Path: ...!local-2.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 22:06:09 +0000
Subject: Re: What composes the mass of an electron?
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
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>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2024 14:06:10 -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: <865ba2aae42a679f54e315c8c562f5b3@www.novabbs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <Kqqcnc0DgrVMC7f6nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 73
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-dcUfYjlx4XNYrRyDCbqNNijTECegn86Qp0AIDmoieRzBq5YCS1p77DrceFSOdai8JyWN71OHzWpzHPi!IDyfMxR5tPxsPlsu1+BWW2SnrnByDLC+yCFoLjRVmNXEOzs0C7UGOIqaYvm2cj01xnBcxZwUEP6V
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: 4529

On 11/05/2024 01:44 PM, rhertz wrote:
> 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?).

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, ...".