Electrons mass!?

[Lennart Hyland]

A couple of months ago I wrote this on a other board:

"Here is some interesting stuff from my handbook,

5. The mass of electrons

An increase of the electron's mass by a factor of 10 would have made the energies required for the various organic reactions of life ten times greater and thus much more diffictul to attain. On the other hand, a reduction of the electron's mass by a factor of ten would have made organic molecules very unstable, being immediately destroyed by solar radiation."

A member on the board had problems with that statement. He told me that it is relative mass and that you cant even see a electron as a particle because if the speed of the electron would be zero the mass would also be zero. He also said that the mathematical number we've given to describe a mass of an electron is purely based on calculations from the known charge of an electron and are just to simplefy theoretical calculations and equations.

I remember in class we always calculated on the mass of an electron as the rest-mass 9.11 x 10^-31, though he pointed this out and said that they base that on charge/mass measurements and a relativistic rest mass of about 0.511 MeV/c².

Since that excerpt is taken from my Physics Handbook at University level I cant really see that they are spreading lies.

Please help me dear JREFs to understand this "problem!

[ben m]

The book is (generally) correct, and whoever you were talking to is totally wrong. The electron rest mass is a perfectly normal, well-behaved, nonzero physical quantity, measured to be 511 keV/c^2. (That's the same thing as 9 x 10^-31 kg, by the way.) The poster seems to be thinking (in a confused way) about the electron bare mass, which is a less-well-behaved quantity you get when you try to subtract something called the self-energy; calculating the self-energy requires a funny renormalization. It's perfectly valid, though, to calculate atomic structure and such in a world where the electron mass is 50 keV or 5 MeV or whatever.

I somewhat take issue with the anthropic-ish premise, though. In a Universe with lighter electrons, you wouldn't find life basking in 600nm photons---but so what? That's like saying "If the electron mass were 511 keV, organic molecules would be destroyed by UV light." That's true, and thus you find life on nice planets like Earth with UV-opaque atmospheres, orbiting yellow stars rather than blue ones. If organic molecules were destroyed by red light, you'd find life around even cooler stars, on planets with red-opaque atmospheres instead.

[Lennart Hyland]

Originally Posted by ben m

The book is (generally) correct, and whoever you were talking to is totally wrong. The electron rest mass is a perfectly normal, well-behaved, nonzero physical quantity, measured to be 511 keV/c^2. (That's the same thing as 9 x 10^-31 kg, by the way.) The poster seems to be thinking (in a confused way) about the electron bare mass, which is a less-well-behaved quantity you get when you try to subtract something called the self-energy; calculating the self-energy requires a funny renormalization. It's perfectly valid, though, to calculate atomic structure and such in a world where the electron mass is 50 keV or 5 MeV or whatever.

I somewhat take issue with the anthropic-ish premise, though. In a Universe with lighter electrons, you wouldn't find life basking in 600nm photons---but so what? That's like saying "If the electron mass were 511 keV, organic molecules would be destroyed by UV light." That's true, and thus you find life on nice planets like Earth with UV-opaque atmospheres, orbiting yellow stars rather than blue ones. If organic molecules were destroyed by red light, you'd find life around even cooler stars, on planets with red-opaque atmospheres instead.

Great answer! Thanks alot!

[damccut]

Ben M is right on the mark in his second paragraph to answer you, but the truth about matter (the electron is only one small but quantitatively large portion) is that its mass is never at rest even when it is completely still relative to some other large mass. As the mass of anything changes so does its status, so as an electron gains mass it really becomes something else. My book on ultrawaves explains how to create matter and how to do away with some of the strange ideas we have concerning the quantum.

I even go into how the constants are all related, so that e, h and what is referred to as the natural unit of time are all dependent on the value of the electron mass. As its value becomes more refined—and in the last update it mass dropped in value—so do theirs. If you looked them up before the 2006 update, you would see that they are all smaller now.

[Complexity]

Originally Posted by damccut

My book on ultrawaves explains how to create matter and how to do away with some of the strange ideas we have concerning the quantum.

I even go into how the constants are all related, so that e, h and what is referred to as the natural unit of time are all dependent on the value of the electron mass. As its value becomes more refined—and in the last update it mass dropped in value—so do theirs. If you looked them up before the 2006 update, you would see that they are all smaller now.

Spam.

Woo spam.

