Basic mistakes that are present in postmodern physics continue to outlive and it shows how much they are implanted wrongly in the present scientific thought. It is common opinion that electrodynamics and electromagnetism are the same thing, but it is easy to prove they have different  meanings in physics. Electromagnetism studies the behavior in space and in time of electromagnetic field generated by suitable sources and it is represented by pure energy. Electrodynamics  studies instead the dynamic behavior of charged massive elementary particles that have electrodynamic mass. When these electrodynamic massive particles, in particular electron, are accelerated they emit electromagnetic energy in the quantum shape at the expense of electrodynamic mass of particle. Therefore it is possible a conversion from electrodynamic mass to electromagnetic energy and vice versa but they are fundamentally two different physical quantities. Similarly in general mass and energy are two different physical quantities even if it is possible a conversion between. Consequently the answer to question in TR is that electron mass doesn't have electromagnetic origin but it has electrodynamic nature. Consequently the dualism wave-corpuscle, in the shape of modern and postmodern physics, is an equivalence that contributes to generate further confusion. Only when this physical difference will be understood it will be also possible to observe a real new development of physics.

Mass is of topological origin, Anatolij. See Torsten Asselmeyer- Maluga and Charls Brans in RG.

YES...AND IT IS A CONCEPT MUCH RESISTED BY THE PHYSICS COMMUNITY IN SPITE OF THE EMPIRICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL PROOF---Electromagnetic mass was initially a concept of classical mechanics, denoting as to how much the electromagnetic field, or the self-energy, is contributing to the mass of charged particles. It was first derived by J. J. Thomson in 1881-later By mass-energy equivalence-this equivalence, Poincaré's radiation paradox was solved without using "compensating forces", because the mass of matter itself (not the non-electromagnetic aether fluid as suggested by Poincaré) is increased or diminished by the mass of electromagnetic energy in the course of the emission/absorption process. SELF ENERGY="effective" electromagnetic mass =mass–energy relation  WHICH states that the universal proportionality factor between equivalent amounts of energy and mass is equal to the speed of light squared AND also serves to convert units of mass to units of energy, no matter what system of measurement units is used. THE mass–energy equivalence, combined with the Weak Equivalence Principle, results in the prediction that all forms of energy contribute to the gravitational field generated by an object. This observation is one of the pillars of the general theory of relativity-the Pound–Rebka experiment, was performed in 1960. In this test a beam of light was emitted from the top of a tower and detected at the bottom. The frequency of the light detected was higher than the light emitted. This result confirms that the energy of photons increases when they fall in the gravitational field of the Earth. The energy, and therefore the gravitational mass, of photons is proportional to their frequency as stated by the Planck's relation.The energy-momentum relation is consistent with the mass-energy relation. THE GRAVITATIONAL MASS IS AN EFFECT OF THE ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION. SO- MASS IS ELECTROMAGNETIC..AND IN ORIGIN TOO!

Thanks, Eugene, for your kind remark. I will get familiar with and be in touch. 

Regards, A.

No, the electron acquires its mass from its interaction with the Higgs. 

 TELL THAT TO CERN!

No need to shout; and CERN knows all about it. Cf. here: http://atlas.ch/news/2015/latest-atlas-results-on-higgs-boson.html for the results from ATLAS and here: http://cms.web.cern.ch/news/cms-closes-major-chapter-higgs-measurements for the results from CMS. This is a technical subject, that can only be understood by studying and learning the physics, not by reading popular books or newspapers. 

If you have read some where that the Higgs particle gives mass to the other particles, you should disregard it. That statement is simply wrong!(MARKETED BY STANDARD MODEL FOLLOWERS!)--THE Electron is mainly energy (em) so it can easily travel through the higgs field. Muon has a bit more mass than Electron so it experiences friction when it goes past the higgs field. W particle has more mass than the Muon so it is slowed down more than the muon. At last the Quark has almost all mass and nearly no energy so it is slowed down very much and its kinetic energy converts into mass. So does that mean the more the higgs field slows down a particle the more it adds mass to it? The messenger particles that convey the effect of Higgs Field are called Higgs Bosons which are found in the Higgs Field. So where can I find the higgs field? Have the scientists seen the kinetic energy of quarks getting converted to mass? Can matter made up of composite particles acquire mass when moved through higgs field? Does this also mean more massive particles will add more mass to themselves when they interact with the higgs boson? Is what we call the rest mass the mass due to interaction of matter with the higgs boson, since higgs bosons create a drag and that drag is the rest mass????

A lot of talk and no substance. All these statements, apart the comparisons between the masses of the different particles mentioned, are, either wrong, or meaningless. Trying to learn a technical subject, any subject, from popular articles is an exercise in futility. If someone does want to learn a technical subject, the best way is to study a textbook and solve the problems. 

Incidentally, if the Higgs field exists, it creates the Higgs particle. And the way the Higgs particle interacts with the other particles, in particular the electrically charged leptons and the W and Z gauge bosons-means that they acquire their mass from this interaction, since the Higgs field has a property called a vacuum expectation value. What this property means and how it implies that particles acquire mass this way isn't explained in popular media and requires a background knowledge of physics-that can be learned by anyone-to understand. 

The statement ``the electron is mainly energy'' is meaningless.

Friction can be proved not make sense in this context. The interactions of the different particles with each other and with the Higgs field conserve energy.So the Higgs boson does NOT create any drag. 

There isn't only one type of quark (the proton and neutron are made of three quarks of two different kinds) and their individual mass of these particular quarks is *very* small-it's their interactions with the gluons, mainly and with the Higgs, much less, that give rise to their  masses and to that  of the proton and the mass of the neutron.

