The answer to Einstein's question is that an electron is the one-particle excitation of the electron field. It is defined by mass, spin and charge (electric and weak charge, for the electron). Indeed, invariance under global Lorentz transformations, gauge transformations and the requirement that the equations of motion contain no more than two derivatives defines everything about the classical dynamics.

What this doesn't do is define as fully the quantum dynamics, which is known only in perturbation theory about free fields-and it's known that the series is divergent. What is known, however, is that each term of the series is finite and well-defined. However experimental precision only allows probing the effects of a finite number of terms and those probes are consistent between theory and experiment. The same holds for the Standard Model more generally.

In that case, too, what matters is the representation of the Lorentz group and the SM group. That wasn't as obvious in 1950 as it is now; but there's no point pretending to live in 1950.

Regarding GR, the description is incomplete, due to the inevitability of spacetime singularities. How it might be completed isn't known, in general.

Stam Nicolis:

"The answer to Einstein's question is that an electron is the one-particle excitation of the electron field. It is defined by mass, spin and charge (electric and weak charge, for the electron)"

Einstein: "Mass, Charge and Fine Structure Constant must be the result of a Principle Theory." (See Pauli - concerning the FSC - requires a principle theory as well.)

I give it a try although it is far too much for 1 comment. And more worse: there are a lot of conflicting concepts, each concept hailed by a different group of theorists. So there is no consensus too.

If you are a phenomenological physicist physical reality exists of an enormous vacuum and inside the vacuum there are phenomena and configurations of phenomena. Thus particles and their distinct influence on vacuum space around (like a gravitational field, EM field, etc.) “attached” to the particle. The consequence of this concept is that the electron and the proton in a Hydrogen atom are separated phenomena. Their mutual relations – like the electric charge – are like a mysterious “surplus” to the properties of each solitary particle.

In modern physics (and ancient Greek philosophy) there is no difference between the vacuum and the particles inside because both represent an underlying reality that creates physical reality (= “everything”). The underlying reality exists of basic quantum fields and the general concept is termed quantum field theory (QFT). Basic quantum fields are “tangible” fields because the emerging energy concentrations we have termed particles are “tangible” phenomena. The consequence is that the gravitational field or the EM field “attached” to a particle represent local differences of the average magnitudes within the structure of the basic quantum fields.

If we use the general concept of QFT the electric charge (+/-) represents a duality. Thus properties of the basic quantum fields are responsible for the creation of the electric charge under universal conservation laws. That means the conservation of energy and the conservation of momentum. Both universal conservation laws reflect the dynamical properties of the universal electric field and the corresponding magnetic field (= electromagnetic field).

Suppose the electromagnetic field creates a proton, a local concentration of energy in vacuum space. The mechanism that is responsible for the concentration of energy cannot create energy out of nothing (universal conservation law). Thus the energy of the proton was obtained from vacuum space around, actually the electromagnetic field, and transferred to a small volume in the centre of the concentration (the new proton). In other words, if there is a local concentration of energy (e.g. n x h), there is also a local deficit of energy around the proton with the same quantity (n x h). Because most physicists are phenomenological physicists, these physicists prefer the concept that a local surplus of energy is a one-particle field excitation (like Stam Nicolis mentioned above). They certainly don't like set theory.

The universal electric field is a topological field and it can deform under invariance of volume (the cause behind the wave-like amplitudes of the electromagnetic field). The amount of dynamical topological deformation is quantized and that is what we have termed “Planck’s constant”. The quantum of energy propagates – if linear – within the structure of the universal electric field at a constant velocity, the speed of light (c). That is obvious because if the structure hasn’t a metric of equal proportions (size) the properties of a particle will change if the particle changes its position. And that is not what we observe.

The corresponding magnetic field is a vector field. Vectors are 1-dimensional in mathematics (classic field theory) thus the magnetic field has no volume of its own. Vectors can only propagate within a rigid medium (= another quantum field).