[ben m]

Originally Posted by damccut

Ben M is right on the mark in his second paragraph to answer you, but the truth about matter (the electron is only one small but quantitatively large portion) is that its mass is never at rest even when it is completely still relative to some other large mass. As the mass of anything changes so does its status, so as an electron gains mass it really becomes something else. My book on ultrawaves explains how to create matter and how to do away with some of the strange ideas we have concerning the quantum.

Hey, UltraWave theory sounds familiar! Let me refresh my memory:

Originally Posted by various

Woo hoo!! Free woo!!

Not just your ordinary woo, but String Theory Woo!

I recommend you check out John Baez and Sean Carrol's crackpot indices

no publisher would touch this tripe.

A Google search of "ultrawavetheory" returns a massive 5 hits.

I am a physicists. I like formulae. A pity that I had to wait until page 83.

You fail entry level physics. And you fail because nobody takes a book seriously that has not identifiable author. And where are your references?

Damccut, you know darn well that your theory is uncited and unrefereed, and that where it's not completely unknown, its reception has been laughter and the pointing out of flaws. Given that you know this, it's dishonest to say (as above) "The truth of the matter is ... ". Next time, try a true statement like "I have an alternative hypothesis, which is ..." or, if you need a white lie to keep your spirits up, "I have a controversial alternative hypothesis ...".

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by damccut

Ben M is right on the mark in his second paragraph to answer you, but the truth about matter (the electron is only one small but quantitatively large portion) is that its mass is never at rest even when it is completely still relative to some other large mass. As the mass of anything changes so does its status, so as an electron gains mass it really becomes something else. My book on ultrawaves explains how to create matter and how to do away with some of the strange ideas we have concerning the quantum.

I even go into how the constants are all related, so that e, h and what is referred to as the natural unit of time are all dependent on the value of the electron mass. As its value becomes more refined—and in the last update it mass dropped in value—so do theirs. If you looked them up before the 2006 update, you would see that they are all smaller now.

To give some sense of the "rigour" of this crackpot: He claims that E=mc² is wrong because it only works in SI units!
From his web site:

Quote:

E=mc^2 produces values that are inconsistent with a physical particle system. Because only the SI unit system produces the proper results, it must have been established to do so by necessity. It would truly be the coincidence of the century for ultrawave equations to have worked out perfectly just by accident for just this one set of units. This implies that E does not equal mc^2 and that it is only equal numerically in this one particular set of units. After all, it makes more sense to think of a momentum (m*Cc) producing an energy than for an area being under acceleration (c^2) and then applied to a mass. Where is the impetus for the acceleration?

He gives an woo calculation for a set mass of 9.10938214501E-31 kg:
E in kg*m²/s² = 2.797674300794E-10
E in "lb*in/s" (actually lb*in²/s²) = 7.106092724017E-12
2.797674300794E-10 != 7.106092724017E-12 and thus his conclusion.

He is too ignorant to realize that the the units of energy have also changed between the 2 calculations.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by ben m

*snip*That's true, and thus you find life on nice planets like Earth with UV-opaque atmospheres, orbiting yellow stars rather than blue ones. If organic molecules were destroyed by red light, you'd find life around even cooler stars, on planets with red-opaque atmospheres instead.

The puddle miracle again (a puddle of water marvelling at the fantastic coincidende that the hole it is in fits it perfectly).

Hans

[damccut]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

To give some sense of the "rigour" of this crackpot: He claims that E=mc² is wrong because it only works in SI units!
From his web site:


He gives an woo calculation for a set mass of 9.10938214501E-31 kg:
E in kg*m²/s² = 2.797674300794E-10
E in "lb*in/s" (actually lb*in²/s²) = 7.106092724017E-12
2.797674300794E-10 != 7.106092724017E-12 and thus his conclusion.

He is too ignorant to realize that the the units of energy have also changed between the 2 calculations.

Sorry if this was confusing. I left E in all locations, but should have put p for momentum on the ones with unsquared units. My point was that numerically c^2 cannot produce similar quantities in differing unit systems, whereas UT converts directly from one momentum to another. E=mc^2 is only equivalent numerically in the SI system to UT. If you have an explanation for this unusual event that doesn't prove Einsteing wrong rather than me, I'd be more than willing to listen.

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by damccut

Sorry if this was confusing. I left E in all locations, but should have put p for momentum on the ones with unsquared units. My point was that numerically c^2 cannot produce similar quantities in differing unit systems, whereas UT converts directly from one momentum to another. E=mc^2 is only equivalent numerically in the SI system to UT. If you have an explanation for this unusual event that doesn't prove Einsteing wrong rather than me, I'd be more than willing to listen.