No it does NOT mean that the Higgs ``slows down'' a particle, in order to give it mass-that's wrong. 

To detect the effects of the Higgs field is hard, but everything is, in effect, moving in the Higgs field, interacting with it in well defined ways.

Yes the scientists have seen the kinetic energy of quarks converted into mass of new particles, cf. the web sites of the collaborations.

There aren't any ``followers'' in science and they don't ``market'' anything. 

NOW THAT I GOT YOU GOING---YOU ARE READY FOR V.B.  MOROZOV...HERE IS HIS PAPER ON "Whether or not a Body Form Depends on Acceleration?"AND ..."ON THE QUESTION OF THE EM MOMENTUM OF A CHARGED BODY"...ABSTRACT:The incorporation of a relativistic momentum of a nonelectromagnetic nature into macroscopic problems of electrodynamics obviates the lack of correspondence between the electromagnetic mass and the electromagnetic momentum of macroscopic bodies, allowing, in particular, the resolution of the well-known '4/3 paradox."' As to the cause of mass of elementary particles, the Higgs mechanism in the framework of the relativistic Standard Model IS currently used. BUT- problems concerning the electromagnetic mass and self-energy("effective" electromagnetic mass)  of charged particles are still UNRESOLVED-MOROZOV ADDRESSES IT IN HIS PAPER-on the electrostatic point-go to p.391---the problem lies in the 4/3 factor of electromagnetic rest mass – given above as when derived from the Abraham–Lorentz equations. However, when it is derived from the electron's electrostatic energy alone, we have where the 4/3 factor is missing. This can be solved by adding the non-electromagnetic energy of the Poincaré stresses to , the electron's total energy now becomes:Thus the missing 4/3 factor is restored when the mass is related to its electromagnetic energy. Yet Fermi,Dirac,Rohrlich &Schwinger ALL pointed out that the electron's stability and the 4/3-problem are two different things. They showed that the preceding definitions of four-momentum are non-relativistic per se, and by changing the definition into a relativistic form, the electromagnetic mass can simply written as m_{em}=E_{em}/c^2 and thus the 4/3 factor doesn't appear at all. So every part of the system, not only "closed" systems, properly transforms as a four-vector. HOWEVER-, binding forces like the Poincaré stresses are still necessary to prevent the electron from exploding due to Coulomb repulsion. But on the basis of the Fermi–Rohrlich definition, this is only a dynamical problem and has nothing to do with the transformation properties any more(THEY AVOID IT)--- THE four-momentum doesn't properly transform like a four-vector when the 4/3 factor is present. --THE MASS IS EM-I HOPE I HAVE MADE MY POINT !

One should distinguish history of physics from physics. That there were difficulties 100 years or so ago is a fact; that these difficulties have, since been resolved is, also, a fact, though there is a surprisingly large number of people, that do not seem to have learned physics, even though they did manage to get a degree. For the issues regarding the classical description, the technical tools available today do allow their resolution-but a very clear presentation is available here:http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2006/RM2820.pdf

The quantum effects can be learned from any book on particle physics or quantum field theory and the conclusion is that this whole discussion of the 4/3 factor can be resolved in the classical theory and the quantum theory doesn't have any issue at all. 

Please, take a look at my papers http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014arXiv1402.1793K   and http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014arXiv1406.6108K   Both of them can be also downloaded from the Research Gate (the fastest way of getting these papers). Currently using results of these two I am working on the paper entitled "Black magic session of concordance: Regge mass spectrum from Casson invariant". 

Susana, Stam,

electromagnetic theory inevitably fails when going to infinitly small distances. So, the problem of mass can not be solved without reconsidering geometry.

Regards,

Eugene.

Given that the myon has, except the mass, the same properties as the electron, in particular the same charge it is highly unlikely that the mass of the electron is purely electromagnetic.  Anyway, there has to be some different mechanism for giving particles mass, because this would be necessary to explain the mass of the myon.  But  a mechanism which gives mass to only two generations out of three, but exactly nothing to the electron, would be strange. 

Reason for electron mass (as well as masses of other fundamental particles) is not known. As of today, it is a parameter related to the intertia. The same is true of charge.

Not only to the inertia, Shashikant, but also to gravity.

This all can be described geometrically and attempts have already been done. To my mind four parameters (four dimensional space) is enough to describe everything.

Regards,

Eugene.

P.S. Scale is given by three constants: c,h,G.

Experiment tells us about electron mass.   Is it related to human idea of misunderstanding of different principles what was very true for me.  

Dear Eugenij K.,

I was before familiar with some of Brans' articles, now I got  more    familiar with his works done jointly with Mulaga. Yet  one can see that they have a very hipothetical relation to the electron mass problem, they can not   reasonably,  without "bla-bla-bla",  describe the electron charge and the related EM field etc. There are a lot of  words  attributed to the "knot-complimentary" nature of spin, yet this  relation to the  classical Dirac description is rather virtual than having some thing to do with it, and so on. I would not be so optimistic concerning thes knot-like toplogical devagations concerning the nature of the fundamental particles and  their physical explanation. That is it, by now.

And additionaly, concerning the Higgs' mechanism - a simple  question arises - which mechanism is responsible for   the Higgs particle own mass? 

Dear  Yessimzhan,

please, explain your thought in more details, to the regret, I could not catch it well..

Regards!

