Extra-Sensory Perception of Quarks By Stephen M. Phillips, Ph.D. “The Theosophical Publishing House Madras, India’ London, England Wheaton, IIL U.S.A. KROTONA BOOK SHOP Krotona 47 Ojai, California 93023© Copyright, The Theosophical Publishing House, 1980. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without written permission except for quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews For additional information write to: The Theosophical Publishing House, 306 West Geneva Road, Wheaton, Illinois 60187. Published by the Theosophical Publishing House, a department of the Theosophical Society in America. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Phillips, Stephen M. 1946- Extra-sensory perception of quarks. Includes index. 1. Extrasensory perception. 2. Quarks—Miscellaneous. I. Title. BPS73.E9P47 001.9 30-22048 ISBN 0-8356-0227-3 Printed in the United States of America at the University of Chicago Printing Department.Herpert A. Kern, whose Foundation funded the publication of this book, was a research chemist familiar with Besant and Leadbeater’s Occult Chemistry but was never able in his lifetime to see a link between its con- ceptualizations and those of modern science. The importance of Phillips’ work may well lie in the implication that new efforts, scientifically ad- dressed, might offer intuitive insights into other esoteric subjects only partially understood today by science. Herbert Kern was always fascinated by this possibility, so it is a pleasure to be able to dedicate the publication of this work to his memory.Dedicated to my familyContents Preface Introduction 1 Historical Background Epistemological Aspects of Micro-Psi Vision Quark Theory—Old and New Two Hypotheses concerning Micro-Psi AR wn Micro-Psi Support for the “String Model” of Elementary Particle Physics 6 The Testimony of the Micro-Psi Observer 7 Micro-Psi Atoms 8 Micro-Psi Molecules Conclusion : Appendix: A Chronology of Micro-Psi Investigations Glossary Bibliography Index vii PAGE xi 14 19 43 66 89 99 201 236 241 243 245 247Preface While studying several years ago in the United States of America as a physics graduate student, I came across one day a copy of the book The Physics of the Secret Doctrine, written by William Kingsland (London: Theosophical Publishing House, 1910). One page in particular captured my attention, for it displayed diagrams of the “atoms” of hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen, supposedly highly magnified through the use of a form of extra-sensory perception. The diagram of the “hydrogen atom” was especially curious and interesting, because I immediately recognized in it the physicist’s model of a proton as a triangular cluster of three particles that he calls “quarks.”’ On returning to England a few years later, I made inquiries about the source of these drawings and soon discovered many more curious things. : In this book, I have endeavoured to give a scientific explanation of a large collection of observations made by Annie Besant and C. W. Leadbeater during their investigations (1895-1933) of the atomic structure of matter. These two leading members of the Theosophical Society claimed that they could “see” atoms and molecules with the aid of a faculty of extra-sensory perception acquired by their training in yoga. Over the years, many The- osophists have never doubted that their work might finally prove to be of significance and of value to science (for a valuable introduction see E. Lester Smith, V. Wallace, and G. Reilly, The Field of Occult Chemistry {London: Theosophical Publishing House, 1934]). But its puzzling features and apparent contradiction of well-established facts of chemistry and physics have remained unexplained until recently. I have analysed the work of Besant and her colleague from the point of view of a physicist who is interested in the implications of parapsychology for physical science, and vice versa, and as one who is neither sceptical of the reality of extra-sensory perception nor firmly committed to a belief in it. I have tried to evaluate their work in an objective and unbiased way, being always aware during this task of the questionable status of their research but remaining sensitive to its possible merits wherever these can be shown to exist. I have ignored the issues that are raised by the substantiation in this book of the long- standing claims made by Besant and Leadbeater, since others are more able than I to comment on these matters. My intention is not to promote ixx PREFACE any doctrine or theory but, instead, to present to the reader much of the evidence that is available and to interpret it in terms of elementary particle physics, so that he may better judge for himself the validity of these claims. T acknowledge very helpful discussions with Dr. E. Lester Smith, F.R.S. I am deeply grateful for his useful comments, kind advice, and constant encouragement. I wish to thank Edward Lussow for his editorial and design assistance and Christina Borges and Kathleen Miners for their excellent contribution in the reproduction of diagrams. Finally, I thank the Kern Foundation for a research grant. STEPHEN M. PuILiips Bournemouth, England October 1979Introduction E. Lester Situ, D.Sc., F.R.S. Some two hundred subatomic particles are now recognized by particle physicists. Many of them have been observed experimentally by means of the sophisticated technology of high-energy physics; the increasingly de- tailed understanding of subatomic events has permitted postulation of other particles such as the quarks. Scientists will find it hard to credit the claims of this book, to the effect that some observations in this field were made eighty years ago using quite different techniques. A form of extra-sensory perception that can be described as magnifying clairvoyance or_micro-psi has been known to oriental yogis for thousands of years. The technique does not consist in actually magnifying the small object but, conversely, in “making oneself infinitesimally small at will,” as it has been picturesquely described. It is mentioned, for example, in the yoga Sutras of Patafjali (book 3, Saitra 26): “Knowledge of the small, the hidden or the distant by directing the light of superphysical faculty” (Taimni’s translation). Some early members of the Theosophical Society undertook intensive yoga training under expert guidance and in due course acquired this faculty. In 1895 it was suggested to C. W. Leadbeater that he might direct it upon the atoms of the chemical elements. Annie Besant soon joined in what was to become a long series of investigations, lasting on and off for thirty-eight years. Starting with the light elements hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, the researches were gradually extended to cover all elements known at the time, plus a few then undiscovered elements and isotopes. Also, a number of typical inorganic and organic compounds were investigated. The objects as “seen” in this manner were described to an assistant, and sketches were made and notes taken. The atoms appeared as highly structured bodies, giving the impression of definite external shapes, with the interior subdi- vided into compartments of spherical, ovoid, conical, and other geometrical shapes. These bodies in turn had smaller components within them, which in their turn were observed to contain very much smaller particles; these seemed to be the ultimate units of physical matter and were called “ultimate physical atoms.” All the elements consisted in the last analysis of these particles, which were of two types only, one the mirror image of the other. xixii INTRODUCTION Because the atoms were in vigorous motion in all conceivable modes, it was necessary to slow them down by a special effort of will-power (psychokinesis) before accurate observation and counting of components were possible. The external and internal shapes were delineated by the volume of space swept out, so to speak, by the energetic movements of the subatomic particles, which appeared to create tenuous “walls” of a nature that could not be determined. The observers found that they could facilitate the examination by apply- ing psychokinesis to dismember the atoms, in stepwise fashion, into smaller groupings of ultimate particles; at each step a considerably greater power of “magnification” was needed. A great deal of this work was brought together in the first and second editions of Occult Chemistry (1908 and 1919), and the remainder was included in a rewritten third edition in 1951. The fourth edition will be reprinted in 1980. To appreciate the difficulties in relating these researches to the contempo- rary state of science, it is sufficient to consider hydrogen. Its atom as “seen” by E.S.P. contained eighteen of the ultimate physical atoms, grouped into six spheres of three apiece, these spheres appearing to be arranged at the corners of interlacing triangles. No subatomic particles were known then— or indeed are known now—eighteen of which could make up the greater part of a hydrogen atom, possibly its nucleus. As understanding of the nucleus progressed, the possibility of reconciliation with Occult Chemistry seemed to recede rather than improve. Those few scientists who came across the book felt justified in rejecting it as fantasy after cursory inspection. The still fewer who had some sympathy with parapsychology were simply bafiled; some of them knew the investigators and respected their integrity. The first pointer to a possible reconciliation came when quarks were postulated, requiring subdivision of the proton into three bound quarks. But between three and eighteen there still remained a factor of six to be bridged. This feat has been achieved by Dr. Stephen Phillips, the author of this book. He is an English physicist educated at Cambridge University, where he received his B.A. and M.A. in theoretical physics; at Cape Town University, where he received his M.Sc.; and at the University of Cali- fornia, where he researched for his Ph.D. in particle physics. In 1979 his paper entitled “Composite Quarks and Hadron-Lepton Unification” ap- peared in Physics Letters (and has been incorporated in this book). This suggests an improvement in quark theory involving further subdivision of each quark into three subquarks, for which the name omegon is proposed. This theory thus provides for nine omegons per proton; the still persisting factor of two was bridged by imperative reinterpretation of the E.S.P. data. Besant and Leadbeater claimed to “see” the atom exactly as it was;INTRODUCTION xiii they could not have known that the very act of focusing their attention upon it and checking its “wild gyrations” psychokinetically must inevitably cause perturbation. Phillips has carefully analysed the nature of this per- turbation and concludes that it would induce the fusion of two atoms of an element into a plasma of free omegons and quarks, which then interact to form stable, quasi-nuclear systems of bound particles. The new patterns derived by application of the rules of theoretical physics tally perfectly with the diagrams of Occult Chemistry. With hindsight it can be seen that there are many pointers to this doubling-up phenomenon in the text of Occult Chemistry. It stretches credulity to concede that omegons, conceived by Phillips in the mid-1970s, and the physicist’s quarks had been “seen” extra-sensorily some eighty years previously, and possibly much earlier by Indian yogis. But the effort may prove rewarding because Phillips has unified the two schemes not merely in outline but in the most precise and convincing detail. Science will continue on its own course, but there is a tendency now to find parallels, and perhaps inspiration, in the ancient wisdom of the East, as for example, in Fritjof Capra’s Tao of Physics and J. P. M. Whiteman’s Philosophy of Space and Time. The present book provides a big impetus to this trend. iCHAPTER 1 Historical Background Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of Nature, and in such things as these, experiment is the best test of such consistency. Michael Faraday INTRODUCTION What does matter ultimately consist of? During the twentieth century, the answer given by physical science to this question has undergone several major changes as rapid technological advances have enabled man to acquire knowledge of the microcosmos at levels farther and farther beyond the range of his senses. For example, high-resolution electron microscopy can record images of atoms that are about one-hundred-millionth of an inch in diameter, and high-energy particle accelerators can boost charged particles to speeds almost equal to that of light (about 186,000 miles per second) in order to probe deep inside nuclear particles extending over distances less than one-hundred-thousand-billionth of an inch. But, to his surprise, man has discovered that he may study the paradoxical features of the micro- cosmos revealed by his detecting and measuring apparatus only if he discards the common language in which he expresses his sensory experience of the world at large. Nuclear and atomic particles cannot be visualized and described in such terms. Their future behaviour cannot be predicted with certainty. Prior to quantum theory, physical science was dominated by Cartesian dualism and by the mechanistic philosophy of Newtonian physics, which depicted the universe as a void interspersed with atoms whose predictable motions could be measured, in principle, with arbitrary precision without ever mentioning the human observer or the procedure that he used to make the measurement. But quantum theory has invalidated the notion that the microcosmos is just a miniature version of the macrocosmos, filled with visualizable particles that obey the same deterministic laws. Its description must take into account the intervention of the observer. Every physical measurement constitutes an interaction with the micro-object and affects its properties, which, therefore, cannot be defined or discussed 12 Extra-SENSORY PERCEPTION OF QUARKS separately, without reference to the act of measurement. Processes occurring in atoms and nuclei have to be analysed in probabilistic terms that properly take account of the unpredictable disturbance inherent in the measurement process. ‘The new picture of the microcosmos is one of sets of chance events that are mutually intercorinected to give the illusion of order and equilibrium to the world of human experience. But the discovery of this picture has not altered the basic methodology of science, even though it has imposed limits on the extent of possible knowledge of the microcosmos. The scientist mentally reconstructs what may be responsible for his data and tests his theories and their implications by further experimentation. If the data happen to be too imprecise to be able to distinguish between rival theories, scientific understanding can become ambiguous and uncertain for a while. If a crucial experiment or measurement is unavailable or unfeasible in terms of available technology, scientific understanding may also become polarized, with different schools of thought emerging in the scientific community. This is an endemic tendency of high-energy physics, where new ideas and models frequently outstrip technological capacities to verify their predictions. In his search for truth, man’s fertile imagination some- times makes nature appear ambiguous. The possibility that man can obtain knowledge of the microcosmos directly, without instrumental aids, is one that most scientists and nonscientists alike would treat with extreme scepticism. But various people have claimed in the past to possess a faculty of perception that made microscopic objects become visible to them. This book will present some observations made with this faculty and will evaluate their claims critically within the framework of contemporary elementary particle physics. Evidence and arguments will be given for the general validity of these claims. They do not make the faculty less remarkable (rather the contrary), neither do they make it easier for the impartial reader to accept such an incredible possibility. But their merit at least warrants serious consideration of the evidence, and this is all that the author requests from the reader in the present work. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Frequent reference is made in the extensive literature of Indian yoga to extraordinary mental abilities (“siddhis”) that may be acquired through the practice of yoga. A few of these, such as telepathy and precognition, are well known in Western culture and have been scientifically investigated under controlled laboratory conditions by parapsychologists, although their claims to have succeeded in demonstrating irrefutably the occurrence of these forms of extra-sensory perception still remain controversial. In theHistoricaL BACKGROUND 3 first authoritative and systematic exposition of yogic practice—the yoga Siitras of Pataiijali, written about 400 x.c.