If you use SI units then you'll get the correct energy in SI units (ie Joules). If you use cgs you get the correct energy in cgs units (ergs I think). Pick any unit system you like and E=mc^2 still works if E is in the same unit system as m and c. Nothing unusual there.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

If you use SI units then you'll get the correct energy in SI units (ie Joules). If you use cgs you get the correct energy in cgs units (ergs I think). Pick any unit system you like and E=mc^2 still works if E is in the same unit system as m and c. Nothing unusual there.

Let me second this. Energy has dimensions of mass x length²/time². You don't need relativity to give you those dimensions either, they pop up in ordinary Newtonian physics as well. If you convert from one unit system to another, the numerical values for each of those quantities will change. Conversion is easy, but you have to convert all the units you're changing or you won't get the right answer. The equation E=mc² has no preference for any units whatsoever (why would it?), and if you use the appropriate values for the units you use for your input, you'll get the appropriate value in the appropriate units for your output. This should be highschool level science. Apparently not everyone gets the idea of units.

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by damccut

Sorry if this was confusing. I left E in all locations, but should have put p for momentum on the ones with unsquared units. My point was that numerically c^2 cannot produce similar quantities in differing unit systems, whereas UT converts directly from one momentum to another. E=mc^2 is only equivalent numerically in the SI system to UT. If you have an explanation for this unusual event that doesn't prove Einsteing wrong rather than me, I'd be more than willing to listen.

You wrote a book on "physics" and you don't understand units?

[BenBurch]

An electron can be at rest. That is what happens near absolute zero.

And you can absolutely measure its mass; J. J. Thomson did this well over a century ago.

And Robert Millikan and Harvey Fletcher's oil-drop experiment measured its charge in 1909, almost a century ago. In fact, I've even been in the very room in which that was done.

-Ben

[Wangler]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

He gives an woo calculation for a set mass of 9.10938214501E-31 kg:
E in kg*m²/s² = 2.797674300794E-10
E in "lb*in/s" (actually lb*in²/s²) = 7.106092724017E-12
2.797674300794E-10 != 7.106092724017E-12 and thus his conclusion.

He is too ignorant to realize that the the units of energy have also changed between the 2 calculations.

Actually, isn't lb. a measure of weight, not mass.

Shouldn't we use slug?

Or specify lb-mass?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

To give some sense of the "rigour" of this crackpot: He claims that E=mc² is wrong because it only works in SI units!
From his web site:

He gives an woo calculation for a set mass of 9.10938214501E-31 kg:
E in kg*m²/s² = 2.797674300794E-10
E in "lb*in/s" (actually lb*in²/s²) = 7.106092724017E-12
2.797674300794E-10 != 7.106092724017E-12 and thus his conclusion.

He is too ignorant to realize that the the units of energy have also changed between the 2 calculations.

PS:
This of course also disproves Newton since by damccut's criteria F=ma only works in SI units (how wonderful of Newton to anticipate the creation of SI units!)

[Reality Check]

double post

[shadron]

Originally Posted by Wangler

Actually, isn't lb. a measure of weight, not mass.

Shouldn't we use slug?

Or specify lb-mass?

Yes - you're right. Slugs convert directly into kilograms with a dimensionless constant. Pounds convert into Newtons with another. You can compute the energy of a slug of mass, with the speed of light specified in furlongs per fortnight. The result will be energy in the units of

slugs - furlongs ^ 2 / fortnight ^2

for which the conversion to Joules is 4.035e-7. I think.

[BenBurch]

I'm an old VAX/VMS systems programmer... One of the system parameters was "TimePromptWait" which was in units of μFortnights. (That's micro-Fortnights for those without that character in their font.)

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

This should be highschool level science. Apparently not everyone gets the idea of units.

Sadly, in school and even university, there were an amazingly high number of people who just couldn't seem to grasp the idea of dimensional analysis. I could never understand what the problem was, since it's such an obvious concept, but it seems that a lot of people just can't get it, even after spending several years studying physics.

[shadron]

Originally Posted by Cuddles

Sadly, in school and even university, there were an amazingly high number of people who just couldn't seem to grasp the idea of dimensional analysis. I could never understand what the problem was, since it's such an obvious concept, but it seems that a lot of people just can't get it, even after spending several years studying physics.

I think we spent two weeks on it in freshman undergrad Physics. It is axiomatic that any true physical equation balances in terms of dimensional units, though the inverse is not always true. That needs to be taught along with what precision and accuracy mean, and a huge kick in the fundament concerning the SI system of units and how It Is Better That Way.