Be aware that in quantum field theory there is no need for Lorenz transformations because the structure of the underlying basic quantum fields is the rest frame of the universe. Moreover, the mathematical properties of the universal electric field don’t permit the curvature of the structure of the basic quantum fields (and the universal scalar field – the Higgs field – is flat everywhere in vacuum space). Thus in QFT Einstein’s hypothesized curved spacetime is a model and the model describes the mutual dynamical relations between the (macroscopic) phenomena in a convincing way. Of course not the mutual relations that are not described by the theory of Special and General relativity. The “transformation” of Einstein’s curved spacetime in terms of field theory is the search for quantum gravity.

Be aware that the consequence of Einstein’s curved spacetime – some kind of a "fluid" – is that there don’t exist vectors in our universe. Or we must reject the significance of mathematics in theoretical physics...

This already a lot of text; with kind regards, Sydney

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm.

I enjoyed reading your detailed reply. It has brought me both gladness and sorrow. Gladness - because some of your basic theses coincide with my ideas about the world around us. Sorrow - because I strongly disagree with some of them.

But I think it's normal for physicists looking for simple answers to simple and very difficult questions.

Sincerely, Mikhail Dulin.

Dear Mikhail N. Dulin,

I hope not too much sorrow because we all hope that mother nature is understandable. But maybe everything is not so worse as the contents of the text books suggest.

I have attached a “cross-section” of a (rest mass carrying) particle and in a schematic way the units of the structure of the basic quantum fields (the cubes). Thus every “cube” represents the properties of the electromagnetic field and the universal scalar field. If there exist one or more unknown basic fields, these fields are also part of the units of the structure. Moreover, in front of the cross-section I have drawn a primitive diagram of the “energy density”, actually the amount of topological deformation of the involved units of the structure.

It is easy to see that the concentration of energy (the particle) corresponds with the number 1, the volume of the deficit of energy is 2 and the average topological deformation of the units in vacuum space is number 3. In the diagram respectively a, b and c (red, blue, green).

The metric of the structure in the drawing doesn’t correspond with physical reality because the metric must be at least < 0,5 fm. That is the size of the smallest detectable particles. If we decrease the size of the metric we are increasing the amount of quanta propagated during 1 second because we decrease the fixed amount of topological deformation of every unit correspondingly.

A and b are a duality and if we can roll back the mechanism that created the duality every unit in the drawing has an average topological deformation like vacuum space around (c). It is obvious that the creation of the local concentration of energy (1) cannot eliminate the different densities of the energy of the particle and the volume around (2). Phenomenological physicists immediately start to hypothesize about a shared property that “attracts” 1 and 2 if both are separated. But in field theory it is the average topological deformation of vacuum space around (3) that pushes 1 and 2 together because 1 and 2 together are “neutral” at the outside (= like the conditions in vacuum space 3).

Suppose there is an increase or decrease of the energy of the particle. Let’s say 1 quantum of energy (1 h). Unfortunately if we in- or decrease the energy of the particle we have to in- or decrease the amount of energy of the deficit of energy around the particle too (2). The result is that particles can only change their energy with the help of an electromagnetic wave. Because the particle (1) + the volume around (2) must change their topological deformation synchronously.

The decrease of only 1 quantum of energy by 1 (- h) and 2 (+h) is the fundamental physical constant of electromagnetic interaction between elementary charged particles, termed the fine structure constant (α). So it isn’t a dimensionless quantity at all. In other words, the description in Wikipedia is nearly correct (“Physical interpretations”) under bullet 5 (“In quantum electrodynamics...”). The difference between the text above and Wikipedia is the well known limitation of phenomenological physics (the fixation on “one-particle” interpretations).

I agree that my comment doesn’t describe the “tangible reality” of the electron, the creation of (rest) mass and the existence of spin. But that is impossible without the influence of concentrations of energy on the properties of the basic quantum fields (gravity). To describe it in a clear way in a couple of sentences is difficult so I have to think about it.

