# The Five Moiety Model of the Composition of the Universe

This document describes a model that the entire universe comprises only five separate types of components. Each of these components is called a moiety. Each moiety comprises two parts, called a particle and a field. It is the field which generates the force on the particle of another moiety. A field of a moiety is described by a potential function, which fully specifies its properties. The subdivision of each subatomic particle into moieties is made in such a way so that the field of one moiety type exerts a force on particles of the same moiety type, only. This permits the study of each moiety type separately. The model described herein is not at odds with any data which has been used to support the Standard Model. Furthermore, the Standard Model does not contradict anything said here about the moieties or their properties. Preferentially utilizing this model of the universe facilitates the visualization of properties of subatomic particles by people with more limited mathematical training, so it can be used more effectively in many educational situations.

### The Five Moiety Model

A model is presented herein to describe the makeup of the entire universe. In this model, it is stated that the universe comprises combinations of only five basic building blocks, which are called moieties.

### The Definition of a Moiety

A moiety is an entity which comprises a particle component (called a particle) and a field component (called a field). Please notice the use of italics to indicate that these two words refer to the two components of a moiety. The use of the term without italics implies the conventional meaning.

Each moiety has two components, a particle part and a field part. There is never one part without the corresponding other part. There is no particle that is alone (without a field) Also, there is no field that is not associated with a particle.

The fields cause the forces which act on the particles of the same moiety type. That is, the mass-moiety particle, described below, experiences forces caused by other mass-moiety particles through all the other mass particle's fields.

In the Five Moiety Model, forces come from a particle interacting with fields, which are everywhere. There are no exchanges of particles to produce force. Also, in this model there are no virtual particles. The fields of one moiety type do not act on particles of a different type.

The entire universe is composed of protons, neutrons, electrons, neutrinos and their anti-particle counterparts. In addition, there are photons. These are all built out of an admixture of moieties.

In the Five Moiety Model, the five moieties of are fundamental. Furthermore, there is nothing else necessary to build our universe. However, at times, it is convenient to group several subatomic particles together, and deal with the grouped particle as if these were fundamental and call them protons and neutrons.

Since in the Five Moiety Model there are no force-mediating particles, there is no need for the heavy bosons described in the Standard Model to explain anything. The fields of the moieties are enough to explain all of the forces in the universe.

These building blocks are different from the ones viewed by most physicists. In this discourse, terms are used that have a conventional meaning. I choose to retain the terms, but to use the terms in a different way. My purpose for doing this is to retain clarity in my presentation. For instance, the term "charge" is used, but I will give it a meaning which is slightly different from that which is conventionally applied to the term when it is used in the name of the moiety type.

### Moiety Fields and Potential Functions

It is the field of a moiety that gives rise to the forces exerted on all the other particles of the same moiety type. That is to say, The field of one moiety type exerts forces on particles of the same moiety type, only.

The field of one moiety type at any point in space is the sum of all of the fields of all of the other moieties of the same moiety type.

A force and potential differences are measurable in experiments. However, a potential, per se, is not measurable. A potential is described by a mathematical function that, in most cases, is not unique. Nevertheless, putting forth an expression for a potential gives us the ability to calculate the value of the force, even though we are not able to measure the value of the potential. The potential functions define and describes the fields in the discussions, below.

Potential functions referred to by the symbol, $V$, are single valued, differentiable, except perhaps at isolated points, and have no singularities.

The field of each of the moieties is of infinite extent in space. In other words, the field associated with each particle will extend over an infinite distance, and in all directions. It follows that there is no point in the universe at which a field does not exist.

For the purposes of discussion, let us say that the distance from the center of a particle is divided into three regions, from $r$=0 to roughly the size of a large molecule (called 'subatomic'), from the subatomic region into reasonable classical distances ('classical') and from this limit to infinity ('astronomical').

It will be interesting to see whether or not the field potentials can not be specified (at subatomic distances) to explain the Strong and Weak forces of conventional wisdom.

As particles move in space, the changes in the fields propagate at the speed of light. Proper relativistic properties of the moieties is assumed. Relativistic corrections to the potential functions are given by: Jefimenko's equations.

### Moiety Particles

A particle is a highly localized region in space that may possess the attributes of mass, charge, spin and perhaps other things. The particle of each of the moieties is not an entity that is localized to a point. Rather, it must be described by a probability distribution function (wave function) which is well known to students of quantum mechanics.

Nevertheless, for the purposes of this discussion, the particle may be viewed as a small (but finite) diameter sphere containing a uniform plasma like stuff which is peculiar to the moiety type.

