## Relationship between electron, muon, and tau

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

### Relationship between electron, muon, and tau

There is a beautiful formula for the electron, muon, and tau masses which depends only a slight shift from the cube roots of unity. (2/9 rad=12.732395o)

1+(21/2 x cos(n*120 + 12.732395...)) n=1, 2, 3.
(1(electron)=.040349908219, 2(muon)=.580211920147, 3(tau)=2.379438171633

(tau/electron)2= 3477.4728371... (2006 CODATA 3477.48)
(muon/electron)2= 206.77031597... (2006 CODATA 206.7682823)
(tau/muon)2= 16.81804673... (2006 CODATA 16.8183) CODATA can be checked here... http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mtau|search_for=all!

Also, if you add electron, muon, tau, it comes out to 3 exactly.

See http://carlbrannen.wordpress.com/2008/02/13/koide-formulas-and-qubit-qutrit-mubs/ for source.
querious

Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

### Re: Relationship between electron, muon, and tau

There are two masses in the universe, the electron and the proton.
Neither ever changes and nothing ever happens to Mass.
Mass is a 2-D circular string...

Muon and tau and quarks and the other 170 or so "particles" of collision experiments, last almost no time at all.
They are not fundamental at all.
There are no "particles".
Mass is a dimension of linear properties only.
Nothing ever happens to Mass.
It does not convert to energy, which is a thing....a product and is finite.
Mass is stable.
The so called particle zoo of collision experiments that last infitesimal amounts of time are not teaching you anything.
Even a lone neutron will exist only 14 minutes. The two only fundamental units are e- and p+ and their anti-pairs.
Neutrons are e- + p+ with the angular momentum of a neutrino in a folded Aether unit.

If you cannot give a simple definition for mass, like I just did, then you do not understand Mass.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

junglelord

Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am

### Re: Relationship between electron, muon, and tau

junglelord wrote:There are two masses in the universe, the electron and the proton.
Neither ever changes and nothing ever happens to Mass.
...
Nothing ever happens to Mass.
It does not convert to energy, which is a thing....a product and is finite.
Mass is stable.

Doesn't an electron convert back to energy when it and a positron annihilate into 2 or more (massless) gamma ray photons?
querious

Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

### Re: Relationship between electron, muon, and tau

HI, good question. Electrons are primary angular momentum. In the Aether Physics Model, Electrons become Photons of primary angular momentum expanding at the speed of light. They exchange angular momentum, not energy. Gamma radiation is one example of photon frequency.

In reality energy is a product of five dimensions. M x L^2 x F^2

Here are a couple more observations:

"When we accelerate electrons or protons in an electromagnetic field they become less responsive to the fields the more they are accelerated. This has been interpreted as an increase in mass. However, charges have no mass. So how do they give the electron, proton and neutron the property of mass? "

In the above paragraph, "charge" is interchanged with "electron and proton," as though they are all the same thing. Charge is a dimension, electrons and protons are quantum structures. Charge is a dimension, subatomic particles are units. This is similar to the error where mass is equated with energy. Mass is a dimension, and energy is a unit. The lack of clear definitions allows these types of mistakes to be made in physics with nobody being the wiser.

The confusion of dimensions and units is one of the errors that causes physics language to get funky and start generating nonsense.

In the above paragraph, saying that charge has no mass is like saying length has no time. If the intention was to say a subatomic particle has no mass that would be an unsupported conjecture since there is abundant evidence showing subatomic particles possess mass.

Action is an attribute of a real thing, not of convenience constants. If there is a quantum of action, then there is something doing the action. There are only three stable forms of distributed charge in the atom. They can be candidates for the quantum of action. These are the electron, proton, and neutron. Since all the phenomenon associated with Planck's constant are electronic processes, then the only logical candidate among these three is the electron. It is very reasonable postulate that Planck's constant directly quantifies the electron. Moreover, since Planck's constant is in the unit of angular momentum, it is reasonable to say further that Planck's constant refers directly to the angular momentum of the electron.

