What composes the mass of an electron?

[rhertz]

A definition of mass, as found in Google:

"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."

It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
different flavors.

Loading Image...

But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).

So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?

This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.

Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of
electromagnetic nature?

After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't
it?


THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.

[kinak]

Post by rhertz
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."

--------------------------------

More or less as per my school books of seventy yeass ago.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by kinak

Post by rhertz
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."

--------------------------------
More or less as per my school books of seventy yeass ago.

The definition from above is wrong, because mass is NOT a measure for
the number of protons or similar.

Mass is a measure for resistance to acceleration.

The 'amount of matter' is not measured in kg but in mol.

TH

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by kinak

Post by rhertz
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."

--------------------------------
More or less as per my school books of seventy yeass ago.

The definition from above is wrong, because mass is NOT a measure for
the number of protons or similar.
Mass is a measure for resistance to acceleration.
The 'amount of matter' is not measured in kg but in mol.
TH

All are quite familiar with the notions of "mass" vis-a-vis "weight",
according to gravity and Newton's f(t) = m a(t), where of course
acceleration and force are functions of some universal parameter
t for time.

Then, there's also to be considered the rotational and mass-energy
equivalency, as with regards to "heft". This is available to
classical experiments, with regards to things like the gyroscopic
effect, and for example, the mechanics of spiraling balls and bullets.

These days, it's so that the "Magnus effect", is deemed as to why
balls and bullets fly straight and don't simply fall exactly as
according to gravitational acceleration of their mass, that
"heft" imbues them "resistance to acceleration".

It is known to mechanics that the aerodynamic explanation of
the Magnus effect is merely PARTIAL, and that there are extra
effects as according here to some "Magnus heft", which is as
simply according to the gyroscopic in effect.

So, where "inertia" and "momentum" are long ago conflated,
with regards to "rest" and "motion", in the classical mechanics,
as with regards to before and after Lagrange, then there is
a deconstructive account which makes for accounting for "heft",
as with regards to "resistance to acceleration".

I've been discussing this in my podcasts "Moment and Motion",
with regards to that there are fundamental aspects of motion
itself, both mathematically and physically, that for example
reflects on the Mertonian school and latitude of forms, with
regards to the vis-a-vis and vis-insita besides the vis-motrix,
that being a great argument between Newton and Leibniz,
as with regards to the simplest Galilean principles and
that they're too simple, that since after Lagrange is both
a partial account and Lagrange's flexible invariants,
then that physics writ large has explanations due about
mechanics, as for example Einstein conveys to intend to
portend, when he says the classical mechanics are incomplete.

https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson

[rhertz]

Given the last estimated radius of 10E-18 meters, maybe Coulomb forces
are invalid at such tiny volumes.

Also, maybe the negative density of charge does not exist, and electrons
are some kind of pinch in the "ether" or in dark matter, in a particular
way. But then, quarks and their fractional "e" charges exist because
different kinds of "pinchs" are applied.

What? An undiscovered property of nature?

Space has to be electrically neutral, unless a pinch of some kind is
exerted.

Didn't Dirac predicted something like this in his "Sea of Positrons and
Electrons"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea

[bertietaylor]

The neutron is a proton tightly fitted with an electron, so there are
only protons and electrons in the universe filled with solid aether.

At the individual level each charge is a concept.

So mass is aggregated concept.

Woof-woof

Bertietaylor

[rhertz]

AS I WROTE BEFORE, THEY KNOW NOTHING!

Best explanation: It exists, and we measured its mass. Ask me in 100
years. Period.


**********************************************

https://www.quora.com/What-makes-up-the-mass-of-an-electron

Andy Buckley
Prof in particle physics, visiting researcher at CERN.
Author has 376 answers and 842.4K answer views

The particle physics answer is not far away from “it just is”. As far as
we know, an electron is a fundamental particle with no internal
structure, so its mass isn’t defined by the energy of a force field that
binds it together (as is mostly the case for protons and neutrons).

For somewhat arcane theory reasons, we cannot write down electron mass
directly in the governing equations of the Standard Model but instead
need to play a trick called the Higgs mechanism. This tells us that the
electron gains its mass dynamically, by interacting with an omnipresent
Higgs field. So mass is to some extent a measure of how much the
electron field and the Higgs field like to talk to each other.

And why does the electron like to talk to the Higgs field that much,
while its heavier siblings the muon and tau talk to it a lot more? And
it's much heavier cousins the bottom and top quarks apparently have it
on speed-dial? We don’t know. Yet.
***************************************************

[rhertz]

Post by rhertz
AS I WROTE BEFORE, THEY KNOW NOTHING!
Best explanation: It exists, and we measured its mass. Ask me in 100
years. Period.
**********************************************
https://www.quora.com/What-makes-up-the-mass-of-an-electron
Andy Buckley
Prof in particle physics, visiting researcher at CERN.
Author has 376 answers and 842.4K answer views
The particle physics answer is not far away from “it just is”. As far as
we know, an electron is a fundamental particle with no internal
structure, so its mass isn’t defined by the energy of a force field that
binds it together (as is mostly the case for protons and neutrons).
For somewhat arcane theory reasons, we cannot write down electron mass
directly in the governing equations of the Standard Model but instead
need to play a trick called the Higgs mechanism. This tells us that the
electron gains its mass dynamically, by interacting with an omnipresent
Higgs field. So mass is to some extent a measure of how much the
electron field and the Higgs field like to talk to each other.
And why does the electron like to talk to the Higgs field that much,
while its heavier siblings the muon and tau talk to it a lot more? And
it's much heavier cousins the bottom and top quarks apparently have it
on speed-dial? We don’t know. Yet.
***************************************************

So, accordingly with the latest crap from particle physics, electrons
have no mass by themselves. Mass is "provided" by the Higgs field, even
when electrons are at rest.

This means that the rest energy of 0.511 MeV is provided by Higgs bosons
interacting with the electron. Therefore, the equation m = E/c^2 is pure
and absolute BULLSHIT!

But what remains unexplained is WHAT GIVES ELECTRONS A CONSTANT NEGATIVE
CHARGE, widely proven experimentally.

Or is it that the classic energy of the electron (E = e^2/R) is the real
rest energy of electrons, being R about 10E-18 meters?

I insist, particle physicists (all of them) KNOW NOTHING, but are stuck
with the fucking relativism and its incredible contradictions.

Why nobody take seriously the problem with the charge of the electron
and how such property collides with relativism?

Since the year 1900, it's known that m_e = (m_e/e) x e, as measured
and/or calculated by Thomson and Planck in that year.

124 years of darkness, created on purpose and to impose an agenda of
relativity, caused irreparable damage to physics, chemistry and
mathematics.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by rhertz
AS I WROTE BEFORE, THEY KNOW NOTHING!
Best explanation: It exists, and we measured its mass. Ask me in 100
years. Period.
**********************************************
https://www.quora.com/What-makes-up-the-mass-of-an-electron
Andy Buckley
Prof in particle physics, visiting researcher at CERN.
Author has 376 answers and 842.4K answer views
The particle physics answer is not far away from “it just is”. As far as
we know, an electron is a fundamental particle with no internal
structure, so its mass isn’t defined by the energy of a force field that
binds it together (as is mostly the case for protons and neutrons).
For somewhat arcane theory reasons, we cannot write down electron mass
directly in the governing equations of the Standard Model but instead
need to play a trick called the Higgs mechanism. This tells us that the
electron gains its mass dynamically, by interacting with an omnipresent
Higgs field. So mass is to some extent a measure of how much the
electron field and the Higgs field like to talk to each other.
And why does the electron like to talk to the Higgs field that much,
while its heavier siblings the muon and tau talk to it a lot more? And
it's much heavier cousins the bottom and top quarks apparently have it
on speed-dial? We don’t know. Yet.
***************************************************

The Higgs field is not a (classical) field, it's just an interface.

The "classical Higgs field", is not the Higgs field,
and it's mostly a zero.

That e/m the charge/mass ratio then gifted the hydrogen nucleus 1 AMU
thus defining Avogadro's number, whence "electron physics",
speaks broadly to the notion of "running constants", where
according to NIST CODATA that the mass of an electron decreases annually.

Feynman, a big champion of electron physics, often trails out
with what _would_ be arrived at and isn't, and the particle/wave
duality always reintroduces itself.

Of course atomic chemistry with orbitals and bands is quite great,
yet there's also structural and molecular chemistry, and above
the great usual covalent and ionic bonds, such matters as the
van der Waal's and London dispersion, helping explain that
it's a model with some great success, electron physics,
while there's a neutrino/muon/large-hadron physics,
about an infrared catastrophe, to complement ultraviolet catastrophe,
with regards to super-symmetry three ways.

Resonance theory, ..., second spectrum, ..., it's a continuum mechanics.

Of course it's well known in physics that QM and GR the usual ways
disagree with each other 120 degrees of magnitude, and that
neither has gravity in it.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by rhertz
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of
electromagnetic nature?
After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't
it?
THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.

You got there a deconstructive, elementary account, into
what's called the trans-Planckian regime, from what's
called the Democritan regime, where Democritus or
Demokrites is who championed "atomism" the theory
while Aristotle or Aristoteles while outlining either
the "infinitely-divisible" or "infinitely-divided",
picked "not atomism because no vacuums", as with regards
to that electrons, protons, neutrons are elementary matter
while photon is still the usual particle in terms of
the quanta of energy, as to how energy is quantized,
at the atomic scale, or as with regards to Avogadro.

For some people, charge is primary, others, matter.

Others, it's neutron lifetime and light speed.

Thusly, the theory, as about the invariants of relation,
may be of the primary elements, variously, a sort of heno-theory,
that usually it's matter and then background energy as heat,
as what boils down to second-law thermo entropy, all quite
usual, then as with regards to usually electron-holes and current.

Then, as with regards to whether "mechanical reduction",
kinetics and kinematics, can define the physics, it's mostly so,
while, most matters of the electrical are related only as
eventually as about the electromagnetic, and piezoelectric,
and Peltier and Seebeck and so on, "electrical reduction".

Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by rhertz
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of
electromagnetic nature?
After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't
it?
THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.

