text;
Formatting;
Table of contents; and
Referencing system

In the winter of 2007, a joint committee was formed by Urantia Foundation and the Urantia Book Fellowship to undertake this review. This detail oriented committee initially reviewed over 300 suggested changes.
Members of the initial 2007-2009 SRT Committee were:
Seppo Kanerva, President, Urantia Foundation, Chair
Marvin Gawryn, Urantia Book Fellowship, Liaison Chair
Merritt Horn, Urantia Book Fellowship
Nancy Johnson, Urantia Book Fellowship
Marilynn Kulieke, Trustee, Urantia Foundation
Jay Peregrine, Executive Director, Urantia Foundation

Members of the 2014-2015 SRT Committee were:
Marilynn Kulieke, Urantia Foundation Rep, Co-Chair
David Kulieke, Urantia Book Fellowship
Merritt Horn, Urantia Book Fellowship, Co-Chair
Ken Keyser, Urantia Book Fellowship
Jay Peregrine, Urantia Foundation Rep
Larry Watkins, Urantia Foundation Rep

Along with correcting the printer errors that had crept into the text, the Committee reviewed nearly all of the 300 recommendations for alteration that had been submitted by students of the book over the years. This document records the Committee’s review of those suggestions and queries. It also includes the recommendations of the second SRT Committee which was reconvened in 2014.

The adopted recommendations of this Committee have been incorporated into the English Urantia text. In the online text, paragraphs containing variation from the first printing or where considerations for changes were discussed, are marked with an asterisk linking to this Committee’s Considerations and Changes to the Original 1955 Urantia Text document.
The Final Report of the Standard Reference Committee is available here.
The Standard Reference Text Committee Summary Report is available here.

General:
The only changes in the 1955 original text of The Urantia Book have been those recommended by the Standard Reference Text Committee and approved by the Trustees of Urantia Foundation. The committee issued its first report in November of 2008 and the Board accepted the Committee's recommendations. Unless otherwise noted, the changes were made in 2009.

A second set of recommendations was reviewed by the SRT Committee and presented to the Board at the April, 2015 meeting; six additional changes were accepted/approved by the Board; they are noted as 2015 changes.


https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book/te ... p-result-0


1955 text: ...an electron weighs a little less than 1/2,000th of the smallest atom,...
Review: ...an electron weighs a little more than 1/2,000th of the smallest atom...
- - - - - -
1955 text: The positive proton... weighs from two to three thousand times more...
Review: The positive proton... weighs almost two thousand times more...

Adopted: The revised wording is consistent with the paragraph following the subject paragraph ( 42:6.8), where the author states that a proton is eighteen hundred times as heavy as an electron, and is also in general agreement with current scientific opinion which places the ratio at about 1:1836. This item and the related following item are the only changes recommended by the SRT committee that do not have a straightforward typographical explanation.
- - - - - -
Adopted: [For historical reference, the first discussion of the relative masses of the structural elements of atoms in the Encyclopaedia Britannica is found in its 11th Edition (1910 / 1911) with revisions in the 12th (1922). The calculation of the relative masses of the electron and the hydrogen atom was undergoing a rapid evolution just prior to the writing of The Urantia Book, the ratio being 1:1700 in 1897; 1:2000 in 1904; and 1:1845 by 1922. This last ratio is also the one quoted in the 1934 Websters.] The revised wording is consistent with the statement in the paragraph following the subject paragraph

42:6.8, in the text where the author states that a proton is “eighteen hundred times as heavy as an electron;" and is also in general agreement with current scientific opinion which places the ratio at about 1:1836. After the committee’s work, this item, plus the closely-related following item, are the only recommended changes that do not have a straightforward typographical explanation. Phraseology mathematically equivalent to the revised wording is necessary to be consistent with the revision at the beginning of the paragraph; both changes being required for the same internal and external reasons.]