With kind regards, Sydney

A simple electromagnetic electron model:

Article Electron Structure, Ultra-Dense Hydrogen and Low Energy Nucl...

A simple "Restmass" electron model instead of electromagnetic model?

E=m*c^2=h*f

f=1/T

Spin=m*c*r_G=1/2*h_bar

r_G, not zero, is the wave-radius of an electron at rest

4*pi*r_G=Compton-wavelength (lambda is experimental evidence)

best wishes

PS G means G-Field (+ Higgs-field +..) based

restmass here is inertial mass with (only) center at rest, so charge is not moving as an assumption, which of course is an incomplete assumption due to nature's reality. So inertial restmass is more complicated as shown above, magnetic moment and so on.

Dear Manfred Geilhaupt,

An electron has no rest mass. That is evidently because electrons can “disappear”, while the proton is stable (the “sea of Dirac”). Rest mass is related to a decrease of the magnitude of a scalar of the Higgs field in the centre of a local concentration of energy (E = m c2). A concentration that we have termed “mass” (m). But if it is a rest mass carrying particle the mass is “build up” by the maximal amount of concentrated energy in vacuum space + a surplus of energy (a further concentration of energy by the electromagnetic field) because of the local decreased scalar(s) of the Higgs field. Thus the decrease of the scalar has enabled the addition of the rest mass energy.

I agree that it is really confusing because we have the quark/gluon model too. Two years ago they published a paper about an “anomaly” in relation to the strong force inside the atomic nucleus (Helium). Now there is an article about it in Quantum Magazine with a link to the new paper (april 2023). https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-experiment-casts-doubt-on-the-leading-theory-of-the-nucleus-20230612

But not only nuclei can “blow up” their boundary, the proton can expand its boundary too. Because in some experiments the Coulomb force can be forced to decrease without the use of high energies. That means that the volume of the proton has expanded (see the image in my previous comment). In other words, the quark/gluon model is not without problems (actually, it is a “construct” to fit the experiments).

I have thought about the last sentences in my previous comment. The problem is that if I describe (e.g.) the mechanism behind gravity it is no more than an opinion. Even if I link to experiments that are in line with the explanation. Because a meaningful explanation describes the underlying principles and mathematics. But if the explanation is about the basic quantum fields – instead of phenomenological physics – there is too much that must be described/explained first if the aim is to show that the description is more than an opinion.

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear Sidney Ernst,

"An electron has no rest mass. That is evidently because electrons can “disappear” ..."

I think this violates Energy-Conservation?

(E = m c^2) as you mentioned too must have physical meaning, if m=0 this would have no meaning, in so far as electron is no photon.

Dear Sydney Grimm,

I really like and I agree with your unified and universal idea that underlies at the foundation of the world. Especially that all changes in this world occur discretely and they are proportional to an integer number of action quanta h. But I cannot agree that you associate the foundation of the world with quantum field theory, which, as I believe, is based on a harmonic oscillator - too simple and convenient model for using the linear algebra and differential equations. I also don't like that this foundation is the rest system of the Universe and in fact is the only space in which dynamic events take place. You describe a very beautiful idea about the unity (in duality) of particles with the surrounding space (vacuum), where the energy of particle can change in proportion to the quantum of action h, but the total energy of such formation remains unchanged and corresponds to the law of energy conservation. I think I myself have an equally beautiful idea of how it all works.

From my point of view, there are two main or basic spaces. Conditionally, they can be called "electromagnetic" and "nuclear". These spaces obviously have a very different structure and fundamentally different discrete elements, which, nevertheless, are all quanta of action h and change by its value. We can say that the representatives of the "electromagnetic" space are bosons, and the "nuclear" - fermions. At the same time, the second among the first are like "raisins in a bun", which allows them to exchange action quanta. Not the energy quanta, but namely the action ones, the advantages of which could be devoted to a separate discussion.