### Moiety Types

There are five types of moieties. These are the charge-moiety, the mass-moiety, photon-moiety, the spin-moiety, and the neutrino-moiety.

The elementary particles of current wisdom, e.g., the electron, the proton, the neutron, the neutrinos and the photons (or quarks and the gluon instead of protons and neutrons, if one prefers), are each built of a combination of moieties. Stern selection rules dictate that there are only certain values of the attributes of the particles that may exist. Furthermore, only specific combinations of moieties may make up the elementary particles (and higher combinations) of the Standard Model.

### The Charge-Moiety

The charge-moiety comprises two parts: the charge-moiety particle and the charge-moiety field. The charge-moiety has a field which is both scalar and vector.

The vector portion of the charge-moiety field is called a vector potential. The charge moiety scalar potential and vector potential express themselves in two familiar ways: an electric field and a magnetic field. Some rather straightforward equations containing the scalar potential and the vector potential are used to specify the fields which were considered conventional before the development of quantum mechanics.

The electric and magnetic fields are specified by the scalar potential $\phi$, and the vector potential, $\mathbf{A}$.

$$\mathbf{B} = \nabla\times\mathbf{A}$$ $$\mathbf{E} = - \nabla\phi - \frac{\partial \mathbf{A}}{\partial t}$$

The force, $\mathbf{F}$, on a charge, $q$, moving with velocity, $\mathbf{v}$, is given in terms of the electric field, $\mathbf{E}$, and the magnetic field, $\mathbf{B}$. by $$\mathbf{F} = q( \mathbf{E} + \mathbf{v} \times\mathbf{B} )$$ Usually, however the expression for the force is given for a large number of charges, that is, in terms of a charge density $\rho$ and a current density, $\mathbf{J}$, thus: $$\mathbf{F} = \rho ( \mathbf{E} + \mathbf{J} \times\mathbf{B} )$$

The scalar and vector potentials must obey the following: $$\nabla\cdot\mathbf{A} + \epsilon\mu \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t} = 0$$ $$\nabla^2\mathbf{A} - \epsilon\mu \frac{\partial^2 \mathbf{A}}{\partial t^2} = -\mu\mathbf{J}$$

$$\nabla^2\phi - \epsilon\mu \frac{\partial^2 \phi} {\partial t^2} = \frac{-\rho}{\epsilon}$$ This allowed Oliver Heaviside to render Maxwell's equations as follows:

$$\nabla \times\mathbf{B} -\, \frac1c\, \frac{\partial\mathbf{E} }{\partial t} = \frac{4\pi}{c} \mathbf{J}$$ $$\nabla \times \mathbf{E}\, +\, \frac1c\, \frac{\partial\mathbf{B}}{\partial t} = \mathbf{0}$$ $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{B} = 0$$ $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E} = 4 \pi \rho$$

The value of the total electric field at a point in space and the value of the total magnetic field at a point are the vector sum of the fields of all of the other charge-moieties.

The electric and magnetic fields are entirely specified by the scalar and vector potentials. So, we may now, in turn, specify the force exerted on a particle. These equations are obeyed completely by the scalar potential and the vector potential of the charge-moiety fields.

When an electric field and a magentic field are specified by a given scalar potential and a given vector potential, another set of functions can be generated (by a gauge transformation) that produce identically the same electric and magnetic fields.

The above assumes that the charge velocities are much less than the velocity of light. If this is not true, relativity must be taken into account.

### The Mass-Moiety

The mass-moiety comprises two parts: the mass-moiety particle and the mass-moiety field. Like the charge-moiety, the mass-moiety has a field which is both scalar and vector.

The scalar field associated with the mass-moiety behaves in a manner similar to that of the field of the charge-moiety, except that its strength (force on the particle) is much less. The same is true for the two vector potential functions.

The vector portion of the mass-moiety field is called a vector potential. The mass-moiety scalar potential and vector potential express themselves in two ways: a gravitational field and a cogravitational field. Some rather straightforward equations containing the scalar potential and the vector potential are used to specify the fields which were considered conventional before the development of quantum mechanics.