That was all taught at the same time along with a slide rule refresher. For better or worse, the practices have all declined, I think.

[BenBurch]

shadron -

The slide rule was the best antidote to the false illusion of precision ever invented. I sometimes wish we still required students to use them.

[Modified]

Originally Posted by shadron

I think we spent two weeks on it in freshman undergrad Physics. It is axiomatic that any true physical equation balances in terms of dimensional units, though the inverse is not always true.

There was a guy in my high school, several decades before I was there, named Carl Mankey. When he didn't know how to tackle a problem on a Physics test, he would just multiply and divide starting values until he got a value with the right units. This became known locally as "The Carl Mankey Method".

[damccut]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

An electron can be at rest. That is what happens near absolute zero.

And you can absolutely measure its mass; J. J. Thomson did this well over a century ago.

And Robert Millikan and Harvey Fletcher's oil-drop experiment measured its charge in 1909, almost a century ago. In fact, I've even been in the very room in which that was done.

-Ben

Now picture a torus spinning at the speed of light at zero degrees Kelvin. As the temperature goes up it is just a measure of the bumping around it receives from other matter in its environment. When it reaches a certain temperature point in the billions of degrees where it is being smashed around too much to retain the torus shape then it converts to a photon. You can short circuit the process by crashing it into another torus head-on (just like a matter-antimatter collision) and it will convert then too. Much more simple an explanation than the SM can provide, and it is a physical explanation to boot.

[damccut]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

PS:
This of course also disproves Newton since by damccut's criteria F=ma only works in SI units (how wonderful of Newton to anticipate the creation of SI units!)

No, this is not what I said. I must have posted the file before the last changes were made. I have since fixed the file so that it should be clearer.

I assumed that it would be obvious that converting from kg*m/s to in-lb/s requires that it be lbm, I guess it wasn't.

Obviously, my communications skills are to blame for most of the problems with all of you not understanding ultrawaves and not wanting to read the book. Maybe I didn’t do much better with the explanations there, but I certainly hope that I did. I need for you to know that I didn’t want to change much of anything about the Standard Model or Relativity, or even E=mc^2 when I first began looking into the possibility of the existence of ultrawaves, but as UT developed I saw that it was not possible. I must say that yes, all of nuclear physics and a lot of cosmological physics will have to change. All I originally intended to do was to find a way to create a physical set of instructions to create particles, but in the process a new way of looking at our universe ensued. Let me try one more time to clarify.

E does not exist as pictured by Einstein. It is perfectly understandable why he made this mistake when you consider what he had to work with in his day. If you replace E with a momentum, which is the m*Cc I refer to, it is possible to define not only the force and motion of the unusual behavior of spin-1/2 particles, but also their physical size, and their magnetic properties as defined by the magnetic ring theory of the electron. I find this absolutely impossible to be merely coincidence. The SM has no simple way of giving any sort of physical picture, why should it be so easy with UT. If you can prove to me that it is a coincidence then I would be more than happy to listen.

As far as relativity goes, there are some aspects that I do not yet have a mathematical answer for, but I do have some possibilities that fit with the string/brane picture of ultrawave strings and 2D branes. In the book I present a possible scenario for gravity based on interactions of strings. This may be the reason I have not been successful, as I now feel more strongly that it is an influx of each brane as it is pulled into a particle torus that is responsible for gravity. Einstein pictured it a curvature, but I feel it is more accurate to call it a compression. A lot of the problems associated with replacing relativity require that you first must have a clear understanding of time, and since no one has that it makes it necessary to provide that item, as well.

(from another thread) I am encouraged that the questions are being coming better and more specific. I will get back to you on the Pound-Rebka and Hulse-Taylor findings when I have had a little more time to reintroduce myself to them and to compare them to UT.

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by damccut

Now picture a torus spinning at the speed of light at zero degrees Kelvin. As the temperature goes up it is just a measure of the bumping around it receives from other matter in its environment. When it reaches a certain temperature point in the billions of degrees where it is being smashed around too much to retain the torus shape then it converts to a photon.

So this either violates charge conservation or you're postulating a charged photon. Which is it? Where's the evidence?
Btw a billion degrees corresponds to less than an MeV of kinetic energy. The electron end-point energy in most beta- decays is greater than this.

