Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: What composes the mass of an electron?
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2024 09:39:41 +0100
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <lom6pmFjpq2U3@mid.individual.net>
References: <a3b70d34ff5188e99c00b2cf098e783a@www.novabbs.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net LZ4vyIpOxqlthnJGMmFkVQJ1LnlL96oAYE814FMmdFwG/UNim/
Cancel-Lock: sha1:W0nNRaSgrsrKyboFxaijzXJQNeQ= sha256:/dTuY73hQ6NY+SyLSycndz/OEbSEQmu4VEHiFne4SsQ=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: de-DE
In-Reply-To: <a3b70d34ff5188e99c00b2cf098e783a@www.novabbs.com>
Bytes: 3161

Am Freitag000001, 01.11.2024 um 19:13 schrieb rhertz:
> A definition of mass, as found in Google:
> 
> "Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
> object.
> It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."
> 
> It's "accepted" since the 60s that protons and neutrons are not
> elementary particles anymore. As stated in the Standard Model of
> Elementary Particles, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, with
> different flavors.
> 
> https://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2000px- 
> Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_.jpg
> 
> But electrons are thought as elementary particles, so they can't be
> formed by a collection of other elementary particles. Even quarks are
> currently thought as working together with elementary gluons (QCD, Gauge
> Bossons).
> 
> So, what is THE MATTER that electrons contain?

The idea of 'particles' (elementary or not) is imho wrong.

I'm a proponent of a self-developed concept, which I call 'structured 
spacetime'.

(https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
)

In this concept particles are 'descriptors' of certain patterns (of/in 
spacetime) as if those particles would create those patterns.

We see actually patterns and assume a reason, which we incapsulate into 
a 'creation operator'.

This has to be a real thing (in our understanding), hence we assume 
particles to be real things.


But the realness of particles hinders us to develop certain promising 
concepts in physics further, especially a connection between GR and QM.

To achieve such a connection, we need to give up the idea of real 
lasting particles altogether.

The standard model also contradicts an observation in geology called 
'Growing Earth'.

As I have spent a lot of time on this particular topic, I'm actually 
certain, that the Earth does in fact grow.

But Growing Earth and lasting particles do not fit together!


Therefore, one assumption had to go. And I would opt for the particle 
concept (because the Earth does in fact grow).


This is usually hinderd by the so called 'great materialistic 
methaparadigma', what to question is regarded as heresie (even if 
actually necessary).

TH