The gravitational and co-gravitational fields are specified by the scalar potential $\phi$, and the vector potential, $\mathbf{A}$. These two potential functions are different from the two potential functions of the charge-moiety, but the forms of the equations are the same.

$$\mathbf{K} = \nabla\times\mathbf{A}$$ $$\mathbf{g} = - \nabla\phi - \frac{\partial \mathbf{A}}{\partial t}$$

The force, $\mathbf{F}$, on a mass, $m$, moving with velocity, $\mathbf{v}$, is given in terms of the gravitational field, $\mathbf{g}$, and the cogravitational field, $\mathbf{K}$. by $$\mathbf{F} = m( \mathbf{g} + \mathbf{v} \times\mathbf{K} )$$ Usually, however the expression for the force is given for a large number of masses, that is, in terms of a mass density $\rho$ and a current density, $\mathbf{J}$, thus: $$\mathbf{F} = \rho ( \mathbf{g} + \mathbf{J} \times\mathbf{K} )$$

As with the charge-moiety potential functions, it may be stated that the equations can be rendered as follows:

$$\nabla \times\mathbf{K} -\, \frac1{c^2}\, \frac{\partial\mathbf{g} }{\partial t} = - \frac{4 \pi G}{c^2} \mathbf{J}$$ $$\nabla \times \mathbf{g}\, +\, \frac{\partial\mathbf{K}}{\partial t} = \mathbf{0}$$ $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{K} = 0$$ $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{g} = - 4 \pi G \rho$$

The gravitational Poynting's vector is given by:

$$\mathbf{P} = \frac{c^2}{4 \pi G} \mathbf{K} \times \mathbf{g}$$

The value of the total gravitational field at a point in space and the value of the total cogravitational field at a point are the vector sum of the fields of all of the other mass-moieties. The gravitational and cogravitational fields are entirely specified by the scalar and vector potentials. So, we may now, in turn, specify the force exerted on a particle. These equations are obeyed completely by the scalar potential and the vector potential of the mass-moiety fields.

When a gravitational and a cogravitational field are specified by a given scalar potential function and a given vector potential function, another set of functions can be generated (by a gauge transformation) that produce identically the same gravitational and cogravitational fields. The above assumes that the mass velocities are much less than the velocity of light. If this is not true, relativity must be taken into account. In the equations for the charge-moiety and the mass-moiety, some of the same symbols are used. Clearly, the symbols in the two moiety types refer to different things.

### The Photon-Moiety

The photon is considered to be an alternate form of the mass-moiety. The photon is listed as a separate moiety type because it has an infinite lifetime.

The photon has no rest mass but it has a spin of 1. It has no charge. Its energy, $E$, is equal to Plank's constant, $h$, multiplied by the frequency of the photon. Its momentum is its energy, $E$, divided by the velocity of light, $c$.

It has been clearly shown that it is possible for an electron and its anti-particle counterpart, the positron, to meet in space and annihilate, causing both of the particles to disappear and be replaced by two photons of an energy equal to the sum of the energies of the two annihilated particles. Also, it should be noted that as the photon progresses, it is possible that another event can occur: the creation of a positron-electron pair.

The photon moves at the speed of light. However, when a photon is absorbed by a particle, the energy of the photon is converted into an increase in mass of the particle according to the famous equation $E = m\,c^2$. From this, we can see that one moiety type can be transformed into a different type.

### The Spin-Moiety

The spin moiety has potential functions which are like those of a magnetic dipole. If $\mathbf{m}$ is the magnetic moment and as long as the distance, $\mathbf{r}$ is not too small, the vector potential is given by: $$\mathbf{A} = \frac{\mu _{0}} {4\pi r^{2}} \frac{\mathbf{m} \times \mathbf{r}} {r} = \frac{\mu _{0}} {4\pi} \frac{\mathbf{m} \times \mathbf{r}} {r^{3}}.$$

From this, the field is given by: $$\mathbf {B} =\nabla \times {\mathbf {A} }= {\frac {\mu _{0}}{4\pi }}\left({\frac {3\mathbf {r} (\mathbf {m} \cdot \mathbf {r} )}{r^{5}}}-{\frac {\mathbf {m} } {r^{3}}}\right).$$

A scalar potential is given by: $$\phi = \frac{\mathbf{m} \cdot \mathbf{r}} {4\pi r^{3}}.$$ so that the field is given by: $${\mathbf {H} } =-\nabla \phi = {\frac {1}{4\pi }}\left({\frac {3\mathbf {r} (\mathbf {m} \cdot \mathbf {r} )}{r^{5}}}-{\frac {\mathbf {m} }{r^{3}}}\right)=\mathbf {B} /\mu _{0}.$$

### The Neutrino-Moiety

It has been shown that the rest mass of the neutrino (as observed) is not zero, as was predicted by the Standard Model. Therefore, the neutrino does not move at precisely the speed of light; it actually moves somewhat more slowly.

