Re: What creates the charge of an electron?

On 11/08/2024 03:55 PM, rhertz wrote:

According to the BBT:
>
About 6.75E+79 H atoms and 2.255E+79 He atoms exist in the visible and
neutrally charged universe (75% and 25% of the total mass M, dismissing
2% from other elements). They were formed from 8.1E+79 original
neutrons, 20' after the Big Bang.
>
That is:
>
81,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
>
neutrons
>
existing in the first 20 minutes after the BB. Only a 20% remained as
neutrons, to form He.
>
These neutrons rotate at an extraordinarily high speed, maybe FTL, which
create internal forces that led to the neutron fission: a proton plus an
electron. But it was a force (gauge force - gluons) that held 80% of
neutrons stable for a while (20'), while temperature fell.  According to
the current theory, the gluon soup held confined quarks with fractional
charges of +1/3 e and -1/3 e, which later formed protons and electrons
by most neutrons decaying, H and He atoms were formed in the first
hours.
>
>
Neutrons: 3 udd quarks (2/3 e - 1/3 e - 1/3 e = 0 e)
>
Protons: 3 uud quarks (2/3 e + 2/3 e - 1/3 e = + 1 e)
>
Electrons: 3 ddd quarks (- 1/3 e - 1/3 e - 1/3 e = - 1 e), free of
gluons gauge.
>
And what is inside quarks, to create charge?  A couple of wavelengths of
light, at such high frequency that can't be measured. Beyond gamma rays.
>
>
It's a theory, after all. But it supports that mass is of
electromagnetic nature, as was thought by 1900.
>
>
Genesis 1:3-5 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

When you say quarks, and "light" holding them together,
I think that's because it's just "well, a particle
must go here, no mass, no charge, some energy,
we'll call it light", yet, all the quantity-less
virtual-particles in QED and QCD are more properly
_not_ light. "Virtual" photons aren't photons.
(In setups like the Alain Aspect type experiments
there are notions of photinos, and photon partners,
which "virtual" photons are, of photons. These notions
of Bell and Aspect make many SR-ians scratch their heads.)
It's interesting you mention super-classical velocities,
because such notions of instantaneity are of course
along the lines of the "extra-local" and indeed it is
so that the super-classical models make for that most
all the models in physical theories of the day, are
or were in classical quantities quite all throughout,
that it's been building for a long time for physics
to have something really super-classical it all. That
said there's the Fritz London and the super-conductivity
which helps show that the parameters of a fluid model,
have the exact opposites of some of the classical concerns
of liquids.
The WMAP and then 2MASS and then JWST have roundly paint-canned
expansion theories including various inflationary theories.
Then the "initial conditions" are just sort of reverse-engineered
from high-energy plasma experiments and symmetry-bending.
Then it's sort of _mutual_ conditions for "running constants",
that are to be arrived at instead of it all coming down
from an arbitrary reflection on merely a few particulars,
in the linear accelerators, or linacs, and ring accelerators,
or cyclotrons.
Or, so it may seem.