Re: What composes the mass of an electron?

On 11/06/2024 01:23 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>

In 1908, Svante Arrhenius proposed Planck and Rutherford for the Nobel
Prize in Physics (Planck) and Chemistry (Rutherford) for:
>
Planck: Calculation of the charge of the electron from his radiation
law.
>
Rutherford: Calculation of the charge of the alpha particle from
experiments.
>
>
Because the works of Planck and Rutherford were still in debate by that
year, the proposal was dismissed.
>
Planck's work precedes Millikan and others, and was entirely
theoretical.
>
Yet, his calculations were close to actual values:
>
>
Charge 1e (Planck 1900) = 4.69E-10 esu OR g^1/2 cm^3/2 s^-1
>
Charge 1e (Millikan 1913) = 4.774E-10 esu OR g^1/2 cm^3/2 s^-1
>
Today: Charge 1e (StatC) = 4.80325451E-10 esu OR g^1/2 cm^3/2 s^-1
>
>
Jan, read this and don't be so ignorant. Many scientists were trying to
find the charge of electrons since 1897, but historians CANCELED THEM
(also due to political struggles, which are getting worse 120 years
after).
>
>
Arrhenius, the atomic hypothesis and the 1908 Nobel Prizes in Physics
and Chemistry
>
  https://www.jstor.org/stable/232940
>
>
Don't be so ignorant, charlatan Jan.

>
Sigh, so you succeeded in misunderstanding that too.
Planck didn't do any calculations with electrons,
or with the classical electon radius.
>
What Planck did do was to obtain a value for Avogadro's number
by obtaining values for h (Plancks constant)
and k (Boltzmann's constant) from the radiation law.
>
All this was highly speculative theory at the time,
with both the radiation law and statistical mechanics
being poorly understood and highly contested.
(let alone the statistical mechanics of the radiation field)
Einstein had not put that in order yet.
>
Moreover, there were many other ways of estimating Avogadros number,
which were gradually converging at the time.
There was little reason for singling out Planck.
>
However, Arrhenius had met Planck, they had become great friends,
and Arrhenius had decided that he wanted to get Planck a Nobel prize.
Arrhenius failed to convince his collegues of course.
Rutherford did get the 1908 chemistry prize (for identifying the alpha)
and Planck had to wait till 1919 for getting his,
>
Jan
>
>
>
>
>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arago_spot
Statistics: is not necessarily _Bayesian_.
Angstroms and Planck lengths above and below the atomic,
sort of re-ify.
Whether water or oil droplets of particular material
properties, after Thompson's first then Millikan's finer
e/m, as a ratio given various gross if precise parameters
of the _configuration of experiment_ and _energy of experiment_,
see that today, the NIST Particle Data Group CODATA regularly
revises the usual small values _smaller_ and large _larger_,
about what's called "running constants", according to
energy of experiment and configuration of experiment.
Faraday and Heaviside and Larmor and FitzGerald
have lots left out Maxwell and Lorentz,
where of course many things empirical are
due Faraday and Heaviside and Larmor and FitzGerald,
derived extra Maxwell and Lorentz.
Light of course and nuclear radiation, if "ionizing",
is not "electromagnetic", per se.
The Arago spot is pretty cool, seems a little better
reasoned than Newton poking his eye with a knitting needle.