Re: What composes the mass of an electron?

On 11/02/2024 03:34 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> 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."

>
So you have that wrong too. (can't you get anything right?)
You must add the kinetic energy (positive)
and subtract the binding energy, by E=mc^2.
>

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.

>
I know you are going to hate this,
but most of the mass of the proton is kinetic energy.
Being confined in a small volume the quarks
(and gluons) have large zero point energies.
In fact they are highly relativistic.
Quark rest mass is only a small part of the proton mass.
>

<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?

>
Nope, the electrons do not 'contain' mass,
they are massive.
For an explanation you need to wait for the theory of everything,
>
Jan
>

In "Technicolour" QCD it's quarks and quarks and quarks again,
all the way down, as to the scale of superstrings/supercordes,
about twice as much small as atoms than atoms, us. (In mass.)
It's a continuum mechanics, ....
The "field number formalism" of "field occupation numbers"
generally refers to that point-like yet extended bodies,
the solitons and instantons, have in field theory, that
all the real fields inhabit space-time and thus result
one vector field of tuples of field numbers, though that
is yet a quantum/quantized concession, to what after the
"re-normalization", it a field theory and a continuum mechanics.
The "asymptotic freedom" within nucleons (neutrons, protons)
is a great thing and makes for uniting strong nuclear force
and a fall gravity, uniting in the sense of having the same
mechanism, not as the "uniting in the sense of symmetry-breaking",
it's a great thing to help explain otherwise that alternating
molecular moments, and unipolar nuclear force, have electrons
as a force carrier of charge and atoms as a force carrier of
massy interactions to do with inertia, then though that most
theories leave out neutron lifetime and photon speed, as
with regards to e/m and measured e/m the charge/mass ratio
of "an electron" as with regards to "a unit of charge" and
"a unit of mass".
It's a continuous manifold, .... It's a gauge theory.
SR'ians and GR'ian's arrive at "e = mc^2" in altogether
different ways, and SR's even amount is merely GR's
first standard term in an infinitary expression.
(Einstein has GR first, with SR "merely" "local".)
Then, that "m - m' = e/c^2", Einstein's "second" mass-energy
equivalency relation, this is after the momentum goes around
the bend of both the electromagnetic and into the kinetic,
the kinematic, in case don't-you-know Einstein's "half-way"
account of the centrally symmetric contra the linear.