—the physiological and psycho- logical results of meditation, concentration, and contemplation are pre- scribed in detail. In Aphorism 3.26 of the Sitras,' it is stated that the yogi can acquire “knowledge of the small, the hidden or the distant by directing the light of superphysical faculty.” RR. TRIS eraeahRERTAT | Pravrtty-dloka-nyasat stiksma-vyavahita-viprakrsta-jhanam. The Sanskrit name for this siddhi is anima.” The yogi can develop an inner organ of perception that displays “knowledge of the small” in a visual form. He exercises the siddhi while he is in an altered state of consciousness in which he experiences visual images of objects too small for human sight to discern, his perception being from a point of view in space that gives him the illusion that he has shrunk to a size commensurate with the objects that he is viewing. i The experience of a person in this state is not that of a passive spectator peering down a microscope. Instead, it is characterized by a vivid, subjective sense of actually being in the microcosmos, of being suspended in space amid particles in great dynamical activity. While functioning in this state, he retains full control of his intellect and can converse normally with people around him, being able to describe to them what he “sees.” But he has to apply certain techniques of yogic meditation as he concentrates on the interior of some specimen substance that is placed in front of him. He experiences images whether his eyes are open or closed, but in practice his concentration is aided by keeping his eyes closed so as to eliminate distract- ing images due to his normal sight. The images experienced are three- dimensional, may be coloured, and usually exhibit rapid, complex motion. By a deliberate exertion of his will, the observer can slow down the move- ment of any chosen image and keep an apparently stationary image in his field of vision for an indefinite period of time. The length of time that such observation can be sustained seems to be limited only by the degree of mental tiredness that results from his functioning in this altered state of consciousness. The sizes of images can be varied at will, and there appears to be no upper limit to the level of magnification attainable, although a practical limit is set by the ability of the person and by the strain felt by him when he views highly magnified images. Unlike some other forms of extra-sensory perception, this state can be induced or terminated whenever the observer wishes. we \Kesa ar4 Extra-SENSORY PERCEPTION OF QUARKS In chapter 2 it will be argued that the images correspond to real, physical objects present in the examined substance at the time they are experienced, so that the experience is one of extra-sensory perception of the objective world at the atomic and nuclear level. It differs from other altered states of consciousness in which a person encounters hallucinatory images either pertaining to his own self at the subconscious level or arising from deeper, mythological sources whose language is symbolic and universal. This type of quasi-visual experience will be referred to as “micro-psi vision” (or “micro-psi,” a term compounded from micro, denoting smallness, and “psi faculty” or “psi ability,” terms used in parapsychology to denote extra- sensory perception). A person functioning in this state will be called a “micro-psi observer.” It must be emphasized here that it is only for the sake of convenience that micro-psi is assumed to be a form of extra-sensory perception. In making this assumption, there is no intention to imply that micro-psi violates any laws of physics. No explanation of its modus operandi will be attempted in this book. Two leading members of the Theosophical Society—Annie Besant and Charles W. Leadbeater—claimed to possess this siddhi and to be able to “see” atoms in their normal state. How they supposedly acquired such an ability through the practice of yoga is a matter that will not be pursued here, because issues relating to the early history of the Theosophical Society are not the subject of discussion of the present work. From 1895 until 1933, Besant and Leadbeater examined all the elements from hydrogen to uranium, as well as an assortment of organic and inorganic compounds. In this vast task, they were assisted by their colleague C. Jinarajadasa, who acted as recorder during their experimental sessions. The well-known chemist Sir William Crookes, a friend of both the investigators, provided specimens of some elements. Various minerals were studied in a museum in Dresden, Germany. The first substance chosen for examination with micro-psi was gold, but it was soon found to be too complex for superficial description. Next Besant and Leadbeater studied air, and they published in the Theosophical journal Lucifer (November 1895) diagrams and accounts of what they assumed to be atoms of hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen, highly magnified by micro-psi vision (the question of how elements were identified will be discussed in chap. 4). In 1907, fifty-nine more elements were examined, variations being noted in the supposed atoms of neon, argon, krypton, xenon, and platinum. Slight differences among the atoms of an inert gas were not, at first, inter- preted in terms of isotopes. This was because the existence of isotopes was not suspected by science at the time. Soddy first gave the name “isotopes” to atoms of an element differing in mass in 1913, five years after the twoHistoricaL BACKGROUND 5 investigators had published in the Theosophical journal The Theosophist (vol. 30) their discovery of a variation of neon. In volume 29 of this journal they published details about three elements which, they claimed, were unknown to science, and they gave them the names “Occultum,” “Kalon,” and “Platinum B.” They also described a group of three transition elements (“X,” “Y,” and “Z”), which they believed science had not discovered. Radium was examined in 1908, and a diagram supposedly depicting its atom appeared in volume 30 of The Theosophist. A summary of the initial research was published in the book Occult Chemistry. In 1909, twenty more elements were studied, notably so-called Illinium, which was later recognized to be promethium (discovered by science in 1945), and the element “C,” which was later found to be actinium (discovered by science in 1898). A second edition of Occult Chemistry was published in 1919,‘ but it contained no material in addition to that in the first edition, and it did not refer to the work carried out after 1907, Benzene, methane, and other organic compounds were examined in 1922, and supposed descriptions of their molecules were published in 1924. Included here were diagrams depicting the molecule of water and the unit cell of the atomic lattice of sodium chloride. In the following year,-a model of the crystal structure of diamond, constructed from extensive micro-psi observations, was published in volume 46 of The Theosophist. The plane- sheet structure of graphite, with its hexagonal arrays of carbon atoms, was described in 1926. More material was published in The Theosophist in 1932. This included descriptions of the atoms of element “87” (called “francium” by science in 1939), element “85” (later, in 1940, to be given the name “astatine” by science), and element “91” (isolated in 1921 and called “protoactinium”). Element “43” had been recorded in 1909 as “Masurium” and given its correct position in the periodic table. It was re-examined in 1932, five years before technetium was detected by science. An element of atomic weight 2 was reported by the investigators in 1932 and given the name “Adyarium,” its discovery being made at Adyar in Madras, India. It was regarded as a new element and was not identified with deuterium, which had been discovered by Urey, Brickwedde, and Murphy in the previous year. This happened because they had interpreted as the molecule of deuterium another object, observed during their earlier examination of the gases released by the electrolysis of water. In the final year of their research, Besant and Leadbeater published a study of all the inert gases and certain of their isotopes. They also reported the existence of two forms of what they regarded as the atom of hydrogen, three isotopic varieties of oxygen, and two species of ozone. All material accumulated during their work over thirty-eight years was compiled and published in an enlarged6 ExtRA-SENSORY PERCEPTION OF QUARKS third edition* of Occult Chemistry.5 This will be analysed in the present work. Significant aspects of more recent investigations using micro-psi will be discussed in chapter 5. The Appendix contains a chronology of all published research, with references. GENERAL MICRO-PSI DESCRIPTION OF MATTER When the micro-psi observer concentrates on the interior of a crystal or a metal, a specimen of which is placed before him, he often claims to notice a grey mist or fine haze of light enveloping it, sometimes followed by discharges of rays or streams of “points of light” shooting out from the material in all directions. With greater magnification, the mist becomes particulate, being found to consist of myriads of similar points of light in chaotic motion. The observer may catch sight of globes of scintillating points, tossing and waving about as if blown by an invisible wind. On closer examination, these are found to consist of very closely packed groups of points of light held in rigid geometrical configurations such as tetrahedra, octahedra, and hexagons. Some may exhibit periodic motion as if forced to move in orbits; others may fly across the field of vision in cascades, like showers of meteors in the night sky. Small groups of points of light appear joined by thin, luminescent streams of energy, or “lines of force.”” Provided that not too high a level of magnification is used, a global organization and pattern emerge for the points of light. Collectively, they create the impres- sion of a rigid, geometrical figure. Its shape is characteristic of a particular element in the substance being examined with micro-psi vision, for this form (and only this form) is observed for the element, irrespective of whether the specimen is in a solid, liquid, or gaseous state and of whether the element is in a pure state or in a chemical compound. This object appears to the micro-psi observer to be the basic structural unit of which the substance is composed. It will be called a “micro-psi atom”’ (or M.P.A.). Besant and Leadbeater classified all M.P.A.’s into seven types: 1. Spike Group. The unit consists of a number of identical, spike-shaped projections containing groups of points of light. These spikes vary in number from one to sixteen (depending on the element) and radiate symmetrically from a central globe, which also contains groups of lighted points (fig. 1.1, a). 2. Dumb-bell Group. The M.P.A. has a central rodlike section containing a row of groups of points of light. At each end there is a globe with other clusters of lighted points in it. The two globes are identical, and twelve funnel-shaped forms radiate from each of them. The funnels are sym- * All subsequent references apply to this edition unless otherwise specified.(b) SPIKE Bars STAR Fig. 1.18 Extra-SENSoRY PERCEPTION OF QUARKS metrically arranged about the centre of a globe like flower petals, each pointing slightly upwards or downwards, alternatively. The whole unit has the appearance of a dumb-bell (fig. 1.1, 8). 3. Tetrahedron Group. The M.P.A. has four funnels that contain ovoid bodies and open out on the faces of a regular tetrahedron. They may radiate from a central globe enclosing groups of points of light. In three elements belonging to this type of M.P.A., there are also four spikelike forms directed towards the corners of the tetrahedron (fig. 1.1, c). 4. Cube Group. The M.P.A. consists of six funnels, containing ovoid bodies and opening on the faces of a cube. It may also have a central globe. In the case of two elements, the M.P.A. has eight spikes as well. These point towards the corners of the cube (fig. 1.1, d). - Octahedron Group. The M.P.A. is an array of eight funnels that open on the faces of a regular octahedron. It is rounded at the octahedral corners and a little depressed between the faces in consequence of this rounding. It has the appearance of a “corded bale.” All elements except one have a central globe, and two elements display in addition six spikes that point to the corners of the octahedron (fig. 1.1, e). 6. Bars Group. The M.P.A. consists of fourteen bar-shaped projections. They radiate from a common point towards the corners of a cube and towards the centres of its faces. All bars have the same composition of groups of lighted points. There is no central globe (fig. 1.1, f). . Star Group. The M.P.A. has the form of a flat, six-pointed star, like a starfish. Each of the six “arms” of the star has the same composition of lighted points (for a given element). The arms radiate from a central sphere containing five intersecting, tetrahedral arrays of identical groups of points of light (fig. 1.1, g). ow ~ It should be emphasized that, in all the geometric forms mentioned above, nothing resembling actual tetrahedra, cubes, etc., is visible to the micro-psi observer. These figures represent merely the geometrical scaffolding sup- porting the funnels, spikes, and other features. The micro-psi observer may change the perspective in which he seems to view an M.P.A., but its in- trinsic shape does not change during the period of observation. Diagrams such as figure 1.1 are not drawn to scale, so only qualitative features have significance. This is because the observer has difficulty in judging relative sizes of bodies and in comparing their distances apart. Also, structural features of widely varying size require different degrees of magnification, so the diagrams reproduced in this book are not necessarily realistic repre~ sentations of micro-psi images in terms of scale. Every M.P.A. is described as being enclosed in a “hole” or “cell,” whoseHistoricaL BACKGROUND 9 “walls” are usually spherical, although sometimes ovoid in shape. The latter appear to the observer to be transparent, like glass or stretched plastic film. Inside the M.P.A. various aggregates of lighted points also are enclosed in cells. They generally cluster together in space in a highly sym- metric distribution. As examples, figures 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 show the arrange- ment of lighted points in the central globes of the M.P.A. of barium, strontium, and radium, respectively. It should be understood that the reported arrays are in three-dimensional space, so that sectors of circles in BARIUM OO» Fig. 1.410 Extra-SENSORY PERCEPTION OF QUARKS these (and similar) diagrams actually depict segments of spheres. The surfaces of funnels, bars, and so on, are reported to have a similar trans- parent quality: the observer can “look” through them and notice other M.P.A.’s nearby. They are not so much surfaces as membrane-like bound- aries separating the interior of the M.P.A. from the ambient space. The same is true for the cells enclosing groups of lighted points. Their shapes are related generally to the spatial arrangement of these points and are static, although they can be deformed by neighbouring cells. Examples of groups of lighted points and their cells are shown in figure 1.5. ‘A number of elements have M.P.A.’s that do not belong to any of the seven types listed above. These are hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, and oxygen. The M.P.A. of hydrogen (fig. 1.6) was, according to the investigators, “seen to consist of six small bodies, contained in an egg-like form.... It rotated with great rapidity on its own axis, vibrating at the same time, the internal bodies performing similar gyrations. The whole atom spins and © © oe AIS ® © 386) (ee Fig. 1.5. Groups of “points of light” in an M.P.A. are enclosed by “‘sphere-walls””Hisroricat Backcrounp ll quivers and has to be steadied before exact observation is possible. The six little bodies are arranged in two sets of three, forming two triangles that are not interchangeable.”* The six bodies are not identical. Each contains three points of light, but in two bodies they are arranged in a line, while in the other four they are arranged in a triangle. The two triangular arrays of bodies are quite distinct. They interpenetrate and never separate while they are observed. The M.P.A. of helium is ovoid (fig. 1.7). Two tetrahedral arrays of bodies revolve round an egg-shaped central body, which consists of two groups of points of light in the shape of triangles. These spin on their axes while revolving around each other. In the case of nitrogen (fig. 1.8) the M.P.A. is a sphere, in the middle of which floats a balloon-shaped body. This contains six smaller spheres in two horizontal rows and a long ovoid body between them. Below it is another ovoid body, and around it are four spheres. The oxygen M.P.A. is ovoid, and within it two bodies, arranged like the coils of a stiff spring, revolve at high speed around each other in opposite directions (fig. 1.9). Five brilliantly lit points appear on the crests and hollows of the spirals. Between them are small groups of two lighted points that are evenly interspaced along the spirals like beads on a necklace. Rotating very rapidly, the coils create for the micro-psi observer an illusory impression of a rigid, cylindrical surface. . Repeated reference has been made above to “points of light” inside M.P.A.’s. Higher magnification reveals that these are particles, in the sense that they have a highly localized inner structure. Because these objects appeared to Besant and Leadbeater to be the most elementary forms of physical matter, they called them “ultimate physical atoms’* (U.P.A.’s), claiming that they were the fundamental, indivisible constituents of the atom known to physics and chemistry. They described U.P.A.’s in terms that were very different from the materialistic notions prevalent in science at that time (1895). Instead of being the “solid, massy, impenetrable, movable particles’ conjectured by Sir Isaac Newton, the individual U.P.A.’s consist of ten currents of energy flowing in separate, closed, con- tinuous curves (fig. 1.10). The paths taken by these currents spiral down over the surface of a sphere, making two and a half revolutions, and return to the top of the sphere in an inner spiral about the central axis. Three of the whorls appear to be “thicker” and “brighter” than the other seven. The top of the U.P.A. is open and slightly depressed inwards, giving it a heart-shaped outline. Besant and Leadbeater detected two types of U.P.A.: in the “positive” type, the currents flow from the flattened end to the more pointed end in a clockwise sense (as seen from the flattened end); in the “negative” variety, the spiral flow is anticlockwise. In structure the two * They also referred to them as “Anu,” from the Sanskrit word for atom.Fig. 1.7. M.P.A. of helium Fig. 1.6. M.P.A. of hydrogen OOO a O00 CO Fig. 1.8. M.P.A. of nitrogen Fig. 1.9. M. OO A. of oxygenHistortcaL BACKGROUND 13 Positive Negative Fig. 1.10. The two chiral forms of the “ultimate physical atom” types are enantiomorphs, that is, chiral or non-superposable mirror images of each other. “Lines of force” flow in at the depressed end of the U.P.A. and flow out at the more pointed end. They connect it with other U.P.A.’s and are responsible for the cohesion of groups of these particles. Three proper motions are detected in the U.P.A.: spinning of the whole spiral form about its central axis; pulsation, that is, periodic expansfon and contraction of the outer spiral; and precessional rotation of the axis of spin in a circle, that is, motion like that of a wobbling, spinning top. Firsthand accounts of other properties of U-P.A.’s are discussed in chapter 6. REFERENCES 1. Yoga Aphorisms of Patanjali, translated by S, Prabhavananda and C. Isherwood, in: How to Know God (London: Allen & Unwin, 1953); also: The Science of Yoga, by I. K. Taimni (Adyar, Madras, India: Theosophical Publishing House, 1968). 2. Yoga, by Ernest Wood (Pelican Books, 1965), p. 78. 3. Occult Chemistry, by Annie Besant and C. W. Leadbeater (Ist ed.; Adyar, Madras, India: Theosophical Publishing House, 1908). 4. Occult Chemistry, by Annie Besant and C. W. Leadbeater (2d ed.; London: Theosophical Publishing House, 1919). 5. Occult Chemistry, by Annic Besant and C. W. Leadbeater (3d ed. India: Theosophical Publishing House, 1951). All references are to tl specified otherwise. 6. Ibid., p. 10. ar, Madras, dition unlessCHAPTER 2 Epistemological Aspects of Micro-Psi Vision What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning. Natural science does not simply describe and explain nature; it is part of the interplay between nature and ourselves. Werner Heisenberg This chapter discusses certain philosophical objections that could be raised against the validity of micro-psi observations in general and of those of Annie Besant and C. W. Leadbeater in particular. The most critical point of view concerning the work of Besant and Leadbeater is that their observations are not genuine but, instead, are the product of elaborate fraud. The following questions must be directed to a critic with this objection: 1. How did Besant and Leadbeater conceive of fabricating minor variations in the M.P.A.’s of some elements before the concept of isotopes was available to them? This concept was introduced to science by Soddy some six years after the two Theosophists published a report of an observed variation in the M.P.A. of neon." 2. Besant and Leadbeater claimed to find approximate agreement between the chemical atomic weight of an element and the “number weight,” defined as Number of U.P.A.’s in the M.P.A. Number weight = 18 (the M.P.A. of hydrogen contains 18 U.P.A.’s, so its number weight is 1). They considered (wrongly, as will be shown later) that this agreement had significance. But the error can amount to several units in the case of some elements, and it could have been reduced if U.P.A. populations were, in fact, chosen so as to provide good agreement. Why, therefore, 14EpIsTEMOLOGICAL AsPEcTs oF Mrcro-Pst VISION 15 did they not fabricate these numbers in order to obtain exact or almost exact agreement between their calculation of number weights and known chemical atomic weights? The correspondence of these numbers could have been made much more impressive than it is, if their claim to be able to describe atoms was indeed fraudulent. 