You got there a deconstructive, elementary account, into
what's called the trans-Planckian regime, from what's
called the Democritan regime, where Democritus or
Demokrites is who championed "atomism" the theory
while Aristotle or Aristoteles while outlining either
the "infinitely-divisible" or "infinitely-divided",
picked "not atomism because no vacuums", as with regards
to that electrons, protons, neutrons are elementary matter
while photon is still the usual particle in terms of
the quanta of energy, as to how energy is quantized,
at the atomic scale, or as with regards to Avogadro.
For some people, charge is primary, others, matter.
Others, it's neutron lifetime and light speed.
Thusly, the theory, as about the invariants of relation,
may be of the primary elements, variously, a sort of heno-theory,
that usually it's matter and then background energy as heat,
as what boils down to second-law thermo entropy, all quite
usual, then as with regards to usually electron-holes and current.
Then, as with regards to whether "mechanical reduction",
kinetics and kinematics, can define the physics, it's mostly so,
while, most matters of the electrical are related only as
eventually as about the electromagnetic, and piezoelectric,
and Peltier and Seebeck and so on, "electrical reduction".
Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum.

(Physicists and mathematicians too tend to frame things
in terms of small things that go to zero instead of
large things that go to infinity, then though as
with regards to that usual notions of space inversions
and point inversions leave them rather queasy,
with regards to the hyper-geometric and its
regular singular points: 0, 1, and INFINITY.)

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by rhertz
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-
Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of
electromagnetic nature?
After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't
it?
THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.

You got there a deconstructive, elementary account, into
what's called the trans-Planckian regime, from what's
called the Democritan regime, where Democritus or
Demokrites is who championed "atomism" the theory
while Aristotle or Aristoteles while outlining either
the "infinitely-divisible" or "infinitely-divided",
picked "not atomism because no vacuums", as with regards
to that electrons, protons, neutrons are elementary matter
while photon is still the usual particle in terms of
the quanta of energy, as to how energy is quantized,
at the atomic scale, or as with regards to Avogadro.
For some people, charge is primary, others, matter.

I assume a certain mechanism, which belongs to a self-developed concept
called 'structured spacetime'.

(
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
)

In this the electron is not a particle, but denotes a hypothetical
'creation operator', which does not really exists, but if it would, it
would create a certain structure (in spacetime).

As example I take waves on the surface of a pond.

E.g. I could assume a little demon, that pull up the water surface and
wanders around over the pond.

In the microscopic realm of elementry particles we have, of course, no
pond and no demon.

But we could assume a thing would exist, if we see certain paterns
repeatedly.

Those we give the name 'particle' (or 'quantum object' if you prefer that).

But such 'particles' violate simple requirements for material objects,
like being at some position at a certain time and existing continously.

They would also violate several other principles and observations.

For instance the particle concept violates 'Growing Earth', so called
pair production, the big bang theory and 'transmutation'.

Best would be, to abandon real lasting particles altogether and replace
them by something else.

This 'something else' could be 'timelike stable patterns'.

The relation is not at all obvious and you certainly have not heard
about this before.

But think about a standing 'rotation wave'.

This is somehow similar to the path of a yo-yo.

Then we could call the outer edge of this path 'potential' and the inner
turning point 'mass'.

The outer edge had in this scheme a geometric relation and is somehow
'attracted' by the inner turning point, which has mass instead of
rotational velocity.


TH


...

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by rhertz
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-
Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of
electromagnetic nature?
After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't
it?
THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.

You got there a deconstructive, elementary account, into
what's called the trans-Planckian regime, from what's
called the Democritan regime, where Democritus or
Demokrites is who championed "atomism" the theory
while Aristotle or Aristoteles while outlining either
the "infinitely-divisible" or "infinitely-divided",
picked "not atomism because no vacuums", as with regards
to that electrons, protons, neutrons are elementary matter
while photon is still the usual particle in terms of
the quanta of energy, as to how energy is quantized,
at the atomic scale, or as with regards to Avogadro.
For some people, charge is primary, others, matter.

I assume a certain mechanism, which belongs to a self-developed concept
called 'structured spacetime'.
(
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
)
In this the electron is not a particle, but denotes a hypothetical
'creation operator', which does not really exists, but if it would, it
would create a certain structure (in spacetime).
As example I take waves on the surface of a pond.
E.g. I could assume a little demon, that pull up the water surface and
wanders around over the pond.
In the microscopic realm of elementry particles we have, of course, no
pond and no demon.
But we could assume a thing would exist, if we see certain paterns
repeatedly.
Those we give the name 'particle' (or 'quantum object' if you prefer that).
But such 'particles' violate simple requirements for material objects,
like being at some position at a certain time and existing continously.
They would also violate several other principles and observations.
For instance the particle concept violates 'Growing Earth', so called
pair production, the big bang theory and 'transmutation'.
Best would be, to abandon real lasting particles altogether and replace
them by something else.
This 'something else' could be 'timelike stable patterns'.
The relation is not at all obvious and you certainly have not heard
about this before.
But think about a standing 'rotation wave'.
This is somehow similar to the path of a yo-yo.
Then we could call the outer edge of this path 'potential' and the inner
turning point 'mass'.
The outer edge had in this scheme a geometric relation and is somehow
'attracted' by the inner turning point, which has mass instead of
rotational velocity.
TH
...

Aristotle has an idea like "un-moved mover", so it's generally
figured that "physics is an open system", while any sort of
usual classical ansaetze/gendanke, the setup/problem, is
defined as either the initiation of an action, "closed",
that there are no closed systems in physics as the entire
system of physics is an open system.

So, you can usually ascribe in systems of physics, the
idea of mechanical advantage after "information advantage",
that an arbitrarily small reasoning can result an arbitrarily
large mechanical change, as with regards to systems in
physics being open to actors, according to information.


Then, the linear and rotational is a very excellent example
of this, with regards to a usual sort of notion that
"the lever" is the simplest machine and also represents
any sort of mechanical interaction, even the usual
equal/opposite of inelastic conditions, that it's always
so that "the world turns", with regards to theories like
those of DesCartes and Kelvin, of the vortex, as a necessary
complement to the classical and linear (and partial and incomplete)
of what is _not_ the "closed".

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by rhertz
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-
Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of
electromagnetic nature?
After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't
it?
THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.

You got there a deconstructive, elementary account, into
what's called the trans-Planckian regime, from what's
called the Democritan regime, where Democritus or
Demokrites is who championed "atomism" the theory
while Aristotle or Aristoteles while outlining either
the "infinitely-divisible" or "infinitely-divided",
picked "not atomism because no vacuums", as with regards
to that electrons, protons, neutrons are elementary matter
while photon is still the usual particle in terms of
the quanta of energy, as to how energy is quantized,
at the atomic scale, or as with regards to Avogadro.
For some people, charge is primary, others, matter.

I assume a certain mechanism, which belongs to a self-developed concept
called 'structured spacetime'.
(
https://docs.google.com/presentation/
d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
)
In this the electron is not a particle, but denotes a hypothetical
'creation operator', which does not really exists, but if it would, it
would create a certain structure (in spacetime).
As example I take waves on the surface of a pond.
E.g. I could assume a little demon, that pull up the water surface and
wanders around over the pond.
In the microscopic realm of elementry particles we have, of course, no
pond and no demon.
But we could assume a thing would exist, if we see certain paterns
repeatedly.
Those we give the name 'particle' (or 'quantum object' if you prefer that).
But such 'particles' violate simple requirements for material objects,
like being at some position at a certain time and existing continously.
They would also violate several other principles and observations.
For instance the particle concept violates 'Growing Earth', so called
pair production, the big bang theory and 'transmutation'.
Best would be, to abandon real lasting particles altogether and replace
them by something else.
This 'something else' could be 'timelike stable patterns'.
The relation is not at all obvious and you certainly have not heard
about this before.
But think about a standing 'rotation wave'.
This is somehow similar to the path of a yo-yo.
Then we could call the outer edge of this path 'potential' and the inner
turning point 'mass'.
The outer edge had in this scheme a geometric relation and is somehow
'attracted' by the inner turning point, which has mass instead of
rotational velocity.
TH
...

Aristotle has an idea like "un-moved mover", so it's generally
figured that "physics is an open system", while any sort of
usual classical ansaetze/gendanke, the setup/problem, is
defined as either the initiation of an action, "closed",
that there are no closed systems in physics as the entire
system of physics is an open system.
So, you can usually ascribe in systems of physics, the
idea of mechanical advantage after "information advantage",
that an arbitrarily small reasoning can result an arbitrarily
large mechanical change, as with regards to systems in
physics being open to actors, according to information.
Then, the linear and rotational is a very excellent example
of this, with regards to a usual sort of notion that
"the lever" is the simplest machine and also represents
any sort of mechanical interaction, even the usual
equal/opposite of inelastic conditions, that it's always
so that "the world turns", with regards to theories like
those of DesCartes and Kelvin, of the vortex, as a necessary
complement to the classical and linear (and partial and incomplete)
of what is _not_ the "closed".

I like a certain mathematical principle called 'geometric algebra' and
assume, that nature does also behave like this on a fundamental level.


So, nature is kind of mathematical, if you regard geometry as math.

Now the difficult trick is, to find the correct type of math, which
nature actually uses.

I had bi-quaternions in mind previously, but think, that another type of
clifford algebras perform actually better.

This system consists of indempotent and nilpotent operators and is
called 'dual quaternions'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_quaternion

This is actually a system of geometric algebra, which is in common use
in robotics (but hardly anywhere else).

The benefit of this system is, that it allows relatively simple
translations and rotations of rigid bodies (in computers).

'Nilpotent' means, that such entities square to zero.

This requirement for a description of nature was first used by Prof.
Peter Rowlands of Liverpool in his book 'From Zero to Infinity'.

That book is very hard to read and also very expensive.

But there exist a pdf 'What is Vacuum' from the same author, which is
availible on the internet.

Dual quaternions are actually very old and known by Clifford since 1882
(as far as I know).

These are very similar to bi-quaternions, but behave better for
translatory movemnts.

The connection to nature could be seen in in my own 'book' about
'structured spacetime':

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing


TH

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by rhertz
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-
Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of
electromagnetic nature?
After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't
it?
THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.

You got there a deconstructive, elementary account, into
what's called the trans-Planckian regime, from what's
called the Democritan regime, where Democritus or
Demokrites is who championed "atomism" the theory
while Aristotle or Aristoteles while outlining either
the "infinitely-divisible" or "infinitely-divided",
picked "not atomism because no vacuums", as with regards
to that electrons, protons, neutrons are elementary matter
while photon is still the usual particle in terms of
the quanta of energy, as to how energy is quantized,
at the atomic scale, or as with regards to Avogadro.
For some people, charge is primary, others, matter.