The neutrino essentially does not interact with charge and the interaction with mass is almost completely negligible. Nevertheless, there are lots of them out there. It could well be that the sum of the rest masses of the neutrinos account to a great extent for the dark matter and dark energy that has been discussed recently so vigorously. The neutrino as observed is made up of a neutrino-moiety, a spin moiety, and a very small part which is a mass-moiety.

### Fields Within Particles

In all of the above equations for the potentials of each moiety, it is assumed that the distances specified are all greater than the diameter of a large molecule. If not, quantum effects must be taken into account. A companion document The Golf Ball Problem contains valuable insights. There are two results that are expected by the study of The Golf Ball Problem. The first is to see how quantum mechanical distribution functions can be viewed in a 'classical' way - to make it easier to visualize and to give a feeling of how a wave function can be thought of as existing at a point. The second reason is to show how the potential functions can be non-Newtonian at subatomic distances.

In Newton's theory of gravitation, the relative velocity of each particle is 0. So,

$$\mathbf{F} = q \mathbf{E} = -q\nabla\phi = - \frac{k}{r^2}$$ That is to say that $$\phi = \frac{k}{r}$$ Notice that as r approaches 0, that $\mathbf{E}$, $\mathbf{F}$, and $\phi$ become infinite.

In the companion document, it is asserted that within a sphere of radius R with density $\rho$, that the potential function is given by: $$\phi = -\frac{2}{3} k m \pi \rho {r^2}$$

and the force, $\mathbf{F}$ is given by: $$\mathbf{F} = \frac{4}{3} k m \pi \rho r$$

All of this is to be used to describe potentials within the moiety particle

### Stable Sub-atomic Particles

There are only a few sub-atomic particles that have been observed that have an infinite mean lifetime. These are: the electron with a mass of 0.511, a charge of -1, and a spin of 1/2, the positron with a mass of 0.511, a charge of +1, and a spin of 1/2, the proton with a mass of 938, a charge of +1, and a spin of 1/2, the antiproton with a mass of 938, a charge of -1, and a spin of 1/2, the photon with a mass of 0, a charge of 0, and a spin of 1, the neutrino with a mass ~0, a charge of 0, and a spin of 1/2.

Notice that the antielectron, the positron, has the same mass and spin of the electron, but the charge is of opposite sign.
Notice that the antiproton has the same mass and spin of the proton, but the charge is of opposite sign.

Hereinafter, we will use the term stable sub-atomic particle to refer to them.

### Fundamental Particles

The issue at the moment to define the term "fundamental particle" and what is considered "fundamental".

Injecting huge quantities of energy into a particle through high speed collisions probably allows the fundamental particle to be elevated to an allowed high energy form in an eigenstate, that is interpreted as a new particle.

There are particles in the Standard Model, e.g., the tau lepton and the muon that fall into this category. It can be claimed that these two particles are just excited states of the electron by stating that the higher mass of these particles is the excess energy over that of an electron at rest. The "fundamental particles" that have been discovered in the past few decades could be what Dr. Richard Feynman called "resonances" [ref: Lectures on Physics Volume 1 Chapter 23] Remember that the mean-lifetimes of almost all of these new "particles" is less than $10^{-20}$ seconds. During this time, a photon moves a distance of $3*10^{-12}$ meters! That is a very short time period. Perhaps, as Feynman points out, these are not particles at all.

All subatomic particles of current wisdom can be broken into two categories: those with mean lifetimes greater than than $10^{-5}$) seconds, (the electron, the proton, the neutron, the neutrinos, the photon and the anti-particles of members of this group) and the second group - with mean lifetimes shorter than $10^{-5}$ seconds.

It can be speculated that each member of the second group may be described as an excited state of one or several members of the first group.

If we were to watch the absorption of a photon by a proton, for that extremely short length of time when the photon has disappeared but there has not been sufficient time for the excited proton to decay into its final products, the huge energy of the photon is viewed as mass. This says that our camera which is watching this event would see (for a very short time) a particle with a much greater mass than an isolated proton.

The heavy particles of the second category can be explained in this way. The mass of the 'particles' is a storage vehicle for the excess energy of the collision, before the excited proton has a chance to decay.

### The Collision of Two Protons

At CERN, in Switzerland, experiments are being conducted to cause a head-on collision of two protons. When the collision occurs, each proton is traveling at extremely high velocities.

We would like to view what is happening from the point of view which is positioned precisely between the protons, so that we see each coming toward the observer with identical velocities,$v$. that is, one proton is traveling in one direction and the other in the opposite direction (the center of mass reference frame).