Quote:

You can short circuit the process by crashing it into another torus head-on (just like a matter-antimatter collision) and it will convert then too. Much more simple an explanation than the SM can provide, and it is a physical explanation to boot.

No it isn't. There is no physical evidence whatsoever that the electron is a torus.

Quote:

I must say that yes, all of nuclear physics and a lot of cosmological physics will have to change.

Do you even know the first thing about nuclear physics?

[ben m]

Originally Posted by damccut

E does not exist as pictured by Einstein. It is perfectly understandable why he made this mistake when you consider what he had to work with in his day. If you replace E with a momentum, which is the m*Cc I refer to, it is possible to define not only the force and motion of the unusual behavior of spin-1/2 particles, but also their physical size, and their magnetic properties as defined by the magnetic ring theory of the electron. I find this absolutely impossible to be merely coincidence.

Damccut, welcome to the world of dimensional analysis: there are an infinite number of incorrect equations which you can "define" and write down. Congratulations on writing down some of them. The harder part is showing whether your equations are the ones which Nature, in fact, is obeying.

Fortunately, you don't have to do the experiments yourself. Do you have a new equation for momentum as a function of velocity? Energy as a function of mass or momentum or velocity? Great, we've measured all of those things in the lab. Can you guess what the results were? Can you how many decimal places showed the data agreeing with SR?

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by damccut

Now picture a torus spinning at the speed of light at zero degrees Kelvin. As the temperature goes up it is just a measure of the bumping around it receives from other matter in its environment. When it reaches a certain temperature point in the billions of degrees where it is being smashed around too much to retain the torus shape then it converts to a photon. You can short circuit the process by crashing it into another torus head-on (just like a matter-antimatter collision) and it will convert then too. Much more simple an explanation than the SM can provide, and it is a physical explanation to boot.

Sorry, have a hard time picturing impossible things.

Son, the electron is very, very well understood.

I suggest you begin your learning about this here; http://www.physic.ut.ee/~kkannike/en...textbooks.html

[damccut]

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

So this either violates charge conservation or you're postulating a charged photon. Which is it? Where's the evidence?
Btw a billion degrees corresponds to less than an MeV of kinetic energy. The electron end-point energy in most beta- decays is greater than this.

I never tried to calculate the exact temperature, I was merely using the common language that was applied to the origin of the universe before matter condensation.


No it isn't. There is no physical evidence whatsoever that the electron is a torus.

Since no one has a size or shape for the electron, my idea has to be better than whatever their idea of it is because it fits.


Do you even know the first thing about nuclear physics?

I know you haven't read my book or you would ask better questions.

[damccut]

Originally Posted by ben m

Damccut, welcome to the world of dimensional analysis: there are an infinite number of incorrect equations which you can "define" and write down. Congratulations on writing down some of them. The harder part is showing whether your equations are the ones which Nature, in fact, is obeying.

Fortunately, you don't have to do the experiments yourself. Do you have a new equation for momentum as a function of velocity? Energy as a function of mass or momentum or velocity? Great, we've measured all of those things in the lab. Can you guess what the results were? Can you how many decimal places showed the data agreeing with SR?

What do you call the result of the collision of two masses, whether they be particles or automobiles. Try to picture them as the same but with much different velocities. For particles the only two velocities are c and Cc, hence the quantization of their behavior.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by damccut

I know you haven't read my book or you would ask better questions.

I read it, or as much as I could stand, and you don't seem to understand the field very well at all. PLEASE study some standard textbooks.

[Tubbythin]

Quote:

Since no one has a size or shape for the electron, my idea has to be better than whatever their idea of it is because it fits.

Erm. How can you say that without knowing what 'their' idea is? Experimental evidence suggests the size and shape is a point of zero volume. Got any experimental evidence to suggest otherwise?

Originally Posted by damccut

I know you haven't read my book or you would ask better questions.

I know you don't know any nuclear physics otherwise you wouldn't be trying to do away with it all.

You didn't answer my other question. Charge conservation violation or a charged photon?

[Reality Check]

Hi damccut: Have you fixed your web site yet?

Originally Posted by Reality Check

To give some sense of the "rigour" of this crackpot: He claims that E=mc² is wrong because it only works in SI units!
From his web site:

He gives an woo calculation for a set mass of 9.10938214501E-31 kg:
E in kg*m²/s² = 2.797674300794E-10
E in "lb*in/s" (actually lb*in²/s²) = 7.106092724017E-12
2.797674300794E-10 != 7.106092724017E-12 and thus his conclusion.