I AGREE THAT GEOMETRY PLAYS A VITAL ROLE IN 'MANIPULATING' EM ENERGY(MASS.YOU MUST UNDERSTAND PROPORTIONS TO ACCOMPLISH THIS--ESPECIALLY IN GENERATING SELF-GENERATED MAGNETIC CONFINEMENTS.--SELFENERGY IS VERY USEFUL! ITHERE IS A LOT OF UNDERUTILIZED ENERGY IN THE ELECTRON---IT IS INDEED A VERY BIG PLACE...I WELCOME YOU TO .READ MY PATENTS...FUNCTION FOLLOWS FORM IS MY MOTTO- AND I ALSO WELCOME YOU TO READ THE INTERESTING RESULTS OF THE UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR IMPLOSION TESTS OF POKHRAN I AND II IN INDIA IN 1998(R.CHIDAMBARAN DOES NOT LIKE THE STANDARD MODEL).:-)

 In order quantitatively answer Dr. Anatolij Prykarpatski's appropriately great key question, I will have to say that particle metrics will have to be worked out. Of course, I have six algorithmic quantum relativity grand theory physical mathematical equations that I will like to present in a global conference......you may refer to website: http://engginc.wix.com/world-university,,,,,,TOUR CONFERENCING GRAND THEORY GLOBAL WARMING.

Also I have noted through accompanying websites, we will have to use super fast super computers with solutions completely. In the mean time, analytical interpretations along with experts might enlighten us about quantum relativity nature of particles operating per point physics, metric physics that I have developed purely logically mathematically without any assumptions. As noted above, gravity effects are critical along with magnetic connectivity. The zero point aether vacuum field has to account for with vacuum energy and likely quantization of time. These reasons point to us having international conference sponsors getting interested to have enough support to carry out with Prof. Prykarpatski, an expert guest MC speaker. Hope that more debates as well as the meaningful theoretical discussions continue to take place. Looking to have all that going toward near future explorative endeavor.

P.S. Dear Susana, pease, don't write with capitals... It is hard reading the text. Sorry, and cordial regards!

They (Brans, Maluga and others) are working, Anatolij.

There are works where the electron electromagnetic energy equals to the total energy multiplied by the fine structure constant

I don't know these works, Gennadiy.

Yes... Eugene... Now it is the long hystory, but one of the works is my:   Arxive LANL, quant-ph/061002, 2006.

Thank You, Gennadiy.

Gennadiy,

may you present  the  more detailed reference to your work?

Thanks in advance!

Considering the electron mass to be originating strictly from the EM waves holds as the initial potentials or Vacuum Expectation Value is being a consequence of the EM potentials. As per my studies attached along, referencing to earlier observations of several experiments, the decay of these initial potentials result in formation of massive interactions.

Article Journey of the Universe from Birth to Rebirth with Insight i...

Article A Spiral Structure for Elementary Particles

Perhaps, many questions like this, regarding the make-up of matter and its mass, have been thought about many times in the last 100 years. Over most of this time period, scientists have developed and grew QM into QFT/SM. This was done without the benefit of having physical models of atomic particles, forces, and photons to base their formulations on, thus making their accomplishments even more remarkable. Out of necessity, due to lack of physical models, QFT/SM had to be developed as a probabilistic/abstract mathematical platform.

While being mathematically adept at describing numerous mechanisms and processes, the current platform cannot bridge large gaps that persist in our understanding of the physical world. For example, “What do electrons, protons, neutrons, and photons look like and how do they work”? Similar questions can be asked of fundamental forces, whose current models are also purely mathematical constructs. Therefore, before an appropriate answer to this question can be given, physical models for particles and forces have to be developed first.

Our studies and others have indicated that an electron can be viewed as an individual field unto itself, which has electrical and magnetic properties. Hence, it should be possible to extract the physical model of the electron from the mathematics of Maxwell and Coulomb because the electron, itself, only consists of electric and magnetic interactions of its field components. These types of interactions are ruled by Coulomb and Maxwell’s equations, thus manipulations of these equations should lead us to the electron model.

This procedure is similar to that employed by Maxwell when he formulated his equations based on the electric/magnetic interaction models developed by Faraday, except in this case, the procedure is reversed. Coulomb/Maxwell’s equations are first manipulated to isolate variables and formations that may be applicable to the field configurations and properties that fit an electron model, and which also exhibit wave/particle characteristics. After several adjustments and re-trials, the electron model is found that gives its known characteristics and behavior. This trial and error procedure is required, because the electron structure cannot be viewed as Faraday could view and measure his macroscopic interactions.

The above process has been accomplished and is presented in “New Physics Framework”. From this process, it was found that an electron is a tiny cylindrical field consisting of oscillating and twirling photon fibers. The electron's mass is found to be attributable to the sum of the energies of these photons. From this electron model, it is now possible to conceptually, understand the make-up of a photon, proton, neutron, and the four fundamental forces. Conceptually, understanding of other phenomena such as magnetic fields, electric force, dipole moment, heat, and energy is also possible now.

For those who are interested, the following short articles are excerpted from “New Physics Framework” and can be found at the corresponding links:

Post#1, “Unveiling of the Electron with a Pictorial View”; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271136993_UNVEILING_of_the_ELECTRON_with_a_Pictorial_View_%28Post_1%29

Post #2, “Derivation of the Electron”; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271137077_DERIVATION_of_the_ELECTRON_%28Post_2%29

Post #3, “What is the Electron Charge and How Does it Work”; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271137463_What_is_the_Electron_Charge_and_How_Does_It_Work_%28Post_3%29?ev=prf_pub

Post #4, “Comments on the Electron’s Electric Field”; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271272491_Comments_on_the_Electron%27s_Electric_Field_%28Post_4%29?ev=prf_pub

and Post #5, the book itself, “New Physics Framework”; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271909240_New_Physics_Framework_%28Post_5%29?ev=prf_pub

Article UNVEILING of the ELECTRON (Post #1) [A Proposed Electron Structure]

Article DERIVATION of the ELECTRON (Post #2)

Article What is the Electron Charge and How Does It Work (Post #3)

Article Comments on the Electron's Electric Field (Post #4)

Book New Physics Framework (Post #5.3)

Dear Mohamed,

137 is not fundamental constant because it is dimensionless. It is pure geometrical feature (see Edington).

