Path: ...!news.nobody.at!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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: Thu, 7 Nov 2024 08:16:13 +0100
Lines: 333
Message-ID: <lp37ovF8f3aU1@mid.individual.net>
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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net B/fgZp3R3p32gt5DBso9ygjehRIGR0vFAfCQbpP1Q694jqfa9J
Cancel-Lock: sha1:K41sUG4LD5n9wFy3lrnat93Cl8k= sha256:PMGzHGeOJ67V4tJtRfqDzGJabvZwEH92WrsrBF+dsRU=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: de-DE
In-Reply-To: <EpmcnU0xmsge_Lf6nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Bytes: 14065

Am Dienstag000005, 05.11.2024 um 19:18 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
> On 11/05/2024 09:49 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 11/03/2024 11:53 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am Sonntag000003, 03.11.2024 um 18:28 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>>>> On 11/02/2024 11:19 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Aristotle has an idea like "un-moved mover", so it's generally
>>>> figured that "physics is an open system", while any sort of
>>>> usual classical ansaetze/gendanke, the setup/problem, is
>>>> defined as either the initiation of an action, "closed",
>>>> that there are no closed systems in physics as the entire
>>>> system of physics is an open system.
>>>>
>>>> So, you can usually ascribe in systems of physics, the
>>>> idea of mechanical advantage after "information advantage",
>>>> that an arbitrarily small reasoning can result an arbitrarily
>>>> large mechanical change, as with regards to systems in
>>>> physics being open to actors, according to information.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then, the linear and rotational is a very excellent example
>>>> of this, with regards to a usual sort of notion that
>>>> "the lever" is the simplest machine and also represents
>>>> any sort of mechanical interaction, even the usual
>>>> equal/opposite of inelastic conditions, that it's always
>>>> so that "the world turns", with regards to theories like
>>>> those of DesCartes and Kelvin, of the vortex, as a necessary
>>>> complement to the classical and linear (and partial and incomplete)
>>>> of what is _not_ the "closed".
>>>>
>>> I like a certain mathematical principle called 'geometric algebra' and
>>> assume, that nature does also behave like this on a fundamental level.
>>>
>>>
>>> So, nature is kind of mathematical, if you regard geometry as math.
>>>
>>> Now the difficult trick is, to find the correct type of math, which
>>> nature actually uses.
>>>
>>> I had bi-quaternions in mind previously, but think, that another type of
>>> clifford algebras perform actually better.
>>>
>>> This system consists of indempotent and nilpotent operators and is
>>> called 'dual quaternions'.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_quaternion
>>>
>>> This is actually a system of geometric algebra, which is in common use
>>> in robotics (but hardly anywhere else).
>>>
>>> The benefit of this system is, that it allows relatively simple
>>> translations and rotations of rigid bodies (in computers).
>>>
>>> 'Nilpotent' means, that such entities square to zero.
>>>
>>> This requirement for a description of nature was first used by Prof.
>>> Peter Rowlands of Liverpool in his book 'From Zero to Infinity'.
>>>
>>> That book is very hard to read and also very expensive.
>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========