3. If the Theosophists derived their published work from scientific research already known to them, why did they fabricate descriptions of many molecules that differ significantly from the known structures? For example, why did Besant and Leadbeater describe the molecule of benzene as octahedral in shape® and not as hexagonal—a fact well known to chemists at the time as well as to themselves? 4. How could two individuals possessing only a layman’s knowledge of physics invent descriptions of particle behaviour that vividly portray the Larmor precession of spinning, charged particles in magnetic fields— descriptions that needed a knowledge of the intrinsic spin of particles but were published prior to the experimental discovery of the spin of the electron and the proton? For example, precessional motion of “Hydrogen Triangles” (identified later in this work as protons) was described* during observation of the OH group in 1924, before Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit proposed that the electron had an intrinsic angular momentum and before the spin of the proton was experimentally detected. Also, how could the investigators fabricate an observation of the alignment, parallel to an external, static electric field, of the spin axes of various U.P.A.’s? It is highly unlikely that they could have known that spinning magnetic charges possess electric dipole moments (the concept of magnetic charges is not explicitly referred to in their published work), nor could they have decided to make magnetic monopoles out of U.P.A.’s, because their observation of spin alignment in electric fields appeared in the first edition of Occult Chemistry (published in 1908), whereas magnetic mono- poles were first seriously discussed by Dirac in 1933.4 5. This book presents numerous examples of exact correspondence between facts and ideas of contemporary elementary particle physics and micro- psi observations published as long ago as 1895. If the latter are merely fabricated, all these remarkable similarities can be only coincidental—a conclusion that lacks credibility. These arguments (particularly the last) indicate that fraud is not a possibility that need be seriously considered. Micro-psi may be interpreted in two ways. In the first, the “subjective” view, micro-psi images refer to the subjective, inner world of dreams, fantasies, and hallucinations that are studied by psychology and not to the objective world studied by physical science. They are merely events that occur in the brain of the observer,16 Exrra-SENsory PERCEPTION OF QUARKS having no causal connection with any object in the world at large (or, in particular, with the material that the observer examines). Suppose that the images are hallucinations and, therefore, of interest only to the psychologist and not to the physicist. Since they persisted for over thirty-eight years in the case of Besant and Leadbeater, they would have had to be pathological in origin. But images of the same type were recorded by both individuals, one always being consistent with the other. Moreover, this explanation fails to take account of the yogic tradition behind this siddhi. If micro-psi images are not quasi-visual representations of objects in the physical world, the following question arises: how can hallucinations, which are self-induced and causally unconnected with the material specimen that the subject examines, be manipulated by an ex- perimenter who is working with him? There are on record various experi- mental investigations in which the images experienced by a subject were disturbed by another person passing an electric current through the speci- men or by his changing the current from A.C. to D.C.5 How can hallucina- tions of non-existent objects be altered by the experimenter—moreover, in just the manner that would be expected if they were, indeed, real objects that were responding to the altered experimental conditions that he had introduced? Suppose, for example, that micro-psi images were archetypal symbols of Jung’s collective unconscious. How can such psychological entities uniquely belonging to this altered state of consciousness be affected by the switching on or off of an electric current? Micro-psi observers have recorded that U.P.A.’s and other particles behave in electric and magnetic fields in a manner consistent with their having properties like electric charge, spin, and electric dipole moments. If these supposed symbols do not refer to objective, physical particles, how can they be made by external fields to act as such? Scientific knowledge available to Besant and Leadbeater between 1895 and 1933 would not have enabled them to anticipate such dynamical behaviour. The second way of interpreting micro-psi—the “realist” viewpoint— considers that micro-psi records objective phenomena viewed under great magnification and all images are causally linked to objects in the examined substance. According to the basic thesis of this book, the realist interpreta- tion is the correct one. It may be argued that, since it remains unexplained how the magnification is achieved, it cannot be known whether the images are accurate or distorted representations of microscopic objects. By showing the obvious similarities between certain micro-psi pictures and models of particle physics, it is hoped to remove any doubt that the reader may have concerning the intrinsic accuracy of micro-psi vision. The criticism that the work of Besant and Leadbeater is a product ofEpistemotocicaL Aspects or Mrcro-Psi Vision 17 fraud cannot be sensibly defended. The problems associated with the “subjective” point of view make it untenable. It cannot satisfactorily explain why hallucinations that are not causally connected with objective reality bear striking similarities to modern theories of particle physics. The following interpretation of micro-psi is proposed: Micro-psi vision is extra-sensory perception of physical, microscopic objects that are present in space-time during the period of their active observation. It must not be assumed that these objects are in the same state before, during, and after the observation. The possibility must be allowed that micro-psi is inherently perturbative and that, as a way of obtaining information about the quantum. world, it is subject to the restriction placed on physical knowledge by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. Although the involvement of extra- sensory perception is explicitly assumed, this assumption is made for the sake of convenience and not out of necessity. It is possible that all forms of human experience commonly known as “psychic” have a physical basis in reality in terms of processes that science can study. By regarding the micro- psi experience as a form of extra-sensory perception, we wish neither to affirm nor to deny this point of view. Instead, we are stating what is a well-known fact: atoms are too small to be seen with unaided human sight. If the above hypothesis is true and micro-psi can provide valid knowledge about objects that may be invisible even to the electron microscope, the faculty presents a difficult problem for scientific understanding. In this regard, of course, it is similar to other forms of extra-sensory perception, such as telepathy and precognition, which have received to date no con- vincing explanation. It may be argued, however, that the question of whether micro-psi images refer to real objects in space-time cannot be separated from the problem of how they arise in an altered state of con- sciousness. If a theory cannot explain the latter, then it cannot answer the former. But it would be unreasonable to reject solely for this reason a theory or conceptual map of these images that made no reference to their causation. It is unknown how the neural machinery of the brain reconsti- tutes into a whole visual picture the impulse discharges in the optic nerve fibres, for nowhere in the brain can be found neurons responding specifically to even a small zone of the retinal image or to the observed picture. Yet no one doubts the objective reality of what he sees because he is ignorant of the final stage of the brain process leading to visual experience. No theory of micro-psi will be offered in this book, the task of which is to map out, in terms of contemporary elementary particle physics, the strange features and unfamiliar terrain of the world experienced by the micro-psi observer. The hypothesis that micro-psi provides accurate information about the structure of microscopic objects implies that observational error is a \ Lt © wt ne18 ExtTra-SENSORY PERCEPTION OF QUARKS meaningful possibility. The sustained retention of complex images within the field of vision of the observer is a strenuous mental activity for him, according to his testimony. He may make mistakes when he simultaneously applies his intellect to quantitative description of these images. For example, he may miscount the number of particles he sees as “points of light.” Unlike errors due to faulty measuring instruments (errors that are system- atic or constant and are correctable), errors of human observation are likely to occur at random and to be unpredictable. Consequently, when one applies a theory to data that are derived from observations prone to error, one should not expect exact agreement in every instance. Indeed, a theory whose predictions agreed with every datum would be just as unsatisfactory as one that gave poor agreement. The crucial issue is whether the agreement is good enough as a whole for the data to be seen as supporting the theory. In other words, is the probability of this measure of support having arisen by chance so low that such a possibility may be reasonably discounted? This question is settled in chapter 4 by the application of a statistical significance test to the theory of M.P.A.’s presented in this book. Finally, it should be pointed out that, in the task of identifying micro-psi phenomena, one needs to be sensitive to the following problem: the observer must describe what he sees in non-technical, everyday language that con- veys very inadequately his impression of complex and bizarre images. One must distinguish between firsthand reporting by the observer and accounts that amount only to arbitrary interpretations that could be false or mis- leading. The reports of Besant and Leadbeater concerning their investiga- tions of the chemical elements may be expected to be coloured by the popular notions of Victorian science with which they were familiar. Their testimony should be examined with both these considerations in mind. REFERENCES 1. “Meta Neon,” The Theosophist, vol. 30, part 1, December 1908. 2. The Theosophist, vol. 45, April 1924. 3. Ibid. 4. P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London), A133, 60 (1931). 5. Investigations (1956-59) by Geoffrey Hodson and Dr. D. D. Lyness (unpublished).CHAPTER 3 Quark Theory—Old and New It seems to me that God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, movable particles, of such sizes and figures, and with such other properties, and in such proportions to space as most to conduce to the end for which He formed them; and that these primitive particles being solids, are in- comparably harder than any porous body compounded of them; even so very hard as never to wear or break to pieces; no ordinary power being able to divide what God himself made in the first creation. Sir Isaac Newton QUARKS FOR EVERYONE* Suppose that a person is given an assortment of strawberries, cherries, and other fruit and that he is asked to make as many different selections from it as possible, taking any two or three fruits at a time. The number of possible choices available to him depends on the number of varieties of fruit in the assortment and not on the total number of fruits in it. Next suppose that all these choices are made correctly and that the fruit in each selection is crushed and thoroughly mixed. A second person, deprived of his sense of smell and his sight, is then asked to determine how many varieties of fruit were in the original assortment by tasting each mixture and by identifying the fruit in it. He can perform this task successfully only if no variety is missing in the selections given to him. He cannot be certain of this, but he can deduce what fruits were in the assortment only from the flavours that he detects. Although, in principle, he does not need to taste every sample of two or three fruits, in practice it is essential that he does. This is because in some samples one flavour may be masked by a stronger one, while in others the mixing of flavours may render them tasteless. The high-energy physicist, who examines and identifies the debris scat- tered in all directions by the collisions of very fast-moving particles, finds himself in an analogous situation. Over the last thirty years, more than two hundred different types of particles have been discovered, although they * Readers who are proficient in quark theory may ignore this introduction and proceed to the next section. 1920 Extra-SENsoryY PERCEPTION OF QUARKS possess only a few “flavours.” The nature of the fundamental relationship among them has not been easy for the physicist to uncover, but he is aided by various experimental facts and laws that he has inferred from them. Some of these are now summarized. A particle flavour is assigned a number that can assume only certain discrete values, These distinguish different particles with the same flavour. Examples are isospin, strangeness, and charm. A particle with a certain flavour and its antiparticle have flavour quantum numbers of the same numerical value but of opposite sign. A particle has a flavour quantum number of value zero if it does not have the appropriate flavour. These quantum numbers are additive: the flavour quantum num- ber of a group of particles with different flavours is the sum of the values taken by the number for each particle. There are two classes of particles: the hadron, which interacts with other hadrons through the “strong” force (responsible for the binding together of protons and neutrons in nuclei), and the lepton, which interacts with hadrons and other leptons through a much weaker force—the “weak” interaction (responsible for the decay of radioactive nuclei). Hadrons weakly interact with one another, but leptons do not strongly interact with one another or with hadrons (as far as is as yet known). The flavour quantum numbers of hadrons are unchanged by their strong interaction but are altered by their weak interaction. Elec- trically charged hadrons and leptons share the ‘electromagnetic interaction” (a force of intermediate strength that is responsible, for example, for the binding of electrons in atoms). Each class of particles is assigned another quantum number that is unchanged by all three types of force. This is the “baryon number” for hadrons and the “lepton number” for leptons. Hadrons have a lepton number of zero, and leptons have a baryon number of zero. All hadrons detected up to 1974 could be grouped in certain families or “multiplets” according to their flavours and baryon numbers. The latter were found to be just those allowed if all hadrons were assembled from a set of three fundamental particles called “quarks” (u, d, and s) with different flavours, taken either three at a time or as a quark-antiquark pair. Despite intensive search, no particles have been found that are other combinations of quarks—for example, single quarks, pairs of quarks (“diquarks”), or three quarks and an antiquark. Since hadrons differ widely in mass, one quark (the s quark with the “strangeness” flavour) has to be heavier than the other two. The original triplet of quarks proposed by the physicists M. Gell-Mann and G. Zweig in 1964 was increased to four when, in 1974, a heavy, remarkably stable hadron (the “J/y”) was found. It could not be accommodated in the long-established families of hadrons, and it signalled the existence of a new hadron flavour (“charm”), provided by a new quarkQuark THEORY—OLD aNnp NEW 21 (the c quark). More recently, the detection of another long-lived hadron (“upsilon”) has indicated that a quark with a fifth flavour exists. Called “bottom” (b), it has led to the confident expectation that a sixth quark, “top” (t), with a new flavour should exist as well. This is because a pattern has emerged wherein quarks appear to be related in pairs: (u, d), (c, 5), (t, b), and so on, in a way that is mirrored by corresponding pairs of leptons: (ve, €-), (%) Ho); (v4, 7), and so on. This parallelism (which may extend beyond the three pairs of known leptons to as yet undiscovered leptons and quarks) suggests that some property is shared by leptons and hadrons. Since both exhibit electromagnetic and weak forces, this property must be related to these forces. An obvious suggestion is that leptons have flavour as well as quarks and that quarks and leptons weakly interact by changing their flavour. The pattern emerging from high-energy physics is that succes- sive pairs of quarks increase in mass. Only the two lightest quarks (u and d), which constitute the protons and neutrons in nuclei, and the first lepton pair (ve, €~), which is involved in the decay of radioactive nuclei, are used in the construction of the universe. The other pairs appear briefly only in high-energy processes. Protons consist of two u quarks and one d quark; neutrons are composed of two d quarks and one u quark. The u and d quarks have electric charges of 2e/3 and —e/3, respectively (¢ is‘the mag- nitude of the charge of an electron). With a few unconfirmed exceptions, the detection of free, single quarks has not been reported. Leptons can be created in the laboratory and their properties measured very accurately. But information about quarks has to be obtained indirectly by making measurements on the various three-quark groups or quark-antiquark pairs created by the collisions of particles, by using leptons to probe the interior of protons and neutrons, or by looking at the products of the annihilation of electrons and positrons (their anti- particles). The forces that hold quarks together appear to imprison them as well as to restrict their power of combination to just groups of three or to quark-antiquark pairs. Are separate mechanisms responsible for these features, or does one mechanism account for both? The theory outlined in the next section proposes one mechanism. Suppose that the person referred