God did not design the Planck constant to just help Max Planck and Albert Einstein and Lewis de Broglie to convert energy to frequency in the equation
E = h x f

Further still, Einstein may have applied Max Planck's constant directly to the energy of photon radiation, but Einstein did not discover, nor did he quantify a quantum photon. Albert Einstein claimed to have quantified the photon, but what he called the photon was not quantum at all. Einstein merely stated what others had stated, that Planck's constant (angular momentum of the electron) times frequency yields the amount of work performed by the electron.

within a few years after its promulagation Einstein applied to quantum theory to explain the constituition of light and show that light follows the same process is heat radiation and is emitted in parcels or quantu, called photons.

Einstein also made the empirical observation that everyone else did, that light travels at the speed of light, but he never made the connection that the photon actually quantifies as Planck's constant times the speed of light. Nor did he realize that light was equal to the photon times frequency.

A look at the Planck constant in terms of quantum measurement reveals clearly that Planck's constant refers specifically to the electron. The angular momentum of the electron is equal to the mass of the electron times its sweep.

In the Aether Physics Model, the photon and the electron closely relate to each other, just as evidenced shows.
The photon unit is equal to
phtn = h x c

What could be simpler and easier to understand? A photon is an electron angular momentum that is exploding outward at the speed of light. Light defines as photons produced at a given frequency

ligt = phtn x freq

In the Aether physics model, we are dealing with cause and effect. Electrons defined exactly as the data shows, as primary angular momentum. Photons mathematically defined from the electrons that produce them. Energy appears as a unit of work, not as an object equal to a dimension. Mass is seen as a dimension, and not as matter. All the functions within the Aether physics model are clean, mathematically and geometrically correct, and model precisely. With an accurate electron structure to work with, we may reasonably posit that the other form of stable matter, the proton, is similarly structured.

Primary Angular Momentum
How can we best describe subatomic particles and Atoms?

Atoms are more like multilayered, discrete, shimmering clouds. Each layer contains proportionally enormous amounts of energy and shimmers at a different and precise electromagnetic frequency. Only when atoms interact with one another in large numbers do they behave as expected in their classical state, what scientists call the visible world. In APM these multilayered clouds are the angular momentum of individual onta. Since these onta are the smallest stable form of material existence, it is proper to the view the onta as primary angular momentum. When we take the literal dimension of primary angular momentum we find that there is a mass dimension, they are two length dimensions, and there is a frequency dimension. Expressed in terms of quantum measurements angular momentum is
h = m(e) x Lq^2 x Fq

What is a good way to visualize primary angular momentum?

One way to visualize this is to see a line of mass moving perpendicular at a velocity. Take a straight object, like a pencil and hold it in front of you. The pencil represents a mass times length. In one quick motion move the pencil at a velocity perpendicular to its length across a table. The blurred image you see graphically represents the nature of primary angular momentum. Of course, an electron is not literally a straight line moving sideways. We must take into account the curvature of the Aether double loxodrome structure. Since the onn mass has to fit in the small circumference of the loxodrome tube, the line of mass would appear as a circle. Ligamen circulatus (LC) names this line of mass. The perpendicular path of the line of mass as it moves sideways also traces out a circular path. The resulting geometry is toroidal. The toroid, however, traces on as a sphere and from pole to pole, when viewed in space-resonance coordinates. When viewed in space-time coordinates as with human perception, the shape is actually that of a cardioid. The Aether imparts, and thus accounts for, the spin in the loxodrome structure of the onn. APM full equations for the toroid like geometry of primary angular momentum and its relationship to spin will be examined later.

What are the general characteristics of primary angular momentum?

Primary angular momentum is a circumferential line (ligament circulatus) moving sideways, the onto have only two dimension of length. The curvature of Aether acts as a mold and imparts geometry to the onta. The ligament circulators moves in time, which means that the onn exist as a function of time between one moment and the next moment. Time is consequently, a component of onta. We could not perceive time and space with our bodies if our senses were not composed of primary angular momentum. Primary angular momentum is the first cause of physical perception, intimately related to the distributed frequency or resonance of the Aether. Because the ligament circulators moves perpendicular to its circumference, in order to scan an area (strong charge), the onta are not solid. They more closely resemble a cloud, as does the scanned area of a pencil moving back and forth in our vision. It is the scanning of primary angular momentum, which gives onta the appearances of a wave and a particle. Primary angular momentum explains why onta can appear as particles when we look at their strong charge, and can appear as waves when we look at the moving LC. Yet these are only appearances. The particulate and wave nature of primary angular momentum are illusions, having meaning only from our macro perspective. The reality of the onn structure is primary angular momentum and nothing else. Interestingly, photons can also appear as primary angular momentum, except that they are also exploding outward at the speed of light.