I assume a certain mechanism, which belongs to a self-developed concept
called 'structured spacetime'.
(
https://docs.google.com/presentation/
d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
)
In this the electron is not a particle, but denotes a hypothetical
'creation operator', which does not really exists, but if it would, it
would create a certain structure (in spacetime).
As example I take waves on the surface of a pond.
E.g. I could assume a little demon, that pull up the water surface and
wanders around over the pond.
In the microscopic realm of elementry particles we have, of course, no
pond and no demon.
But we could assume a thing would exist, if we see certain paterns
repeatedly.
Those we give the name 'particle' (or 'quantum object' if you prefer that).
But such 'particles' violate simple requirements for material objects,
like being at some position at a certain time and existing continously.
They would also violate several other principles and observations.
For instance the particle concept violates 'Growing Earth', so called
pair production, the big bang theory and 'transmutation'.
Best would be, to abandon real lasting particles altogether and replace
them by something else.
This 'something else' could be 'timelike stable patterns'.
The relation is not at all obvious and you certainly have not heard
about this before.
But think about a standing 'rotation wave'.
This is somehow similar to the path of a yo-yo.
Then we could call the outer edge of this path 'potential' and the inner
turning point 'mass'.
The outer edge had in this scheme a geometric relation and is somehow
'attracted' by the inner turning point, which has mass instead of
rotational velocity.
TH
...

Aristotle has an idea like "un-moved mover", so it's generally
figured that "physics is an open system", while any sort of
usual classical ansaetze/gendanke, the setup/problem, is
defined as either the initiation of an action, "closed",
that there are no closed systems in physics as the entire
system of physics is an open system.
So, you can usually ascribe in systems of physics, the
idea of mechanical advantage after "information advantage",
that an arbitrarily small reasoning can result an arbitrarily
large mechanical change, as with regards to systems in
physics being open to actors, according to information.
Then, the linear and rotational is a very excellent example
of this, with regards to a usual sort of notion that
"the lever" is the simplest machine and also represents
any sort of mechanical interaction, even the usual
equal/opposite of inelastic conditions, that it's always
so that "the world turns", with regards to theories like
those of DesCartes and Kelvin, of the vortex, as a necessary
complement to the classical and linear (and partial and incomplete)
of what is _not_ the "closed".

I like a certain mathematical principle called 'geometric algebra' and
assume, that nature does also behave like this on a fundamental level.
So, nature is kind of mathematical, if you regard geometry as math.
Now the difficult trick is, to find the correct type of math, which
nature actually uses.
I had bi-quaternions in mind previously, but think, that another type of
clifford algebras perform actually better.
This system consists of indempotent and nilpotent operators and is
called 'dual quaternions'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_quaternion
This is actually a system of geometric algebra, which is in common use
in robotics (but hardly anywhere else).
The benefit of this system is, that it allows relatively simple
translations and rotations of rigid bodies (in computers).
'Nilpotent' means, that such entities square to zero.
This requirement for a description of nature was first used by Prof.
Peter Rowlands of Liverpool in his book 'From Zero to Infinity'.
That book is very hard to read and also very expensive.
But there exist a pdf 'What is Vacuum' from the same author, which is
availible on the internet.
Dual quaternions are actually very old and known by Clifford since 1882
(as far as I know).
These are very similar to bi-quaternions, but behave better for
translatory movemnts.
The connection to nature could be seen in in my own 'book' about
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
TH

We might look to "algebraic geometry" a la Hodge as leading into
geometric algebra, with regards to bi-rational forms, for example,
and the convolutional setting, with regards to _symmetries_,
that _symmetries_ as with regards to symmetries and _rotations_,
make for the Cartan-ian about reflections and rotations after
"geometric algebra", with regards to the inner and outer products,
what result for forms, why "geometric algebra" seems so great
because it solves some singular issues in modeling rotation
with matrix manipulation.

When 25 years ago I thought geometric algebra was about the
best and greatest mathematics, it's also that it arrives
from algebraic geometry and also ring theory (Normel rings)
after van der Waerden then Zariski and Kodaira, Hodge, de Rham,
then into Lounesto and the modern late-20'th century geometric algebra,
from Picard and Sevari after "the Italian geometers" and to Lefschetz,
with regards to: "analysis situs".

So, mentioning analysis situs, then is Poincare. The great Poincare,
much appreciated that the usual linear formalism, was lacking.

Then, for ideas like topological surgery after analysis situs,
is that much like "geometric algebra" is after "algebraic geometry",
and must be to _include_ it, also the differential analysis and
the integral analysis point at two quite different approaches.

Then, overall here it is a _geometric_ approach, that then the
_algebraic_ or _analytic_ approach, must attain to it, then
that for space contraction, fall gravity, real wave collapse,
and so on, mathematics _owes_ physics a thorough account.


Then there's Feynman for example, "how about 4-vectors, or
about mass-less charge-less virtual-ons and virtual-inos
which are unscientific in the un-observable sense yet add up",
instead, to figuring out how scattering and tunneling theory
must be continuum mechanics again. Feynman would be like
"that would be great, I wish we had that when."

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by rhertz
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-
Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of
electromagnetic nature?
After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't
it?
THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.

You got there a deconstructive, elementary account, into
what's called the trans-Planckian regime, from what's
called the Democritan regime, where Democritus or
Demokrites is who championed "atomism" the theory
while Aristotle or Aristoteles while outlining either
the "infinitely-divisible" or "infinitely-divided",
picked "not atomism because no vacuums", as with regards
to that electrons, protons, neutrons are elementary matter
while photon is still the usual particle in terms of
the quanta of energy, as to how energy is quantized,
at the atomic scale, or as with regards to Avogadro.
For some people, charge is primary, others, matter.

I assume a certain mechanism, which belongs to a self-developed concept
called 'structured spacetime'.
(
https://docs.google.com/presentation/
d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
)
In this the electron is not a particle, but denotes a hypothetical
'creation operator', which does not really exists, but if it would, it
would create a certain structure (in spacetime).
As example I take waves on the surface of a pond.
E.g. I could assume a little demon, that pull up the water surface and
wanders around over the pond.
In the microscopic realm of elementry particles we have, of course, no
pond and no demon.
But we could assume a thing would exist, if we see certain paterns
repeatedly.
Those we give the name 'particle' (or 'quantum object' if you prefer that).
But such 'particles' violate simple requirements for material objects,
like being at some position at a certain time and existing continously.
They would also violate several other principles and observations.
For instance the particle concept violates 'Growing Earth', so called
pair production, the big bang theory and 'transmutation'.
Best would be, to abandon real lasting particles altogether and replace
them by something else.
This 'something else' could be 'timelike stable patterns'.
The relation is not at all obvious and you certainly have not heard
about this before.
But think about a standing 'rotation wave'.
This is somehow similar to the path of a yo-yo.
Then we could call the outer edge of this path 'potential' and the inner
turning point 'mass'.
The outer edge had in this scheme a geometric relation and is somehow
'attracted' by the inner turning point, which has mass instead of
rotational velocity.
TH
...

Aristotle has an idea like "un-moved mover", so it's generally
figured that "physics is an open system", while any sort of
usual classical ansaetze/gendanke, the setup/problem, is
defined as either the initiation of an action, "closed",
that there are no closed systems in physics as the entire
system of physics is an open system.
So, you can usually ascribe in systems of physics, the
idea of mechanical advantage after "information advantage",
that an arbitrarily small reasoning can result an arbitrarily
large mechanical change, as with regards to systems in
physics being open to actors, according to information.
Then, the linear and rotational is a very excellent example
of this, with regards to a usual sort of notion that
"the lever" is the simplest machine and also represents
any sort of mechanical interaction, even the usual
equal/opposite of inelastic conditions, that it's always
so that "the world turns", with regards to theories like
those of DesCartes and Kelvin, of the vortex, as a necessary
complement to the classical and linear (and partial and incomplete)
of what is _not_ the "closed".

I like a certain mathematical principle called 'geometric algebra' and
assume, that nature does also behave like this on a fundamental level.
So, nature is kind of mathematical, if you regard geometry as math.
Now the difficult trick is, to find the correct type of math, which
nature actually uses.
I had bi-quaternions in mind previously, but think, that another type of
clifford algebras perform actually better.
This system consists of indempotent and nilpotent operators and is
called 'dual quaternions'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_quaternion
This is actually a system of geometric algebra, which is in common use
in robotics (but hardly anywhere else).
The benefit of this system is, that it allows relatively simple
translations and rotations of rigid bodies (in computers).
'Nilpotent' means, that such entities square to zero.
This requirement for a description of nature was first used by Prof.
Peter Rowlands of Liverpool in his book 'From Zero to Infinity'.
That book is very hard to read and also very expensive.
But there exist a pdf 'What is Vacuum' from the same author, which is
availible on the internet.
Dual quaternions are actually very old and known by Clifford since 1882
(as far as I know).
These are very similar to bi-quaternions, but behave better for
translatory movemnts.
The connection to nature could be seen in in my own 'book' about
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
TH

We might look to "algebraic geometry" a la Hodge as leading into
geometric algebra, with regards to bi-rational forms, for example,
and the convolutional setting, with regards to _symmetries_,
that _symmetries_ as with regards to symmetries and _rotations_,
make for the Cartan-ian about reflections and rotations after
"geometric algebra", with regards to the inner and outer products,
what result for forms, why "geometric algebra" seems so great
because it solves some singular issues in modeling rotation
with matrix manipulation.
When 25 years ago I thought geometric algebra was about the
best and greatest mathematics, it's also that it arrives
from algebraic geometry and also ring theory (Normel rings)
after van der Waerden then Zariski and Kodaira, Hodge, de Rham,
then into Lounesto and the modern late-20'th century geometric algebra,
from Picard and Sevari after "the Italian geometers" and to Lefschetz,
with regards to: "analysis situs".
So, mentioning analysis situs, then is Poincare. The great Poincare,
much appreciated that the usual linear formalism, was lacking.
Then, for ideas like topological surgery after analysis situs,
is that much like "geometric algebra" is after "algebraic geometry",
and must be to _include_ it, also the differential analysis and
the integral analysis point at two quite different approaches.
Then, overall here it is a _geometric_ approach, that then the
_algebraic_ or _analytic_ approach, must attain to it, then
that for space contraction, fall gravity, real wave collapse,
and so on, mathematics _owes_ physics a thorough account.
Then there's Feynman for example, "how about 4-vectors, or
about mass-less charge-less virtual-ons and virtual-inos
which are unscientific in the un-observable sense yet add up",
instead, to figuring out how scattering and tunneling theory
must be continuum mechanics again. Feynman would be like
"that would be great, I wish we had that when."

