The Theory of Electrons: Unveiling Their Substructure and Mass Composition

[Antonio Lao]

In 1915, H.A. Lorentz published his works with the same title. I am not trying to plagiarize but to post the questions:

Is an electron a point or composite particle? Can the electron be shown to have a substructure? The answer is "yes" to both questions.

The hypothesis that is responsible for these answers is that all particles (fermions and bosons) are all composites.

If we theorize that there are two kinds of mass: the potential mass (H-) and the kinetic mass (H+), then all particles are composites of potential mass and kinetic mass.

A particle is a fermion if there are odd number of potential and odd number of kinetic mass in it. If these are even, then it is a boson.

The actual detectable experimental mass of the particle come about when the the number of p-mass and k-mass of each particle are not the same.

This is an alternative explanation for the mass of the W's and Z's particles in the electroweak theory which are k-mass.

 

[McQueen]

I actually have this book by Hendrik Lorentz but I didn't realize that this is what it says ! In any case both the Bose _ Einstein statistics and the Fermi-Dirac statistics merely point out that isotopes have either less or more neutrons while others don't. Maybe this accounts for the behaviour , since isotopes with uneven number of isotopes would tend to interact , while balanced atoms would not.

 

[Antonio Lao]

McQueen,

Thanks for information about the statistics. I refused to buy this book from Dover Publisher because it cost $55.00. I don't think I really need it to continue my research on the origin of mass but again maybe I do because I am now stuck on crucial mathematical formulation.

I think Lorentz believed the electron is a point particle.

 

[McQueen]

Antonio
The book was actually sent to me be some Ducth friends , Hendrik Lorentz was Dutch . I was a bit afraid of reading it because the maths was a bit dated . But what I did learn was that the whole concept of EM being due to the electron and "possibly" it's spin , originated with this work. Lorentz was awarded , I think deservedly , even though his work was later proved to be a misconstruction , the Nobel Prize.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Lorentz shared with Zeeman the 1902 Nobel Prize in physics.

If the math in Lorentz's book is dated as you say it is then I don't need to worry about getting it.