What is mass?

Mass is merely a dimension. Of itself, it has no material existence, although it is one of the defining qualities of the material objects. In a weightless environment mass does not change to zero. When mass is a near large planet, it does not become greater. When an object with mass is accelerated to near the speed of light, it does not increase mass. There is mass in resistance, there is mass in potential, there is mass in energy, there is mass in angular momentum. It is all the same mass, but manifested differently. It might help to realize that there is time in units too. There is time in resistance, there is time in potential, there is time in energy, and there is time in angular momentum. You can perceive time as change, but you cannot isolate time from a unit. You can perceive mass as inertia and length as distance, but you cannot separate the dimensions of mass and length from units. In the same way, you cannot remove the bricks from a brick building without also removing the building.

Once we stop thinking of mass as equal to matter, and realize that mass is neither physical nor is it something convertible, then it becomes easier to see what mass really is and how mass behaves. You cannot truly weigh mass, but you can weigh something that has mass. You cannot make mass turn into energy. The whole issue about converting energy from mass clearly reveals itself when we realize the indestructible and unchangeable nature of dimensions. You cannot convert mass, length, time, or charge. They are absolutes. Mass is always mass. Mass is only a dimension.

Energy is a unit, mass is a dimension
E is composed of the dimensions of mass, length, frequency.
E = M X L^2 X F^2

When it comes down to the truth to the truth of it, mass is a dimension while energy is a unit made up of three dimensions.

In SR, mass converts to energy as an object approaches the speed of light. If this were true, then instead of having an infinite mass as the theory proposes a spaceship should be mass-less at the speed of light. However, if the spaceship were mass-less at the speed of light, then it would have no energy because the mass is zero. No doubt the die hard relativists will come forth with arguments that there is relativistic mass, which is different from rest mass.

Mass is ultimately only a dimension. Mass is not equal to matter or energy. Mass does not rest and does not move as an independent entity. There is no such "thing" as mass that can be converted to energy, of which energy is merely a unit
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

junglelord

Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am

### Re: Relationship between electron, muon, and tau

junglelord wrote:HI, good question. Electrons are primary angular momentum. In the Aether Physics Model, Electrons become Photons of primary angular momentum expanding at the speed of light. They exchange angular momentum, not energy. Gamma radiation is one example of photon frequency.

Hi JL,
But can't photons, including gamma rays, deposit their energy content in many more ways than just angular momentum, like constant-velocity kinetic energy of heating a gas? When you get to the very bottom of it all, isn't the only thing that has never been observed to disappear from a closed process the total energy content?
I just take issue with your statements:
There are two masses in the universe, the electron and the proton. ...Nothing ever happens to Mass.
It does not convert to energy, which is a thing....a product and is finite.
Mass is stable.

The LHC will determine if the proton escapes being converted to other forms of energy, also. Numerous experiments reveal it to be a composite particle. See the fascinating page... http://www-d0.fnal.gov/public/pubs/dijet_mass_prl/dijet_mass_prl.html
querious

Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

### Re: Relationship between electron, muon, and tau

My view is that time, space and mass are united in an indivisible nature called Angular Momentum. Angular momentum of the type that produces electrons, protons, neutrons and photons is of the dimensions: mass times length times velocity.

This can be visualized as a line of fixed length (Compton wavelength) moving laterally at the rate of one comptons wavelength each 8.039 x 10^-21 seconds. The area scanned by this angular momentum contains the full mass of the subatomic "particle".

So time, space and continuity of matter are function of angular momentum. Time, space and mass come to a common, indivisible reference point in angular momentum. It is because subatomic "particles" have the same angular momentum thoroughout the universe that time, space and mass appear consistent througout the universe. This is also why the speed of light is constant. Photons are angular momentum and as such they can only propagate through a vacuum at the rate of one Compton Wavelenght per quantum time period (8.039 x 10^-21 sec)
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

junglelord

Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am

### Re: Relationship between electron, muon, and tau

junglelord wrote:My view is that time, space and mass are united in an indivisible nature called Angular Momentum.