Regards,

Eugene.

Dear Eugene,

really, - your remark above  is looking here geometrically substantial concerning manipulations with  true fundamental constants.

Regards!

As I have explained under one of your other question, it is possible to convert the kinetic energy of the particle into rest energy in the very early universe. It is like plasma at high energy condensing into mass. The equation governing this process is given by eq.38, which combines Lorentz invariant equation, Hubble parameter and Planck freqency. The output shown in tables describe how all particles acquire their mass when their velocity drop from c to v. Electron positron pair are shown at Record No. 14. Higgs boson also acquire mass in the same way. This is the only quantum gravity theory that can generate the masses of all the standard model particles from a single formula. Electrons acquire mass after gravity, strong and weak forces have separated so origin of electron mass is electromagnetic. Where as Higgs particle acquire mass before separation of strong and weak forces. 

Article Periodic quantum gravity and cosmology

Dear Vikram,

yes, you are replacing one assumption by means of  the other one, somewhat illusive as "the very early universe", to the regret still existing   in minds of some kind of astro-researchers and religion adepts. Even more, these speculative  "big-bang" models became just recently completely abandoned by a strong research group from MIT...  : "A new cosmology successfully explains the accelerating expansion of the universe without dark energy; but only if the universe has no beginning and no end. "

(http://www.technologyreview.com/view/419984/big-bang-abandoned-in-new-model-of-the-universe/)

Dear Prof. Prykarpatski:

I quote from the article you listed.

That’s not to say Shu’s theory is perfect. Far from it. One of the biggest problems he faces is explaining the existence and structure of the cosmic microwave background, something that many astrophysicists believe to be the the strongest evidence that the Big Bang really did happen. The CMB, they say, is the echo of the Big bang.

------ end quote.

Besides, a theory of creation, that cannot explain the presence of consciousness in the universe, is no theory from my point of view.

Regards.

Thanks, Vikram,

I caught your thought!

Regards!

Basic mistakes that are present in postmodern physics continue to outlive and it shows how much they are implanted wrongly in the present scientific thought. It is common opinion that electrodynamics and electromagnetism are the same thing, but it is easy to prove they have different  meanings in physics. Electromagnetism studies the behavior in space and in time of electromagnetic field generated by suitable sources and it is represented by pure energy. Electrodynamics  studies instead the dynamic behavior of charged massive elementary particles that have electrodynamic mass. When these electrodynamic massive particles, in particular electron, are accelerated they emit electromagnetic energy in the quantum shape at the expense of electrodynamic mass of particle. Therefore it is possible a conversion from electrodynamic mass to electromagnetic energy and vice versa but they are fundamentally two different physical quantities. Similarly in general mass and energy are two different physical quantities even if it is possible a conversion between. Consequently the answer to question in TR is that electron mass doesn't have electromagnetic origin but it has electrodynamic nature. Consequently the dualism wave-corpuscle, in the shape of modern and postmodern physics, is an equivalence that contributes to generate further confusion. Only when this physical difference will be understood it will be also possible to observe a real new development of physics.

Dear Daniele,

your resoniong are looking interesting, yet a bit declarative. Especially, you wrote: "Electromagnetism studies the behavior in space and in time of electromagnetic field generated by suitable sources and it is represented by pure energy. Electrodynamics studies instead the dynamic behavior of charged massive elementary particles that have electrodynamic mass."

Would you be so kind to  explain in more details your notions "pure energy", "electrodynamic mass"  and the  physically backgrounded  reasons lying in them, if any?

Regards!

Yes, Vikram,

I see:   "something that many astrophysicists believe to be the the strongest evidence that the Big Bang really did happen. The CMB, they say, is the echo of the Big bang."

Yet,  I guess, we need to build the science of physics, not the religion... based on belief...

Regards!

Dear Anatolij,

The concept of "pure energy" is intensifying of the usual concept of "energy" and it derives from the necessity of opposing the usual confusion that there is in postmodern physics between energy and mass. Energy (or pure energy) is a physical quantity that in the International System of Measurements is measured in Joule while mass is measured in Kg, consequently energy and mass are two different physical quantities. It doesn't exclude that in physical processes is possible a conversion from mass to energy and vice versa. In physics there is a Conservation Law of Mass and a Conservation Law of Energy and it needs much care when a Conservation Law of Mass and Energy is considered because it needs to have in the right consideration those conversions. Besides I think you agree that there is an evident difference between an energy quantum (for instance a photon) that is energy or pure energy and a body that is matter with a real mass. It is possible then as per equivalence criteria to establish energy quanta have an equivalent mass and masses have an equivalent wavelength preserving the respective physical nature and therefore the usual dualism wave-corpuscle must be handled with care. You know in Special Relativity all physical systems, macroscopic and microscopic, have the same type of mass and General Relativity establishes only an equivalence between inertial mass and gravitational mass for all bodies. I think also you agree critically that an usual body and a charged massive elementary particle are different physical systems and have different masses from the physical viewpoint like energy quanta and massive elementary particles. These preliminaries are necessary to reach the concept of "electrodynamic mass" in the Theory of Reference Frames. It is known that an accelerated usual body doesn't radiate while an accelerated charged massive elementary particle (for instance electron) radiates whether when it is free or when it is bound inside atom and jumps from an energy level to another. For accelerated elementary particles there is therefore a conversion from mass to energy and it is possible only if mass of elementary particles is different from mass of usual bodies that don't radiate. In TR this different mass is the "electrodynamic mass" that has therefore relativistic nature for which if mo is the resting mass of particle, the moving electrodynamic mass with speed v is  m=mo(1-v2/2c2).

