Re: What composes the mass of an electron?

On 11/05/2024 02:00 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 11/05/2024 12:39 PM, kinak wrote:

Ross Finlayson wrote:

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?

>
----------------------------------
>
Its energy?
>
>

>
That "energy" relates "forces" in "fields" is great,
yet substances like matter, at rest, and current, in motion,
and light, in motion and fleeting flux,
and nucleons, at rest in slow decay,
are not any particularly "energy",
except each in their own separate "fields",
which throughout their fields have "potential" "forces",
with regards to substances and "potential", "energy".
>
The "energeia" as localized and "entelechaie" (entelechy)
as connected then gets into usual notions like propagation,
parallel transport, that the theory is a field theory,
and that the theory is a gauge theory.
>
The "energy" is never not a substance or transition,
in "sum-of-histories, sum-of-potentials", a theory
with least action, yet a gradient.
>
>
Then "tendencies and propensities"
with regards to "attenuation and dissipation"
and "oscillation and restitution", help reflect
for "moment and motion", these kinds of things.
>
If you asked Feynman he might say "I'd be happy to agree
that optical light is not electromagnetic if you can
convince the SR-ians that GR and its space is first
the spatial and light transits space the spacial,
as Einstein tries to do since the can opened,
then if you could also fix up Faraday and Stern-Gerlach,
as I can see they got their issues, that'd be great".
>
>
So, the energeia and entelchiae are concepts of the
"dual" concerns, motion and rest, about dunamis, and dynamis.
>
>
Quantities, are as of definitions, derivations: and implicits.
>
>

Then the idea is "the gauge theory, fields with torsion,
is a field theory again, rectilinear and Euclidean,
with the parting and meeting of independent rotational frames,
space-frames, frame-spaces".
Of course it's well understood that "whatever the real theory
is: it's a gauge theory, insofar as quantum mechanics is never wrong".