I don't understand your fixation on angular momentum. It's energy content is readily converted to other forms, so it can't be fundamental or primary.
Electron => gamma ray photons => kinetic energy of gas (conversion to energy in form of temperature, Joules/Kelvin)
If we are looking for the fundamental entities which are always conserved, they are time and space, usually paired up in the following relations: speed=meters per second, and energy=seconds per meter.

A careful examination of Planck's Constant and Fine structure constant proves energy is just "time per unit space". ke2 /h-bar*c = alpha.

We know that Planck's Constant over a "time period" gives energy, E=hf=h/t.

Since we also know that ke2/distance gives (potential) energy, how do we prove that k*e2 is a time period, which would make energy time/space?

Let's see what we get when we put ke2 under Planck's Constant (h-bar, actually): 1.0545716 E-34 / 2.307077 E-28 = 4.571029 E-07 <---energy?

1/c = 3.335640952 E-09

3.335640952 E-09 / 4.571029 E-07 = 0.00729735253 (the fine structure constant!)

Now, this is really just a reformulation of the units which define alpha, but it shows clearly that energy is time/space.
It also shows that ke2 is a real time period.

alpha is just the ratio of kinetic energy of a photon of wavelength "x" , and potential energy of 2 electrons separated by distance "x".
querious

Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

### Re: Relationship between electron, muon, and tau

This directly reveals the reason why the fine structure constant of the electron exist and infact we can now calculate the fine structure constant for the proton and the neutron, Feynman stand up and take notice 137 has been deciphered.

The above graphic illustrates the two charges as they are related to each other and shows the proportion of their surfaces.

Electrostatic charge has the geometry of a sphere (small sphere in center of Figure 1) while the strong charge has the geometry of a toroid. Since strong charge belongs to the half spin subatomic particle, strong charge must multiply by two to be equal in spin to one spin electrostatic charge. And since electrostatic charge has a solid angle of one (spherical) electromagnetic charge must multiply by 4p to be equal in geometry. This is the meaning of the 8p geometrical constant, which also occurs in Einstein's simplified field equation for General Relativity.

The proportion of the electrostatic charge sphere (small sphere in center) to the electromagnetic charge sphere (large gray sphere) is alpha, the Fine Structure constant. The fine structure constant is the proportion of the one spin electrostatic sphere to the equivalent strong charge one spin sphere.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

junglelord

Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am

### Re: Relationship between electron, muon, and tau

I figured out a way to simplify that lepton equation...

There are 3 solutions to any cubic root, and 2/3 radians expressed as a complex number on the unit circle has the 3 roots corresponding to that weird 12.7 degrees.

And these 3 roots correspond the the lepton masses. Amazing!
querious

Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

### Re: Relationship between electron, muon, and tau

querious wrote:I figured out a way to simplify that lepton equation...

There are 3 solutions to any cubic root, and 2/3 radians expressed as a complex number on the unit circle has the 3 roots corresponding to that weird 12.7 degrees.

And these 3 roots correspond the the lepton masses. Amazing!

I have seen that before (will look for the reference). The electron, muon and the tau can be seen as the representation of a particular form of discrete energy in one, two or three dimensions, making the particle each time much more massive and more restricted in its motions.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.

StevenO

Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

### e=mc2 and the "infinite energy" clause

I feel this question is pursuant to the "defintion of mass" given by junglord. Highly educated buffoons always point a finger at me and say its impossible for matter to attain the speed of light, informing me that it would take an infinite amount of energy to do so.

Yesssss.... Since energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, where does the "infinite amount of energy required to accelerate matter to the speed of light" fit in? Wouldn't it merely take enough energy to accelerate matter to 186,000 miles per second, a measurable length of time and distance, no more and no less?

Apparently, I missed the sideways-8 in the e=mc2 formula. Any thoughts?

G
VeldesX

Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 11:02 am

### Re: e=mc2 and the "infinite energy" clause

VeldesX wrote:Since energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, where does the "infinite amount of energy required to accelerate matter to the speed of light" fit in? ... Apparently, I missed the sideways-8 in the e=mc2 formula. Any thoughts?

Don't forget, it's E = rest mass X c^2. When the mass is moving, you have to include the Lorentz factor (or "gamma"), which is where the sideways-8 you're missing is hiding. For matter moving at zero velocity, gamma is zero. For matter moving at c, gamma (hence, the energy) becomes infinite.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor
querious

Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm