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.

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**.

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,

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 *particle*s 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

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 *field*s 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.

** 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 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.

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.

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
*particle*s 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 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 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 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.

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: $$ {\mathbf {H} } =-\nabla \phi = {\frac {1}{4\pi }}\left({\frac {3\mathbf {r} (\mathbf {m} \cdot \mathbf {r} )}{r^{5}}}-{\frac {\mathbf {m} }{r^{3}}}\right)=\mathbf {B} /\mu _{0}. $$

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.

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*

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

For the moment, let us take the Five Moiety Model as axiomatic.

Then, research efforts in the future would be concerned with determining the
properties of the *fields* and *particles* of the five moieties and
determining the selection rules that determine the amounts of each moiety
that comprise each particle.
Every particle that has been observed is made up of an admixture of the five
moieties. For instance, the neutrinos, as we know them, are each comprised
of the neutrino moiety, plus a spin moiety, plus just a small trace of a
mass moiety (there is no charge moiety present)

When a particle experiences a force, it is the vector sum of the forces of the moieties of which the particle is comprised.

If we can now present the concept of a "unit" of a moiety, we can express the makeup of a particle as the sum of unit moieties multiplied by an occupation number. The occupation number expresses the measure of the 'amount' of a unit moiety that is present in the particle. The potential functions of mass and charge have been studied extensively and are very well understood. But this is true only over the classical range of distances. This document presents a starting point for specifying the nature of these functions at sub-atomic distances. Clearly improvements in this area are required in the future. Clearly, we know nothing about the potential of the neutrino moiety and very little of the potential function of the photon.

What must be understood is that the force experienced by a potential of one moiety is the same as it is in all particles. When experiments are conducted to determine the nature of a potential function of a moiety, then the results would apply to all moieties of the same type, no matter in what particle it is found.

Following the paths described above will produce a new paradigm.