Dear Daniele,

Your extended reasonings still possess strange points, like this, for instance: "you agree that there is an evident difference between an energy quantum (for instance a photon) that is energy or pure energy and a body that is matter with a real mass. " -  yet, sorry, I can  in no way  agree with this statement,  - as both photon and particle are kinds of  matter, photon  is related with electromagnetic field energy, and particle energy is related with its mass value and velocity, if it moves in space. Energy is the Energy, it is  a matter property, very important, I agree with you, as,  in particular, the momentum, as the charge and so on.

It is also much questionable even controversial statement that "It is known that an accelerated usual body doesn't radiate while an accelerated charged massive elementary particle (for instance electron) radiates..."   It is not so - any matter, different from a pure field like electromagentic and etc, consists of charged particles, like proton, electron and  compound neutral particles like neutron, so all of them when accelerated radiate energy, yet this energy is of dipole, quadrupole and so on intencity order and is so negligible for the massive neutral matter that it is compensated  by means of the body deformations-oscillation energy  and heat energy surrounding the body.  Other your statements  are in general acceptible, yet they can not be in general substantial for such a notion as "electrodynamic" mass...To the regret.  Even more, the classical physical fact is that the mass of a particle is either of inertial origin (the Second Newton's law) or gravitational origin (the Newton's -Hook's gravity law), so we are forced to be adequate with these possibilities and build our theories with agreement to them, following strictly as much as one can the Ockhcam's rasor law... - "Nunquam nouos entitas, sine necessitatem", or - "Never involve new entity without the need"... -:)

Easter regards!

Dear Anatolij,

I think you are a perfect postmodern physicist.

Anyway, Easter best regards also to you.

The word "believe" that you have emphasised comes from the MIT Tech review writer. All astrophysicists are not just bellievers. They have sent many space missions to verify the Cosmic Microwave Background spectrum with extraordinary accuracy. The complete history of science of physics behind CMB can be found at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

Thanks, Vikram!

May be, yet nobody knows... what it is!

Easter regards!

Dear Prof. Prykarpatski:

All knowledges that can be acquired in this world leaves some dissatisfaction in the heart of the knower, except one. When that exceptional knowledge is acquired, nothing further remains to be known.

Easter regards to you and all!

Yes, agreed

He knows all, yet keeps His Great Truth Book closed, only sometimes open to elects!

Easter Regards!

Dear Anatolij,

I am so interested in physics, although I agree with many things you mentioned, I smiled when I read your comment about religion. In fact, so far, many of the outcomes in astrophysics that were approved were mentioned explicitly in the Holy Quran. In fact, If I have the level of your knowledge, I would do something with the aid of Quran as it shows the general direction with being sure where I am going with my brain... but not find a theory every 50 years and threw it away by replacement with another theory and repeat... ...

My respect

Enjoy these statements please (Holy Quran). While reading, please consider the meaning from physics point of view:

Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe? And We placed within the earth firmly set mountains, lest it should shift with them, and We made therein [mountain] passes [as] roads that they might be guided. And We made the sky a protected ceiling, but they, from its signs, are turning away. And it is He who created the night and the day and the sun and the moon; all [heavenly bodies] in an orbit are swimming. The creation of the heavens and earth is greater than the creation of mankind, but most of the people do not know.

Dear Ibrahim,

I support your belief in the Holy Quran knowledge,  yet  a difference is decisive - the science physics allows its  experimental proof!

Regards!

Stam> This is a technical subject, that can only be understood by studying and learning the physics

This is very proper advice, but I am afraid it is not much cared about on these Q&A-threads. Maybe it is related to configuration of interests, but it is my experience that very few of the questions asked are motivated by a genuine wish to learn anything from the answers. More often than not they are just lures intended to attract people to their own shit that they want to sell.

It is in the long run destructive to the reputation of ResearchGate to have such a high proportion of unserious and unscientific threads in Q&A. I don't think Q&A is the proper place for promotion of alternative science; there are other channels for that.

Dear Kare Olaussen,

I am interested in promotion of alternative science. I would want to ask two questions:

1.  What do you perceive for alternative science?

2.  Which alternative channels are you considering?

Please, arguments, Minas.

Daniele.

For the first question good descriptions can be found at the three first links below.

For the second question just google alternative science or Einstein was wrong or similar keywords; this will lead you to many sites where you may freely discuss and promote such topics. And if you want to publish such topics (for a price) in something which looks like a scientific journal there are many options. The last link below is a possible place to start (although I don't think they would publish everything).

http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theoristbad.html

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/11/25/open-access-physics-journal-accommodates-authors-blacklisted-from-arxiv/#more-4505

Dear Minas,

for this procedure (defining mass geometrically) we need topology. See Charles Brans and Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga.

Regards,

Eugene.