42:6.7
(477.1)
1955 text: Each atom is a trifle over 1/100,000,000th of an inch in diameter,

Review: Each atom is a trifle over 1/100,000, 000th of an inch in diameter, [space after last comma in number]
No action required: Unintentional error. Has existed in all Uversa Press printings to the present.

:biggrin: :wink: 8)


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

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 836
no sophist wrote:
I was thinking there was a yet to be developed ultimaton physics in paper 42 that would upgrade our current physics.
:?


it's present also where human sources fell short


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

Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 11:16 pm +0000
Posts: 625
Location: Nanticoke NY
Well but when the Urantia Papers suggest the electronic mass to be "less than 1/2000th" of the simplest nucleus, they are at once referring to the hydrogen atom and the "free proton" containing neither deuterium, nor tritium the other basic forms of hydrogen. And therefore the ratio 1836 plays prominently as being "close to 2000", slightly less than. So why would the foundation revise the phrase in 2007 to say "greater" maybe someone will explain.

_________________
the how cannot be separated from the why, and the why cannot be separated from the who


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

Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 11:16 pm +0000
Posts: 625
Location: Nanticoke NY
But if I may come back to the topic? Photons are absorbed, by the atomic structure. The higher the wavelength (i.e. closer to UV-->gamma), the effect has a tendency to "excite" the electrons. If you look at lower frequencies, longer wavelengths than IR, the energy tends to be more readily absorbed by the atomic nuclei, and produces heat-net energy gains rather than electronic excitation. Quantum absorption via the electron's acceptance of photons, say a photon emitted from the Sun that hits the Earth. This causes a gain in the energy inside the electron, so that it "jumps" to a more outer valence layer. Electrons also can emit photons, thus creating the likelihood of a "jump" from the electron's position in one outer valence-set into a more inner valence-set. The idea of light circulation, as in an electronic current, is not something that is necessarily morontial. Enough excitation of electrons into their outer valence structures creates a charge measurable in coulombs or Farad, whereas the continuous energization of electrons will produce a voltaic differential, and a continuous power output.

_________________
the how cannot be separated from the why, and the why cannot be separated from the who


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

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 811
Makalu wrote:
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


Yes. Some things we know about an electron:
1. Electrons have no detectable diameter. They behave as if they are a point particle.
2. The outside dimensions of the electron's charge are likewise undetectable. The charge also behaves as if it is a point in space.

That is a further reason to regard charge as a discontinuity (of something). I wouldn't assume an ultimaton has an intrinsic charge of 1/100th that of an electron. We are told that they are not charged, aren't we? However, the spatial configuration of many congregated revolving (or spinning) ultimatons may produce a certain type of energy flow that converges at one point in space, thus producing the charge. The reference to its nucleus being Paradise may indicate a sort of sink or source of energy flow (into and out of our perceivable material universe).


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

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 811
SEla_Kelly wrote:
If you look at lower frequencies, longer wavelengths than IR, the energy tends to be more readily absorbed by the atomic nuclei, and produces heat-net energy gains rather than electronic excitation.


I don't think I would phrase it that "energy tends to be [...] absorbed by the atomic nucleus" though many semi-in-the-know technicians might. You are right that the lower frequency EM waves have no accompanying photon (that can be detected) so it is essentially the background, sub-quantum if you will, field energy that is waving the particle around IMO. The atom is then entirely passive and neither absorbs or emits energy. But it does create an electric and magnetic field that will induce other atoms to move also. So heat is transferred, in a sense, from particle to particle.

In that case the EM wave is evanescent - merely reactive and not self-propagating. When a photon is released however, the EM wave becomes self-propagating and does not dissipate over time as an evanescent wave does.


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

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 836
Riktare wrote:
Makalu wrote:
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


Yes. Some things we know about an electron:
1. Electrons have no detectable diameter. They behave as if they are a point particle.
2. The outside dimensions of the electron's charge are likewise undetectable. The charge also behaves as if it is a point in space.

That is a further reason to regard charge as a discontinuity (of something). I wouldn't assume an ultimaton has an intrinsic charge of 1/100th that of an electron. We are told that they are not charged, aren't we? However, the spatial configuration of many congregated revolving (or spinning) ultimatons may produce a certain type of energy flow that converges at one point in space, thus producing the charge. The reference to its nucleus being Paradise may indicate a sort of sink or source of energy flow (into and out of our perceivable material universe).


well i think the diameter can't be measured due to the heisenberg principle, but they can be modeled as a point particle if we first model them as an elementary particle. but we know they do take up space and are composite particles.

we are told that the ultimatons slow down thru many phases before reaching the requisite spin for electronic organization, but we aren't told at what phase electric charge is manifest. charge is quantized but quarks have 1/3+e and they're composed of ultimatons too. if the ultimatons in the electron can take on charge in their condensed state they're either all 1/100-e or 49 are 1/100+e and 51 are 1/100-e...i think lol

the reference to paradise being the nucleus of the ultimaton comes from the fact that everything takes on the solar system design and ultimatons only respond to paradise gravity....


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

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:14 pm +0000
Posts: 75
Makalu wrote:
Makalu wrote:
"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:" (476.8, 42:6.6)

Agreed! And this seems like a good place to start. Given that small groups of ultimatons tend naturally to huddle, and that "Primary Associators" arrange these primitive clusters into "clusters of clusters",
UB 29:4.33 wrote:
"They always labor in compliance with universal law, handling and manipulating [...] ultimatons much as you maneuver adjustable type to make the same alphabetical symbols tell vastly different stories." (328.2, 29:4.33)

maybe it's the "arrangement" of these clusters that expose the various charge and spin properties we see in experiments?

Regarding "charge", keeping in mind that electric charge is only one of six charge-like interactions in standard physics (3 x color, 2 x weak, 1 x electric), seems reasonable that each of these charges might arise (emerge) from non-symmetrical arrangements of ultimatons. So, given that a nice neat unit of electric charge sits on an isolated electron, let's think of "electron" as a particularly balanced and symmetrical arrangement...

Now imagine such a "cluster of huddling clusters" effectively "cleaved" into three not-quite-symmetric parts. This arrangement might retain its unit-worth of electric charge, while its three cleaved sub-clusters ("quarks") remain effectively locked together (e.g. as a proton) by the vigorous internal, short-range "color charge" of QCD. Think of this type of charge as one of several expressions of "mutual attraction" (42:6.5, 476.7).

Experimentally, we observe three over-densities (quark-like subclusters) inside a proton, locked together by that very strong (non-electromagnetic) charge.

Regarding "mass", a proton's familiar textbook mass of 938 MeV/c^2 is an average, with three contributions:

(1) about 10 MeV comes from the {2.5+2.5+5} MeV of the three clusters interacting with primordial hypercharge (Higgs mechanism).
(2) an oscillating amount comes from the continuously changing momentum (kinetic energy) of each cluster.
(3) an oscillating amount comes from "gluons" mediating those color charges (which lock the three clusters together).

Thus closer observation reveals that the moment-by-moment "mass" of this system is a function of the separation and velocities of the "quarks": when the quarks are close together, the mass-energy from gluons fades away (asymptotic freedom => few gluons); and when the quarks are straining at their gluon leash, the mass-energy from their velocity (hence kinetic energy) drops off.

For scientists measuring the momentum of a proton, acting for say 1 second in some electromagnetic field, it might be reasonable to declare that "a proton has a mass of 938 MeV". But once we allow for interacting quark-like clusters of huddling ultimatons, measured attosecond by attosecond, we see it's more correct to give a fairly wide range for such an activated quantity of linear and absolute gravity :-)

Regarding elements and fundamentals of "quantization" (like Riktare's "discontinuity of polarization"), how about we start with the "real" fundamentals of the Urantia Book's model for matter, i.e. those emergent energies mediated by master force organizers? For me, the story begins with the injection of angular momentum by an Associate master force organizer (MFO) into the segregata segregated from space potency by a Primary MFO. Thinking of the quantization of that angular momentum in that superfluid condensate seems to lead inevitably to... Planck's quantum of angular momentum, h.

