Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!tor.dont-email.me!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.math
Subject: Re: Positrons
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2025 19:24:00 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <104mf2m$cqp9$1@tor.dont-email.me>
References: <positron-20250705204007@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
 <b97558f662745e5702f2a67d7c71c6fe@www.novabbs.com>
 <104jspl$3o8p2$1@tor.dont-email.me> <md6cpmFe64nU3@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2025 21:14:30 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: tor.dont-email.me; posting-host="77f555ca3f6ea0c6411897e9dd115755";
	logging-data="420649"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19+10DJ4V4OLcfl7uT5y/IlfYpnGrZh2NQ="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xUh8ApVpkzL2ZPWPh8K3oYaHPlY=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <md6cpmFe64nU3@mid.individual.net>

Thomas Heger:> Am Dienstag000008, 08.07.2025 um 22:00 schrieb Aether
Regained:
>
>
>>
>> Still I like this philosophical argument probably due to Dirac or
>> Feynman (paraphrased):
>>
>> It is extremely remarkable that the electron and the proton are so
>> unlike each other, and yet have EXACTLY EQUAL (and opposite) charge. The
>> positron on the other hand, having the same mass as the electron, is not
>> as much of a miracle as the proton. It would not be very surprising if
>> the exactly equal charge of the proton is really derived from an
>> embedded positron.
>>
> My own guess about the relation between electron and proton goes like
this:
>
> 'electron' denotes the far end of a standing 'rotation wave' and
> 'proton' this inner turning point.
>
> What we call 'charge' is therefore kind of a wave and an atom the entire
> wave, which has certain characteristic points.
>
> These points get certain names and we treat them as real, lasting,
> material objects.
>
> But that is actually wrong and we should regard particles as certain
> timelike stable structures.
>
> See here:
>
>
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>


The ideas you describe for the electron are similar to those of quantum
field theory, though not for the proton. The proton is sometimes
described as the most complex subatomic object.

BTW, in your presentation, slide 149, you state:

"
.... . It [my physics research program] started with a very unspectacular
question: in air, the speed of sound is higher than the velocity of the
single atoms. What could be the reason?
"

But this is not the case, right?

From:

https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_47.html#Ch47-S5

"
.... In other words, the speed of sound is of the same order of magnitude
as the speed of the molecules, and is actually somewhat less than this
average speed.

Of course we could expect such a result, because a disturbance like a
change in pressure is, after all, propagated by the motion of the
molecules. However, such an argument does not tell us the precise
propagation speed; it could have turned out that sound was carried
primarily by the fastest molecules, or by the slowest molecules. It is
reasonable and satisfying that the speed of sound is roughly 1/2 of the
average molecular speed v_{avg}.
"

Your motivation into your research caught my eye, because a significant
part of my own motivation into resurrecting the aether was the
observation that just as "the speed of sound is of the same order of
magnitude as the speed of the molecules", perhaps the speed of the
aether particles is of the same order of magnitude as the speed of light!