Dear Steven

Our science is following standard model theory of atom with electron. proton/neutron.

Science never been observed anything inside of atom, such as electron.

Just ask yourself "how could an atom in stage of gas, liquid, or solid can have electron goes around nuclei with speed of light?

Does electron exist?

Science up to date does not have any explanation for electron, nor internal or external.

regards

Javad Fardaei , our understanding of the atom is still weak, but there are things we can infer and there are things we can not. We have invented definitions such as mass and energy and many formulas which relate the two, but do we really understand what is mass and what is energy, and does it really matter?

Since we do not fully understand mass and energy, it seems even more speculative to develop a comprehensive theory about quarks which are supposed to be the building blocks of the larger thing we also don't understand, but this has not stoppped research into quarks at an industrial level.

I think science needs to take a step backwards and try to develop a theory based on what we understand.

Based on my own research I am of the opinion that scientific theory has been blind to the elephant in the room, it is so obviously there when you look.

I am referring electric potential, the ratio between energy and charge or E/q.

Just like speed and velocity, electric potential can be both a scalar and a vector, but more importantly it can not be infinite.

This is so obvious I find it almost unbelievable how anyone could have missed it, because all matter is made up of positive and negative charges, and if we simply remove all negative charges from any electrode it will have reached it's potential limit.

Now since the definition of electric potential is E/q it is obvious that the surface potential of any number of positive charges no matter how many, can never exceed 938 Million volts !!!!!!!

Where is this mentioned in the text books?

Once you see it you can't un-see it, because it is so obvious.

I have done my best to explain this in my paper called Ground Potential.

Steven

Steven Sesselmann Hello Steven. To address the question of the mass of the electron in the context of the Spacetime Wave theory I would just take the relationship E=hf where f is the frequency of the looped wave.

The electron in the hydrogen bond is a specific example of this.

Preprint The Hydrogen Bond (June 2022)

Looking at your follow on post, I would say that it is important in the first instance to understand the cause of electric charge.

I completely agree with you that before speculating about quarks it is important to really get a consistent picture of the fundamental nature of matter.

Data Prerecording of Conference Presentation on the Unification of Physics

https://youtu.be/zEu-_0ACl3I

Richard

Richard Lewis , providing E=hf in the case of the electron you would have to agree one can not single out the electron without also including the proton, but there is still something missing.

One of the most frustrating problems with our primitive understanding of physics is an almost complete omission to include the observer.

Every physics problem begins with two bodies in space, take the example of a proton and and electron, this goes back to the days when scientists calculated trajectories of cannon balls, and it seems we have barely progressed.

Nothing can be observed without an observer, not even a cannon ball, therefore a good theory must consider the observer as an essential factor in the system.

Ground Potential Theory (GPT) does this, it considers the electrons, the protons and the observers potential as one system.

If we consider such a system consisting of an electron, a proton and an observer as a standing wave with three points of inflection, then we can calculate the electric potential at each of those points using GPT.

It is therefore clear how in a such a system the ratio between potentials must change if one of of the inflection points change.

It is clear to me at least that ground potential can not be static which is why I predict an upwards drifting electron mass.

Science needs to move on from cannon ball physics, it belongs in the 19th century. Billions of dollars are being wasted at CERN on what is essentially cannon ball physics, and the only place the observers are mentioned is in the long list of co-authors.

Steven

Steven Sesselmann I am from the old school that thinks physical processes would go on just the same whether there is an observer or not.

Richard

Richard Lewis , what we think is not very important, we must trust logic, and logic tells us, electrons are more negative than you (the observer) and protons are more positive than you, ergo your electric potential is somewhere between the electron and the proton.

Since we have established three point charges how can you ignore your own effect on the two others?

Steven Sesselmann Hi Steven. If you take a look in the Appendix section of this paper you will find an explanation for the cause of electric charge:

Conference Paper THE UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS (Conference Paper)

To summarise, the electron and the proton are looped waves in the medium of space and these waves effect a compression and expansion of space as they pass. In the case of the electron and proton, one has an excess of compression of space and the other has an excess of expansion of space. Two particles with an excess of compression will repel, Two particles with an excess of expansion will repel. Particles with opposite expansion : compression will attract. This all happens without an observer.