If we can identify the mature ultimaton with this quantum, well, "the game's afoot" :!:

Nigel


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

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 811
Makalu wrote:
well i think the diameter can't be measured due to the heisenberg principle, but they can be modeled as a point particle if we first model them as an elementary particle. but we know they do take up space and are composite particles.


It's primarily from scattering experiments that an upper limit on the diameter is determined. It's not really that measurements are inaccurate due to the Heisenberg (or any other principle), but rather that no deviation in the results of those experiments has been observed as you vary the conditions of the test. That indicates that the electron has no hard surface at all. Neither is any sub-component observable. Possibly that is because the constituent ultimatons have far too small a cross section and spin too rapidly to be detected. Also that any ultimatonic clusters might not be rigidly bound.

nnunn wrote:
For me, the story begins with the injection of angular momentum by an Associate master force organizer (MFO) into the segregata segregated from space potency by a Primary MFO.


Could you give some references that help lead us to associate the injection of angular momentum with a master force organizer?


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

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 836
Quote:
Neither is any sub-component observable.


they've observed three quasiparticles of free electrons in 2-D systems with 1/3-e charge called anyons:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... KFecm9NKbM

recall the "undiscovered form of energy" is used for transportation and communication...and the ultimaton is the basis for the weight system on jerusem...but i digress....


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

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 811
Makalu wrote:
they've observed three quasiparticles of free electrons in 2-D systems with 1/3-e charge called anyons:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... KFecm9NKbM


Nice find, provided they are not being fooled by seeing something else than they believe is happening... Not a lot of details there but will look further into this.


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

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 811
Some general considerations:

Quantization of angular momentum should only occur in situations of confinement. I believe this particular point is an unacknowledged basic principle of Quantum Mechanics (which even many experts do not yet quite understand or elaborate).

Firing an electron through a grid, for example, creates a situation of confinement. Since the electron cannot be accelerated to the speed of light, the electric and magnetic fields impinge on the atoms in the grid before the electron arrives. Those fields cause perturbations in the atoms which create counter EM fields that subsequently perturb the trajectory of the electron in a manner that is synchronous with its spin.

Angular momentum is also a critical confinement factor in an electron's "orbit" around a nucleus. The electron's spin is very precisely synchronized with its orbital path so that both are locked together in such a way that no energy is lost or leaked.


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

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:14 pm +0000
Posts: 75
Hi Riktare,
Riktare wrote:
Nice find, provided they are not being fooled by seeing something else than they believe is happening... Not a lot of details there but will look further into this.

I thought every UB reader knew that the discovery of "fractured electrons" got the 1998 Nobel prize? See: Fractional quantum Hall

In 2005, Robert Laughlin (one of the three who shared that 1998 Nobel) wrote a book called "A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down". On page 42, Laughlin mentions "that Spielberg movie" (yet to be made) in which "a huge number of little ghosts lock arms and, in doing so, become corporeal." In this context, "little ghost" refers to the so-called "invisible axion", and by "locking arms", I believe Laughlin was hinting that stable electrons might emerge in this way, as clusters of clusters of very tightly locked, ghostly little axions. For him, this would be an easy (but unconventional) way to explain those fractional charges for which he got his Nobel prize.

A good introduction to (the 40-year history of) axions is this 2018 video. A young postdoc (Hendrik Vogel) tries to explain axions to colleagues at SLAC.

