Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.karotte.org!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: Sun, 3 Nov 2024 07:19:47 +0100
Lines: 106
Message-ID: <looivaFp4pU2@mid.individual.net>
References: <a3b70d34ff5188e99c00b2cf098e783a@www.novabbs.com>
 <VtGcncnTF4lU6bj6nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net i83/OWzgyKWTydjCOrROAQ6TEOU6YiumrfjkVf2QlYVfZyqcQ2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yKFqCFLJAqWzjPb1tdjtguW7xuA= sha256:+wwfPvmclxO51dt609ZafxeHS1IiT+oIlYmp8plMrss=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: de-DE
In-Reply-To: <VtGcncnTF4lU6bj6nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com>
Bytes: 4711

Am Samstag000002, 02.11.2024 um 01:39 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
> On 11/01/2024 11:13 AM, rhertz wrote:
>> 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?
>>
>> This is one of many FAILS of the current SMEP.
>>
>> Is that the electron's mass is composed of unknown matter? Maybe of
>> electromagnetic nature?
>>
>> After all, modern civilization is based on what electrons can do, isn't
>> it?
>>
>>
>> THEY KNOW NOTHING, AS IN RELATIVISM!.
> 
> 
> You got there a deconstructive, elementary account, into
> what's called the trans-Planckian regime, from what's
> called the Democritan regime, where Democritus or
> Demokrites is who championed "atomism" the theory
> while Aristotle or Aristoteles while outlining either
> the "infinitely-divisible" or "infinitely-divided",
> picked "not atomism because no vacuums", as with regards
> to that electrons, protons, neutrons are elementary matter
> while photon is still the usual particle in terms of
> the quanta of energy, as to how energy is quantized,
> at the atomic scale, or as with regards to Avogadro.
> 
> For some people, charge is primary, others, matter.

I assume a certain mechanism, which belongs to a self-developed concept 
called 'structured spacetime'.

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

In this the electron is not a particle, but denotes a hypothetical 
'creation operator', which does not really exists, but if it would, it 
would create a certain structure (in spacetime).

As example I take waves on the surface of a pond.

E.g. I could assume a little demon, that pull up the water surface and 
wanders around over the pond.

In the microscopic realm of elementry particles we have, of course, no 
pond and no demon.

But we could assume a thing would exist, if we see certain paterns 
repeatedly.

Those we give the name 'particle' (or 'quantum object' if you prefer that).

But such 'particles' violate simple requirements for material objects, 
like being at some position at a certain time and existing continously.

They would also violate several other principles and observations.

For instance the particle concept violates 'Growing Earth', so called 
pair production, the big bang theory and 'transmutation'.

Best would be, to abandon real lasting particles altogether and replace 
them by something else.

This 'something else' could be 'timelike stable patterns'.

The relation is not at all obvious and you certainly have not heard 
about this before.

But think about a standing 'rotation wave'.

This is somehow similar to the path of a yo-yo.

Then we could call the outer edge of this path 'potential' and the inner 
turning point 'mass'.

The outer edge had in this scheme a geometric relation and is somehow 
'attracted' by the inner turning point, which has mass instead of 
rotational velocity.


TH


....