Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2024 18:13:08 +0000
Subject: Re: What composes the mass of an electron?
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <a3b70d34ff5188e99c00b2cf098e783a@www.novabbs.com>
 <0253b1db2aee0a4c0dfb41950e302cd7@www.novabbs.com>
 <20a347faeb10dd0cb48e85552d21e70f@www.novabbs.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2024 11:13:15 -0700
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: <20a347faeb10dd0cb48e85552d21e70f@www.novabbs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <lfmdnQL86vcp9rv6nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 63
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-aSXG2sjOVYGlPY1TMriYRSoBh+Ic7rbWa8S58d6gwjdvGnx/Ainhs3wdG0hStajBYXLBDYMXmmxmnDX!CARVhr+VIP4iW2RYtOscztbmzggnR2Dj9a5l0GQs7c0IsgD1F+4So7m5PA3reAIwx8T5ghajJio5
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: 4088

On 11/01/2024 05:50 PM, rhertz wrote:
> AS I WROTE BEFORE, THEY KNOW NOTHING!
>
> Best explanation: It exists, and we measured its mass. Ask me in 100
> years. Period.
>
>
> **********************************************
>
> https://www.quora.com/What-makes-up-the-mass-of-an-electron
>
> Andy Buckley
> Prof in particle physics, visiting researcher at CERN.
> Author has 376 answers and 842.4K answer views
>
> The particle physics answer is not far away from “it just is”. As far as
> we know, an electron is a fundamental particle with no internal
> structure, so its mass isn’t defined by the energy of a force field that
> binds it together (as is mostly the case for protons and neutrons).
>
> For somewhat arcane theory reasons, we cannot write down electron mass
> directly in the governing equations of the Standard Model but instead
> need to play a trick called the Higgs mechanism. This tells us that the
> electron gains its mass dynamically, by interacting with an omnipresent
> Higgs field. So mass is to some extent a measure of how much the
> electron field and the Higgs field like to talk to each other.
>
> And why does the electron like to talk to the Higgs field that much,
> while its heavier siblings the muon and tau talk to it a lot more? And
> it's much heavier cousins the bottom and top quarks apparently have it
> on speed-dial? We don’t know. Yet.
> ***************************************************

The Higgs field is not a (classical) field, it's just an interface.

The "classical Higgs field", is not the Higgs field,
and it's mostly a zero.

That e/m the charge/mass ratio then gifted the hydrogen nucleus 1 AMU
thus defining Avogadro's number, whence "electron physics",
speaks broadly to the notion of "running constants", where
according to NIST CODATA that the mass of an electron decreases annually.

Feynman, a big champion of electron physics, often trails out
with what _would_ be arrived at and isn't, and the particle/wave
duality always reintroduces itself.

Of course atomic chemistry with orbitals and bands is quite great,
yet there's also structural and molecular chemistry, and above
the great usual covalent and ionic bonds, such matters as the
van der Waal's and London dispersion, helping explain that
it's a model with some great success, electron physics,
while there's a neutrino/muon/large-hadron physics,
about an infrared catastrophe, to complement ultraviolet catastrophe,
with regards to super-symmetry three ways.

Resonance theory, ..., second spectrum, ..., it's a continuum mechanics.

Of course it's well known in physics that QM and GR the usual ways
disagree with each other 120 degrees of magnitude, and that
neither has gravity in it.