DesArgues <-> DesCartes

Pappus <-> Kuratowski

Kerr <-> Chandrasekhar

"cube wall"

rotational <-> linear

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Thomas Heger
Then we could call the outer edge of this path 'potential' and the inner
turning point 'mass'.
The outer edge had in this scheme a geometric relation and is somehow
'attracted' by the inner turning point, which has mass instead of
rotational velocity.

For Einstein it's a great conundrum, while DesCartes and Kelvin
make for vortices or "worlds turn" as with regards to "Zero-eth
law(s) of motion".



Or, "rotating frames are independent" and "worlds turn".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desargues%27s_theorem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_coordinate_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_coordinate_system


"Identity Dimension": "a multi-dimensional ortho-normal
vector space's equal-coordinate identity line as an extension
of the origin and the envelope of the linear fractional equation,
Clairaut's equation, d'Alembert's equation, ....", "Original Analysis"


So, actually physics, the "classical" mechanics, is still quite well
underdefined all the way back in classical mechanics about the
linear and rotational, AND, Einstein gives a derivation of
mass/energy equivalency, that formally only applies to the
rotational, so really giving a notion of the gyroscopic and "heft",
to complement a notion of mass and weight, with weight and heft.
(Resistance to acceleration, inertial.)


Then, a lot of usual things in atomic theory are simpler again,
not ever-more-contrived and not-really-derived.


Definitions have no place in foundations, only derivations.

[kinak]

Post by rhertz
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-
Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?

----------------------------------

Its energy?

[rhertz]

Energy stored in the electrostatic field of an electron:

By 1900, the energy stored in a charged sphere was defined as:

E = q^2/R , where q was the charge and R its radius.

In that year, Planck calculated the charge of an electron as:

e = -4,69E-10 esu OR g^1/2 cm^3/2 s^-1 (4.80325451E-10 esu today).

Being Eo = 0.511 MeV = 8.1982E-07 ergs OR g cm^2.s^-2

R = Eo/e^2 = 2.81785E-13 cm (calculated by 1955)


According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
the classical electron radius is 2.8179403205E-13 cm.

This was a movement TO MATCH relativity (E=mc^2) with classic physics.

BUT, IT'S KNOWN EXPERIMENTALLY THAT THE RADIUS IS ABOUT 10E-16 cm, which
is about 1,000 times LOWER. So, the energy stored in the electron is
1,000 times HIGHER, or about 500 MeV.

Curiously, this discrepancy didn't occur with protons.

The cover-up to hide THAT began 60 years ago, when NIST INVENTED the
crap of "classical electron radius" (never used in calculations), and
ERASED the data about the radius of protons and neutrons from its
tables.

More curiously, this was done since 1964, when Hell-Man came up with THE
IDEA of quarks and gluons composing protons and neutrons.



The DARK FORCES OF RELATIVISM are present everywhere, in order to impose
it. It doesn't matter that relativity IS USELESS, with no practical
value in this Earth.

The 60s and early 70s were when relativism was shoved into the throats
of every single physicist, and many FRAUDULENT EXPERIMENTS were done to
support it: Pound-Rebka, Shapiro, Hafele-Keating, Gravity Probe A, Mount
Wilson's muons crap, etc., etc.

But a true thing remains unsolved: How come the charge of ANY electron
is 1.602177E-19 Coulombs? What act of nature gives every electron such
charge (and also to protons, with other sign)?

Is it that Fred Hoyle, following Dirac, was MOST CERTAIN on his belief?

Google Fred Hoyle and his pseudo-static universe, where electrons appear
and disappear from the "vacuum" (ether, black matter?).

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by rhertz
E = q^2/R , where q was the charge and R its radius.
e = -4,69E-10 esu OR g^1/2 cm^3/2 s^-1 (4.80325451E-10 esu today).
Being Eo = 0.511 MeV = 8.1982E-07 ergs OR g cm^2.s^-2
R = Eo/e^2 = 2.81785E-13 cm (calculated by 1955)
According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
the classical electron radius is 2.8179403205E-13 cm.
This was a movement TO MATCH relativity (E=mc^2) with classic physics.
BUT, IT'S KNOWN EXPERIMENTALLY THAT THE RADIUS IS ABOUT 10E-16 cm, which
is about 1,000 times LOWER. So, the energy stored in the electron is
1,000 times HIGHER, or about 500 MeV.
Curiously, this discrepancy didn't occur with protons.
The cover-up to hide THAT began 60 years ago, when NIST INVENTED the
crap of "classical electron radius" (never used in calculations), and
ERASED the data about the radius of protons and neutrons from its
tables.
More curiously, this was done since 1964, when Hell-Man came up with THE
IDEA of quarks and gluons composing protons and neutrons.
The DARK FORCES OF RELATIVISM are present everywhere, in order to impose
it. It doesn't matter that relativity IS USELESS, with no practical
value in this Earth.
The 60s and early 70s were when relativism was shoved into the throats
of every single physicist, and many FRAUDULENT EXPERIMENTS were done to
support it: Pound-Rebka, Shapiro, Hafele-Keating, Gravity Probe A, Mount
Wilson's muons crap, etc., etc.
But a true thing remains unsolved: How come the charge of ANY electron
is 1.602177E-19 Coulombs? What act of nature gives every electron such
charge (and also to protons, with other sign)?
Is it that Fred Hoyle, following Dirac, was MOST CERTAIN on his belief?
Google Fred Hoyle and his pseudo-static universe, where electrons appear
and disappear from the "vacuum" (ether, black matter?).

I suppose you should include Bohm-deBroglie, or particularly Bohm.

It's a continuum mechanics, ..., making for what should be that
the great and profound and incredibly accurate success
of electron physics, particularly in the atomic chemistry,
where "chemi" as a root means "Egyptian", after the Atlantean,
why neutrino/muon/large-hadron physics are a thing,
as with regards to second-spectrum and fluoerescence/phosphorescence,
and the many flavors of magnetism,
that at least de Broglie still makes for "real wave collapse",
with regards to quantum mechanics.

Then Dirac of course is pretty great (Dirac sea, Dirac positronic sea).
Even Pauli was like "well I can't really prove it not so without
proving myself, the great Pauli, wrong, ...".

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by rhertz
E = q^2/R , where q was the charge and R its radius.
e = -4,69E-10 esu OR g^1/2 cm^3/2 s^-1 (4.80325451E-10 esu today).
Being Eo = 0.511 MeV = 8.1982E-07 ergs OR g cm^2.s^-2
R = Eo/e^2 = 2.81785E-13 cm (calculated by 1955)

Can't you ever get anythng right?
In 1900 there was no way of deriving or measuring the charge
of the electron. Only e/m was known from measurements.
It (e by itself) became known only in 1909,
through Millikan's experiment.
(and the value came as a great surprise)

As for calculation, it is Lorentz who is usually credited with it.
The classical electron radius is also refered to sometimes
as the Lorentz radius.

Post by rhertz
According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
the classical electron radius is 2.8179403205E-13 cm.
This was a movement TO MATCH relativity (E=mc^2) with classic physics.
BUT, IT'S KNOWN EXPERIMENTALLY THAT THE RADIUS IS ABOUT 10E-16 cm, which
is about 1,000 times LOWER. So, the energy stored in the electron is
1,000 times HIGHER, or about 500 MeV.

The Compton length is nothing but the inverse mass of the electron.
(defined by it, since both c and h have defined values)
The classical electron radius is by definition
nothing but \alpha times the Compton lenth.

Post by rhertz
Curiously, this discrepancy didn't occur with protons.
The cover-up to hide THAT began 60 years ago, when NIST INVENTED the
crap of "classical electron radius" (never used in calculations), and
ERASED the data about the radius of protons and neutrons from its
tables.
More curiously, this was done since 1964, when Hell-Man came up with THE
IDEA of quarks and gluons composing protons and neutrons.

Huh?
<https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?rp>

And yes, the proton charge radius has little to do
with electromagnetism.
It is mainly determined by the strong force on the quarks.
(and can be measured in scattering experiments)

Post by rhertz
The DARK FORCES OF RELATIVISM [snip more ranting]

Jan

[rhertz]

In 1908, Svante Arrhenius proposed Planck and Rutherford for the Nobel
Prize in Physics (Planck) and Chemistry (Rutherford) for:

Planck: Calculation of the charge of the electron from his radiation
law.

Rutherford: Calculation of the charge of the alpha particle from
experiments.


Because the works of Planck and Rutherford were still in debate by that
year, the proposal was dismissed.

Planck's work precedes Millikan and others, and was entirely
theoretical.

Yet, his calculations were close to actual values:


Charge 1e (Planck 1900) = 4.69E-10 esu OR g^1/2 cm^3/2 s^-1

Charge 1e (Millikan 1913) = 4.774E-10 esu OR g^1/2 cm^3/2 s^-1

Today: Charge 1e (StatC) = 4.80325451E-10 esu OR g^1/2 cm^3/2 s^-1


Jan, read this and don't be so ignorant. Many scientists were trying to
find the charge of electrons since 1897, but historians CANCELED THEM
(also due to political struggles, which are getting worse 120 years
after).


Arrhenius, the atomic hypothesis and the 1908 Nobel Prizes in Physics
and Chemistry

https://www.jstor.org/stable/232940


Don't be so ignorant, charlatan Jan.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by rhertz
In 1908, Svante Arrhenius proposed Planck and Rutherford for the Nobel
Planck: Calculation of the charge of the electron from his radiation
law.
Rutherford: Calculation of the charge of the alpha particle from
experiments.
Because the works of Planck and Rutherford were still in debate by that
year, the proposal was dismissed.
Planck's work precedes Millikan and others, and was entirely
theoretical.
Charge 1e (Planck 1900) = 4.69E-10 esu OR g^1/2 cm^3/2 s^-1
Charge 1e (Millikan 1913) = 4.774E-10 esu OR g^1/2 cm^3/2 s^-1
Today: Charge 1e (StatC) = 4.80325451E-10 esu OR g^1/2 cm^3/2 s^-1
Jan, read this and don't be so ignorant. Many scientists were trying to
find the charge of electrons since 1897, but historians CANCELED THEM
(also due to political struggles, which are getting worse 120 years
after).
Arrhenius, the atomic hypothesis and the 1908 Nobel Prizes in Physics
and Chemistry
https://www.jstor.org/stable/232940
Don't be so ignorant, charlatan Jan.

