Path: ...!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2024 00:54:31 +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>
 <672b8116$0$413$426a34cc@news.free.fr>
 <kwudncjuVu3DE7P6nZ2dnZeNn_ednZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2024 16:54:27 -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: <kwudncjuVu3DE7P6nZ2dnZeNn_ednZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <bZOdnaAFWp9VL7P6nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 82
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-WhIEyi2EWnnJtZDBmZVAFR+WFtHjVIytAEQ7vwfDVQXLAt87KWE86RVnHIWNhq2SPkOm6kYU21zd65P!IxT6gydF8UzrP3NpidH56lp9diIa+e3FPBeR4wcGu7gCSU7zf/+/1EUxsVHlJDiEUWmRAs91Yg0=
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: 4577

On 11/08/2024 02:19 PM, kinak wrote:
> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------
>>>
>>> Its energy?
>>
>> Merely calling the same thing by another name
>> is not going to help,
>>
>> Jan
>>
> -----------------------------------
>
> Lets say that an electron were pure energy,
> what would be its mass be, according to Einstein's
> equation e = mcc?

Energy doesn't have any mass.

The, "equivalency", is after a sort of "dynamism".

For example, nuclear fission, it is said adds up
about that much, matter/anti-matter, about that
much, released energy.

Then, much more closely to reality, or the classical,
is that in a rotational setting, that rotational
energy has a "mass" equivalence that might be
considered as "heft", or as with regards to any
difference between "rest mass" and "relativistic mass".

The, "equivalency", of mass and energy, is a relation,
not an identity.

Then, to say an electron is "a particle" or "a test charge"
which is a point particle, or "an extended body" which
is a particle with dimensions or "a wave" in particle/wave duality,
or "a element of flow" in current, has that the theory
today has that current is mostly defined in terms of
"electron-holes" which are the back-and-forth of electrons,
according to Lienard-Wiechert (sp.) the potentials, as
what add up in the "statistical ensemble", the mechanics.

So, mass/energy equivalency, is a thing, while, an electron
is in terms of a _ratio_, of charge and mass, called "e/m".
Then, this is associated with 1 AMU the bare hydrogen nucleus,
that accordingly to how much metal is plated by a given quantity
of electricity of electroplating, that amount of electricity,
is so many electrons that have an e/m ratio, that according to
how electrostatically a magnetic field can hold up water or oil
droplets that it counters gravity, gives a ratio e/m, that then
altogether is related back to 1 mole of the electroplating, as
with regards to 1 Avogadro's number-many atoms in a mole.

Or, that's how it was measured. Really though it's part of
a system of ratios in dimensional analysis about charge and
mass, with regards to the terrestrial settings' gravity,
and theory of electroplating, and theory of electrostatic levity,
resulting in a roundabout way a particularly small quantity of mass,
and a particular large quantity of atoms in a mole. Then that's
mostly related to ideal and empirical gas and phase transition
as with regards to mostly water vapor.


If you know Ohm and Kirchhoff law they're pretty great
and most people learned laws of circuits long before
caring that an electron was anything other than a
complement to the proton, with opposite charges and
the idea that the protons indicate the atomic number
of elements and most stay that way, and electrons
indicate the ionization potentials.

Anyone feel free to correct any of that that's wrong.