The universality of bosons and fermions in terms of action quanta turns out to be very important. The exchange of these quanta allows physical systems not only to reach thermodynamic equilibrium, which is of course necessary, but also to understand the physical meaning of the principle of least action as a way to the equilibrium. And even to formulate the existing conservation laws as a conservation law of the total number of action quanta in an isolated system.

Now it is the answer to Manfred Geilhaupt on the topic of discussion.

1) The spin of electrons (and other fermions) is equal to ½ћ because, together with protons and neutrons, they all are representatives of the "nuclear" space. This statement is based on the result of known Russian mathematician-geometer S.V. Buyalo, which he spoke about at a conference in Novosibirsk in 2019. In particular, he argued that the Möbius strip - a one-sided surface with an edge - uniquely determines the three-dimensional space of negative curvature bounded by it. It is very likely that "nuclear" space is just such.

2) The electron charge e, as is known, is related to the quantum of the magnetic flux μ by the simple formula h=μe. In addition, there is a reason to believe that magnetic flux in the form of a ring surrounds the charge, making up a single whole with it (applause to Sidney Grimm!). Otherwise, how can we explain the emergence of annular magnetic field around a conductor with D.C., known from school? Note that for the opposite in sign charge, the flux of magnetic field will have the opposite direction.

3) The mass of electron me seems to be the minimum possible value for a discrete representative of the "nuclear" space. Why it differs from the mass of proton mp exactly by a certain value, I do not know. But we can confidently say that both masses are "quantized", and this is due to a special structure of such the space. Moreover, we can assume that for each mass there is a quantum of surrounding space curvature flow X such that they are associated with the action quantum h=m/X and together they form a whole. But here we already touch the issues of gravity, which deserve also a separate discussion.

Sincerely, Dulin Mikhail.

Dear Manfred Geilhaupt,

The mass (m) in E = m c2 is for every concentration of energy, no matter if it is rest mass or not. The formula of the equivalance of mass and energy doesn't make a difference between both "types" of mass. And that is correct because rest mass is a surplus of energy concentration "on top" of the existing energy concentration within a flat Higgs field.

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear Mikhail N Dulin

Physics is communication too so I have to use a conceptual framework that “everyone” is familiar with. My research is limited to mathematical physics but the use of mathematical concepts is not really useful if physics is mainly described in phenomenological terms. Besides that, the theory of curved spacetime has already claimed universal concepts like space and time so there is not much left. Quantum field theory as a conceptual framework that describes the detectable properties of space and time with the help of fields is “the best fit”.

The electromagnetic field – seen with “mathematical” eyes – is a topological field. It has a structure – like the “cubes” in the image of my previous comment – and the units can deform. But a topological deformation under invariant volume is always the deformation of the surface area of the unit of the structure (in line with E = m c2). If the deformation is linear – like an electromagnetic wave – the propagation within the structure has the speed of light. But if the input and output deformation of a unit is distributed over nearly all the “faces” of a unit (= shared surface area with all the adjacent units), the speed of light isn’t observable. Thus the quantum of energy isn’t like a particle, it is a fixed amount of topological deformation. So I don’t know why Planck’s constant is expressed as the reduced Planck constant ħ = h/2π because it doesn’t represent what is going on. Besides that, the duration of the transfer of 1 quantum of energy from 1 unit to an adjacent unit is always the same (the constant of quantum time).

If a volume with an invariant volume (= the amount of volume, not the shape of the volume) is build up by units with identical basic properties every change by the units of the structure is synchronized. Thus a unit cannot change its shape independently from all the other units. Because there is duration of time in our universe, the quantum of energy is a fluent topological deformation with a start and an end. In between the corresponding vectors of the magnetic field change their magnitude in a fluent way too. Thus theoretically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is limited to the transfer of energy in relation to position and time and not in relation to “vector space”.