Sigh, so you succeeded in misunderstanding that too.
Planck didn't do any calculations with electrons,
or with the classical electon radius.

What Planck did do was to obtain a value for Avogadro's number
by obtaining values for h (Plancks constant)
and k (Boltzmann's constant) from the radiation law.

All this was highly speculative theory at the time,
with both the radiation law and statistical mechanics
being poorly understood and highly contested.
(let alone the statistical mechanics of the radiation field)
Einstein had not put that in order yet.

Moreover, there were many other ways of estimating Avogadros number,
which were gradually converging at the time.
There was little reason for singling out Planck.

However, Arrhenius had met Planck, they had become great friends,
and Arrhenius had decided that he wanted to get Planck a Nobel prize.
Arrhenius failed to convince his collegues of course.
Rutherford did get the 1908 chemistry prize (for identifying the alpha)
and Planck had to wait till 1919 for getting his,

Jan

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz
In 1908, Svante Arrhenius proposed Planck and Rutherford for the Nobel
Planck: Calculation of the charge of the electron from his radiation
law.
Rutherford: Calculation of the charge of the alpha particle from
experiments.
Because the works of Planck and Rutherford were still in debate by that
year, the proposal was dismissed.
Planck's work precedes Millikan and others, and was entirely
theoretical.
Charge 1e (Planck 1900) = 4.69E-10 esu OR g^1/2 cm^3/2 s^-1
Charge 1e (Millikan 1913) = 4.774E-10 esu OR g^1/2 cm^3/2 s^-1
Today: Charge 1e (StatC) = 4.80325451E-10 esu OR g^1/2 cm^3/2 s^-1
Jan, read this and don't be so ignorant. Many scientists were trying to
find the charge of electrons since 1897, but historians CANCELED THEM
(also due to political struggles, which are getting worse 120 years
after).
Arrhenius, the atomic hypothesis and the 1908 Nobel Prizes in Physics
and Chemistry
https://www.jstor.org/stable/232940
Don't be so ignorant, charlatan Jan.

Sigh, so you succeeded in misunderstanding that too.
Planck didn't do any calculations with electrons,
or with the classical electon radius.
What Planck did do was to obtain a value for Avogadro's number
by obtaining values for h (Plancks constant)
and k (Boltzmann's constant) from the radiation law.
All this was highly speculative theory at the time,
with both the radiation law and statistical mechanics
being poorly understood and highly contested.
(let alone the statistical mechanics of the radiation field)
Einstein had not put that in order yet.
Moreover, there were many other ways of estimating Avogadros number,
which were gradually converging at the time.
There was little reason for singling out Planck.
However, Arrhenius had met Planck, they had become great friends,
and Arrhenius had decided that he wanted to get Planck a Nobel prize.
Arrhenius failed to convince his collegues of course.
Rutherford did get the 1908 chemistry prize (for identifying the alpha)
and Planck had to wait till 1919 for getting his,
Jan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arago_spot


Statistics: is not necessarily _Bayesian_.

Angstroms and Planck lengths above and below the atomic,
sort of re-ify.

Whether water or oil droplets of particular material
properties, after Thompson's first then Millikan's finer
e/m, as a ratio given various gross if precise parameters
of the _configuration of experiment_ and _energy of experiment_,
see that today, the NIST Particle Data Group CODATA regularly
revises the usual small values _smaller_ and large _larger_,
about what's called "running constants", according to
energy of experiment and configuration of experiment.


Faraday and Heaviside and Larmor and FitzGerald
have lots left out Maxwell and Lorentz,
where of course many things empirical are
due Faraday and Heaviside and Larmor and FitzGerald,
derived extra Maxwell and Lorentz.

Light of course and nuclear radiation, if "ionizing",
is not "electromagnetic", per se.

The Arago spot is pretty cool, seems a little better
reasoned than Newton poking his eye with a knitting needle.

[rhertz]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz
In 1908, Svante Arrhenius proposed Planck and Rutherford for the Nobel
Planck: Calculation of the charge of the electron from his radiation
law.
Rutherford: Calculation of the charge of the alpha particle from
experiments.
Because the works of Planck and Rutherford were still in debate by that
year, the proposal was dismissed.
Planck's work precedes Millikan and others, and was entirely
theoretical.
Charge 1e (Planck 1900) = 4.69E-10 esu OR g^1/2 cm^3/2 s^-1
Charge 1e (Millikan 1913) = 4.774E-10 esu OR g^1/2 cm^3/2 s^-1
Today: Charge 1e (StatC) = 4.80325451E-10 esu OR g^1/2 cm^3/2 s^-1
Jan, read this and don't be so ignorant. Many scientists were trying to
find the charge of electrons since 1897, but historians CANCELED THEM
(also due to political struggles, which are getting worse 120 years
after).
Arrhenius, the atomic hypothesis and the 1908 Nobel Prizes in Physics
and Chemistry
https://www.jstor.org/stable/232940
Don't be so ignorant, charlatan Jan.

Sigh, so you succeeded in misunderstanding that too.
Planck didn't do any calculations with electrons,
or with the classical electon radius.
What Planck did do was to obtain a value for Avogadro's number
by obtaining values for h (Plancks constant)
and k (Boltzmann's constant) from the radiation law.
All this was highly speculative theory at the time,
with both the radiation law and statistical mechanics
being poorly understood and highly contested.
(let alone the statistical mechanics of the radiation field)
Einstein had not put that in order yet.
Moreover, there were many other ways of estimating Avogadros number,
which were gradually converging at the time.
There was little reason for singling out Planck.
However, Arrhenius had met Planck, they had become great friends,
and Arrhenius had decided that he wanted to get Planck a Nobel prize.
Arrhenius failed to convince his collegues of course.
Rutherford did get the 1908 chemistry prize (for identifying the alpha)
and Planck had to wait till 1919 for getting his,
Jan

Jan (man or woman): I'm tired of you behaving as A FULL RETARDED, an
imbecile, a liar, A DECEIVER (as any relativist) and (mainly) A
CHARLATAN!.

You don't know even how to do a little research on Google. Instead, you
write PURE CRAP to justify your idiotic posture, imbecile know-it-all!

I'll try to help you TO OVERCOME your cretinism, just with one paper:

Max Planck’s Determination of the Avogadro Constant

https://www.scielo.br/j/rbef/a/XMkjKHvTWdsTF9k5HF6Vzwv/



EXCERPT (READ THIS VERY CAREFULLY, IDIOT Jan):
---------------------------------------------------------

8. The Electronic Charge

Planck does not mention a reference for the Faraday constant used in his
work. He wrote e = εw, or in modern language, Nᴬe = F, uses
ε = 3.2223E-05 esu mol^-1 = 96603 C mol^-1 with no reference, to
calculate the electronic charge,

e = εw = 4.69E-10 esu

This is also an excellent result since 4.69E-10 esu = 1.5644E-19 C, with
an error of 3%, if compared with the tabulated value, 1.602E-19 C. The
result was compared to the previous result, 2.186E-19 C, as obtained by
J.J. Thomson. The Faraday constant used by Planck was also very precise
for the year 1900, with an error of 0.1%. The accepted value today is
F= 96485 C mol^-1.

Faraday’s constant was well established by the end of XIX century. The
precise measurement of the Faraday’s constant was made by Lord Rayleigh
and Mrs. H. Sidgwick, in the paper On the electro-chemical equivalent of
silver, at Phil. Trans., page 411, in 1884, [25]. On page 439 it is
mentioned that they obtained m = 11.794E-03 g as the amount of silver
deposited at the electrodes. Therefore,

F = 96.544 Cmol^-1

with an impressive error of 0.07 %. Planck chose to use F=96603 C mol-1,
but this will affect his value of electronic charge at the third
significant place. He would have obtained e = 1.5635E-19 C instead.

The first measurement of the electronic charge goes back to 1874 and was
made by George Johnstone Stony, on the paper, On the Physical Units of
Nature. Phil. Mag. 11,384(1881). The value appears on page 388 of the
paper. Several measurements were performed after this. Planck used the
most precise value at his time, as made by J.J. Thomson.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Do you understand now WHY I call you A FUCKING RETARDED, CHARLATAN AND
IGNORANT, Jan?


You are much worse than the above simplistic labels. You have NO CURE
for your stupidity, your FRAUDULENT WAY to write posts, and your TOTAL
LACK OF ABILITIES TO HIDE THAT YOU'RE A FUCKING RETARDED (VERY).

I hope you may have learned a lesson, nanosecJan.

As for me, you HAVE NO CURE. You're a complete idiot, as it correspond
to a relativist.

Did you see what means to LEARN ABOUT HISTORY OF PHYSICS? No Avogrado
involved in his calculations. Read the entire paper, and you'll be
SURPRISED about how much was known about physics constants by 1900.


Ciao, asshole.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by rhertz

Post by rhertz
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-
Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?

----------------------------------
Its energy?

That "energy" relates "forces" in "fields" is great,
yet substances like matter, at rest, and current, in motion,
and light, in motion and fleeting flux,
and nucleons, at rest in slow decay,
are not any particularly "energy",
except each in their own separate "fields",
which throughout their fields have "potential" "forces",
with regards to substances and "potential", "energy".

The "energeia" as localized and "entelechaie" (entelechy)
as connected then gets into usual notions like propagation,
parallel transport, that the theory is a field theory,
and that the theory is a gauge theory.

The "energy" is never not a substance or transition,
in "sum-of-histories, sum-of-potentials", a theory
with least action, yet a gradient.


Then "tendencies and propensities"
with regards to "attenuation and dissipation"
and "oscillation and restitution", help reflect
for "moment and motion", these kinds of things.

If you asked Feynman he might say "I'd be happy to agree
that optical light is not electromagnetic if you can
convince the SR-ians that GR and its space is first
the spatial and light transits space the spacial,
as Einstein tries to do since the can opened,
then if you could also fix up Faraday and Stern-Gerlach,
as I can see they got their issues, that'd be great".