Of course, before the collision, the masses, charges and spins of the two protons are identical. Furthermore the kinetic energies, called $T$, of the two particles are identical (and with the same sign). The linear momenta of the protons, called $k$, are the same, but the momentum of one proton has a positive sign and the other has a negative sign.

To watch what happens as the two protons approach each other and then collide, we employ a special camera (for our thought experiment.) This camera is defined to have a shutter speed of $10^{-23}$ seconds. The camera has the capability of monitoring and recording values of the mass, charge, spin, linear momentum, kinetic energies and (changes in) potential energies of the entities in our experiment. Also, it records the photons and neutrinos emitted in the process.

Before the collision, the masses of the protons, called $m_p$, are the same. One velocity has a plus sign, the other has a minus sign. One linear momentum is +$k$, and the other is -$k$. When the collision occurs, at t=0, the total linear momentum (the sum of the two) is 0.

The velocities become 0 as each is stopped by the collision. The total kinetic energies before the collision is $2*T$, but, just after the collision it becomes 0 as the values of $v$ become 0. Where did this kinetic energy go? To answer this question, we look to our camera to examine what it 'sees' during the interval starting with the first contact of the two protons and extending for the following $10^{-23}$ seconds.

We confirm that the velocities are 0, the linear momenta are 0. The combined protons are not moving so the total kinetic energy is 0. Nothing has changed with the spin or charge, and for the moment, there are no photons or neutrinos present. However, we find a huge amount of mass - much more than was there before. The Einstein equation $E = m\:c^2$ gives us our clue. The huge $2*T$ of before is now seen as mass!

For his brief instant, our camera would see a 'particle' of mass $2 m_p + 2 T/c^2$.

It should be pointed out that the diameter of a proton is roughly $1.755*10^{-15}$ meters. The velocity of light is $3.0*10^8$ meters/second. Using the very simple formula $s=v*t$, we see that light moves the total distance of 1.71 times the total diameter of the proton.

Please examine a table of subatomic particles. See how many newly discovered "heavy" subatomic fundamental particles have a mean lifetime of less than $10^{-23}$ seconds. Are they saying that these are actually particles that are around for less time that it takes for light to pass by just the nucleus of an atom?

It is the opinion of this author that the CERN data are all good, but the data are being misinterpreted. The heavy bosons that are being discovered are actually excited states of the 2-proton plasma that exists for the brief period from when the collision first occurs until just before the plasma explodes into a shower of reaction products.

### The Bonding of a Proton and a Neutron

One of the four forces employed by the The Standard Model is the Strong Force. It is said that this force that creates the bond of a proton and a neutron.

The proton exhibits an infinite mean lifetime. But, the isolated neutron does not - it has a mean lifetime of 880 seconds. Yet, when a proton bonds with the neutron, the result is as stable as the proton, itself. The Strong force is given the credit for this bonding.

According to the Five Moiety Model, a proton is an admixture of a mass moiety, a charge moiety with a positive value, a spin moiety and perhaps other things. The same is true for the neutron except that the charge is a sum of two charge moieties, one with a positive value and one with a negative value. This means that there is no effective force existing between the proton and the neutron caused by charge. Both the proton and neutron have mass. So, it can be asserted that the total force between the two particles is due almost entirely by mass.

The shape of the potentials of the two masses, according to the discussion in paragraphs above, explains how the two particles can be bound.

This is the same action as the Strong Force of the Standard Model.

### The Major Differences Between This Model and Current Wisdom

The Standard Model deals only with the electro-magnetic forces as well as strong and weak nuclear forces. It does not deal with the fields of the mass-moiety. The Standard Model does not include considerations of gravity. The Five Moiety Model does.

The Five Moiety Model constructs the entire universe out of only five building blocks, the moieties which are described above. Unlike the Five Moiety Model, the Standard Model claims many fundamental particles.

Einstein (and others) would consider space with fields but with no particles. In the Five Moiety Model, this is never a realistic situation. If a space has fields, there are companion particles, somewhere.

In the Five Moiety Model, force is caused by a field. It is not caused by the exchange of two particles as is done in the Standard Model.

In the late 1960s, theoretical physicists ran into serious problems trying to calculate the "self energy" of an electron bathed in the field that it, itself, generated with its charge. Many things were tried in this calculation. The integrals which were derived were found to be infinite in value. Clearly, there was something wrong. Renormalization, second quantization, etc. were chosen to explain why the values were infinite, without really satisfying results. The Five Moiety Model states that the fields of the electron is an intrinsic part of the moieties that make up the electron. The fields and particles are indivisible. There is no "self-energy". The potentials at sub-atomic distances are not Newtonian.