to at the beginning of this chapter had been asked to select fruit at random from the assortment and then to paint the fruits either red, blue, or green, and that another person had to make as many different groups of three colours from them as possible, without regard for their variety. The number of distinct choices that he could make is ten. The number is, of course, independent of how many different fruits there were in the assortment. One of the choices consists of a red-, a blue-, and a green-coloured fruit, but these may be of any variety. According to a22 Extra-SENSORY PERCEPTION OF QUARKS recently proposed theory of strong interactions, quarks have three “colours” (red, blue, and green), a property, of course, not to be understood in its literal sense. Just as the electromagnetic forces between electrically charged particles are due to their charges, so the strong force between coloured quarks is due to their colours. A quark changes its colour (but not its flavour) by emitting or by absorbing zero-mass particles called “gluons.” These are passed to and fro between quarks, coupling them together to form systems of either three differently coloured quarks or a quark of a certain colour and an antiquark, whose colour is a mixture of the other two colours. Since equal mixtures of red, blue, and green make a white or colourless combina- tion, free hadrons are called “colourless.” The exchanged gluons interact strongly with one another as well as with quarks, and the resultant force acting on quarks does not weaken with their distance apart but is of con- stant strength, thereby imprisoning them permanently inside hadrons. Quarks remain hidden from direct experimental detection because the forces between them do not permit a coloured quark to break loose and exist as a free, independent particle. The colour theory, or “(quantum chromodynamics” (Q.C.D.), is currently emerging as a successful (though not yet established) theory of strong forces. But it was originally proposed in an ad hoc fashion in order to solve a technical problem of quark theory. Since Q.C.D. did not originate in a unified theory of hadrons and leptons, it did not explain why leptons do not have colour and so do not interact strongly: the empirical division of elementary particles into separate families of leptons and hadrons remained unexplained. The possession of colour by quarks and the lack of colour in leptons are shown in the next section to be consequences of treating funda- mental hadrons and leptons as members of a single family of particles. A UNIFIED HADRON-LEPTON THEORY In the paper reproduced below, the author proposed a new theory of matter.' It is summarized here for the general reader. The remainder of this chapter is devoted to a more technical discussion of particular aspects of the theory that are relevant to the micro-psi observations described in subsequent chapters. It is proposed that quarks are not discrete, fundamental objects but, instead, are composite, tightly knit clusters of three particles called ‘‘ome- gons.”* Protons and neutrons, which are each made up of three quarks, therefore contain nine omegons. These basic hadrons have ten different flavours, and each determines its own type of quark. Experiments have already established the existence of half this number of flavoured quarks. * Pronounced d-mee-guns.Quark THEORY—OLD AND NEw 23 The two lightest omegons (labelled ® and 9) make up the u and d quarks from which the proton and neutron are assembled. The u quark consists of two ® omegons and one 9 omegon; the d consists of one ® and two 91 ome- gons. A proton (with two u quarks and one d quark) contains five @ and four 9 omegons; a neutron (with one u and two d quarks) contains four @ and five % omegons. ® and X omegons carry electric charges of +5/9 and —4/9, respectively (in units of the charge of an electron). Omegons have nine “colour-shades’’—-dark, medium, and light shades of the colours red, blue, and green. A quark of a given colour is composed of omegons with dark, medium, and light shades of that colour. Omegons are trapped inside quarks by the same mechanism that confines quarks inside observable hadrons. Because flavour and colour-shade properties are given equal dynamical status, particles with a tenth colour are predicted to exist. These are leptons, which also have ten flavours, each corresponding to its omegon partner. Five are electrically neutral (neutrinos), and five have the charge of an electron. Two massive leptons remain to be detected, according to the theory. COMPOSITE QUARKS AND HADRON-LEPTON UNIFICATION* S. M. PHILLIPS 205, Malmesbury Park Road, Bournemouth, Dorset BH8 8PX, England Received 5 February 1979 A unified hadron-lepton theory, based on the symmetry group SU(10)savour X SU(10)coiour is presented. It predicts that quarks are composite and there exist five generations of singly flavoured quarks mirrored by a finite heavy lepton sequence. We postulate that the basic indivisible constituents of matter belong to the fundamental fermion multiplet F = f4) (row index i = 1, 2,..., m denotes flavour; column index A = 1, 2, ..., denotes colour), the (m, m) representation of the unified hadron-lepton symmetry group SU(m); X SU(m). (SU(m); = SU(m) navoury SU(m)- = SU(m)cotour-) Generalising a sug- gestion by Pati and Salam [1], we propose that the mth colour state of each fermion is a lepton. Present experimental evidence for three quark genera- tions, each mirrored by a lepton and its associated neutrino, suggests the following generalisation: fermion flavour states consist of NV SU(2) doublets * Permission by the North-Holland Publishing Company to reprint this paper is gratefully acknowledged.24 Exrra-SENSORY PERCEPTION OF QUARKS with electric charges (Q, Q — 1) (Q = 0 or 2/3), gauged for weak and electromagnetic interactions according to the Weinberg-Salam U(1) X SU(2) symmetry group. Accordingly, m = 2N. The electric charge operator Q, being a sum of SU(2V); X SU(2N). generators, is: Q=A+0.- (1) Qr and Q. are traceless 2’ X 2N matrices whose elements Qf" and QS" are flavour and colour contributions to the charge of {”. In particular, f@¥-1.2N-) is a hadron with flavour charge Q2%-!29-P = Qy = 2/3 or /3 and {%.2™ is a lepton with flavour charge Q{2".2") = Qy,. Assuming that different colour states of a hadron with a given flavour have the same charge, then: aN 0=TrQ) = DOr” =(V—1/3+ Ont Q- (2) a Solutions are: NV = 2 (Qz = 0 or —1), N =5 @i = —1 or —2), N=8 (Qu. = —2 or —3), etc. V = 2 corresponds to the Pati-Salam quark-lepton unification theory SU(4): X SU(4). [2], which excludes t and b quarks; N > 8 leads to composite quark theories of greater complexity than that with V = 5, which we now choose. The (10, 10) representation‘of SU(10); X SU(10). consists of ten leptons Li = f‘!) and ten fundamental hadrons, each in nine colour states: w* = f- (i = 1,2,...,10;@=1,2,...,9). We call the latter “omegons’’{! and shall show that bound systems of three such hadrons have the quantum numbers of quarks. SU(10). is allowed to be spontaneously broken by the Higgs vacuum (with the Higgs field in the self-adjoint representation of SU(10),), to leave U(1) X SU(Q), as an exact local gauge symmetry. For V = 5, the values Qr = —1 or —2 are the flavour charges of the fifth lepton doublet. Known leptons have electrical charge Q = 0 or —1, so we require: Q2"- Q2"2 = 1, Assuming Q{") is independent of i, then Qf?” = 1 and Q, Q; and Q, have the form: 55 5 0 -4 -4 a) Q= (1/9). : : -|> (3) S 5 co -4 -4 -4 -9 }! From “omega,” the last letter of the Greek alphabet.Quark THEORY—OLD AND NEW 25 2 2 .. 2 =3 -1 -1 ... -1 -6 Q= (1/3)|- : : oe 2 2 -3 -1 -1 -1 -6 ae fe (3 cont.) at 1 -9 Q. = (-1/9) toto... 1-9 eo F consists of five leptons with their associated neutrinos: © © © @ ©: mirrored by ten omegons: @ G) @ © @* with charges (5/9, —4/9), each of which exists in nine colour states that make up the fundamental representation of SU(9).. A colour nonet of a given flavour consists of three triplets: (w!, »’, @), (w, w°, w®) and (w’, w, w®) (flavour indices are suppressed). The members of a triplet are dis- tinguishable by having three degrees of freedom called “‘colour-shades” (CS): “light,” “medium” and “dark.” Different triplets are distinguishable by their colour, Colour-shade triplets are physically distinct 3-dimensional representations of SU(3)cctourstate (SU(3)e.). We define three SU(3)-s scalar wavefunctions g? = (3!) Meng yo*(1)o%(2)%(3) (a = 1, 2,3), (4) for a bound system of three omegons (labelled 1, 2, 3), with «, 6, y = 1, 2, 3 (a = 1), a, By = 4,5, 6 (a = 2) and a, B, ¥ = 7, 8,9 (a = 3). eaay is the completely antisymmetric tensor (¢123 = 456 = €789 = 1). The g* constitute a triplet of states which we propose to identify as the colour states of quarks [3]. Coloured quarks are colour-shadeless composite systems of three * Omegon symbols have been changed in the article reproduced here.26 Extra-SENSORY PERCEPTION OF QUARKS colour-shaded omegons. Note that CS triplets are not representations of SU(3). X SU(3)es, where SU(3), is the familiar colour gauge group of quarks. Omegons do not possess quark colour, but have three “shades” of them. To support this suggestion, we now show that SU(3); quarks also emerge from our unified theory. Each of the nine omegon CS states obeys the following 10-dimensional generalisation of the Gell-Mann-Nishijima relation: O=h+yV+S+C+T+B+I+E+G+H), (3) where Q; = diag (2/3, —1/3, —1/3, ..., 2/3, —1/3) is the flavour charge, Tz = diag (1/2, —1/2, 0, ..., 0) is the third component of isospin, V = diag (1/3, 1/3, ..., 1/3) is the baryon number, S = diag (0, 0, —1, 0, 0) is strangeness, C = diag (0, 0, 0, 1,0,..., 0) is charm, etc. 7, B, I, E, Gand H are additional quantum numbers conserved by strong interactions, having values 1, —1, 1, —1, 1 and —1 for the J, 8, &, 9, and SC omegons, respectively, otherwise 0. We note that ®, and ) form an SU(3); triplet, as well as having three sets of three colour-shades, i.e., they are a (3, 3) representation of SU(3); X SU(3)cs. The isodoublet (#@3t) and (@x=) and the isoscalar (@9X), members of the colour-shadeless (8, 1) multiplet in (3, 3) x (3, 3) x (3, 3), have the SU(3) quantum numbers of u, d and s quarks, respectively. Thus, colour SU(3) quarks emerge as w-w-w composite particles. More generally, a CS triplet forms the (10, 3) representation of SU(10); X SU(3)c.. All quarks, as colour-shadeless bound states, belong to SU(3),.-singlet representations in (10, 3) x (10, 3) X (10, 3). Among them are ten singly flavoured quarks with charges (2/3, —1/3): u = PN, d = PRM, S = PRA, c= PRC, t = PI, b = ORB, ONS, € = ONE, = exg and h = ex. Baryons with symmetric spin-unitary spin states are: B = (3!)-"? X ex-gighgis mesons are: M = (3)-"q7q (a, b, c = 1, 2, 3; i, j,& =1, 2, ..., 10). Four more flavourless, long-lived, heavy mesons of upsilon type are predicted, ii, e@, gz and hh. The gauge group for omegon strong interactions is SU(9).. The 80 gauge fields are made up of three colour-shade-changing SU(3),s octets of ‘super gluons,” exchange of which binds omegons inside quarks without changing the latter colour states, and 56 gluons, which are exchanged between omegons in different quarks, changing their colour. Unlike in the Pati-Salam scheme, there are no exotic gluons strongly coupling fundamental hadrons with leptons. The proton is predicted to be absolutely stable, therefore. Also, baryon number and lepton number L = n, + my +n, + mo + n, are separately conserved. Two new heavy leptons are predicted: @~ and «~. They should appear in the electron-positron annihilation reactions: e+ + e~ = 0* +6, et*+e-= Keb, fQuark THEory—OLp anv New 27 Non-abelian generalisations of the Nielsen-Olesen model [4], providing permanent confinement of quarks and saturation of quark forces in zero- triality states, are very attractive in the context of a composite quark theory. The condition for topologically distinct Nielsen-Olesen vortices and Dirac monopoles to exist such that the former cannot be transformed into one another by continuous gauge transformations is that the global gauge group should be multiply connected [5]. If this group is SU(9)/Z, where the cyclic group Zo = (Is vo, v7To, «+5 8s) (v = exp (20t/9)) , (6) is the centre of SU(9), then nine distinct vortices exist, since SU(9)/Zp is 9-fold connected. One corresponds to the ground state of the vacuum and consists of no vortex; the other eight correspond to non-equivalent magnetic monopoles of monopole moment go, 2go, - . . , 80 (go = 1/2e). This is because, with the Higgs field belonging to an adjoint representation of SU(9), single-valuedness modulo 27/9 of its phase implies that vortex flux (and magnetic charge, therefore) is defined only modulo 9 (in Dirac units). Thus, nine and only nine SU(9) monopoles form a magnetically neutral system when embedded in a superconducting Higgs vacuum and bound by Nielsen- Olesen vortices. Similarly for three SU(3) monopoles in a vacuum with broken SU(3) symmetry. Omegons are bound in quarks by three super- gluon octets of SU(3).5. With omegons as SU(9) monopoles, a neutral system of nine monopoles can cluster in three groups of three, bound internally and externally by Y-shaped strings that are connected via vortex bifurcation. In this way, the Meissner effect would confine both omegons inside quarks and quarks in hadrons. Identification of quarks as clusters of three SU(9) monopoles guarantees zero triality for bound states of quarks. This empirical rule is a dynamical consequence of an SU(9) vacuum, which confines fermions with magnetic charge (omegons) but not fermions with zero magnetic charge (leptons). In this scheme, mesons are quark-antiquark pairs, joined by three strings, not by one. Quark com- positeness improves the success of the SU(6) results: p/n = —1.50 and Ha/ Hp = —0.33, for proton (up), neutron (u,) and A(x) magnetic moments. To show this, we assume omegon magnetic moments are proportional to their electric char se: ms = 8(eo/e) , (7) (e, and e are omegon and electron charges, 6 is a scale parameter). Three omegons in a quark have an antisymmetric colour-shade wavefunction. Assuming their orbital motion is non-relativistic, then SU(6) symmetry is valid for Fermi-Dirac omegons in u, d and s quarks. Hence, these quarks28 Extra-SENSORY PERCEPTION OF QUARKS have symmetric SU(6) wavefunctions. Calculated u, d and s magnetic moments are: da = (ul milu) = (8/9)5, (8) ua = (d| mild) = —(7/9)6, (9) Hs = (8| mals) = —(4/9)8. (10) We find: My = (53/27)6, un = —(4/3)8, wa = —(4/9)8, giving Hp/tin = —1.47 (—1.46, measured value) , ay HA/tp = —0.23 (—0.26) 2 (12) Agreement is better for composite quarks than for point-like quarks. We predict: wa = 1.26 4x (0.67 wy for point-like quarks), wa = —1.10 py (—0.33 yx) and yu; = —0.63 py (—0.33 px). The omegon g-factor is: g, = (27/53) 2.79 (M3/M,), where M? is the effective mass of a bound omegon in an external magnetic field. Evidence for composite quarks would appear in the effect of finite quark size on hadron form factors. This, would become important at large values of momentum transfer. The relativistic magnetic form factor F(t) of a bound system of three spin-} particles is [7]: PW = o(-H/a) Dek, (13) where « = 1 — ¢/4m, m is the composite particle mass, F() is its form factor, Q; is the charge, ¢; is the expectation value of the third component of spin and F¥() is the magnetic form factor of the jth constituent. If these are also composite systems of three particles, then: 3 BO = a5'F(—t/) 2 Oise i5(0 5 (14) where a; = 1 — ¢/4m?, m; is the mass of the jth composite particle, F,(2) is its form factor and Qja, ¢jg and F34(t) are as above for the sth particle in the jth composite. Then: PAO ey tae (lt| oe), (15) (S"(d) is the omegon magnetic form factor), in agreement with SLAC data [8] which, for the proton, indicate ™(¢) < |t|~*, as |t] + ©. The observed # We take the value us = (—0.73 + 1.6) uy [6].Quark THEORY—OLpD anp NEw I thank Professor A. Salam for his encouragement. References [1] J. C. Pati and A. Salam, Phys. Rev. D8 (1973) 1240. (2] J. C. Pati and A. Salam, Phys. Rev. D10 (1974) 275. [3] M. Gell-Mann, Acta Phys. Austriaca Suppl. 9 (1972); H. Fritzsch, M. Gell-Mann and H. Leutwyler, Phys. Lett. 47B (1973) 365. [4] H. B. Nielsen and P. Olesen, Nucl. Phys. B61 (1973) 45; (1974) 494. [5] H. C. Tze and Z, F. Ezawa, Phys. Rev. D14 (1976) 1648. [6] Particle Data Group, Phys. Lett. 33B (1970) 1. [7] A. L. Licht and A. Pagnamenta, Phys. Rev. D2 (1970) 1156. i8] D. H. Coward et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 20 (1968) 292. QUANTUM NUMBERS OF THE OMEGONS 29 approximate |t|-? behaviour of the proton magnetic form factor could be due to Lorentz contraction of both finite-sized proton and quark wave- packets, indicative of composite quarks. . Olesen, Phys. Lett. 31B O/e No: WS Gae ge ee heres Grie ° 5/9 199 1/72 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m. ean eee Oecd 1/2 aececdy/ Oca eeenO Hare OieaeH Ores OHe OHaeOeat40): » Oar / Otc Orsee = /O.ra es NeeeenO Hea Oteaet Onset Ouse 0 Hara O2aet40): e 5 / OFS / Oia Our ee 1/0 HO teeta ee Ore One On sO 0 0. g gS Oia /O ete Ose aeeh /O eae O earn taeaeLaeaey OFaete Hea Oars Hae+40) w -49 19 O 19 0 0 0-1 0 0 0 0 4. -4/9 1/9 0 sf /O see O sees Ote Olea Oleg Laetan OtaedO sett. 6. 