So, the energeia and entelchiae are concepts of the
"dual" concerns, motion and rest, about dunamis, and dynamis.


Quantities, are as of definitions, derivations: and implicits.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by rhertz

Post by rhertz
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-
Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?

----------------------------------
Its energy?

That "energy" relates "forces" in "fields" is great,
yet substances like matter, at rest, and current, in motion,
and light, in motion and fleeting flux,
and nucleons, at rest in slow decay,
are not any particularly "energy",
except each in their own separate "fields",
which throughout their fields have "potential" "forces",
with regards to substances and "potential", "energy".
The "energeia" as localized and "entelechaie" (entelechy)
as connected then gets into usual notions like propagation,
parallel transport, that the theory is a field theory,
and that the theory is a gauge theory.
The "energy" is never not a substance or transition,
in "sum-of-histories, sum-of-potentials", a theory
with least action, yet a gradient.
Then "tendencies and propensities"
with regards to "attenuation and dissipation"
and "oscillation and restitution", help reflect
for "moment and motion", these kinds of things.
If you asked Feynman he might say "I'd be happy to agree
that optical light is not electromagnetic if you can
convince the SR-ians that GR and its space is first
the spatial and light transits space the spacial,
as Einstein tries to do since the can opened,
then if you could also fix up Faraday and Stern-Gerlach,
as I can see they got their issues, that'd be great".
So, the energeia and entelchiae are concepts of the
"dual" concerns, motion and rest, about dunamis, and dynamis.
Quantities, are as of definitions, derivations: and implicits.

Then the idea is "the gauge theory, fields with torsion,
is a field theory again, rectilinear and Euclidean,
with the parting and meeting of independent rotational frames,
space-frames, frame-spaces".

Of course it's well understood that "whatever the real theory
is: it's a gauge theory, insofar as quantum mechanics is never wrong".

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by rhertz

Post by rhertz
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-
Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?

----------------------------------
Its energy?

Merely calling the same thing by another name
is not going to help,

Jan

[Sylvia Else]

Post by rhertz
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of
electromagnetic nature?
After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't
it?
THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.

An expectation that everything can be explained in terms of other
smaller things results in an infinite regression. It's not a rabbit hole
one wants to descend into.

While one can hypothesise that the electron is not elementary, so far
there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure. Until and
unless something comes along to indicate that it is not elementary, you
have nothing more than empty speculation.

Sylvia.

[The Starmaker]

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by rhertz
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of
electromagnetic nature?
After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't
it?
THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.

An expectation that everything can be explained in terms of other
smaller things results in an infinite regression. It's not a rabbit hole
one wants to descend into.
While one can hypothesise that the electron is not elementary, so far
there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure. Until and
unless something comes along to indicate that it is not elementary, you
have nothing more than empty speculation.
Sylvia.

Sylvia belongs to the lemmings generation. If 'somebody nameless' says the electron does not have mass...
then Sylvia THINKS the electron has no mass.

Slyvia, doesn't have an independent mind...

wasn't taught how to 'think' on it's own.

Sylvia looks up to the...Empty Seculation Science Community.


And the 'Empty Seculation Science Community' claim the electron has no mass.


The purpose of the big bang was to create...mass.


Before the big bang, there was no mass.


All things are made of mass.


If i have a page of a newspaper...

and i want it to, bounce..

i go to the rubber plant factory
and i'll find lots of rubber bands.

I take all the rubber bands and
wrap it all agound the crushed
newspaper...

and the newspaper...bounces.


You can play hardball with it!


Whats inside the hardball?


Information.

[Sylvia Else]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by rhertz
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of
electromagnetic nature?
After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't
it?
THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.

An expectation that everything can be explained in terms of other
smaller things results in an infinite regression. It's not a rabbit hole
one wants to descend into.
While one can hypothesise that the electron is not elementary, so far
there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure. Until and
unless something comes along to indicate that it is not elementary, you
have nothing more than empty speculation.
Sylvia.

Sylvia belongs to the lemmings generation. If 'somebody nameless' says the electron does not have mass...
then Sylvia THINKS the electron has no mass.

Where did I so much as suggest that the electron has no mass?

Sylvia.

[The Starmaker]

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by rhertz
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of
electromagnetic nature?
After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't
it?
THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.

An expectation that everything can be explained in terms of other
smaller things results in an infinite regression. It's not a rabbit hole
one wants to descend into.
While one can hypothesise that the electron is not elementary, so far
there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure. Until and
unless something comes along to indicate that it is not elementary, you
have nothing more than empty speculation.
Sylvia.

Sylvia belongs to the lemmings generation. If 'somebody nameless' says the electron does not have mass...
then Sylvia THINKS the electron has no mass.

Where did I so much as suggest that the electron has no mass?
Sylvia.

By your own words.

You wrote: "...so far

"...there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure."


"...nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure."


nothing
empty

Slyvia, you should have wrote: : "...there is nothing to suggest that it has NO internal structure."




But instead you said: '...there is nothing to suggest that it posses an internal structure.'


You are SUGGESTING the electron has NO mass.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by rhertz
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of
electromagnetic nature?
After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't
it?
THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.

An expectation that everything can be explained in terms of other
smaller things results in an infinite regression. It's not a rabbit hole
one wants to descend into.
While one can hypothesise that the electron is not elementary, so far
there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure. Until and
unless something comes along to indicate that it is not elementary, you
have nothing more than empty speculation.
Sylvia.

Sylvia belongs to the lemmings generation. If 'somebody nameless' says the electron does not have mass...
then Sylvia THINKS the electron has no mass.

Where did I so much as suggest that the electron has no mass?
Sylvia.

By your own words.
You wrote: "...so far
"...there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure."
"...nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure."
nothing
empty
Slyvia, you should have wrote: : "...there is nothing to suggest that it has NO internal structure."
But instead you said: '...there is nothing to suggest that it posses an internal structure.'
You are SUGGESTING the electron has NO mass.

It's kind of like a little lever in the electromagnetic, ....

According to Ohm and Maxwell it's electro-motive, ....

"The potential"

[rhertz]

This is the Standard Model of Elementary Particles, which has matured in
the last 60 years, since Hell-Man and others:

https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg

It's composed of quarks, leptons, gauge bosons and the Higgs boson.

MOST (BUT FAR FROM ALL) PHYSICISTS ACCEPT THIS CRUDE MODEL, WHICH HAS
MANY FLAWS.

There is a community of physicists that believe that such model is one
level above of the model of PREONS, which are fully elementary particles
that form ANY OTHER OF THE SMEP MODEL.

Preons are supposed to be constituents of quarks and leptons (electrons,
neutrinos), and such model was proposed in 1974.

In the last 50 years, such new model has evolved at accelerated paces.


Supersymmetric preons and the standard model

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0550321318301123



QUOTE:
----------------------------------------------------------
The proton, neutron, electron and ν can be constructed of 12 preons and
12 anti-preons. The construction (2.12) is matter–antimatter symmetric
on preon level, which is desirable for early universe. The model makes
it possible to create from vacuum a universe with only matter.
Corresponding antiparticles may occur equally well, but the matter
dominance case seems to have been made. Neutral dark matter is formed of
preon–antipreon pairs more likely than ordinary matter when the
temperature of the universe is lowered to a proper free mean path value
between preon collisions.

.................

Different combinations of preons give rise to properties like mass,
charge and spin.

................

Preon theory
A model that attempts to explain the properties of quarks and leptons by
reducing them to combinations of more fundamental building blocks. The
idea behind preon theory is to replicate the achievements of the
periodic table in chemistry, which reduced 94 elements to combinations
of just three building blocks.

---------------------------------------------------------

This article, prior to the super-symmetry theory, serves as an example
of the state of confusion that reigns in some branches of physics.

That preons MUST EXIST, BUT CAN'T EXIST is the essence of the article.

Inside the Quark
https://www.npl.washington.edu/av/altvw80.html


In the end, there is a growing acceptance that SMEP is fatally flawed,
but the "simpler" preon's theory is far from having experimental
results.

The problem is that much higher energy in the LHC is required to SMASH
quarks and some leptons. Maybe above 200 TeV.

And guess what: the design and construction of a Super LHC is on its way
between France and Switzerland.

Meanwhile, what gives mass to an electron IS UNKNOWN, and the 13 billion
euros invested in the LHC to find the Higgs boson was the most expensive
FRAUD IN PHYSICS.

But a larger FRAUD is on its way.


I propose TO CANCEL PARTICLE PHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY WORLDWIDE, LET THE
RELATIVISTS TO ROTTEN THEMSELVES INTO THEIR IGNORANCE AND IMPOTENCE, AND
USE THE MONEY TO DO REAL PHYSICS, WITH EARTHLY APPLICATIONS TO IMPROVE
CIVILIZATION.

Let the electron as it is, conceived in classic physics 100 years ago.

Let Engineering and Technology to replace most of physics.

Stop this madness.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by rhertz
This is the Standard Model of Elementary Particles, which has matured in
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-
Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
It's composed of quarks, leptons, gauge bosons and the Higgs boson.
MOST (BUT FAR FROM ALL) PHYSICISTS ACCEPT THIS CRUDE MODEL, WHICH HAS
MANY FLAWS.

Except that QFT assumes, that particles are certain exitations of the
underlying quantum field (whatever they may mean).

I personally assume, that particles are 'timelike stable patterns' and
do not really exist.

They are in fact 'certain exitations of the underlying quantum field'
(but with 'spacetime' instead of 'the underlying quantum field'.)

That 'spacetime' could be named otherwise (like e.g. 'mumble').

But ' the underlying quantum field' would not be my favorite choice.

My choice was 'spacetime of GR', while ' the underlying quantum field'
would be a possiblity, too, or possibly 'mumble'.

TH


...

TH

[Sylvia Else]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by rhertz
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of
electromagnetic nature?
After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't
it?
THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.

An expectation that everything can be explained in terms of other
smaller things results in an infinite regression. It's not a rabbit hole
one wants to descend into.
While one can hypothesise that the electron is not elementary, so far
there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure. Until and
unless something comes along to indicate that it is not elementary, you
have nothing more than empty speculation.
Sylvia.

