Path: ...!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2024 17:49:12 +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>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2024 09:49:03 -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: <lorcreFdkemU3@mid.individual.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <nw-dnWCH258Fx7f6nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 229
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-e4UDK1GuMtv2CTnrehmY4dkbu619DEAjSh12dz3aw0ZqB0G1POeKNWwNGXxFVwcdm3DHsChtYqByxf8!lLJZXpChQ6mMJrL1+cA2meYjgX+RIlBMEKb+hK9qhccRjiXqtyWvbtshQHEDFmZcjer9Zbuz1R8M
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: 10516

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.
>
> But there exist a pdf 'What is Vacuum' from the same author, which is
> availible on the internet.
>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========