5/9 1/9 OO 1/9 see ses Ore Olea One OetaeCA eee HE. S 5/9 1/9 0 1/0 seed 0 sees O ete Olzeaet Oleae Ouran OeeaeedaeeeO) is -49 1/9 0 1/9 teed O sees Orde, lees Oleaes Osten rater 1 eocooHHocce te + tty + ty + 9 + me = lepton n0.5 te muon lepton no.; n= tau lepton no.; me = theta lepton no.; , = kappa lepton no.30 Ex7ra-SENSORY PERCEPTION OF QUARKS The dynamical contents of the Omegon Model are summarized below. UNIFIED FLAVOURDYNAMICS The flavour symmetry of the gauge group SU(10), is spontaneously broken by the Higgs mechanism into the compound symmetries of U(1) X SU(2),. X SU(5),. This divides the ten flavour states into five left-handed SU(2). doublets, fi fi that form the (2, 5) representation of U(1) X SU(2). X SU(5),. There are five generations of fermions: O29 a9) of 0%) o@%. similarly electrically charged members of which are gauged according to SU(5), the “generation” or “horizontal” symmetry group. The corre- sponding quark doublets of the weak isospin, o@ © o@ © of), have the omegon flavour constituents: u = PPI, d = PRM, c = PRE, s= PRA, t = PRI, b = PNG, e = PRE, i= PRI, g = ENG, and h= xi. The ninety-nine vector gauge bosons of the flavour gauge group SU(10); make up the SU(2),, and SU(5), multiplets in the decomposition of the direct product: (2, 5) X (2,5) = (1, 1) + (, 1) + (1, 24) + @, 24). w= 10 +%9| (j = 1.2, 3,4, 5), The SU(5), singlet (3, 1) is a weak isospin triplet from which the photon, Z°, and W* are constructed according to the Weinberg-Salam theory of electro-weak interactions; (1, 24) consists of twenty-four neutral vector bosons mediating flavour-conserving, weak transitions between like charged members of different generations of fermions; (3, 24) determines seventy-two charged and neutral vector bosons mediating charged and neutral current interactions between different generations of omegons and leptons. UNIFIED CHROMODYNAMICS The colour symmetry of the gauge group SU(10), is spontaneously broken by the Higgs mechanism into the reduced symmetry of U(1) x SU(9).. The nine colour states of omegons form an SU(9). nonet. The tenth colour state, an SU(9). singlet, is a lepton. The symmetry of SU(9). is furtherQuark THEORY—OLpD AND NEW 31 spontaneously broken by the Higgs mechanism into the compound sym- metry of SU(3). X SU(3). (c = colour, s = shade). The nine “colour- shade” states w (a = 1 [red], 2 [blue], 3 [green]; « = 1 [light], 2 [dark], 3 [medium]) form the (3, 3) representation of SU(3). X SU(3),. The three shade triplets are written way, wage, ule a ge. ¥*, , and 9 have, respectively, the colour isospin T's, = 1/2, —1/2, and 0 and the colour hypercharge Y, = 1/3, 1/3, and —2/3. y", y2, and y* have the shade isospin 7, = 1/2, —1/2, and 0 and the shade hypercharge Y, = 1/3, 1/3, and —2/3, respectively (similarly for 6", 62, and 6* and for !, ¢2 and ¢°). Of the antisymmetric SU(3), singlet states in the reduction (3, 3) X (3, 3) X (3, 3) = (1, 1) + 208, 1) + (10, 1) + 2(1, 8) + (1, 10) + 4(8, 8) + 2(10, 8) + 2(8, 10) + (10, 10) , the SU(3). decuplet (10, 1) alone is symmetric in the colour gauge indices. The Exclusion Principle restricts such states with three omegons in non- relativistic S orbitals to being symmetric in combined spin, weak isospin, and generation gauge indices. Three of these shadeless states may be shown to form a 3-dimensional representation of SU(3) and are identified with the “colour” states of quarks. Colour SU(3) emerges as an effective, non- gaugeable symmetry of the strong interactions of composite quarks. The ninety-nine vector gauge fields associated with SU(10). are made up of nineteen superheavy bosons, responsible for lepton-omegon interactions that do not conserve baryon and lepton number, and the eighty vector gauge fields of SU(9)., which comprise the following SU(3). and SU(3). octets: (3,3) X G3) = (D+ @, 1) + 4,8) + 8,8). The octet (1, 8) is made up of “supergluons” that couple superstrongly to omegons, confining them in SU(3), singlet states to form quarks; (8, 1) and (8, 8) are nine octets of “gluons” whose exchange between omegons is responsible for the strong interaction between quarks as bound states of three omegons. MAGNETIC MONOPOLE/HIGGS VORTEX STRUCTURE OF HADRONS In their topological classification of Nielsen-Olesen vortices and their end-point Dirac magnetic monopoles in non-Abelian gauge theories with any compact Lie group, Tze and Ezawa? showed that the necessary condi-32 Extra-SENSORY PERCEPTION OF QUARKS tion for the existence of vortices in the superconducting Higgs field is that the global invariance group acting on the vectors of the physically realized representations should be multiply connected. According to a theorem of group theory, all V-ply connected Lie groups having the same Lie algebra as a given simply connected group G are of the form G ~G/A, where A is some invariant discrete subgroup of G. A is isomorphous to the fundamental group of G, 7(G). This is a finite, discrete Abelian group of order N that classifies all topologically distinct vortices allowed by G. To its identity element—the class of closed curves in the group manifold of G that are homotopic to the null path—corresponds the vacuum state of no vortex and no monopole. To the V — 1 non-trivial classes of homotopic curves, there correspond V — 1 types of vortices and monopoles. The fundamental group of the simply connected universal covering group G is of order 1, consisting only of the identity element, and so no vortex exists for such a group. If the global gauge group is the V-fold connected G = SU(N)/Zy, where the cyclic Abelian group Zy = (In, Wy, Ply, .. ., Ty) (a) is the centre of SU(V) (@ = exp (21i/N) is the Vth primitive root of unity; Ty is the VN X N unit matrix), then Zy is the fundamental group of G and its elements 2" (m = 0, 1,..., NV — 1) define topologically distinct vortices of monopoles of charge m (in Dirac units of 1/2e). Since the powers m are defined only modulo NV, so are the magnetic charges and the magnetic flux in their vortices. Dirac’s quantization condition eg = m/2 (m= 0,1,2,..., 2) (2) for Abelian magnetic monopoles whose charges are the homotopic invariants of the fundamental group of the infinitely connected global group U(1), is generalized to eg = m/2(mod N) (m= 0,1,2,.. cat) (3) for non-Abelian monopoles with the global invariance group G. Vortex flux 4rg is quantized in units of 2x/e. Vortices carrying flux quanta m and m (mod N) correspond to the same homotopic class and can be continuously gauged into each other. This means that they are physically indistinguish- able. Vortices carrying NV flux quanta do not exist, for they can be con- tinuously gauged into the vacuum state of no vortex and no monopole (m = 0). The magnetic charge m is a homotopic invariant of the funda- mental group 7(G) ~ Zy. Its N — 1 non-trivial values mirror the V — 1 non-trivial homotopic classes of closed curves in the V-fold connected group manifold of SU(V)/Zy. The physical consequence of the definition by modulo N of magnetic charge is that two types of vortex configuration areQuark THEORY—OLD AND NEW 33 topologically stable: mesonic single, finite vortices with a monopole and antimonopole at their ends (fig. 3.1) and baryonic N-legged finite vortices (fig. 3.2) that terminate in Dirac monopoles. SU(N) vortices and their end-point monopoles have a topological “plurality.” Their bonding power is saturated only for systems of V monopoles. Ezawa and Tze also showed* that this property is possessed by “colour- less” monopoles, that is, monopoles whose flux is an SU(N) scalar and, therefore, gauge-invariant. Only V colourless monopoles, embedded in an SU(N) superconducting Higgs vacuum that implements spontaneous break- down of the gauge symmetry and renders gauge fields short-range, can be confined by vortices in a topologically stable bound state. Equivalently, only systems of NV identical SU(N) monopoles emit no flux and are mag- netically neutral. This is seen by considering the m-legged vortex configura- tion in figure 3.3. The ith vortex carrying flux ®; (in units of 2x/e) termi- nates on a monopole of charge m; = m, where ©; = m (mod N) (4) Fig. 3.1 Fig. 3.2 The total flux emanating from the 2 monopoles is & = DY) &; = nm (mod N). (5) a No flux emanates from the system, provided that » = V. In general, the condition for magnetic neutrality is N Dd m; = 0 (mod ¥). (6) fet This is the condition for the bound system of monopoles to be an SU(N) singlet state, as now shown. When a colour SU(N) vector ¥ = col (1, ¥2, ..., ¥w) is transported once around an infinitesimal closed loop / encircling the Dirac string of a34 ExtRA-SENSORY PERCEPTION OF QUARKS colourless SU(N) monopole of charge g = m (mod N), beginning and ending at the same point x in the normal vacuum, its resulting linear transformation W = Ui, 2)¥ (7) belongs to a connected Lie group—the holonomy group at x. It may be shown! that U;(x, x) € Zy, so that W =o", (8) The vacuum state g = 0 (mod )) corresponds to the identity element of Zyx. When the colour vectors w(i) (i = 1, 2, ..., NV) of a system of V colourless SU(N’) monopoles of charge g; = M; (mod N) are transported around their Dirac strings, the antisymmetric colour SU() singlet wave- function of the system wll) (2) we. (N) well) yo(2)«-- vaV) Vy = (NI). : : (9) wv(1) Yw(2) «pw (N) is transformed to (10) Since QY = 1, Wy = Vy provided that x 2 M; = 0(mod N), (11) which is equation (6). Only colour SU(N) singlet bound states of NV colour- less SU(N) monopoles are magnetically neutral. In the Omegon Model, SU(10), is the colour gauge symmetry group whose spontaneous breakdown due to the Higgs mechanism leads to the division of fermions into hadrons and leptons. Its fundamental representation comprises nine omegon colour states (hadrons), each with colour electric charges of —e/9. This colour nonet is the fundamental representation of colour SU(9), the local invariance group for the strong interactions between omegons. It also includes a colour SU(9) singlet (i.e., a lepton) of colour electric charge +e. These charge assignments are not arbitrary, since it has been shown’ that, if the larger group SU(N + 1) is spontaneously brokenQuark THEORY—OLD AND NEW 35 to leave U(1) & SU(N) as the residual exact gauge symmetry, then exp (i4mgQ.) = diag (Q"Iy, 1) (M = 1,2,3,...,N—1), (12) where (Q. is the colour electric charge operator (a traceless generator of SU(N + 1)), g is a possible magnetic charge, and 2 = exp (i2/N). There- fore, for g = +M(1/2e), exp (+i2nMQ./e) = diag [exp (2nM/N)Iy, 1), (13) so that Qe = (4e/N) diag (1, 1,...1, —N). (14) In the Omegon Model, V = 9. The colour SU(9) nonet is made up of three “shade” triplets: 4 , and 8, forming fundamental representations of SU(3), that are distinguished by their colour SU(9) quantum numbers. Omegons are magnetic monopoles with the 9-fold connected global in- variance group SU(9)/Zs, where Zy = (Io, 2, Wo, ..., WI) (2 = exp (i2x/9)) (15) is the centre of SU(9). Embedded in a broken colour SU(9) superconducting vacuum, their Dirac strings become physical vortices, carrying flux quanta defined modulo 9 and forming a baryonic nine-legged configuration of monopoles M; (fig. 3.4) that is a colour SU(9) singlet and magnetically neutral, provided that . Dd M; = 0 (mod 9). (16) Zs, the cyclic group of order 9, has only one subgroup, namely, Zs, the cyclic group of order 3: Za = (Is, ls, os) (w = 98 = exp (i2n/3)) . (17) 3s36 Extra-SENSORY PERCEPTION OF QUARKS This is the fundamental group of SU(3)./Zs, which is triply connected and for which, therefore, two non-trivial types of vortices are defined—those whose end-points are monopoles of charge 1 (mod 3) and 2 (mod 3). In being colour SU(9) monopoles, omegons are SU(3), monopoles as well. As such, they are the ends of Y-shaped vortices carrying flux quanta defined modulo 3 (fig. 3.5). Consequently, omegons are the joint end-points of nine-legged SU(9) vortices and Y-shaped SU(3), vortices, that is, they cluster into three groups of three, bound externally by the former and internally by the latter. Figure 3.6 shows the proposed vortex configuration in a baryon. i=3 Fig. 3.5 Fig. 3.6 The SU(3), and colour SU(9) vortices terminating on the ath omegon in the ith group carry flux of = mf (mod 3) , (18) &; = Mf (mod 9) , (19) respectively. The ith group is an SU(3), singlet, provided that 3 DS m7 = 0 (mod 3). (20) at The total flux emanating from it is b= yar = 3M; (mod 9), (21) otQuark THEORY—OLpD anv New 37 where 12 a y Mi. (22) Therefore, = 0 (mod 3), (23) using equation (15). Comparison with equation (11) with NV = 3 indicates that this is the condition of magnetic neutrality for a colour SU(3) singlet bound state of three SU(3) monopoles. Each cluster of three SU(9) mono- poles acts, effectively, as an SU(3) monopole whose charge is the arithmetic mean of their charges. This result can also be derived as follows: Each omegon in a group is in a colour-shade state belonging to one of the SU(3), triplets: 4, $, and 0. According to the Omegon Model, a baryon is a colour SU(9) singlet, with each of its nine omegon constituents in a different colour-shade. The colour SU(9) vector for the ath omegon in the ith group is W(i, a) = col (U(i, a), (i, a), O(i, @)) . (24) The ith bound state exists in three colour-shadeless (SU(3). singlet) states q'(i) (A = 1, 2, and 3 is a non-gaugeable index) that are distinguished by their SU(3). isospin (7.) and hypercharge (Y.) quantum numbers: BO) = BY Meanede (i, DWG, 20H, 3) (Te = 3/2, Vo= 1), (25) PH) = (3) eaneb*(i, 16°C, 2)O°(i, 3) (Tx = —3/2, Ye = 1), (26) Pi) = (3) VPeancO4(i, 1)O%(i, 2)0°(7, 3) (Tre = 0, Ye= —2), (27) i (ew. is the completely antisymmetric tensor, with e23 = 1). When trans- ported once around an infinitesimal loop encircling the Dirac string of an SU(9) monopole of charge M3 (¥ 0 (mod 9)), the colour vector ¥(i, «) is transformed to Wi, a) = 2 Wi, @), (28) according to equation (8). Applying this transformation to each monopole in the baryon, 3 fO> 4g" = QY™ og = MG, (29) so that q(i) = oq(i). (30) According to equation (8), similar transport of a colour SU(3) vector g around the Dirac string of a monopole of charge m (# 0 (mod 3)) results in the phase change g = oq (m=1,2). (31)38 Ex7ra-SENSORY PERCEPTION OF QUARKS Equations (25), (26), and (27) define the components g‘ of q, provided that M; = N(mod3) (NV = 1,2). (32) Therefore, a > M1, = 0 (mod 3) , (33) a which is equation (23). Colour-shadeless bound states of three omegons have thus been shown to transform under equation (28) according to the centre Z; of colour SU(3) and to simulate colour SU(3) monopoles with charges M,, the end-points of an equivalent Y-shaped vortex configuration shown in figure 3.7. The flavour quantum numbers of these states have been shown’ to be those of u, d, c, s, t, and b quarks (and of four more predicted to exist). Coloured, flavoured, composite quarks emerge from the Omegon Model. ™, ms 2 M, Fig. 3.7 Baryon colour wavefunctions B = (3!)*eaneq’(1)q"(2)q°(3) (34) transform under equation (30) as BoB = WB = B, (35) where we have used equation (33). Therefore, baryons are colour SU(3) singlets. Meson colour wavefunctions M = 3-*Pg4(1)94(2) (36) transform as aye yea a OL 8 oL Sh oz Se oe ‘dW JO seqQUINN sv 554200 <> 3900 3600: 2700- =| 2100: 4 1800. 1500 4 1200: 900 6004 3004 20 Y = (0.48 + 3.99) = (18.03 + 0.03)X 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 K+ Graph 4.4. M.P.A, population (7) versus mass number (X) 56Two HyporHESES CONCERNING Micro-Pst 57 A TEST OF STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE Let Y be the population of U.P.A.’s in the M.P.A. of a nuclide of mass number X. Graph 4.4 of Y versus X is that of a straight line. A linear relationship between Y and X is expected. Accordingly, the following mathematical model is expected to relate the number Y; of U. in an M.P.A. to the mass number X; of the nuclide selected for micro-psi ex- amination: Yi=at+pxite, where e, is the random error of counting and « and § are constants to be determined. In the particular theory under consideration, « = 0 and B = 18. These two hypotheses will be tested by using the technique of linear regression. The method of least squares is strictly valid only if the errors are normally distributed, independent, and of constant variance. Graph 4.2 confirms their normal distribution. The errors are independent, since graph 4.5 of error versus X shows a random scatter of points. Graph 4.6 of error versus 18X also displays a random scatter of points, and so the errors have constant variance. Therefore, all three criteria for the validity of the method of least squares are satisfied. Estimated values of a (4) and 6 (8) are obtained from the theoretical expressions &=Y-6Xx, = Sxv/Sx*, where Sxt= DO XP— 9X, Sexy = DO XiVi — XY. a at The best estimate of the error variance is St = [1/(n — 2)][Sy2 — (Sxv)?/Sx4] , where Dvia- ny’. a Sy: ‘The estimates of the standard errors of & and @ are oa = S/n + X2/Sx3)"2 and og = S/(Sx)"*. The L-test statistic for the hypothesis a = 0 is la = G/on. The ¢-test statistic for the hypothesis B = 18 is tg = (B — 18)/op.—-X Over oz ——_——.—____ 002 +e ogt i LX snsi9a (9) 10129 Jo ydein “gp yderg, ogt 4 opt 1 zt ool og em sr t+ or se oe Sz oz rst Fol OL SL 0z“XBL ° *09ly + ovse ozse a ooze, XT snsia4 (2) 10119 Jo ydwin 9°} ydeiy, Ovee —ozét_——008t 1.1 osez —o9sz fi —__t—— ~ ogzi aL 096 5960 Extra-SENSORY PERCEPTION OF QUARKS Both statistics have n — 2 degrees of freedom. Excluded from the test are the “hybrid M.P.A.’s” (to be discussed shortly), and M.P.A’s listed in table 4.1 as being formed from two different nuclides, since they are not examples of the model under test. This leaves a sample of size 2 = 95. The results are R 048, a= B= 18.03, o8 1, = 0.1191 (statistical probability = 0.9052) , ts = 0.8755 (statistical probability = 0.3814) . The data are best fitted by the relation Y = (0.48 + 3.99) + (18.03 + 0.03)X and support the hypotheses a = 0 and 6 = 18 at an acceptable level of confidence (p > 0.90 and 0.38, respectively). The data support strongly the prediction N(A) = 184 and, therefore, Hypotheses 1 and 2. It should be noted that this test does not prove the absolute validity of the model Y = 18X. In general, the identities of the nuclides that actually formed the M.P.A.’s cannot be known with certainty independently of their counted populations. This is because the investigators supplied no informa- tion concerning the materials that they examined with micro-psi vision. Consequently, the data are fitted to nuclides whose identities are conjec- tured and are not known with certainty. All that the test demonstrates (and all that is claimed here for it) is that the model based on Hypotheses 1 and 2 can fit the data satisfactorily when the most appropriate nuclides are chosen according to a set of criteria. It does not demonstrate that the model actually fits a sample of 95 M.P.A.’s whose identification is certain. This, of course, cannot be shown because of the intrinsic, unavoidable uncertainty of their identification. Only the capability of the model to provide a sta- tistically significant fit to the data is shown. The absolute validity of the model may be inferred from this demonstration only insofar as the choices listed in table 4.1 represent the nuclides that in reality formed the M.P.A.’s. The three criteria used in the construction of table 4.1 to select the most ap- propriate nuclides so severely limit possible candidates that they make this identification highly probable, if not certain. To this extent the successful fitting of the data may be regarded as a confirmation of the absolute validity of the model. The identification of M.P.A.’s of clements with isotopes having 100 percent terrestrial abundance is free of ambiguity, since it is certain that the investigators would have examined only the single, naturally occurringTwo HyporHEsEs CONCERNING Mrcro-Pst 61 isotope of these elements. These (and only these) provide a strictly valid test of the model. Using a sample of 23 such elements, the best estimate of B is given by 6 = 18.042 + 0.044. The hypothesis 8 = 18 is acceptable, this value differing from the “best fit” hypothesis by less than 1 standard deviation. The absolute validity of the model is supported by the data. In chapter 2 the possibility that the work of Besant and Leadbeater was fraudulent was discussed and rejected as implausible. This question will now be re-examined. Let us assume hypothetically that Besant and Lead- beater did not possess genuine micro-psi ability and that, intent on falsely demonstrating that they could exercise a faculty of extra-sensory perception, they fabricated the populations of fictitious M.P.A.’s so as to obtain agree- ment between their calculated number weights and chemical atomic weights, which were listed in scientific reference works available to the general public at the time. It was only this correlation that would have impressed contemporary scientists, because most of Besant’s and Lead- beater’s descriptions of atoms and molecules at best bore no relation to classical physics and chemistry and at worst conflicted with them very seriously. It is, therefore, central to the issue of the scientific significance of the investigations. Let us suppose, then, that Besant and Leadbeater decided (for some reason) to construct the simplest M.P.A.