This document puts forth the idea that the entire universe comprises only five separate types of components. Each of these components is called a moiety.

Each moiety comprises two parts, 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 may be a scalar, vector,
or tensor function.

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.

Quarks, gluons, and the like are not discussed because each of these more well known particle types are combinations of the five moieties. Moieties describe subatomic particles at a more fundamental level.

The treatment given 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.

This model is consistent with the DeBroglie-Bohm (pilot-wave) theory.

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.

For a reader of this document to more fully understand what this author is trying to say, it is suggested that the reader study what is found here: The Golf Ball Problem

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. This will be used in discussions,
below.

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**, but nothing more.

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,
interacts with 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 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, as I have done with
the quarks, gluons, etc., and call them protons and neutrons. This is for our
convenience, nothing more.

Since in the Five Moiety Model there are no force-mediating particles, there
is no need for the heavy bosons to explain anything. The *field*s of the
moieties are enough to explain 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.

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 a small billiard ball of
classical physics which is located at a point.
Rather, it must be described by a probability distribution
function (wave function) which is well known to students of quantum
mechanics.

Nevertheless, the *particle* may be viewed as a small (but finite) sphere
containing a uniform plasma like stuff peculiar to the moiety type.

A *field* is a
scalar,
spinor,
vector or
tensor
function.
The *field*s of the different moieties can be characterized by a
single number (scalar), by two numbers (spinor), three numbers
(vector) or by numbers of higher order tensors. Technically, scalars,
spinors and vectors are all tensors. However, The use of the term tensor is
reserved here for those tensors of order 2 or higher.

** 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.

There are five types of moieties. These are the ** mass-moiety, the
charge-moiety, the spin-moiety, the neutrino-moiety, and the
photon-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 mass-moiety *particle* is a
highly localized region of space with the attribute of mass in the
conventional sense. The potential function of the
*field* associated with a mass-moiety takes the
general form $-k/r$ over classical distances,
where $k$ is a constant and $r$ is the distance to the
*particle*. The force that this produces is proportional to the negative
of the gradient of the *field*. In equation form, $F = - \nabla V$.

The force experienced by a mass-moiety which is produced by a second
mass-moiety is given by the product of the masses (the values of the
attribute of mass) of each of the two *particles* divided by the square
of the distance between the two *particles*. The force experienced by a
*particle* in the presence of more than another single *particle*
is calculated by using the vector
sum of all of the mass moiety *fields* of all
other mass moiety *particles*.

At least over classical distances, this is very simple field. It was well understood by Newton and it is described by the famous Newton's Law of Gravitation. However, it should be noted that the potential function for the mass-moiety takes the form $-k/r$ over the distances of the classical range (the value of our slightly more than the diameter of a molecule up to reasonable astronomical distances) As is described below, the potential function at subatomic distances does not take the shape used in the classical region. That is, $V \ne -k/r$ when $r$ is extremly small. What form it takes is discussed, below.

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

The scalar *field* associated with the charge-moiety behaves in a manner
quite similar to that of the *field* of the mass-moiety, except that its
strength (force on the *particle*)
is much greater.

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, $\mathbf{A}$.

\begin{align} \mathbf{B} & = \nabla\times\mathbf{A} \\ \end{align} \begin{align} \mathbf{E} & = - \nabla\phi - \frac{\partial \mathbf{A}}{\partial t} \\ \end{align}

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 \begin{align} \mathbf{F} & = q( \mathbf{E} + \mathbf{v} \times\mathbf{B} ) \\ \end{align} 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: \begin{align} \mathbf{F} & = \rho ( \mathbf{E} + \mathbf{J} \times\mathbf{B} ) \\ \end{align}

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

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

\begin{align}
\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 \\
\end{align}
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 potentian 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. In the relativistic domain, the electtric field and magnetic fields are not vectors. Rather, they are tensors.

The spin-moiety has the most complicated field of all of the moieties. The field is expressed as a spinor.

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, so the neutrino is normally ignored by the molecular physicist. 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.

The photon-moiety is essentially the photon of conventional wisdom.

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
significance of this is that **one moiety can be converted into another**.
This is to say that moieties of one type can be transformed into moieties of
a different type.

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 $E = m\,c^2$.

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.

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.

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.