Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2024 18:18:43 +0000 Subject: Re: What composes the mass of an electron? Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity References: From: Ross Finlayson Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2024 10:18:29 -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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Lines: 287 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-CEEYN0J6LL0UKc4rQ0pCwNF3Aag0iiOxVegQVfCG+0zTKQQ/vNs2qPwIlEYmLmZlV1QdC/XkW2lIuoT!UY6AKrn/HboRx3aeCPgO4ghXpzkWGAYKAjmPhCoxzKOuYjJVvCrvvYGhkHLBnePdJglCaW/zQZ8+ 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: 12606 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 ==========