—the M-P.A. of hydrogen—out of eighteen U.P.A.’s and that they made contact with chem- istry by assigning to other elements M.P.A.’s with populations of U.P.A.’s giving number weights approximately equal to the known atomic weights. According to this suggestion, they might have made the agreement only approximate in order to create the impression that their work was just as prone to error as scientific experiments were, so helping to enhance the plausibility of their claims. Table 4.3 is the list of elements that were claimed to have been examined up to 1908 (it appears on p. 20 of Occult Chemistry [2d ed., 1919]). The asterisks affixed to some elements are intended to indicate that these had not been discovered by orthodox science until then. The second column is the population (Y), the third column is the number weight (population/18) that Besant and Leadbeater were supposed to have calculated from the second column, and the fourth lists atomic weights (X) taken (according to the text) from “‘the latest list of atomic weights, the ‘International List’ of 1905, given in Erdmann’s ‘Lehrbuch der Unor- ganischen Chemie.’ ” Suppose that they used the relation Y = px (taking 6 = 18) in order to fabricate the figures in the second column that they claimed to have counted. If this were true, the data would be expected to support the hypothesis 8 = 18 at an acceptable level of confidence. OnTABLE 4.3 UPA. Number Atomic Population Weight Weight Element () (¥/18) (x) Hydrogen... 18 1 1 *O¢ccultum..... 54 3 : Helium... 2 4 3.94 Lithium. 22.2, 127 7.06 6.98 Beryllium 164 ol 9.01 Boron... 200 Wit 10.86 Carbon... 216 12 11.91 Nitrogen... 00... 261 14.50 14.01 Oxygen 290 16.11 15.879 Fluorine... 340 18.88 18.90 Neon 360 20 19.9 *Meta-Neon 402 22.33 : Sodium... : 418 23.22 22.88 Magnesium. 432 24 24.18 Aluminium 486 27 26.91 Silicon. ...: 520 28,88 28.18 Phosphorus 558 31 30.77 Sulphur. ..: 376 32 31.82 Chlorine... 639 35.50 35.473 Potassium 701 38.944 38.85 Argon......... 74 39.66 39.60 Calcium: . 720 40 39.74 *Meta-Argon 736 42 fi Scandium. . 792 43.78 Titanium... 864 47.74 Vanadium... 918 50.84 Chromium 936 51.74 Manganese 992 54.57 Tron 1,008 56 35.47 Cobalt 13036 37.55 37.7 Nickel 1,064 50.11 58.30 Copper. 13139 63.277 63.12 Zinc. . 13170 65 64.91 Gallium 13260 70 69.50 Germanium 1,300 72.22 71.93 Arsenic : 13350 75 74.45 Selenium. 13422 79 78.58 Bromine. . 1,439 79.944 79.953 Krypton 13464 81.33 81.20 *Meta-Krypton... 13506 83.66 Rubidium. . 13530 85 84.85 Strontium. <<...) 1,568 87.11 86.95 Yttrium. . 1606) 89.22 88.34 Zirconium 1,624 90.22 80.85 Niobium. ......! 13719 95.50 93.25 Molybdenum... | 1,746 97 95.26 Ruthenium.....111 1,848 102.66 100.91 Rhodium... 1,876 104.22 102.23 Palladium. ........ 1,904 105.77 105.74 Silver. . : 1}945 108.055 107.93 Cadmium... 23016 112 111.60 Tadiumicgerscse 2,052 114 114.05 Tin ee 23124 118 118.10 Antimony... 120.50 119.34 Tellurium. |... .: 123.50 126.64 odie ieeeeres 2)287 127.055 126.01 Xenon... 2)298 127.66 127.10 * See text,Two HypoTHESES CONCERNING Micro-Pst 63 TABLE 4.3—Continued UPA. Number Atomic Population Weight Weight ” (7/18) (x) *Meta-Xenon 2,340 130 *Kalon...... 3,054 169.66 *Meta-Kalon.. . 3,096 172 Osmium. : 3,430 190.55 189.55 Iridium : 3,458 192.11 191.56 Platinum A........ 3,486 193.66 193.34 *Platinum B. 3,514 195,22 Gold... 3,546 197 195.74 repeating the analysis for table 4.3, one obtains the best estimate 8 = 18.055 + 0.014. This differs from the expected value 8 = 18 by about 4 standard deviations, and the hypothesis is, therefore, unacceptable (p < 10-*). It is concluded that there is no statistical support for the suggestion that Besant and Leadbeater fabricated the population data from lists of atomic weights. ELEMENTS “X,” “Y,” “Z,” AND “KALON” As a result of their examination of the three triads of transition elements iron cobalt nickel ruthenium rhodium palladium osmium iridium platinum belonging to Group VIII of the periodic table, Besant and Leadbeater reported? in 1907 their observation of three M.P.A.’s that were distinct, both in population of U.P.A.’s and in their constituent groups, from the M.P.A.’s of these transition elements, although they had the form characteristic of the Bars Group to which the latter belonged. Because the three M.P.A.’s could not be accommodated in the periodic table, the investigators had to label them “X,” “Y,” and “Z,” believing that they were atoms of new elements not at that time discovered by science. Their belief was strengthened by their discovery that, when the M.P.A.’s of the known elements were arranged according to their external shapes, they fell into groups that were arranged in the same way that elements were classified in the periodic table proposed by Sir William Crookes, the famous chemist. X, Y, and Z also fitted this scheme of classification, and Besant and Leadbeater even formulated a version of Crookes’s table that provided natural positions for these ‘missing elements.”* But it is well known that this table is incorrect, and atomic theory provides no room for a missing group of transition elements in the modern periodic table. No element can64 Extra-SENSORY PERCEPTION OF QUARKS exist that corresponds to any of these M.P.A.’s. This provides, of course, an irrefutable argument against the interpretation of an M.P.A. as an atom or atomic nucleus. What can X, Y, and Z be? By comparing the populations listed in table 4.1, it can be seen that the differences between their popula- tions and those of the M.P.A.’s of the three triads of elements are too large for them to be merely isotopic variations of the latter. It is proposed here that they are “hybrid M.P.A.’s,” formed from nuclei of two different triad elements at the time when compounds of these elements were examined by the investigators. Such a possibility raises the question of why, out of the numerous recorded examples, only three M.P.A.’s should have been formed in this way (apart from the M.P.A. of “Kalon,” which will be discussed shortly). Answers to this question can be speculated, but they will not be discussed here. The following evidence supports such an interpretation: it can be seen from table 4.1 that the populations of the M.P.A.’s of X, Y, and Z are almost exactly the arithmetic mean of those of the M.P.A.’s, respectively, of ruthenium and osmium, rhodium and iridium, and palladium and platinum—just what would be expected if they had, indeed, been formed from nuclei of each pair of elements. Ruthenium has the stable isotopes Ru?” and Ru’, and osmium has the stable isotopes Os!®° and Os!"?. The M_P.A. formed from either Ru'? and Os!? or Ru! and Os!" (the former pair being favoured because both nuclides are more common) would contain 2,646 omegons, and this is exactly the number of U.P.A.’s counted in the M.P.A. of X. Close agreement can be found for the other hybrid M.P.A.’s (see table 4.1). Also observed in 1907 was an M.P.A. that, according to its external form, belonged to the Star Group (comprising the inert gases) but cannot be accommodated in the modern periodic table as a new inert gas. Its popula- tion of 3,054 U.P.A.’s placed it between xenon and emanation in terms of number weight (and, therefore, effective atomic weight). It was reported to be rare: “Its rarity was then described by saying that there might be one in the atmosphere of an ordinary-sized room.” Besant and Leadbeater believed that they had spotted with micro-psi vision an atom of an inert gas unknown to science then, calling the new element ‘Kalon.” It hardly needs to be pointed out that, if an M.P.A. were an atom or atomic nucleus, atomic physics would forbid the existence of one atom or nucleus of kalon even in the entire universe, let alone in an “ordinary-sized room.” Its population of 3,054 U.P.A.’s is almost exactly the arithmetic mean of the populations of the xenon and emanation M.P.A.’s (2,298 and 3,990, respec- tively), implying an effective mass number of about 169 or 170. But it cannot be due to an isotope of either of these elements because neither hasTwo HyporHEsEs CONCERNING Micro-Pst 65 isotopes with such mass numbers. It is proposed here that the M.P.A. of kalon is another hybrid M.P.A., like those of X, Y, and Z, formed from nuclei of xenon and emanation during the investigation of the inert gases. The low abundance of these elements in the earth’s atmosphere would explain the reported rarity of observations of the M.P.A.’s. A possible candidate for kalon is the pair of nuclides Xe! and Em (radon). An “isotopic variation” of the M.P.A. (“meta-Kalon”) with 3,096 U.P.As is probably due to the pair of nuclides Xe!*4 and Em" (thoron). ‘The predicted error for kalon is —60; for meta-kalon, it is zero. The former is an integer multiple of 6. Kalon also illustrates the error-compounding effect discussed earlier for the inert gases, namely, that their M.P.A.’s must have errors of counting that are integer multiples of 6 because the investi- gators counted U.P.A.’s in only one arm of the star-shaped M.P.A. In conclusion, U.P.A.’s have been identified as @ and % omegons—the spin-1/2 constituents of u and d quarks predicted by the Omegon Model. The predicted populations of M.P.A.’s agree with the counted numbers to a statistically significant extent. A generalization of Hypothesis 2 explains why several M.P.A.’s should have been reported, despite the fact that none of them can correspond to any known element. Details of the dynamical transformation of pairs of nuclei into M.P.A.’s are discussed in chapter 7. 222 REFERENCES 1, Lucifer, November 1895 (London: Theosophical Publishing House). 2. Memorandum concerning “three new Interperiodics X, Y & Z,” published with other reports in The Theosophist, January-December 1908. 3. Occult Chemistry, 3d ed., p. 33, fig. 12. 4. Ibid., p. 249.CHAPTER 5 Micro-Psi Support for the “String Model” of Elementary Particle Physics There are therefore Agents in Nature able to make the Particles of Bodies stick together by very strong Altractions. And it is the Business of experimental Philosophy to find them out. Sir Isaac Newton Small things wax exceeding mighty, Being cunningly combined; Furious elephants are fastened By ropes of grass-blades, twined. Hitopadesa MAGNETIC MONOPOLES Over forty years ago, the English physicist P. A. M. Dirac! introduced to physics the concept of “magnetic monopoles” (pointlike magnetic charges), analogous to electric monopoles (pointlike electric charges) such as the electron, which has no size or structure that can yet be revealed by high- energy scattering experiments. He pointed out that the possible electric charges (Q) and magnetic charges (g) that particles could carry are not independent of each other. The laws of quantum mechanics require that they be related by the equation Og = gnc (n= 0, +1, +2,...), where # = h/27m (h is Planck’s constant) and c is the speed of light. The existence of magnetic monopoles of charge g = go = fic/2e implies that the electric charge Q must be an integer multiple of the unit of electron charge: Q=ne. This was a well-known fact at the time when Dirac discussed magnetic monopoles. These particles, however, were undetected, hypothetical ob- jects, and so his simple explanation of why atomic particles carried only integer multiples of the charge of an electron remained speculative. 66Micro-Pst Support ror THE “StRING MopeEL” 67 Over the years, experimental search for monopoles has yielded mostly negative results. Efforts to generate monopoles in large particle accelerators? have been unsuccessful. Cosmic-ray observations® have failed to find them, and searches for monopoles trapped inside magnetic material such as ocean- bottom samples‘ and moon rocks* have not been fruitful. But magnetic monopoles might exist for another reason: they restore the so-called “dual” symmetry to Maxwell’s equations for the electromagnetic field. Nature appears to have given monopoles no role to play in the construction of the universe, for the latter seems to be built in an asymmetric fashion only from electrically charged particles. The success of the Quark Model in explaining many facts of hadron physics had suggested that quarks were not merely mathematical entities but were also real constituents of hadrons. But they, too, have remained elusive to the experimental physicist. For example, fractionally charged particles have been sought® by mass spectro- graphic techniques in materials that have undergone little geochemical ageing (e.g., lunar dust and meteorites) or in materials such as sea water in which fractionally charged atoms may have been accumulating. These experiments determine the upper limits: 2 X 10-?? per nucleon for lunar soil and 3 X 10-™ per atom for atoms with either —e/3 or +2e/3 quarks attached. One of the few positive results of recent years was that of G. S. La Rue et al.,” who reported possible observation of fractional charges in superconducting niobium spheres levitated in magnetic fields. This result, however, was not confirmed by Schiffer et al.,8 who gave an upper limit of 10-** per nucleon for e/3 charges emitted by niobium, tungsten, and iron filaments heated in an electrostatic potential. Noting the elusive character of both monopoles and quarks, Schwinger® suggested that they might be one and the same particle. He proposed that hadrons were made up of particles carrying both electric and magnetic charges (“dyons”’). He argued that the absence of free magnetic monopoles in the world at large was due to the superstrong electromagnetic coupling between dyons. The strength of the Coulomb force between electric charges is determined by the fine- structure constant a = e?/he ~ 1/137, whereas magnetic charges would have the coupling constant gi/fice = 1/4. This would mean that the force between dyons is several times stronger than the nuclear force holding nucleons together in nuclei. For example, it would require 7 GeV of energy to separate a pair of Dirac monopoles from a distance of 10-! cm to infinity. Free monopoles (quarks) would be very rare because of the enormously energetic processes (natural or technological) required to dissociate mag- netically neutral matter into monopoles of opposite charge. But purely magnetostatic binding cannot lead to “asymptotic freedom” for quarks— the property revealed by high-energy inelastic electron-proton scattering68 ExtTra-SENSORY PERCEPTION OF QUARKS experiments whereby the forces between quarks appear to weaken with decreasing distance. Nor does it lead to stable, bound systems for three quark monopoles only and not more. The lack of production of free quarks in high-energy collisions of particles and the apparent absence of free quarks in matter can be explained in four ways: 1. Quarks do not exist, and the success of the Quark Model is accidental. 2. Unlike atoms in molecules or nucleons inside nuclei, quarks are not discrete objects but a kind of collective excitation of hadronic matter, perhaps analogous to phonons in a crystal. 3. Quarks are discrete particles that are bound by superstrong forces which in principle permit their escape from hadrons but which cannot yet be overcome by the current generation of particle accelerators. 4. Unlike other forces of nature that weaken with increasing distance between particles, the forces binding quarks together remain constant with increasing distance, so that they are permanently trapped inside hadrons. An example of the fourth proposal is a class of theories that will be referred to collectively as the “String Model.” In this chapter, micro-psi observations made about eighty years ago will be shown to support the essential physical ideas on which this theory of strong forces and of quark confinement is based. Its history is reviewed below. NON-ABELIAN VORTICES AND QUARK CONFINEMENT In 1933, Meissner and Ochsenfeld discovered that, when a magnetic field was applied to a superconductive material cooled to low enough tempera- tures for it to exhibit no electrical resistance, the magnetic flux that had passed straight through the specimen when it was at room temperature (fig. 5.1, a) was almost completely expelled from its interior (fig. 5.1, 8). This “Meissner Effect” is now known to arise from the wholesale formation in the superconducting material of large numbers of “Cooper pairs” of electrons, attractively bound in pairs through their mutual interaction with the atomic lattice—an interaction that overcomes their mutual repulsion due to their electric charges. Their motion in the externally applied mag- netic field produces a magnetic field inside the material that opposes and effectively cancels it, so that there is no resultant field. Only when it is superconducting is there a sufficient number of Cooper pairs to achieve this cancellation. Since 1962, two classes of superconductors have been recog- nized—type 1 and type 2. Only the latter is relevant to the present discus- sion. When a magnetic field is applied to a type 2 superconductor, theMicro-Pst Support FOR THE “STRING MODEL” 69 normal, conducting regions of the material form an array of filaments of negligible thickness, arranged parallel to the external field and surrounded by the remaining superconducting material (fig. 5.2, 2). These filaments are extended bundles of flux lines and are, along their entire length, the centre Superconductive (b) state Fig. 5.1 (a) Vortex of current of variable density. Fig. 5.2 of a whirlpool or vortex of electric current made up of circulating electrons (fig. 5.2, 6). Inside this cylindrical vortex tube, the magnetic flux is trapped in regions of normal material with non-zero electrical resistance, being expelled from the surrounding superconductive material through the Meissner Effect. Each flux line is one quantum of magnetic flux: ¢) = hc/ 2e = 2 X 10-* gauss cm’. The flux in a vortex tube is quantized in terms of this unit. Its core is approximately equal in size to the “coherence length”70 ExtRA-SENSORY PERCEPTION OF QUARKS £ and contains most of the flux. But the magnetic field extends into the superconducting region over a distance that is characterized by the “London penetration depth,” \, = (mc?/4ane?)'