Hendrik Vogel: Ghost Riders in the Sky

If you want to go deep, here's the third lecture in series by Michael Dine from Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study. In the first two lectures he sets up the strong CP problem, then shows how and why axions (Laughlin's "little ghosts" who link arms to become electrons?) are his favored solution:

Michael Dine: Axion Cosmology

PS: about the same time CERN announced their famous disturbance to the condensate of primordial force-charge (weak hypercharge / Higgs field), folks at the Swiss Light Source - "a million watt light bulb" - were splitting individual electrons into their distinct properties (see: spinon, orbiton, holon)

Angular momentum up next :-)
Nigel


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

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:14 pm +0000
Posts: 75
Riktare wrote:
nnunn wrote:
For me, the story begins with the injection of angular momentum by an Associate master force organizer (MFO) into the segregata segregated from space potency by a Primary MFO.

Could you give some references that help lead us to associate the injection of angular momentum with a master force organizer?

Hi Riktare, my favorite is (652.2, 57:1.6):
UB 57:1.6 wrote:
"[...]. Only the presence of the force organizer and the liaison staff was required to inaugurate the energy whirl which eventually grew into this vast cyclone of space. Subsequent to the initiation of such nebular revolutions, the living force organizers simply withdraw at right angles to the plane of the revolutionary disk, and from that time forward, the inherent qualities of energy insure the progressive and orderly evolution of such a new physical system." (652.2, 57:1.6)

As a reminder of the two distinct levels of Master Force Organizers, these three paragraphs are worth a look: ( 29:0.2 ), ( 31:9.12 ), ( 42:2.8 ).

Below are the paragraphs that got me thinking about how the Primary Eventuated Master Force Organizers organize space potency (absoluta) to emerge as enormous (static? superfluid?) halos of segregata, which the Associate Transcendental Master Force Organizers can then evolve into those vast swirling disks of ultimata:
UB 15:4.4 wrote:
"Paradise force organizers are nebulae originators; they are able to initiate about their space presence the tremendous cyclones of force which, when once started, can never be stopped or limited until the all-pervading forces are mobilized for the eventual appearance of the ultimatonic units of universe matter. Thus are brought into being the spiral and other nebulae, the mother wheels of the direct-origin suns and their varied systems. In outer space there may be seen ten different forms of nebulae, phases of primary universe evolution, and these vast energy wheels had the same origin as did those in the seven superuniverses." (169.4, 15:4.4)


UB 29:5.5 wrote:
"Primary Master Force Organizers are the manipulators of the primordial or basic space-forces of the Unqualified Absolute; they are nebulae creators. They are the living instigators of the energy cyclones of space and the early organizers and directionizers of these gigantic manifestations. These force organizers transmute primordial force (pre-energy not responsive to direct Paradise gravity) into primary or puissant energy, energy transmuting from the exclusive grasp of the Unqualified Absolute to the gravity grasp of the Isle of Paradise. They are thereupon succeeded by the associate force organizers, who continue the process of energy transmutation from the primary through the secondary or gravity-energy stage." (329.5, 29:5.5)


UB 57:1.6 wrote:
"875,000,000,000 years ago the enormous Andronover nebula number 876,926 was duly initiated. Only the presence of the force organizer and the liaison staff was required to inaugurate the energy whirl which eventually grew into this vast cyclone of space. Subsequent to the initiation of such nebular revolutions, the living force organizers simply withdraw at right angles to the plane of the revolutionary disk, and from that time forward, the inherent qualities of energy insure the progressive and orderly evolution of such a new physical system." (652.2, 57:1.6)

Regarding the raw material (Primordial force, or segregata) spun up by the Associate Transcendental Master Force Organizers,
UB 42:2.7 wrote:
"2. Primordial force. This represents the first basic change in space potency and may be one of the nether Paradise functions of the Unqualified Absolute. We know that the space presence going out from nether Paradise is modified in some manner from that which is incoming. But regardless of any such possible relationships, the openly recognized transmutation of space potency into primordial force is the primary differentiating function of the tension-presence of the living Paradise force organizers." (469.7, 42:2.7)

[PS]: the reason I mentioned angular momentum is that, in a superfluid, angular momentum tends naturally to quantize :shock:

Nigel


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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: fanofVan, Google Feedfetcher


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