Sylvia belongs to the lemmings generation. If 'somebody nameless' says the electron does not have mass...
then Sylvia THINKS the electron has no mass.

Where did I so much as suggest that the electron has no mass?
Sylvia.

By your own words.
You wrote: "...so far
"...there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure."
"...nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure."
nothing
empty
Slyvia, you should have wrote: : "...there is nothing to suggest that it has NO internal structure."
But instead you said: '...there is nothing to suggest that it posses an internal structure.'
You are SUGGESTING the electron has NO mass.

Why are you linking the lack of internal structure with the lack of mass?

Sylvia.

[The Starmaker]

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by rhertz
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of
electromagnetic nature?
After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't
it?
THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.

An expectation that everything can be explained in terms of other
smaller things results in an infinite regression. It's not a rabbit hole
one wants to descend into.
While one can hypothesise that the electron is not elementary, so far
there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure. Until and
unless something comes along to indicate that it is not elementary, you
have nothing more than empty speculation.
Sylvia.

Sylvia belongs to the lemmings generation. If 'somebody nameless' says the electron does not have mass...
then Sylvia THINKS the electron has no mass.

Where did I so much as suggest that the electron has no mass?
Sylvia.

By your own words.
You wrote: "...so far
"...there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure."
"...nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure."
nothing
empty
Slyvia, you should have wrote: : "...there is nothing to suggest that it has NO internal structure."
But instead you said: '...there is nothing to suggest that it posses an internal structure.'
You are SUGGESTING the electron has NO mass.

Why are you linking the lack of internal structure with the lack of mass?
Sylvia.

'structure' requires an arrangement of material matter...mass, a clump
if you will.


Lack of of internal structure in a electron means no elements in an
electron.


Lack of mass.


Is inglish your second language?

[Sylvia Else]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by rhertz
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of
electromagnetic nature?
After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't
it?
THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.

An expectation that everything can be explained in terms of other
smaller things results in an infinite regression. It's not a rabbit hole
one wants to descend into.
While one can hypothesise that the electron is not elementary, so far
there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure. Until and
unless something comes along to indicate that it is not elementary, you
have nothing more than empty speculation.
Sylvia.

Sylvia belongs to the lemmings generation. If 'somebody nameless' says the electron does not have mass...
then Sylvia THINKS the electron has no mass.

Where did I so much as suggest that the electron has no mass?
Sylvia.

By your own words.
You wrote: "...so far
"...there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure."
"...nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure."
nothing
empty
Slyvia, you should have wrote: : "...there is nothing to suggest that it has NO internal structure."
But instead you said: '...there is nothing to suggest that it posses an internal structure.'
You are SUGGESTING the electron has NO mass.

Why are you linking the lack of internal structure with the lack of mass?
Sylvia.

'structure' requires an arrangement of material matter...mass, a clump
if you will.
Lack of of internal structure in a electron means no elements in an
electron.
Lack of mass.
Is inglish your second language?

You're making unfounded assumptions about what is required for mass to
exist.

Sylvia.

[The Starmaker]

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by rhertz
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of
electromagnetic nature?
After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't
it?
THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.

An expectation that everything can be explained in terms of other
smaller things results in an infinite regression. It's not a rabbit hole
one wants to descend into.
While one can hypothesise that the electron is not elementary, so far
there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure. Until and
unless something comes along to indicate that it is not elementary, you
have nothing more than empty speculation.
Sylvia.

Sylvia belongs to the lemmings generation. If 'somebody nameless' says the electron does not have mass...
then Sylvia THINKS the electron has no mass.

Where did I so much as suggest that the electron has no mass?
Sylvia.

By your own words.
You wrote: "...so far
"...there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure."
"...nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure."
nothing
empty
Slyvia, you should have wrote: : "...there is nothing to suggest that it has NO internal structure."
But instead you said: '...there is nothing to suggest that it posses an internal structure.'
You are SUGGESTING the electron has NO mass.

Why are you linking the lack of internal structure with the lack of mass?
Sylvia.

'structure' requires an arrangement of material matter...mass, a clump
if you will.
Lack of of internal structure in a electron means no elements in an
electron.
Lack of mass.
Is inglish your second language?

You're making unfounded assumptions about what is required for mass to
exist.
Sylvia.

For an electron to exist, mass is required..it is where the electron
gets it's energy from.

e=m


did is 3rd grade physics.

[The Starmaker]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by rhertz
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of
electromagnetic nature?
After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't
it?
THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.

An expectation that everything can be explained in terms of other
smaller things results in an infinite regression. It's not a rabbit hole
one wants to descend into.
While one can hypothesise that the electron is not elementary, so far
there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure. Until and
unless something comes along to indicate that it is not elementary, you
have nothing more than empty speculation.
Sylvia.

Sylvia belongs to the lemmings generation. If 'somebody nameless' says the electron does not have mass...
then Sylvia THINKS the electron has no mass.

Where did I so much as suggest that the electron has no mass?
Sylvia.

By your own words.
You wrote: "...so far
"...there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure."
"...nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure."
nothing
empty
Slyvia, you should have wrote: : "...there is nothing to suggest that it has NO internal structure."
But instead you said: '...there is nothing to suggest that it posses an internal structure.'
You are SUGGESTING the electron has NO mass.

Why are you linking the lack of internal structure with the lack of mass?
Sylvia.

'structure' requires an arrangement of material matter...mass, a clump
if you will.
Lack of of internal structure in a electron means no elements in an
electron.
Lack of mass.
Is inglish your second language?

You're making unfounded assumptions about what is required for mass to
exist.
Sylvia.

For an electron to exist, mass is required..it is where the electron
gets it's energy from.
e=m
did is 3rd grade physics.

dis is third grade fizsics.

[Sylvia Else]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by rhertz
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of
electromagnetic nature?
After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't
it?
THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.

An expectation that everything can be explained in terms of other
smaller things results in an infinite regression. It's not a rabbit hole
one wants to descend into.
While one can hypothesise that the electron is not elementary, so far
there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure. Until and
unless something comes along to indicate that it is not elementary, you
have nothing more than empty speculation.
Sylvia.

Sylvia belongs to the lemmings generation. If 'somebody nameless' says the electron does not have mass...
then Sylvia THINKS the electron has no mass.

Where did I so much as suggest that the electron has no mass?
Sylvia.

By your own words.
You wrote: "...so far
"...there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure."
"...nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure."
nothing
empty
Slyvia, you should have wrote: : "...there is nothing to suggest that it has NO internal structure."
But instead you said: '...there is nothing to suggest that it posses an internal structure.'
You are SUGGESTING the electron has NO mass.

Why are you linking the lack of internal structure with the lack of mass?
Sylvia.

'structure' requires an arrangement of material matter...mass, a clump
if you will.
Lack of of internal structure in a electron means no elements in an
electron.
Lack of mass.
Is inglish your second language?

You're making unfounded assumptions about what is required for mass to
exist.
Sylvia.

For an electron to exist, mass is required..it is where the electron
gets it's energy from.
e=m
did is 3rd grade physics.

OK, but what has that to do with whether the electron has an internal
structure?

Sylvia.

[The Starmaker]

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by rhertz
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of
electromagnetic nature?
After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't
it?
THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.

An expectation that everything can be explained in terms of other
smaller things results in an infinite regression. It's not a rabbit hole
one wants to descend into.
While one can hypothesise that the electron is not elementary, so far
there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure. Until and
unless something comes along to indicate that it is not elementary, you
have nothing more than empty speculation.
Sylvia.

Sylvia belongs to the lemmings generation. If 'somebody nameless' says the electron does not have mass...
then Sylvia THINKS the electron has no mass.

Where did I so much as suggest that the electron has no mass?
Sylvia.

By your own words.
You wrote: "...so far
"...there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure."
"...nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure."
nothing
empty
Slyvia, you should have wrote: : "...there is nothing to suggest that it has NO internal structure."
But instead you said: '...there is nothing to suggest that it posses an internal structure.'
You are SUGGESTING the electron has NO mass.

Why are you linking the lack of internal structure with the lack of mass?
Sylvia.

'structure' requires an arrangement of material matter...mass, a clump
if you will.
Lack of of internal structure in a electron means no elements in an
electron.
Lack of mass.
Is inglish your second language?

You're making unfounded assumptions about what is required for mass to
exist.
Sylvia.

For an electron to exist, mass is required..it is where the electron
gets it's energy from.
e=m
did is 3rd grade physics.

OK, but what has that to do with whether the electron has an internal
structure?
Sylvia.

An electron is made of energy and mass. Where is the energy located? On
the inside or the outside??

[Sylvia Else]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by rhertz
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of
electromagnetic nature?
After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't
it?
THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.

An expectation that everything can be explained in terms of other
smaller things results in an infinite regression. It's not a rabbit hole
one wants to descend into.
While one can hypothesise that the electron is not elementary, so far
there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure. Until and
unless something comes along to indicate that it is not elementary, you
have nothing more than empty speculation.
Sylvia.

Sylvia belongs to the lemmings generation. If 'somebody nameless' says the electron does not have mass...
then Sylvia THINKS the electron has no mass.

Where did I so much as suggest that the electron has no mass?
Sylvia.

By your own words.
You wrote: "...so far
"...there is nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure."
"...nothing to suggest that it has an internal structure."
nothing
empty
Slyvia, you should have wrote: : "...there is nothing to suggest that it has NO internal structure."
But instead you said: '...there is nothing to suggest that it posses an internal structure.'
You are SUGGESTING the electron has NO mass.

Why are you linking the lack of internal structure with the lack of mass?
Sylvia.

'structure' requires an arrangement of material matter...mass, a clump
if you will.
Lack of of internal structure in a electron means no elements in an
electron.
Lack of mass.
Is inglish your second language?

You're making unfounded assumptions about what is required for mass to
exist.
Sylvia.

For an electron to exist, mass is required..it is where the electron
gets it's energy from.
e=m
did is 3rd grade physics.

OK, but what has that to do with whether the electron has an internal
structure?
Sylvia.

An electron is made of energy and mass. Where is the energy located? On
the inside or the outside??

It would be located where the electron is.

Sylvia.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by rhertz
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
different flavors.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-
Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?

The idea of 'particles' (elementary or not) is imho wrong.

I'm a proponent of a self-developed concept, which I call 'structured
spacetime'.