I have to read the second part of your comment later (from “there are two main or basic spaces”) because I am in a hurry now (appointment).

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear Mikhail N Dulin

We cannot hypothesize different spaces because in daily reality there is only one 3D space. But you can divide 3D space in sub arrangements (= fields) that share the same type of mathematical properties. Thus for me the universal scalar field is real (mathematical correct). But also the universal electric field and the corresponding magnetic field. Even the gravitational field is real although it is not Einstein’s curvature of space because it shows to be a vector field (super positioned on the vectors of the magnetic field). Sometimes termed “electrogravitational field” in opposing cosmological papers.

However, these fields influence each other thus the fields share properties (set theory). The conclusion has to be that the different quantum fields are manifestations of a more fundamental “mother field”. But we have already a name for it: space itself. There are no indications that there exist some kind of an “in between” causality. The structure itself is the bottom line.

Although the estimation is not 100% accurate the amount of quantum fluctuations in one point in space (1 unit of the structure) is about 1 x 1024 during 1 second. Thus if a particle like a proton envelopes 13 units during 1 second the boundary of the proton is the result of 13 x 1024 changes during 1 second. That means that reality at the smallest scale size isn’t easy to grasp. During one second there is also input and output of topological deformation by the proton with the electromagnetic field around (the other units of the structure). Our concept of bosons and fermions is mainly a static “image” while these particles are really turbulent configurations of concentrations of energy. Thus “spin” is a very limited concept because we don’t even know if it is a real loop of energy, like a spinning marble.

You can try to construct a model with the help of “pieces of the puzzle” but you need a structuring principle otherwise you will “drown” yourself because of all the possibilities to relate “meaningful concepts” together.

In macroscopic reality we can observe what is going on. At the moment I am trying to understand the cause behind the jets of black holes under influence of the force of gravity. Fortunately there are observations of these jets. Thus these observations limit the possible interpretations of the mechanism behind the origin of the 2 jets. But at the smallest scale size there are only properties that “come to live” with the help of probability. It is really, realy difficult to make the right choices.

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm

"The formula of the equivalence of mass and energy doesn't make a difference between both "types" of mass."

YES.

And there is possibly no difference between restmass and inertial mass.

Dear Sydney Grimm,

Thank you very much for your detailed comment.

But I still stay on the positions of a phenomenological physicist.:)

Sincerely, Mikhail.

Dear Manfred Geilhaupt

There is hard experimental evidence that inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent. However, your question is about the equivalence between rest mass and inertial mass.

[In the Standard model of particle physics the concept of rest mass is replaced by the quark/gluon model. Thus at the moment rest mass has the denotation that it is an “outdated” concept. However, there are a lot of theorists who place no confidence in the quark/gluon model.]

The total mass of a matter object is involved in the experiment as inertial mass, inclusive the mass of the electrons. The experiment isn’t done with the help of only one particle because of the small strength of the gravitational force. The same matter object is accelerated by a gravitational field thus it is impossible to distinguish between “normal” mass and rest mass. Actually, it is about the same total amount of concentrated energy.

With kind regards, Sydney

Sydney Ernest Grimm

I want to say: Einstein's EP allows that restmass is inertial at least is possible.

"In the Standard model of particle physics the concept of rest mass is replaced by the quark/gluon model."

In so far as electron is not made from quarks, this step from theory is impossible.

best wishes

M.

Dear Manfred Geilhaupt

Einstein’s equivalence principle (General relativity) is about the equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass.

However, it is true that a local surplus of energy results in rest mass, because the latter causes one (or more) scalar(s) of the Higgs field to decrease its magnitude. The consequence is the vectorization of the scalars of the Higgs field around the mass. Because every vector points to the mass, the vectorization shows to be a vector field with the mass in its centre. Actually, it is like Newtonian gravity as a push force from vacuum space around.