/2, where m is the electron mass and n is the density of superconducting electrons. For type 2 superconductors, bo KA. The short penetration depth of a magnetic field inside a type 2 super- conductor may be interpreted in terms of the photon becoming massive as the result of spontaneous breakdown of Maxwell’s field equations for the electromagnetic field (loss of U(1) symmetry in the superconductor). This is an example of the Higgs mechanism in particle physics whereby massless Yang-Mills gauge fields such as the electromagnetic field can acquire mass and so become short-range. In 1973, Nielsen and Olesen’ pointed out a remarkable parallelism between, on the one hand, the Higgs model of broken gauge symmetry and the London-Ginzburg theory of superconductivity, and, on the other hand, the Dual String Model and flux lines in type 2 superconductors. Their work prompted Nambu" to study Dirac monopoles embedded in an Abelian superconducting vacuum, the Higgs field taking over the role of superconducting electrons. He found that pairs of oppositely charged monopoles were permanently bound together. With the identifica- tion of quarks as magnetic monopoles and mesons as monopole-antimono- pole pairs, this result explained why mesons could not decay into free quarks. In a classical vacuum, the flux lines of a positively charged mono- pole diverge in all directions (fig. 5.3, a). The flux lines of a monopole immersed in a superconducting Higgs vacuum are confined as quantized bundles within a flux tube or vortex (fig. 5.3, 6), being expelled from the surrounding vacuum by the Meissner Effect. The Nielsen-Olesen vortices are in the spinless Higgs meson field, which behaves as a superfluid. Far from the centre of the vortex, the Higgs field density is constant and the SE B= — oo (a) (b) Radial flux lines of Bundles of quantized ‘magnetic monopole in flux in a supercon- a classical vacuum. ducting vacuum. Fig. 5.3,Micro-Psr Support ror THE “STRING MopEL” at vacuum is superconducting. Closer to the centre, the density progressively decreases until it falls to zero at the centre of the flux tube, where the vacuum is normal and the U(1) symmetry of the electromagnetic field of the monopole is restored (fig. 5.4). Single monopoles are end-points of infinitely t Higgs field density radial distance from centre ——> of flux tube Fig. 5.4 (a) (b) Meson Baryon Fig. 5.5 long vortices (“open strings”), while the ends of finite vortices (“closed strings’) are monopole-antimonopole pairs, tied together permanently by a bundle of flux lines that emanate from the monopole and terminate on the antimonopole (fig. 5.5, a). The flux tube is in equilibrium against the pres- sure of the surrounding superfluid, and the flux inside it is quantized in units of go. The energy of a flux tube is found to be proportional to its length.’? Therefore, pairs of monopoles bound at the end of a flux tube cannot be dissociated into free monopoles through absorption of a finite amount of energy. From the energy absorbed in any stretching of a flux tube, a newKe 72 Extra-SENsoRY PERCEPTION OF QUARKS monopole and antimonopole would materialize. The new monopole would replace the one removed from the pair, and the new antimonopole would join with the displaced monopole, forming another pair, that is, another meson. Quark monopoles could never exist alone. This is the String Model mechanism for quark confinement. However, Abelian vortices cannot bind quarks inside baryons. This is because U(1) is an infinitely connected gauge group and vortices with uniquely defined end-point charges g = ngo (n = 1, 2, 3,...) are physically distinct, so that they do not guarantee baryons to be made up of only three quarks, as hadron spectroscopy indicates. As discussed in chapter 3, the triply connected gauge group SU(3)./Zs is needed to restrict possible bound states of quarks to groups of three, for then Nielsen-Olesen vortices contain magnetic flux defined modulo 3¢, permitting only three quark monopoles to be bound by them in a Y-shaped configuration (fig. 5.5, b). Such Y-shaped strings with quarks at their ends have been proposed for baryons by Artu'* and by Mandelstaam.!* It was proposed in chapter 3 that quarks are Y-shaped strings with omegons as end-points. Micro-psi observations are shown later in this chapter to support this composite picture of quarks. MICRO-PSI OBSERVATION OF NIELSEN-OLESEN VORTICES At the end of chapter 1, it was stated that Annie Besant and C. W. Leadbeater claimed that matter is built up from two kinds of U.P.A.’s—a “positive” and a “negative” variety whose spiral forms are mirror images of each other. In chapter 4 they were identified as SU(9) monopoles of opposite magnetic polarity. The investigators observed a large variety of clusters of U.P.A.’s in the M.P.A.’s of the elements, some examples of which are shown in figure 5.6. But they rarely reported more than nine U.P.A.’s in a single cluster. This is significant because, according to the theory presented in chapter 3, the superconducting Higgs vacuum (which imple- ments spontaneous breakdown of the SU(9) gauge symmetry of the strong interaction between omegons) can support a stable system of only nine magnetic monopoles, bound by Nielsen-Olesen vortices, although other vacua can support fewer monopoles if the latter have fewer colour degrees of freedom (as will be illustrated shortly). In most cases, “bright lines” or “streams of light”” were seen both to enter and to leave each U.P.A. (fig. 5.7). Less common cases where lines appeared to terminate on U.P.A.’s will be discussed later. These lines were regarded by the investigators as “lines of force”: “Force pours into the heart-shaped depression at the top of the Anu, and issues from the point, and is changed in character by its passage.’”15 This was noticed in both (+) and (—) U.P.A.’s. It is proposed that “lines of force” are non-Abelian Nielsen-Olesen=,20@®) Soe) -O- > "COD74 Extra-SENSORY PERCEPTION OF QUARKS vortices carrying quantized flux. Then the above observation may be understood as follows: as well as being the end-point of a single vortex, an SU(N) monopole may be the joint end-point of two such vortices. Because the quantum of magnetic flux in an SU(N) vortex is defined modulo W (in terms of the Dirac unit), a vortex carrying b units of flux in one direction is physically identical with a vortex carrying N — b units in the opposite direction (b < N). The intuitive meaning of this is clear: an SU(N) vortex carrying N units of flux (or integer multiples thereof) is equivalent to no vortex at all, that is, to the ground state of the vacuum. If V units of flux are “switched on” in the direction opposite to that of the flux quantum 8, the resulting vortex is physically the same as before, but, since 6 quanta of flux are now nullified, it is equivalent to a vortex carrying the remaining N — 6 flux quanta in the opposite direction (fig. 5.8). An SU(W) monopole of charge g = m is topologically identical with a monopole of charge g = m — N (and to one of charge g = m+ N), because magnetic charge is defined only by modulo N. This means that an SU(V) monopole of charge g =m > 0 that is the joint end-point of two vortices carrying away flux quanta of a and b (m = a + 6) is also the joint end-point of two vortices carrying flux quanta of b and N — a, respectively, away from and towards the monopole (fig. 5.9, a). Similarly, a monopole of charge g = —m <0, on which two vortices carrying flux quanta of a and 6 terminate, is equiva- lent to the joint end-point of two vortices carrying flux quanta of a and N — 8, respectively, towards and away from it (fig. 5.9, b). Because flux py sitios + = — eo — oeeeceese Se cssudeeaseeiaae eee ae —_—_> ioc teeceares flux quantum a flux quantum N flux quantum (N - a) (vacuum ground state) Fig. 5.8 o,-a o,=a-N g=m=atb ma g=m-N (a) %,=b $,=b OcmeN oy =-a g=-m=-(a+b) =— g=N-m (b)Micro-Pst Support FOR THE “STRING MopEL” 75 quanta and monopole moments are defined only by module N, flux direc- tion is not uniquely defined. However, the directions of the lines of foree_. between U.P.A.’s were specified by the investigators, who noted that the lines entered one end of the U.P.A. and passed out of the opposite end. To facilitate analysis of their observations, the following convention is adopted: flux lines terminate at the “depression” end of a U.P.A. and commence at the “pointed” end. In conclusion, the “force” referred to above by the investigators is a bundle of non-Abelian gauge flux lines confined mostly along the cores of Nielsen-Olesen vortices of the superconducting Higgs vacuum. The “‘change in character” of this force as it enters and leaves a U.P.A. is the difference in flux densities of the two vortices joined by the monopole, which acts as a source or sink of flux. U.P.A.’s AND THEIR STRINGS Examples of recorded duads of U.P.A.’s bound by lines of force appear in figure 5.10. If U.P.A.’s were always magnetic monopoles embedded in the SU(9) superconducting Higgs vacuum, these duads would not have been observed. This is because such a vacuum permits only groups of nine monopoles, as three clusters of three, to be free systems, according to the theory presented in chapter 3. However, in chapter 7 it will be proposed that one of the physical effects of micro-psi vision on confined constituents of nucleons is to induce local phase transitions of the SU(9) Higgs vacuum to SU(V) vacua (N < 9), domains of which trap and confine omegons re- leased from nucleons destabilized by these transitions. In the new vacua, omegons have fewer colour degrees of freedom, although their flavours are unchanged. Duads are bound states of two colour SU(2) monopoles, the strings linking them carrying one flux quantum. Monopoles bound by either one string (fig. 5.10, a) or three strings (fig. 5.10, c) have magnetic charges of +1; those bound by two strings (fig. 5.10, 6) have charges of +2, since single SU(2) strings cannot carry two units of flux. The first three examples are identical with the finite meson strings discussed in current String Model research and are striking evidence for U.P.A.’s being magnetic monopoles." Pairs of U.P.A.’s that point away from the centre of the bound state are ®-@ diomegons, pairs both pointing inwards are 9t-% diomegons, and pairs that point in opposite directions are ®-9 diomegons. The reason for this assignment of isospin states is given shortly in the discussion of the hydrogen M.P.A. “Lines of force” were usually observed to emanate from and terminate on U.P.A.’s. In a few cases, however, the investigators noted that “where the point of entry and departure is outside the Anu, it is indicated by a dot.”!7 Figure 5.11 shows two examples. The vacuum itself is not a real= omegon — =% omegon @ f | (b) 2 £2 ) ; 1 = 1 2h : (c) Fig. 5.11 ESMicro-Psi Support FoR THE “STRING MopEL” 77 source or sink of magnetic flux. It is suggested that this point is a kind of “branch point” in a string separating sections that carry one and three units of flux. Since the flux in SU(2) vortices is defined by modulo 2, these sections are physically identical. But they appear to the micro-psi observer to have a join or pointlike discontinuity at the point where the flux changes in value by two units. Examples of free triplets of U.P.A.’s are shown in figure 5.12. They were recorded in the M.P.A. of nearly every element. This abundance is a feature to be expected, since they were identified as quarks at the beginning of chapter 4. The drawings indicate that quarks consist of either triangular or linear clusters of three U.P.A.’s. The first example, that of a Y-shaped string with SU(3) magnetic monopoles at its ends, is identical with a String Fig. 5.12. Examples of triplets of U.P.A.’s (quarks), observed in the free (unconfined) state78 Extra-SENSORY PERCEPTION OF QUARKS Model representation of a baryon, with non-composite quarks as end-points. It is one of the strongest pieces of evidence! supporting the primary claim made in this book, namely, that the Theosophists Besant and Leadbeater were able to describe the composite character of quarks and protons through their use of micro-psi vision, a siddhi of Yoga. The fourth triplet with three (+) U.P.A’s indicates that (+) and (—) U.P.A.’s really do differ in their magnetic polarity and not in their electric polarity. According to the Omegon Model, two omegons with a positive electric charge and one with a negative charge make up a u quark, while two with a negative charge and one with a positive charge make up a d quark. A triplet with three (+) U.P.A.’s could not be a u or a d quark if (+) U.P.A.’s carried only positive electric charges. Furthermore, it could not be a @-@- bound state with spin 3/2, since it was observed in a Hydrogen Triangle, that is, a proton. Only a definition modulo 3 of the magnetic charge of a monopole with the global gauge group SU(3)/Z; allows such a bound system of three positive magnetic charges. Like diomegons, free (and coloured) quarks cannot exist in the normal vacuum. But, in the vacuum state locally created during the “slowing-down” stage prior to micro-psi observation (for details see chap. 7), they can lose their colour and become free. Figure 5.13 shows a selection of groups of four or more U.P.A.’s. As configurations of magnetic monopoles bound by SU(N) Nielsen-Olesen vortices, they demonstrate the variable colour-shade valency exerted by omegons in M.P.A.’s, a property that will be discussed further in chapter 7. In figure 5.14 are shown examples of groups where one or more U.P.A.’s are end-points of single strings. These were not often observed by the investigators. The first one (seen in the M.P.A. of the O" isotope of oxygen) is noteworthy in that it shows four U.P.A.’s as monopole end-points of single SU(4) strings. They have magnetic charges of +2 and —2. THE HYDROGEN M.P.A. Hydrogen was one of the first elements examined by Besant and Lead- beater in 1895. In the same year, they published" diagrams of its M.P.A., showing the lines of force between the Hydrogen Triplets. These are repro- duced in figure 5.15a. The isospin states and magnetic charges of the U.P.A.’s and the string flux quanta are assigned in figure 5.15b. Re-examined in 1932, the hydrogen M.P.A. was depicted as in figure 5.16, which also shows the groups observed at successive stages of the disintegration of the M_P.A. First, it dissociates into its constituent “protons’’* (stage 1); then each free “proton” breaks up into a diquark and a free quark (stage 2); at stage 3, each diquark splits up into two free quarks; finally, all quarks * By “proton” is meant a proton subject to micro-psi observation, not one in its natural state.Fig. 5.13. Examples of micro-psi observation of groups of N U.P.A.’s (4 < N < 9), bound by “lines of force.””Fig. 5.15a. Micro-psi observation (1895) of hydrogen 807 u quark u quark N u quark Fig. 5.15b. Configuration of gluon flux lines inside proton 81HYDROGEN u quark stage 3 u quark d quark u-d diquark u-u diquark Y e 9) @ GRO & 8 OQ 6) ® aX d quark proton proton stage 1 . 5.16. Disintegration of the hydrogen M.P.A.Micro-Pst Support FoR THE “STRING MopEL” 83 break up into free omegons (stage 4). Why the M.P.A. should contain two protons is explained in chapter 7. The investigators claimed that they could distinguish between what they called “positive” and “negative” groups. They portrayed this distinction in diagrams by means of the following convention: “Speaking generally, positive groups are marked by the points of Anu being turned outward and negative groups by the points being turned inward towards each other and the centre of the group.’””? They did not elucidate what they meant by “positive” and “negative” but remarked only that “combinations of three or more Anu are positive, negative or neutral, according to the internal molecular arrangement; the neutral are relatively stable, the positive and negative are continually in search of their respective opposites, with a view to establishing a relatively permanent union.’”*! The following consideration shows that the terms signify the sign of the total electric charge of a group of U.P.A.’s: the Hydrogen Triangle in figure 5.16 with four (+) and five (—) U.P.A.’s has two triplets with their U.P.A.’s pointing outward even though one has two (+) U.P.A.’s and one (—) U.P.A. and the other has two (—) U-.P.A.’s and one (+) U.P.A. A “positive” triplet, therefore, cannot be one that has more (+) U.P.A.’s than (—) U.P.A.’s. But, if the terms refer to electric charge, then the Hydrogen Triangle should. contain two positively charged triplets and one negatively charged triplet. The reader is reminded that the Quark Model predicts that a proton consists of two positively charged u quarks and one negatively charged d quark. Figure 5.16 is consistent with two features of the Quark Model: it shows the presence of three bodies in what has been identified in chapter 4 as a proton a Hydrogen Triangle. It also indicates that two bodies are “positive” and one is “negative.” Unfortunately, similar considerations cannot be applied to the other Hydrogen Triangle because diagram a in figure 5.16 does not indicate clearly whether the linear triplet is positive or negative. But since, for this Hydrogen Triangle, the triangular triplet with its U.P.A. pointing outward must be a u quark and the linear triplet with its outside U.P.A. pointing inward must be a d quark, it may be inferred that a is a u quark, or, more accurately speaking, a u quark depicted after its disintegration into free omegons, It would appear that the diagram is one showing a linear Hydrogen Triplet (6) that was accidentally broken up by the investigators while they observed it. This is because, according to the investigators’ own testimony on the appearance of free U.P.A.’s (given shortly), the U.P.A.’s are depicted in diagram a as being in the free state. Figure 5.156 shows two different string configurations for the proton. In one of them, three lines of force connect each triplet to the centre of their84 ExtRA-SENSORY PERCEPTION OF QUARKS orbital motion. It is interpreted as follows: quarks are bound to one another in baryons by SU(9) Nielsen-Olesen vortices extending between their constituent omegons. The total flux emanating from the junction of the nine vortices is 0 (mod 9). Quarks are clusters of three SU(9) magnetic monopoles that are internally bound by Y-shaped SU(3) vortices carrying either one or two flux quanta. The flux emanating from the junction of a Y-shaped string is 0 (mod 3). Note that the trigonal symmetry of the sets of three SU(9) strings is identical with the symmetry of arrangement of the SU(3) strings between omegons in a free quark. This is because each quark contributes a net flux of three quanta to the junction of the nine SU(9) strings binding omegons together in a baryon, while each omegon contributes a net flux of one quantum to the junction of the nine SU(3) strings binding them in a free quark. The internal Y-shaped string structure of a bound quark is identical with current models of baryons as three SU(3) quark monopoles bound by Y-shaped strings. It must be emphasized here that all drawings of groups of particles have only qualitative significance and are not even approximately correct in scale. This is because the micro-psi observer employs widely varying powers of magnification in order to discern and to examine objects of different size. Hence, he finds accurate comparison and depiction of their relative sizes to be quite impossible tasks: “It should be specifically noted that the diagrams are not drawn to scale, as such drawings would be impossible in the given space. The dot representing the Anu is enormously too large compared with the enclosures, which are absurdly too small; a scale drawing would mean an almost invisible dot on a sheet of many yards square.” Also: “It must be remembered that the bodies shown diagrammatically in no way indicate relative size; as a body is raised from one substate to the one immediately above it, it is enormously magnified for the purpose of investigation.” Still, Hydrogen Triangles were described as very large compared with their constituents, a feature that is consistent with experimental evidence for relatively small or pointlike quarks inside protons.