He is too ignorant to realize that the the units of energy have also changed between the 2 calculations.

[damccut]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Hi damccut: Have you fixed your web site yet?

Yes, the problem was that an in-between version of the file was saved but not the final version, so some of the information was still missing, or not moved to the correct location.

The answer to everyone else's comments is: READ THE BOOK. Chapter 10 has the dimensional analysis, Chapter 12 the equations, Chapter 6 the nuclei as particle comparison, and may be the only section of the book that could be justified without needing all the other information. When everything depends on everything else for corroboration, you must put it all together in one place, hence the need for a book.

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by damccut

Yes, the problem was that an in-between version of the file was saved but not the final version, so some of the information was still missing, or not moved to the correct location.

The answer to everyone else's comments is: READ THE BOOK. Chapter 10 has the dimensional analysis,

So, about this dimensional analysis. The problem being an "in-between version" is simply not true. The simple fact is, you don't understand dimensional analysis, since it is not possible for someone who actually understands it to make such silly claims as "E=mc² only works in SI units". Not as an in-between version, not as a final version, not as the first draft, not as anything. It's just nonsense. Given that you have demonstrated such an incredible lack of understanding, why should we bother looking at your book?

Quote:

Chapter 12 the equations

So you do the dimensional analysis two chapters before you have any equations? What exactly did you analyse the dimensions of then?

[BenBurch]

Cuddles, when in High School I read that paperback "Space-Time Physics" (the one with the red cover if anybody else is old enough to remember it) I already knew that. It really is High School stuff.

[BeAChooser]

Speaking of electron mass ...

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-prop.asp

Quote:

"Mathematical proof that the electron is a spherical electromagnetic standing wave

Let's find the 'mass' of a spherical standing wave having the same diameter and charge of the electron:

Starting from the equation for the capacitance of an isolated spherical charge: C= 4.pi.e0.r
The total internal energy stored in an electromagnetic standing wave = Electric field energy + Magnetic field energy, where Electric field energy = Magnetic field energy, hence:
Total internal energy E = 2 * Electric field Energy = 2 * Magnetic field energy ... so it's enough if we solve for one of these to get the total internal energy for an electron.

Total internal energy E = 2 * Electrical Energy = 2* (1/2QV) = QV ... where V=Q/C

Total internal energy E = Q²/C ... substituting for C, we get

Total internal energy E = Q²/(4.pi.e0.r),

Substituting for Q=electron charge=1.602E-19 Coulombs, r=classical electron radius= 2.8179E-15 m, and e0 = permittivity of free space = 8.854E-12 F/m
Total internal energy E = 8.18735E-14 Joules

Using E=mc², we get

Electron standing wave mass = 9.1096E-31kg ... which is the known electron mass.

This clearly shows that what we call electron mass is nothing but the electromagnetic effect of a spherical standing wave.

[DeiRenDopa]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Speaking of electron mass ...

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-prop.asp

Hmm ...

I think I read somewhere that the author himself has said his idea cannot account for the observations which have been used to test QED (to ~13 significant figures), nor all varieties of 'the double slit' experiment, nor those which tested the Bell inequality, nor ...

Do you know if he has actually published his idea, in a relevant peer-reviewed journal BAC?

[ben m]

BAC, that's because the "classical electron radius" is defined to make that calculation work. To calculate the "classical electron radius", you divide Q^2/4*pi*epsilon by the electron rest-mass-energy.

So Mr. Blazelabs has made the amazing "discovery" that if you divide Q^2/4*pi*epsilon by the classical electron radius, you get the electron's rest mass energy. Great. Impressive.

Back in the real world, this calculation gives you some number, 2.8 femtometers, which has the units of length---but this number is not, as a matter of experimental fact, the radius of the electron. Measurements put the electron radius somewhere below 0.0001 femtometers.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by damccut

Yes, the problem was that an in-between version of the file was saved but not the final version, so some of the information was still missing, or not moved to the correct location.

The answer to everyone else's comments is: READ THE BOOK. Chapter 10 has the dimensional analysis, Chapter 12 the equations, Chapter 6 the nuclei as particle comparison, and may be the only section of the book that could be justified without needing all the other information. When everything depends on everything else for corroboration, you must put it all together in one place, hence the need for a book.

You may want to read your own web site and remove this page. All it does it demonstrate your ignorance of basic science.

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

You may want to read your own web site and remove this page. All it does it demonstrate your ignorance of basic science.

I read the first chapter of his book the other day. Based on that I think he might be best off removing his whole book.