It explains the 1-dimensional nature of vectors and the instantaneous influence of the force of gravity (in line with Newton’s model). Moreover, the long range vectors of the gravitational field are super positioned on the short range vectors of the magnetic field. Thus the gravitational field influences in a direct way the universal electric field (the electric field and the magnetic field are corresponding quantum fields).

From this point of view the energy of the rest mass generates Newtonian gravity. Personally I agree with you but I am afraid that the majority of the physicists is not convinced. They stick with Einstein's curved spacetime.

With kind regards, Sydney

Sidney, interesting parts

"However, it is true that a local surplus of energy results in rest mass, because the latter causes one (or more) scalar(s) of the Higgs field to decrease its magnitude."

Yes a little surplus keeps the Higgs-Field (part of G-Field?) alive.

&

"Thus the gravitational field influences in a direct way the universal electric field (the electric field and the magnetic field are corresponding quantum fields)."

The Pointing Vector S=c^2/my0*(E x B) = c^2/(kapa/2)*v_vector*/T^2 compared to GR! See Manfred Geilhaupt John Wilcoxen: Electron, Universe, and the Large Numbers Between, if you like 4.10 and 4.11 (Johns idea)

&

"They stick with Einstein's curved spacetime."

The quasi static Space Time is made from local dynamics, quantised due to mass-quants emitted and absorbed locally - no neutrinos!.

See 4.15 and 4.16

Attraction of G-Field is explained by thermodynamics only. See Conclusions from the principle of thermodynamics. The physicist looses his, her job, if would publish my thermodynamic conclusions. It is based on physics only. So may be including mistake but can not be wrong at least due to First and Second Law applied.

best wishes

NEW from GR+TD is:

The G-Field can take and give Energy back due to mass quants emission and absorption (Like Photons due in QED)

Mass-Quant

m*c^2=h*f_m, travels only with v

Dear Manfred Geilhaupt

Your point of view to imagine physical reality is the phenomenological point of view and that is not an easy point of view. For example, the mass in Einstein’s formula E = m c2 is just a local concentration of energy, a number of free quanta obtained from the electromagnetic field around. Of course the properties of the concentrated free quanta are not “free” any more because the concentration doesn’t move with the speed of light.

That we distinguish between “normal” mass and rest mass is because of observations of particles under different conditions. If we “cool down” a particle till it reaches its minimal velocity, the mass of the particle is its mass “in rest”. But in practise most particles decay into smaller particles thus rest mass was associated with the existence of the stable proton (and the neutron inside a stable nucleus).

If we speed up the particle again by supplying energy to the particle, its total mass increases. But speeding up a particle doesn’t affect its volume in a proportional way. Because if that is true, accelerated particles that near the speed of light should be visible with the naked eye. Thus the square in E = m c2 is correct.

Unfortunately, Peter Higgs discovered that the rest mass of different particles shows the signature of a scalar origin (a scalar has only a magnitude and its influence doesn’t represent a direction). The consequence is that there exists a universal scalar field in the universe. Under normal conditions the rest mass of a particle doesn’t increase or decrease. Therefore the universal scalar field is “flat” everywhere in the universe. The only exception – the existence of decreased scalars – is “inside” particles.

But the discovery of a universal scalar field by Peter Higgs has changed the meaning of the concept of “rest mass”. Because if a proton is only a proton if its total mass exceeds a certain threshold that forces an enclosed scalar of the Higgs field to decrease its magnitude, the rest mass of the proton depends on the decreased scalar. That means that if the magnitude of the decreased scalar inside a proton returns to the magnitude of a scalar in vacuum space, the proton have to release a large part of its energy. At that moment the proton isn’t a proton any more and decays into smaller particles.

Thus the rest mass is actually the amount of mass that is directly related to the decrease of the local scalar of the Higgs field. And the decreased scalar is the cause behind the vectorization of all the scalars around the mass in vacuum space (my previous comment).

