Path: ...!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!cleanfeed4-a.proxad.net!nnrp4-1.free.fr!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: What composes the mass of an electron?
From: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Reply-To: jjlxa31@xs4all.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 23:26:35 +0100
References: <a3b70d34ff5188e99c00b2cf098e783a@www.novabbs.com> <VtGcncnTF4lU6bj6nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> <looivaFp4pU2@mid.individual.net> <QL6cnduwKJ9OL7r6nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> <lorcreFdkemU3@mid.individual.net> <nw-dnWCH258Fx7f6nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> <EpmcnU0xmsge_Lf6nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <7racndQspek6H7f6nZ2dnZeNn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> <865ba2aae42a679f54e315c8c562f5b3@www.novabbs.com> <672b8116$1$413$426a34cc@news.free.fr> <283dbf78229accbc8fb9ac001ebd5c34@www.novabbs.com> <672bde43$2$408$426a34cc@news.free.fr> <b84f0f33a35cbc59101ca6dd30059be3@www.novabbs.com>
Organization: De Ster
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.8.5 (ea919cf118) (Mac OS 10.12.6)
Lines: 188
Message-ID: <6735279b$1$12947$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Nov 2024 23:26:35 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.10.137.58
X-Trace: 1731536795 news-3.free.fr 12947 213.10.137.58:62944
X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net
Bytes: 8885

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 21:23:15 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 
> > rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > 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/

There you are there at last, and I only had to tell you a few times.
Planck did nothing about electrons, he found (yet another) way
to determine Avogadro's number.



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

Always nice and to the point, aren't you?
 
> 8. The Electronic Charge
> 
> Planck does not mention a reference for the Faraday constant used in his
> work. He wrote e = ?w, or in modern language, N?e = F, uses
> ? = 3.2223E-05 esu mol^-1 = 96603 C mol^-1 with no reference, to
> calculate the electronic charge,
> 
>                 e = ?w = 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.

I'll put down the elementary logic -> Avogadro' of it once again:
Planck's radiation law -> Boltzmann's constabnt k
-> + Gas constant - > Avogadro's number _> + Faraday -> electron charge.

> 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.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------

Sigh. Thomson did not determine the electron charge for his experiment.
He determined e/m.

> 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.

Nothing was known 'for certain' about Avogadro's constant in 1900.
In fact, there was a whole school of physicists
(positivists, energists, etc. following for example Ernst Mach)
who denied the real existence of atoms,
and hence that there was any physical meaning to Avogadros number.
They considered it to be merely a convenient fiction,
useful for the purpose of doing certain calculations only.
But their position was gradually being worn down by many independent
and converging determinations of Avogadro's number.
(for example also Einstein 1905)
Chemists of course had no doubt about the real existence of atoms.

So now that I have clued you in you may understand what all the ado
about the 1908 Nobel prize was about.
Arrhenius (himself a chemist) proposed both Planck (physics)
and Rutherford (chemistry) for two simultaneous Nobel prizes,
both relating directly to Avogadro's number.
He hoped to kill off all of that 'energist' nonsense
with one fell swoop, using Nobel's double weight.
But his little plot failed.
Planck's work was seen as too speculative by his collegues,
and only Rutherford got the prize.

Jan
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========