Path: ...!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2024 17:49:12 +0000 Subject: Re: What composes the mass of an electron? Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity References: From: Ross Finlayson Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2024 09:49:03 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Lines: 229 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-e4UDK1GuMtv2CTnrehmY4dkbu619DEAjSh12dz3aw0ZqB0G1POeKNWwNGXxFVwcdm3DHsChtYqByxf8!lLJZXpChQ6mMJrL1+cA2meYjgX+RIlBMEKb+hK9qhccRjiXqtyWvbtshQHEDFmZcjer9Zbuz1R8M X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 10516 On 11/03/2024 11:53 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am Sonntag000003, 03.11.2024 um 18:28 schrieb Ross Finlayson: >> On 11/02/2024 11:19 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am Samstag000002, 02.11.2024 um 01:39 schrieb Ross Finlayson: >>>> On 11/01/2024 11:13 AM, rhertz wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> 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. > ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========