Kare,

I hope those links were useful to you. I don't think they can have some uselfulness for young serious researchers. The seriousness of a research isn't calibrated as per the greater or smaller degree of agreement with the accepted theories. The concept of research is different and my preceding comment addressed serious researchers.

Mass and particle are external undefined features for Einstein's gravitational theory, Minas, and it is it's weak place. Particles are unknown sources of gravitational field. To deal with this subject we have to improve Einstein's theory.

Regards,

Eugene.

Dear Minas,

Einstein's equivalence principle has issues.

Is the electron mass electromagnetic? There may be a deeper question that would need to be answered first. This is: "What is the electron?" I don't believe that the electron is an infinitesimal point-particle. It exhibits a spin-angular momentum. Rather than to take the easy way out and say this spin momentum is "intrinsic," I would rather insist that a structure of some type  generates the spin momentum. Nor would I say that the electron is a "distribution of charge" since it is the electron itself which is a charge (the source of electric fields). We also know that the electron and the photon can act as a wave or particle within the same experiment. The electron must be a structure, it is electromagnetic, and it must contain waves. It may be very small but must be able to sustain some type of spin motion. That is the way I see it currently. The waves are standing electromagnetic waves that would not have any natural end node points in space so it must be a closed loop, like a circle. This somehow generates the electric and magnetic fields In the far zone around the electron. So I am leaning toward the idea that the mass of the electron is electromagnetically created.     

Dear E.J. Zampino,

it is the structure (or property) of space-time on Planck's scale. It can be considered mathematicaly.

Regards,

Eugene.

I do not really understand why this idea originates.

The fact is that this mass does couple to a gravitational field,

as in experiments which measure the ratio e/m, also

Gravitational potential also does exert a quantum influence on electrons.

That is why this idea sounds strange to me.

To Eugene F. Kislyakov.  I am completely on your side. Please,take a look at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015arXiv150707791K  and references therein.The revised version of this paper (soon will be available to general public) is going to be published in IJMPA

Your paper is interesting, Arkady.

My point is that all can be described geometrically. Otherwise, it is not understandable from where is other. Science is language. For what many languages? We have already geometrical language. Is not this enough?

Before a question like this can be answered, a mechanical model that is coordinated with a mathematical model of the individual electron needs to be established. Let us look at a practical example to see how this may be accomplished.

When Maxwell developed his work, he could see both the macroscopic mechanisms and the data resulting from these mechanisms. All of this was provided by Faraday.

In the case of the electron, only the data resulting from its mechanism can be measured, but we don't know what its mechanism is because it cannot be viewed. Thus, in order to derive the electron, its model has to be fitted with a mechanical model that is underlain with mathematical formulations such that the data (properties) given by the electron is consistent with measured values and observations. The underlying mathematical formulations can be derived using the work of Coulomb, Maxwell, and Lorentz. These formulations can be shown to fit the mechanical model. So, from this mechanical model, it can be seen how the properties of the electron are given mechanically.

Unfortunately, there is no other way to do this for particles. To view this procedure for the electron, please see the link.

Just briefly as shown in the link, an electron is a structural formation of photon fibers that can develop in an environment that has a dense mixture of them (for example, in laser/particle interactions). The interactions that enable this formation result from the electric and magnetic properties of photons, as given in Maxwell’s wave equations.  Individually, photons are massless; however, in a group, such as the electron, the photon fibers are interacting with each other. Due to this, a measurable force is required to accelerate the group. The required force to cause a given acceleration is proportional to the sum of the energies of the photon fibers in the group. The proportionality constant “m” results from this.

Research Derivation of the Electron (Post #2 Updated)

Hi, Anatoly.

I am very impressioned by your papers.... I have to study it more and more...

About the 4/3 problem, the only that I don't understand is why this fake-problem still persists: Fermi clears it fully already in 1922.

This paper of Kolbestned repeats (easier) the Fermi's success and adds interesting comments

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243257208_Electromagnetic_self-mass_of_the_classical_electron_An_alternative_exploitation_of_Fermi's_claim_for_rigid_motion

So, ear you again, I hope!!

Giuseppe Raguní

Article Electromagnetic self-mass of the classical electron. An alte...

Hi, Giuseppe, I thank you so much for the reference you attached. The Fermi's impact to the problem is in general known, yet the origin of the problem is not classical but quantum, and it is still not well understood, if to go beyond the Higgs' mechanism, which is really tricky, yet not physical in some points - for instance, WHO or WHAT is responsible for the "breaking symmetry" of the vacuum? Nobody will  accept that this can happen ad hoc without any real physical reason...-:) 

Sincerely regards!

Dear Anatolij K. Prykarpatski

Regarding your question “Is the electron mass strictly of electromagnetic origin”. My answer is YES. I get this conclusion from:

1.    Electrons need the Higgs boson to get its rest mass (something exchanged with the Higgs field, which is introduced in the Lagrangian as electromagnetic quantities are)

2.    Electrons are massless elementary electrical charges in permanent interaction with the Planck’s vacuum (this support the stability suggested by Puthoff). In this way, its dynamics confuse with that of the zero-point radiation continually tangled for a while (Compton’s rate), in agreement with the second Planck’s radiation law).

3.    According to the Maxwell equation the speed of radiation cannot be greater nor lower then c. Therefore, the tangled radiation, conflicting with the ordinary motion, cause vibrations (wave-packet) with the de Broglie periodicity, which is close related to inertia (Ogiba F. On the quantum-relativistic behavior of moving particles).