(https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
)

In this concept particles are 'descriptors' of certain patterns (of/in
spacetime) as if those particles would create those patterns.

We see actually patterns and assume a reason, which we incapsulate into
a 'creation operator'.

This has to be a real thing (in our understanding), hence we assume
particles to be real things.


But the realness of particles hinders us to develop certain promising
concepts in physics further, especially a connection between GR and QM.

To achieve such a connection, we need to give up the idea of real
lasting particles altogether.

The standard model also contradicts an observation in geology called
'Growing Earth'.

As I have spent a lot of time on this particular topic, I'm actually
certain, that the Earth does in fact grow.

But Growing Earth and lasting particles do not fit together!


Therefore, one assumption had to go. And I would opt for the particle
concept (because the Earth does in fact grow).


This is usually hinderd by the so called 'great materialistic
methaparadigma', what to question is regarded as heresie (even if
actually necessary).

TH

[Mikko]

Post by rhertz
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."

That is not quite correct. When protons, neutrons, and electrons are
put near each other they interact. That interaction contributes to
the mass of the object (usually negatively).

Anyway, the mass of a composite is a consequence of the masses of
its constitiuents. But the mass of an elementary constituent cannot
be a consequence of its constituents because there are none. So we
can only regard the mass of an elementary particle as a primitive
property of that particle.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by rhertz
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."

So you have that wrong too. (can't you get anything right?)
You must add the kinetic energy (positive)
and subtract the binding energy, by E=mc^2.

Post by rhertz
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
different flavors.

I know you are going to hate this,
but most of the mass of the proton is kinetic energy.
Being confined in a small volume the quarks
(and gluons) have large zero point energies.
In fact they are highly relativistic.
Quark rest mass is only a small part of the proton mass.

Post by rhertz
<https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg>
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of
electromagnetic nature?

Nope, the electrons do not 'contain' mass,
they are massive.
For an explanation you need to wait for the theory of everything,

Jan

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."

So you have that wrong too. (can't you get anything right?)
You must add the kinetic energy (positive)
and subtract the binding energy, by E=mc^2.

Post by rhertz
It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
different flavors.

I know you are going to hate this,
but most of the mass of the proton is kinetic energy.
Being confined in a small volume the quarks
(and gluons) have large zero point energies.
In fact they are highly relativistic.
Quark rest mass is only a small part of the proton mass.

Post by rhertz
<https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg>
But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
Bossons).
So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?
This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of
electromagnetic nature?

Nope, the electrons do not 'contain' mass,
they are massive.
For an explanation you need to wait for the theory of everything,
Jan

In "Technicolour" QCD it's quarks and quarks and quarks again,
all the way down, as to the scale of superstrings/supercordes,
about twice as much small as atoms than atoms, us. (In mass.)

It's a continuum mechanics, ....

The "field number formalism" of "field occupation numbers"
generally refers to that point-like yet extended bodies,
the solitons and instantons, have in field theory, that
all the real fields inhabit space-time and thus result
one vector field of tuples of field numbers, though that
is yet a quantum/quantized concession, to what after the
"re-normalization", it a field theory and a continuum mechanics.

The "asymptotic freedom" within nucleons (neutrons, protons)
is a great thing and makes for uniting strong nuclear force
and a fall gravity, uniting in the sense of having the same
mechanism, not as the "uniting in the sense of symmetry-breaking",
it's a great thing to help explain otherwise that alternating
molecular moments, and unipolar nuclear force, have electrons
as a force carrier of charge and atoms as a force carrier of
massy interactions to do with inertia, then though that most
theories leave out neutron lifetime and photon speed, as
with regards to e/m and measured e/m the charge/mass ratio
of "an electron" as with regards to "a unit of charge" and
"a unit of mass".

It's a continuous manifold, .... It's a gauge theory.

SR'ians and GR'ian's arrive at "e = mc^2" in altogether
different ways, and SR's even amount is merely GR's
first standard term in an infinitary expression.
(Einstein has GR first, with SR "merely" "local".)

Then, that "m - m' = e/c^2", Einstein's "second" mass-energy
equivalency relation, this is after the momentum goes around
the bend of both the electromagnetic and into the kinetic,
the kinematic, in case don't-you-know Einstein's "half-way"
account of the centrally symmetric contra the linear.

[rhertz]

You will not like this, but this theory comes from the BBT crap:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis

QUOTE FROM: Big Bang nucleosynthesis
---------------------------------------------
The nuclei of these elements, along with some 7Li and 7Be are considered
to have been formed between 100 and 300 seconds after the Big Bang when
the primordial quark–gluon plasma froze out to form protons and
neutrons. Because of the very short period in which nucleosynthesis
occurred before it was stopped by expansion and cooling (about 20
minutes), no elements heavier than beryllium (or possibly boron) could
be formed. Elements formed during this time were in the plasma state,
and did not cool to the state of neutral atoms until much later.
--------------------------------------------

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements

QUOTE: "Hydrogen and helium are estimated to make up roughly 74% and 24%
of all baryonic matter in the universe respectively. Despite comprising
only a very small fraction of the universe, the remaining "heavy
elements" can greatly influence astronomical phenomena."

----------------------------------------------

It comes to be, with this current theory, that ELECTRONS are just a
by-product of the decay of neutrons, the original nuclei formed
immediately after the soup of udd quarks and gluons cooled, in the first
20'.

So, all the electrons that exist come from NEUTRON DECAY.

I made this silly calculation, assuming that only H and He are present.


********************************

According to the current BBT, these numbers represent the Universe 20
minutes after the BB. The 2% of heavier elements are dismissed, in a
gross estimation. This implies that the BBT created a neutral universe,
initially:

------------------------------------------------------------
75% H + 25% He = M ; this is the mass M of the early universe

2000 H = 0.75 M ; as an example, 2000 H atoms were created in the
first 20'

2000 H = 2000 n = 2000 p + 2000 e ; As it was electrically neutral,
2000 neutrons appeared first. 20' after, they decayed in 1 proton and 1
electron (first H atoms).

125 He = 0.25 M ; this is for He.

125 He = 500 n = 250 p + 250 n + 250 e ; The 125 He atoms were formed
from 500 neutrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------------


THERE YOU HAVE IT: 2,500 NEUTRONS, FORMED BY 5,000 udd QUARKS, created
the Universe. Now multiply it by some quadrillions or more, to
contemplate all the matter (98%) that ALLEGEDLY form the Universe FROM
NOTHING.

CONCLUSION: ELECTRONS ARE NOT ELEMENTARY PARTICLES. THEY ARE A SECOND
ORDER BYPRODUCT OF NEUTRON'S DECAY, ACCORDING TO THIS SCHIZO THEORY.

BUT WHAT TO EXPECT FROM SICK, RETARDED RELATIVISTS?

BTW: IS ANYBODY WILLING TO CHALLENGE MY BASIC ARITHMETICAL CALCULATION?

[rhertz]

Another curiosity happening in the first 20' of the big bang theory,
currently accepted: the charge e of an electron.

1. Only neutrons and protons exist:

Neutrons: 3 udd quarks (2/3 e - 1/3 e - 1/3 e = 0 e)

Protons: 3 uud quarks (2/3 e + 2/3 e - 1/3 e = + 1 e)

2. When neutrons decay (20'): 1 Proton + (-1 e)

Numbers don't make sense.

Is that electrons are formed by three ddd quarks plus gluons, because
somehow a neutral +1/3 e + (-1/3 e) is created from nowhere during the
decay process, so 1 proton + 1 electron can appear?

I dismissed neutrinos, but one electron neutrino split in two parts with
opposite charges +/- 1/3 and zero mass? The rest is derived from gluons.


https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by rhertz
Another curiosity happening in the first 20' of the big bang theory,
currently accepted: the charge e of an electron.
Neutrons: 3 udd quarks (2/3 e - 1/3 e - 1/3 e = 0 e)
Protons: 3 uud quarks (2/3 e + 2/3 e - 1/3 e = + 1 e)
2. When neutrons decay (20'): 1 Proton + (-1 e)
Numbers don't make sense.
Is that electrons are formed by three ddd quarks plus gluons, because
somehow a neutral +1/3 e + (-1/3 e) is created from nowhere during the
decay process, so 1 proton + 1 electron can appear?
I dismissed neutrinos, but one electron neutrino split in two parts with
opposite charges +/- 1/3 and zero mass? The rest is derived from gluons.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-Standard_Mode

l_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg

So you managed to misunderstand even that.
Quarks an gluons don't come into it:
it is a purely weak process.
A down quark decays into an up quark,
with the emission of a (virtual W- boson)
The W- next decays into an electron and an antineutrino.

All completely standard,

Jan

[Bertietaylor]

Post by rhertz

Post by rhertz
Another curiosity happening in the first 20' of the big bang theory,
currently accepted: the charge e of an electron.
Neutrons: 3 udd quarks (2/3 e - 1/3 e - 1/3 e = 0 e)
Protons: 3 uud quarks (2/3 e + 2/3 e - 1/3 e = + 1 e)
2. When neutrons decay (20'): 1 Proton + (-1 e)
Numbers don't make sense.
Is that electrons are formed by three ddd quarks plus gluons, because
somehow a neutral +1/3 e + (-1/3 e) is created from nowhere during the
decay process, so 1 proton + 1 electron can appear?
I dismissed neutrinos, but one electron neutrino split in two parts with
opposite charges +/- 1/3 and zero mass? The rest is derived from gluons.
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px-Standard_Mode

l_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
So you managed to misunderstand even that.
it is a purely weak process.
A down quark decays into an up quark,
with the emission of a (virtual W- boson)
The W- next decays into an electron and an antineutrino.
All completely standard,

Gibberish

Post by rhertz
Jan

[kazu]

Post by rhertz
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."

something to do with higgs field? i dont know, its beyond my
current knowledge, but this higgs field permeates the entire
universe and similar to an electromagnetic field, particles
interact with it and take on the burden of mass.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by rhertz
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."

something to do with higgs field? i dont know, its beyond my current
knowledge, but this higgs field permeates the entire universe and
similar to an electromagnetic field, particles interact with it and take
on the burden of mass.

No it doesn't, the field theory's "classical fields" and "potential
fields" each "fill the entire space of space-time", and coincide,
yet "Higgs' field" is _not_ a classical field and "Higgs' classical
field" is _not_ Higgs' field.

If you don't know that "Higgs field is not a field", well, ....