*4 DISINTEGRATION OF GROUPS OF U.P.A.’S Besant and Leadbeater claimed not only that they could observe atoms but that they could also disintegrate them into their constituent bodies, and these in turn into smaller groups, until everything was finally broken up into free U.P.A.’s (or at least they could manipulate micro-psi images in this way). They stated: “The first thing that happens on removing a gaseous atom from its ‘hole’ or encircling ‘wall’ is that the contained bodies are set free, and, evidently released from tremendous pressure, assume spherical or ovoid forms, the Anu within each re-arranging themselves,Micro-Psi Support FOR THE “STRING MopEL” 85 more or less, within the new ‘hole’ or ‘wall.’ ”?° An example of this which is important theoretically is the disintegration of Hydrogen Triplets. These are very often described as being capable of disintegration into duads of U.P.A.’s and free U.P.A.’s (fig. 5.17). The most interesting feature to note is that “positive” triplets with their U.P.A.’s shown pointing outward always form “positive” duads and that “negative” triplets with inwardly pointing U.P.A.’s always break up into “negative” duads and a free U.P.A. This implies, according to the interpretation made earlier, that a positively charged triplet contains at least two U.P.A.’s that are positively charged and that a negatively charged triplet has at least two U.P.A.’s that are free ULP.A. (omegon) + free U.P.A. (omegon) + free U.P.A (+) triplet (u quark) (+) duad (omegon) Fig. 5.17. (+) and (—) triplets disintegrate into (++) and (—) duads, respectively86 Extra-SENSORY PERCEPTION OF QuARKS negatively charged, as a pair. This conclusion agrees with the charge signs of omegons in a u and in a d quark: u: (5/9, 5/9, —4/9); d: (—4/9, —4/9, 5/9) . Many examples of group disintegration will be given in chapter 7. Another interesting feature exhibited by nearly all groups is that they are described as enclosed in what the investigators called a “hole” in space. This was referred to in the last quotation. It will be discussed further in chapter 7, but the conclusions of that discussion are summarized here: a “hole” containing a cluster of N U.P.A’s is a vacuum excitation consisting of a finite-sized, inhomogencous Higgs vacuum domain with SU(N) Nielsen- Olesen vortices. The enclosing surface (or encircling “wall”) is the phase boundary between it and the circumambient SU(N’) Higgs vacuum (NV ¥ N’ <9). Groups with different numbers of U.P.A.’s are embedded in different vacua that co-exist in M.P.A.’s as bag-like objects trapping the omegon magnetic monopoles within them. Figure 5.6 shows examples of these “holes” with their “walls” clearly marked. How a human being with his micro-psi vision focused on particles can break them up into smaller units is a question that will not: be discussed here. Since omegons are probably permanently confined by their strings (this has not yet been rigorously proved), the dissociation cannot be achieved in a mechanical way. Instead, the principle probably at work is this: through the causal link established by the observer between himself and the object he examines, he induces in an SU(V) Higgs vacuum domain a phase tran- sition to an SU() vacuum, where » < N. This nullifies all string bonds between monopoles momentarily, so that they separate. Then, owing to the formation of new strings between them, they reassemble in just those bound states that are allowed by their magnetic charge. For example, a quark is separated from a proton by destroying the SU(9) vortices linking it to other quarks, rather than by mechanically breaking its bonds (which may be impossible). A quark made up of magnetic charges of 1, 1, and —2 embedded in an SU(3) Higgs field domain can be broken up into a free omegon of charge —2 and a diomegon, consisting of two monopoles with charge 1 (mod 2) bound by vortices in an SU(2) Higgs vacuum (see the first example in figure 5.17). Dissociation of a duad of U.P.A.’s into two free U.P.A.’s is achieved by the observer inducing a phase transition of the SU(2) vacuum domain into an Abelian superconducting vacuum, in which omegons lose their colour-shades and cease to function as non-Abelian monopoles. The spherical “hole” that encloses a free U.P.A. (see fig. 5.17) is a U(1) Higgs vacuum domain, its “walls” being the phase boundary between this domain and the ambient SU(9) Higgs field. When in such a free state, an omegon is colour-shadeless and emits no flux, since it no longerMicro-Pst Support ror THE “STRING MopeEL” 87 has a magnetic charge. As a result, the String Model idealization of a free, isolated magnetic monopole as the end-point of an infinitely long vortex is not apparent to the observer, who describes, instead, a free U.P.A. as shown in figure 5.17. The dipolar magnetic field of the spinning, electrically charged omegon is expelled from the superconducting vacuum, in which it is em- bedded, and squeezed into a loop. It should be emphasized that the observer has to restrain the natural motion of the particles in his field of vision sufficiently to be able to describe them. This restraint is imposed during active observation at all stages of disintegration of groups of particles. But its effect is not one of distorting the natural bound-state configurations of strings and monopoles. Micro-psi faithfully reproduces these, although the diagrams are not necessarily accurate in terms of scale and relative sizes. In conclusion, micro-psi observations provide indisputable support for the String Model. They also indicate that quarks are clusters of three magnetic monopoles. Further observational support is discussed in the next chapter. REFERENCES 1. P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London), A133, 60 (1931); Phys. Rev., 74, 817 (1948) 2. H. Bradner and W. M. Isbell, Phys. Rev., 114, 603 (1959); E. M. Purcell et al., Phys. Rev., 129, 2326 (1963); E. Amaldi et al., Nuovo Cimento, 28, 773 (1970); I. T. Gurevich et al., Phys. Letters, 31B, 394 (1970); R. A. Carrigan et al., Phys. Rev., D8, 3717 (1973). 3. W. V. R. Malkus, Phys. Rev., 83, 899 (1951); W. C. Carithers et al., Phys. Rev., 149, 1070 (1966); M. A. Ruderman and D. Zwanziger, Phys. Rev. Letters, 22, 146 (1969); W. Z. Osborne, Phys. Rev. Letters, 24, 1441 (1970). 4. H.H. Kolm, Se. J., 4, no. 9 (1968); H. H. Kolm et al., Phys. Rev., D4, 1285 (1971). 5. P. H. Eberhard et al., Phys. Rev., D4, 3260 (1971). 6. C.M. Stevens et al., Phys. Rev. Letters, 17, 60 (1966); Phys. Rev., D14, 716 (1976). 7. G.S. La Rue et al, Phys. Rev. Letters, 38, 1011 (1977); 42, 142 (1979). 8. 9. J. P. Schiffer et al., Phys. Rev., D17, 2241 (1978). J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev., 173, 1536 (1968); Science, 168, 757 (1969) 10. H. B. Nielsen and P. Olesen, Nucl. Phys., B61, 45 (1973). 11. Y. Nambu, Phys. Rev., D10, 4262 (1974). 12. H. W. Wyld and R. T. Cutler, Phys. Rev., D14, 1648 (1976). 13. X. Artu, Nucl. Phys., B85, 442 (1975). 14, S. Mandelstaam, Phys. Letters, 53B, 478 (1975) 15. Occult Chemistry, 3d ed., p. 14. 16. They appear on pp. 25 and 96 of Occult Chemistry, 2d ed. 17. Occult Chemistry, 3d ed., p. 24. 18. It appears on p. 96 of Occult Chemistry, 2d ed. 19. Lucifer, November 1895 (London: Theosophical Publishing House).88 20. 21, 22. 23. 24. Exrra-SENsory PERCEPTION OF QUARKS Occult Chemistry, 3d ed., p. 26. Ibid. Ibid., p. 36. Ibid., p. 10. E. D. Bloom et al., in: High Energy Physics, Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on High Energy Physics, Kiev, 1970, edited by V. Shelest (Kiev, U.S.S.R.: Navkova Dumko, 1972). 25. Occult Chemistry, 3d ed., p. 10.CHAPTER 6 The Testimony of the Micro-Psi Observer There isa kind of circular motion. Oh yes, there is, a circular motion along the Little bit of the beam which is within my sight. Observation by Geoffrey Hodson of electron Zitterbewegung in a cathode-ray tube, December 7, 1959 This chapter presents the micro-psi observer’s own account of what he sees when he directs his magnifying vision to the atomic world. It is intended, first, to illustrate the vivid, dynamic quality of micro-psi imagery; second, to show how apt his descriptions are in relation to the String Model of elementary particle physics; and, third, to show that his testimony is consistent with his claim to be able to magnify objects of atomic size or less. ZITTERBEWEGUNG The observation of this phenomenon demonstrates the true magnifying power of micro-psi. In 1930 the physicist Schrédinger' pointed out that the Dirac theory of a free electron implies that, superimposed on the observable linear motion of an electron, there is a circular motion about the direction of its spin with a radius equal to its (reduced) Compton wavelength: kc = hme = 3.86 X 10-' cm. This means that, while the average velocity of an electron is less than c (the speed of light), its instantaneous velocity is always +c. This highly oscillatory motion was called Zitterbewegung by Schrédinger. It has a frequency given by wo = 2E/h, where E= +(ép + mae is the energy of the free electron. Therefore, w > 2¢/Xc ~ 10°! per second, the lower limit being for non-relativistic motion (E ~ mc?). The resulting trajectory of the electron is a helix of radius Xe (fig. 6.1), instead of the straight line predicted by classical mechanics. The attempt to localize an electron in space and limit the direction of its spin introduces negative- energy Fourier components into its wavepacket, and these interfere with 8990 Exrra-SENSORY PERCEPTION OF QUARKS the positive-energy plane-wave components. The effect is that each plane wave contributes a circular motion to the electron of radius Xc and frequency in a plane perpendicular to its direction of spin, and only the total con- tribution of all the plane waves vanishes for a spherically symmetric wave- packet. Although not directly detectable experimentally, Zitterbewegung produces a current that can be shown? to account for the Dirac magnetic moment of the electron. CON) —= Fig. 6.1 Below are listed comments made by a micro-psi observer® during his examination of an electron beam in a cathode-ray tube: 1. “There is a kind of circular motion. Oh yes, there is, a circular motion along the little bit of the beam which is within my sight. I can’t get away from that. It’s just as if the pencil of beam continued its steady condition but there is associated with it a distinct thickening and thinning going on and it’s a wavelike condition.” 2. “Oh yes, there’s that outside circular movement, helical or spiral move- ment again.” 3. “Yes, again I have to record this circular movement. Round the beam. It’s very noticeable. It’s very like a series of wave-crests.” 4. “Tt is spiral and it does consist of an enlargement which is moving like an eel around it.” 5. “It consists of a flow, a spiral flow along the beam.” 6. “Oh, it is so marked, this helical movement, it’s almost like a writhing that goes on, quite independent of the pencil which isn’t affected by it.” 7. “It’s very like a series of wave-crests. It consists of particles ina... , in a..., orbital but not in themselves—round, round the pencil.” 8. “I can see the brilliantly lighted pencil of rushing particles going along as the central beam, very well. That’s there. But I’m focusing, trying to get a clear image of this other axial phenomenon. Radial phenomenon. Oh yes, it’s particles... . Oh it is particles . . . going in a circular move- ment to produce this illusion, as if there were. . . . You could say as if you had a wire wound round with another wire wound round it. And this second wire round it consists of rapidly moving, circularly moving particles. But they don’t go along with the wire, the big wire. They go on going round and round and round, as if the wire, the main one went through it.”TESTIMONY OF THE Mrcro-Ps1 OBSERVER 91 On the same occasion, electrons themselves were apparently caught sight of in the vacuum of the cathode-ray tube: “It’s intermittent. And they’re elongated particles. Oh, I got one up by accident, they’re spinning. It’s a spinning particle. Definitely spinning particle.”* On another occasion, during examination of a 5A D.C. current in a copper wire, streams of lighted points were observed to “move in a spiral fashion from disc to disc or crest to crest of pulsed wave.”® Finally, another observation of an electron: during examination of U.P.A.’s in a graphite rod through which an electric current passed, a micro-psi observer noticed that a rushing stream of lighted points passed by them. They were much smaller than U.P.A.’s, and some of them appeared to be scattered or deflected during their travel down the rod. This suggests that they were conduction electrons being scattered by carbon atoms as they travelled through the lattice. On close examination of one of them, it was remarked: “I don’t say it’s an anu, but it looks, it’s got a double spiral movement in it. It’s got a—I can’t give you any relative sizes—it has got a double spiral movement in it, it’s got a—perhaps I had better describe it. The first impression was like the, somewhat like the sweet chestnut with its cover round it. That is to say, it hasn’t got a smooth surface, it’s radiating itself, it is radiating rays and lines of force all round itself and these spike out for a distance of about one, two, three—about a sixth or eighth of the diameter, sideways diameter, of the object. It’s—er—they’re simply shooting forces out from within them- selves all around the sides in addition to their obviously spirally, winding, writhing movement, very noticeable which I’ve never seen quite to the same extent before, perhaps because I haven’t been able to observe it, is this spiked effect. But don’t think of anything like a chestnut covering, they are very much closer than that. It’s an extremely fine radiation that is going off all round. It’s a very strong one too. It gives the impression of rigidity. I’ve got one. Well, it is shaped like an anu.’* An electron has the same appearance as a U.P.A., although it looks much smaller. Since experiments have established that the electron behaves in its electromagnetic interaction with other charged particles as a structureless, pointlike particle at least down to distances approaching 10-!° cm, this description of an electron with electric lines of force emanating from it indicates that micro-psi can discern objects smaller than 10-! cm. U.P.A.’S AS SPINNING MAGNETIC MONOPOLES The two chiral forms of a U.P.A. are shown in figure 6.2. They are mirror images of each other. The ten whorls or currents flow in parallel, spiral- shaped, closed, continuous curves. Three of these appear much “brighter” and “thicker” to the micro-psi observer than the other seven. Of the former,92 Extra-SENsory PERCEPTION OF QUARKS Annie Besant and C. W. Leadbeater remarked: “In the three whorls flow currents of different electricities.”” Noting that the constituents of hadrons strongly interact by exchanging gluons, thus changing their “colour,” according to the theory of quantum chromodynamics and to its generaliza- tion in the Omegon Model, the following statement is curious: “Force pours into the heart-shaped depression at the top of the Anu, and issues from the point, and is changed in character by its passage; further, force Positive Negative Fig. 6.2. The two chiral types of U.P.A.’s 1. (+) variety is one “from which force comes out”; (—) variety is one “through which it disappears.” 2. “Force pours into the heart-shaped de- pression at the top of the Anu, and issues from the point.” 3. Are bound to one another by a“‘very thin line of lighted force.” 4. “The changing shades of colour that flash out from the rapidly revolving and vi ing Anu depend on the several acti of the spirals; . . . with the change of activity from one spiral to another the colour changes.” 5. “It turns incessantly upon its own axis, spinning like a top.” 6. “An electric current brought to bear upon the Anu checks their proper motions, i.e., renders them slower; the Anu exposed to it arrange themselves in parallel lines.” 7, Bound groups are surrounded by a “sphere-wall”; “its ‘wall’ is the pressed back ‘space.’ ” 1. OMEGONS Positive and negative magnetic _mono- poles are, respective of flux lines. sources and sinks - Magnetic monopoles can be joint end- points of two or more strings. . Are confined by flux lines in vortices of the Higgs field. . Change their nine colour-shades by emit- ting or by absorbing gluons.* . Are spin-1/2 fermions. . As Dirac magnetic monopoles, they pos- sess an electric dipole moment that is orientable in an external electric field. . Are trapped in “bags,” “bubbles,” or “domains” of the Higgs field superfluid of hadronic vacuum, * No literal interpretation of “shades of colour’’ in terms of omegon colour-shade states is implied.TESTIMONY OF THE Micro-Psi OBSERVER 93 rushes through every spiral and every spirilla,* and the changing shades of colour that flash out from the rapidly revolving and vibrating Anu depend on the several activities of the spirals; sometimes one, sometimes another is thrown into more energetic action, and with the change of activity from one spiral to another the colour changes.’’* Is this an observation of the dynamical changes accompanying the random absorption or emission of gluons by omegons? One should also ask whether it is coincidental that the number of whorls in a U.P.A. is equal to the number of flavour states of omegons. If not, then each whorl may be the dynamical signature of a potential flavour state. The reader should note that figure 6.2, which is a copy, made especially for the third edition of Occult Chemistry, of a diagram appearing in earlier editions, displays an error of draughtmanship. It shows the two outer, thicker whorls crossing over into each other at the bottom of the U.P.A. This implies that nine whorls constitute the U.P.A., not ten, as Besant and Leadbeater reported. Actually, the three thicker whorls do cross over one another, but they follow separate, closed paths in space (see fig. 5.15a—the original diagram). Figure 6.2 was made after the deaths of the investigators and so was not checked. : Besant and Leadbeater reported that U.P.A.’s possessed three intrinsic motions: “The Anu has—as observed so far—three proper motions, i.e., motions of its own, independent of any imposed upon it from outside. It turns incessantly upon its own axis, spinning like a top; it describes a small circle with its axis, as though the axis of the spinning top moved in a small circle; it has a regular pulsation, a contraction and expansion, like the pulsation of the heart.””® The properties of spin and spin precession were, of course, not known by science to belong to atomic particles at the time (1908) when this observation was first published. Another observer described the spin and pulsation of the U.P.A. thus: 1. “There it is, it was vertical, the one I’ve got now is on its side. That’s interesting. If I look at it, one end of it, yes, the enlarged end. Yes, there it is, it’s coming up clearly. Yes, it’s the anu. I’ve got onto one anu.... It’s on its side as it happens, it’s made of spirallae, .. . and if I go to the large end and look down, I can . . . the impression of gyration is clockwise in this particular one. The spinning is immense, the shape isn’t main- tained all the time. It swells and it goes down, like a centrifugal force makes it swell out, then something else makes it swell in. It’s pulsing. It’s... it’s lighted, very brilliantly lighted.”!” 2. “The anu is definitely lighted and I can discern degrees of luminosity according to the spirallae of which it is composed and the ... I don’t * Each of the ten whorls consists of 1,680 coils or ‘‘spirillae” of a closed helix.