If you want to include a person as an observer they are made up of protons neutrons and electrons and as you say are generally charge neutral but this has no bearing on the electron / proton charge interaction.

Richard

Richard Lewis , I agree with your hypothesis right up to your last paragraph, where you make an arbitrary assumption.

"If you want to include a person as an observer they are made up of protons neutrons and electrons and as you say are generally charge neutral..."

Your assumption is wrong, not just a little bit but way off, I have provided proof that ground potential is 930 million volts, i.e. much closer to the surface potential of a proton than that of an electron.

This is why we have to be ultra careful about making any kind of assumption, because things are not always as they appear.

Steven Sesselmann Hi Steven. My assumption is based on the consideration that the net charge of the human body is typically zero because for each atom or molecule there are on average an equal number of electrons and protons.

When you say that the ground potential of the human body is 930 million volts this comes as a complete surprise. Can you summarise how you arrived at this result.

Richard

Richard Lewis said "Can you summarise how you arrived at this result."

Yes, since electric potential is energy per charge one can not simply count the number of electrons and number of protons, this may give you the average charge, but not the average electric potential.

Remember we are talking about E/q and protons have substantially more energy than electrons 938 MeV vs 511 keV so the energy per charge of ground potential is on the order of Fe56 (iron) which makes sense because earth is for the most part iron.

Another way to describe energy per charge is "mass per nucleon" and for Fe56 tis happens to be close to 930 MeV/c^2.

Hydrogens mass per nucleon is 938 MeV/c^2 and as we know there are no elements above Hydrogen in the table of elements, so unless someone comes up with a super element that has a mass per nucleon higher than hydrogen I think it is safe to assume 938 MeV to be the maximum energy per charge ratio in our local universe.

So it seems perfectly reasonable to think of the absolute electric potential scale as going from zero to 938 million volts, where the electron sits at 0.5MV, earth sits at 930 MV and the proton sits at 938MV.

Now do you see why it is so absurd not to consider the observer as having an effect on experiments?

We are literally the elephant 🐘 in the room.

Steven Sesselmann There is something puzzling about using ground potential in this way down at the level of the interior of the atom. Suppose we were to take the example of the helium atom. The nucleus has two protons and two neutrons. The neutron has zero charge and so the energy per unit charge is infinite.

I don’t think I understand your model well enough to argue the case. The only thing I can add from the perspective of the Spacetime Wave theory is that the energy of the electron neutron and proton is pure wave energy and depends on the frequency f using E=hf. The charge is an effect due to a wave variation in the rate of passage of time for the space wave which results in a net compression or expansion of the medium of space.

I haven’t seen any benefit in considering energy per unit charge down at the level of the fundamental particles.

Richard

Richard Lewis , your idea of a standing wave model of the atom fits nicely with my ideas, my friend Rick Ballan has written several papers on this subject. Check out the attached paper on the relativistic Bohr Model of the atom.

Now if you can combine this idea with the understanding that we are observing the universe from an asymmetric vantage point, I think you will get it.

BTW, no problem with the helium atom, all atoms can be arranged in order of their mass per nucleon and it comes as no surprise that iron sits at the bottom of the MPN curve.

Dear Steven Sesselmann

As you know, science is following standard modeling theory of atom, which it means, the whole things a theory...the question is..

Anyone working on electron mass measurements ?

No one know anything about Electron.. because no one up to date ever observed it. Thus do not accept anyone to response to your question, and if, anyone said he did, he is wrong...

Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted

best wishes.

Javad Fardaei , frankly it does not matter what believe is inside the atom, what matters is what we can measure and we can measure the mass ratio between the proton and the electron, not only can we measure it, but we can do so with extremely high precision.

I have no interest in disagreeing with your theory, the purpose of my question was to find out who is working on these super precise mass measurements.

If you want me to understand your theory you should be able to tell me with a few words what you have discovered and why it is important.

Steven Sesselmann

Read Hydrogen journey article as any good researcher does.

Read it carefully, and if you have any questions I will be glad to answer.