4.    Regardless of the translational motion of bodies, the speed of electrons is the speed of radiation (Schrödinger’s zitterbewegung). This also can be obtained considering the gauge invariance of Maxwell equations end the Lorenz condition, which gives a wave equation, whose phase velocity is the light speed (keep in mind that electromagnetic fields are created by charges (and currents) interacting with the Planck’s vacuum).

5.    There are much more evidences in favor of it than against it. Evidences to the contrary, with few arguments become empty.

My answer to the or. question is No.  

To answer one has to look at all the masses of the leptons.  According to the SM in its current form, with neutrino masses, all leptons have masses. The masses of the three leptons are very different, even if they have the same charge, thus, the EM part of their masses will be the same.  So, the other leptons (myon, tauon) have non-EM parts of their mass.  This makes the assumption that the electron has some non-EM mass too quite probable.

Then, the masses of the corresponding neutrinos are much smaller, but they have masses.  So, one can except that even without the EM field the leptons would have some, even if smaller, masses too.  

I believed for a few years ( 2015 and 2016) that the mass of the electron was strictly of electromagnetic origin. But I have grave doubts now. I believed at that time that the electron was a confined electromagnetic standing wave. The internal energy of the electron ( and its mass, m= E/c2) were derived from the standing wave and also, the permissible rest mass of the electron was a result of this. The rotation of this standing wave about its axis of symmetry was at the speed of light which set the lowest and only rest mass of the electron. ( n=1 state) To go to the higher energy states ( n=2, and n=3 etc)  the tangential speed of rotation had to be v = nc. I thought that maybe this model explained why the muon and tauon were unstable and had to decay. They had to decay to the stable state because in order to have a higher rest mass than the electron, their speed of rotation would have to exceed the speed of light. Although this all sounds interesting, I realized that this model cannot really describe what an electron is. Just one example: very energetic collisions between electrons and positrons at speeds very, very close to the speed of light can produce numerous pions, and even a proton and anti-proton. ( there are quarks inside the proton) How does this happen? Get this: I used "my" model to attempt a calculation or the electron's spin-angular momentum. Instead of getting 1/2 h-bar, I got 1_h-bar. So I don't think that we can develop a description of the electron trapped or confined electromagnetic waves. It's more complicated than that.   

It is well accepted that electrons have a finite mass, the measusrement of the ratio

e/m shows that it participates  in both gravitation and enm forces.

If electrons participates in gravitation, how can you say that the origin of mass is not, at least in part

gravitational? That gravity is a comparatively weak and thus usually ignored in many

problems is another story.

I recommend to readers a following very impressive break-throwing recent article, written by William B. Maier II:

"A New Approach to Classical Electrodynamics: Covariant Second-Order Field Variations" (Universal Journal of Physics and Application 12(3): 31-40, 2018 http://www.hrpub.org: DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2018.120301)

Follow

Follow

P.S. My small comment concerns the fact that the modern quantum electrodynamics calculations are fantastically confirmed by very subtle experiments. If to take into account that its quantum model does not take into account any other quantum Yang-Mills type fields etc, it would be strange that such additional quantum fields are present, yet had no influence on the performed quantum electrodynamics calculations! Moreover, the recently developed well known Dirac-Fock-Podolsky quantum electrodynamics model makes it possible to forecast both the effective "dressed" electron mass, and that of its quantum excitations as mesons. Best,

Anatolij.

File:

SN 1547-4771, Physics of Particles and Nuclei Letters, 2017, Vol. 14, No. 1,

pp. 87–101. "The Quantum Charged Particle Self-Interaction Problem

within the Fock Many Temporal and Feynman Proper Time Paradigms"

(by A. K. Prykarpatski and N. N. Bogolubov (Jr.))

Dear Anatolij,

do you think that Lorentz Invariance is confirmed by quantum electrodyanmics or it is instead a postulate which, also in the case illustrated in the paper below,

Preprint Multi-Time Dynamics of the Dirac-Fock-Podolsky Model of QED

is not respected (UViolet)?

Don't you think that the LI is unnecessary and is instead the actual reason to resort to diverging quantities and re normalization, in which a Physical meaning is lost??

Dear Stefano, I assume that the existence of electromagnetic waves=light is, in part, equivalent to the fields Lorentz invariance. A problem and nontrivial one exists concerning the Lorentz invariant Dirac field equation for charged electron, which is massive, and whose nature is not understood, as both its charge and mass are external parameters in the theory, thus making the theory strongly singular... My main efforts were to get rid of them, leastwise electron mass.

Dear Anatolij,

I guess that a degree of freedom is missing in the way Physics is currently dealing with Relativistic dynamics.

I've been studying a series of experiments and had discussions for one year on a thread of mine about the transverse Doppler of light.

I eventually came to the conclusion that the outcome of the several experiments performed are in agreement with the *direct* Lorentz transformations (Relativistic Doppler Effect) but cannot be in agreement with the inverse.

In other words the postulate of the invariance of the speed of light and the equivalence of the inertial frame of references at the base of the Lorentz Invariance do not have a Physical correspondence. I can understand that it may sound quite absurd, although I can provide evidences (experiments and considerations) in order to arrive to such conclusions.

Any addtional degree of freedom means ... the existence of an additional invariant, new parameter, whose physics should be obseved,...as for instance, it was with spin!😃😃😃

Dear Anatolij,

yes it has infact a lot to do with the angular momentum....not with the intrinsic one of the elementary particles h/2...