There is another problem too, black holes “evaporate” if there is no supply of energy. Thus theoretically it is possible to concentrate more and more energy to a proton so that it will result in a “primordial mini black hole”. The consequence is that the proposed “upper limit” of the total mass of a proton is not absolute and that is confusing in phenomenological physics.

Thermodynamics is about atoms and molecules. That doesn’t mean that the laws of thermodynamics have no origin in physical reality at the smallest scale size. But it is really tricky to use the laws of thermodynamics to “prove” what is going on at the smallest scale size.

For example in one of my previous comments I have enclosed an image of a local concentration of energy. The volume with a deficit of energy (2) shows the static representation of the electron if the concentration of energy is a proton. But that is not the electron we know from experimental physics. Because the “real” electron seems to be a configuration that is some kind of a vortex created by super fast local changes of the electromagnetic field around the concentration of energy. So it is nearly impossible to describe the "real" electron in a convincing detailled way.

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear Sidney

"So it is nearly impossible to describe the "real" electron in a convincing detailled way."

YES of course. Why not see below (of course as a limiting case)

"Your point of view to imagine physical reality is the phenomenological point of view and that is not an easy point of view."

NO! I used a principle theory. That means I used Einsteins GR combined with Thermodynamics. That's it. Basic Physics to come up with

- Restmass (me) being an expectation value or effective value

- Charge (e) being an effective value as well

- Fine Structure Constant alpha

The main result

Mass and Charge depend both on the FSC alpha

See derivation of the FSC from a Principle Theory.

Presentation GR+TD result applied and compared with experiment

all in one

Hi Preston

Interesting

"This is because for the electron Sz = Re me/3 vd, where Sz is the per axis magnitudeof angular momentum, Re is the electron radius, vd is the difference velocity, and me is electron mass. "

You might compare it with

Spin=me*c*rG=h_bar/2

and Magnetic Moment

mM=1/2*gs*e*c*rG

here rG is a kind of wave radius while R=gs*rG should be a torus radius of spinning charge e

PS

Compton-wavelength=4pi*rG

But all this is no theory only speculation, welcome.

Dear All,

you may find it interesting that according to the Motley String Theory (aka MST) of mine (see MST Overview paper on my profile for the Most recent Summary of Results) All so called “elementary particles” are actually quite “complex beasts”, roughly similar to common bulb onions, where spheres or layers are replaced with spinning and rotating threads of compactified original strings-dimensions!

And masses of “elementary particles” are essentially energy of all those excitations of original strings-dimensions! As simple as that! Which should Not possibly come as a big surprise to Einstein and All others who know the relation between energy and mass.

For more information on MST key ideas and results please have a look into the MST Overview paper (Copenhagen update) available on my RG profile.

MST based Prime Number Generator paper is the most recent result and is available in a separate paper, also found on my profile.

Welcome to the Motley String Universe!

Kind regards,

George Yury Matveev

www.matveev.se

What you call string, would I like to name space curvature oscillation. Electrons restmass is inertial mass for that.

Dear Manfred Geilhaupt , it always Possible to call String and its oscillations, CURVATURE Oscillations :-) There is NO contradiction in that!

But Historically String theory was born as Meson (quark-anti quark "particle") model and it is Quite Convenient to think about particles as Excitations (eg Solitons) on Strings.

The more exited the String is, the Heavier it is, because of Mass-Energy relation that was known to Einstein, Poincare and others!

Motley String theory/Model is Very Helpful because it Solves ALL problems the SM could Not solve in 60+ years of its existence!

And it is SO SIMPLE that you can teach it to High School Children!

Best regards/Mvh,

George Matveev

www.matveev.se

P.S. you are welcome to my personal web site, with Much more on this subject-matter!

Just to let you know. Possibly we are on the same track.

Presentation GR+TD result applied and compared with experiment

best wishes

manfred

I'll get back to your website soon