Yes, angular momentum derived from the invariant, geodesically-curved, shortest path that the fastest phenomenon in the universe, PHYSICAL light travels, where at h the angular momentum increases (varies) along the minor, relative axis from the longitudinal, transverse major axis of this intrinsic geodesical curve. Along this selfsame geodesic, relatively linear, longitudinal, major axis, light c=1 abruptly slows at h (Big Bang), or the transverse minor axis entry, and in slowing variously as now nonlinear c2 or c-squared, yet self-similarly (fractal at the rate of the golden ratio), electromagnetically/gravitationally generates matter: Respectively, from the smallest point h -- quanta, elements, DNA, and galaxies -- through entropy (electroweak force) to black holes, or the largest expanse, 180 degrees linear light c again, flat space -- all nested (bounded infinity) geodesically ("rugbyball" shape) or conically (half-geodesic) (cf. Ulam spiral primes distribution and Grigory Perelman's Poincaré conjecture solution).

...To my regret, I could not catch a physical essence of the post above.

Would not light and the nature of light constitute a physical phenomenon from SR's e=mc2 or m=e/c2 or c2=e/m? Moreover as the fastest phenomenon in the universe, to which all else must therefore be relative, light follows the shortest path, a geodesic. As light reaches the smaller end (minor axis) of this geodesic, it must slow in order to stay on this geodesic track. Slowed light is stored energy; stored energy is matter. I hope this helps to clarify.

Why does the light follow the shortest path, a geodesic path, one can say? What is a physical reason for light to choose the shortest way? What way does the light know which way is shorter? And ...what the light is? Is it a matter? is it a pure energy? Is it some thing else?.... Nobody knows...

Light's sole unique physical property is that it is the FASTEST phenomenon in all the universe, always faster than everything else, so obviously will take the shortest path, which happens to be geodesically-curved, explained here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic

Light doesn't know, it just IS (an observable physical phenomenon), and as it is -- the fastest, it takes the shortest path, a geodesic, explained uncontroversially above or in any textbook. Everything that IS, has it's own trajectory, albeit geodesically self-similar (fractal) to light, since all else is relative to light and currently merely estimated without this concept. The geodesic intrinsically has a shorter end, it's oblate, not a perfect sphere.

To ask what way does light know to go is to ask from a subjective observer's standpoint who looks from inside the universe out. If instead you allow yourself to imagine, as Einstein himself did, what it would look like to catch up with a light wave, everything including yourself stretches and eventually becomes that light, stationary, so that there no longer is any "way" or 'motion'! Again, it just is, at that point. Or, let's say you're standing on one side of light's geodesic path and I on the other, facing each other, looking at the same phenomenon. Who's to say light goes left, no light goes right? Back down to Earth, this is also similar to the way water goes clockwise down the drain in one hemisphere and counterclockwise in the other hemisphere. However, if that drain were continuous through the Earth, like an axis, what looks clockwise from one end will look counterclockwise from the other. Yet nothing in between reverses the water's direction; only subjective observers are in supposed opposition.

Everyone well knows what light is: Light is BOTH absolute fastest linear c along the transverse or longitudinal (major axis) portion of its intrinsic geodesical path AND slowed c, or nonlinear c2 or c-squared, orthogonal electromagnetism at Planck length (the entrypoint into the shorter end of the geodesic), becoming slower forms or gradations of energy, including matter (stored energy), the discrete photons, other quanta, elements, DNA, brains to galaxies, before each, according to their respective trajectories (cf. Ulam spiral primes distribution and Grigory Perelman's Poincaré conjecture solution, I conjecture ultimately at the rate of the golden ratio, the Limit of all limits), reaching entropy at the apex of the geodesic's shorter end (minor axis; visible universe) and returning through respective 'black holes' as linear light c again.

Dear CjNev, I like your joking!

You wrote deliberately - "Light doesn't know, it just IS (an observable physical phenomenon), and as it is -- the fastest, it takes the shortest path, a geodesic, explained uncontroversially above or in any textbook."

-Yet this blog is about physics, written by Nature, - not about reading diverse textbooks, written by some people, - and our aim is to understand Nature, why she is such as she is.... Nothing more one can say of your philological exercises, to the regret!

Best,

Have a nice day!

Dear Anatolij,

I wrote in response to your little exercise in deliberation: "What way does the light know which way is shorter?" So maybe you laugh at yourself.

If this "blog is about physics, written by Nature, ...not...by some people," best wishes and joy in your endeavor ever to "understand Nature."

P.S.Thanks to all! Discussion is closed, as senseless.

Best regards.

Dear Colleagues,

spin and charge are geometrical properties of 4-dimensional space. 1/2 is continuous and 137 is discrete symmetry.

Dear Anatolij,

I hope you will continue the discussion in this thread.

in the figure in the link below

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/pure-transverse-Doppler-and-pure-linear-Doppler_fig1_323783259

I've drawn a configuration which occurs in labs: redshift and blueshift due to transverse Doppler but it is not supposed to occur if one postulates the Lorentz invariance. Infact the train proceding at constant speed towards the right and the embankment are supposed to be two equivalent IRFs and have same experiences... Although the train view cannot be reciprocal to the embankement view..

It is not hard to show infact that the train has to see a blueshift while the embankment sees a redshift from the radiation of same atom emitters sitting on the train and on the embankment. The configuration is supported by several experiments of Transverse doppler and the behaviour of oscillators / clock HP, tested in several experiments (muon ring), in which the acceleration by itself does not have influence on standard clocks.

In other words it is the case to have a serious look at the Lorentz Invariance.

The rational for magnetism could be confined to a one-verse or a universe.

The rational for coulomb forces however requires a two-verse, a bi-verse.

Regards BT. www.yowahbooks.com

Dear Blake,

What would be a bi-verse???