Thales Group
Discussion
Started 1 December 2023
What's wrong with the Stoney Mass? Prove me wrong
Please prove me right or wrong.
I have recently published a paper [1] in which I conclusively prove that the Stoney Mass invented by George Stoney in 1881 and covered by the shroud of mystery for over 140 years does not represent any physical mass, but has a one-to-one correspondence with the electron charge. The rationale of this rather unusual claim, is the effect of the deliberate choice in establishing SI base units of mass (kg) and the electric charge derived unit (coulomb: C = As). They are inherently incommensurable in the SI, as well as in CGS units.
The commensurability of physical quantities may however depends on the definition of base units in a given system. The experimental “Rationalized Metric System (RMS) developed in [1] eliminates the SI mass and charge units (kg and As, respectively), which both become derived units with dimensions of [m3 s-2]. The RMS ratio of the electron charge to the electron mass became non-dimensional and equal to 2.04098×1021, that is the square root of the electric to gravitational force ratio for the electron.
As much as the proof is quite simple and straightforward I start meeting persons disagreeing with my claim but they cannot come up with a rational argument.
I would like your opinion and arguments pro or against. This could be a rewarding scientific discussion given the importance of this claim for the history of science and beyond.
The short proof is in the attached pdf and the full context in my paper
====================================================
As a results of discussions and critical analysis, I have summarised my position a few answers below, but I have decided to consolidate the most recent here as a supplement to the attached pdf.
I intended to improve my arguments that would increase the level of complexity. However, I found a shorter proof that Stoney Mass has no independent physical existence.
Assumptions:
- Stoney defined the mass as an expression based on pure dimensional analysis relationship, without any implied or explicit ontological status claims.
- Based on Buckingham assertions physical laws do not depend on the choice of base units.
- The system of units [m s] (RMS) can validly replace the system: [kg m s As] as described in [1]
By examining the different systems of units and their corresponding expressions of the Stoney mass, we can shed light on its physical existence. When we consider the CGS and SI systems, we find that both express the Stoney mass in their respective base units of mass (grams or kilograms). However, if we were to use a different system of units, such as the Rationalized Metric System (RMS)[1], we find that there is no equivalent RMS dimensional constants as in the SI Stoney formula to combine with the electron charge to produce a mass value. Stoney Mass expression cannot be constructed in RMS.
In simpler terms, the Stoney mass is a consequence of the chosen arbitrary base units for mass and Current (consequently charge), leading to what is known as the incommensurability of units. This demonstrates that the Stoney mass is not observable or experimentally meaningful outside of the chosen context of CGS or SI units.
Thus it is evident that the Stoney mass lacks a physical manifestation beyond its theoretical formulation in specific unit systems. It exists as somewhat of an artifact caused by the incommensurability between base units of mass and charge. Note that in contrast, the Planck mass SI/CGS expresion does not vanish under the conversion to RMS units, and a dimensional expression is still retained albeit simpler.
When we dig deeper into the fundamental interactions and physical laws, we find no empirical evidence or measurable effects associated with the Stoney mass, reinforcing the understanding that it holds no substantial physical connotation.
The meaning of stoney mass in SI or CGS refers to the mass equivalent of the fundamental unit of electron charge in terms of SM rest energy and (possibly) the equivalent finite electric field energy of the electron.
Most recent answer
Crafting a Robust Rebuttal to the Critique
I previously explained my position in [1] .
I intended to improve it to make a point, increasing its level of complexity. However, I found a shorter proof that Stoney Mass has no independent physical existence, and this can be typed in this message
Assumptions:
- Stoney defined the mass as an expression based on pure dimensional analysis relationship, without any implied ontological status.
- Based on Buckingham assertions physical laws do not depend on the choice of base units.
- The system of units [m s] (RMS) can validly replace the system: [kg m s As] as described in [2]
By examining the different systems of units and their corresponding expressions of the Stoney mass, we can shed light on its physical existence. When we consider the CGS and SI systems, we find that both express the Stoney mass in their respective base units of mass (grams or kilograms). However, if we were to use a different system of units, such as the Rationalized Metric System (RMS)[2], we find that there is no equivalent RMS dimensional constants as in the SI Stoney formula to combine with the electron charge to produce a mass value. Stoney Mass expression cannot be constructed in RMS.
In simpler terms, the Stoney mass is a consequence of the chosen arbitrary base units for mass and Current (consequently charge), leading to what is known as the incommensurability of units. This demonstrates that the Stoney mass is not observable or experimentally meaningful outside of the chosen context of CGS or SI units.
Thus it is evident that the Stoney mass lacks a physical manifestation beyond its theoretical formulation in specific unit systems. It exists as somewhat of an artifact caused by the incommensurability between base units of mass and charge. Note that the Planck mass expresion does not vanish under the conversion to RMS units, and a dimensional expression is still retained albeit simpler.
When we dig deeper into the fundamental interactions and physical laws, we find no empirical evidence or measurable effects associated with the Stoney mass, reinforcing the understanding that it holds no substantial physical connotation.
The mea@ning of stoney mass in SI or CGS refers to the mass equivalent of the fundamental unit of electron charge in terms of SM rest energy and (possibly) the equivalent finite electric field energy of the electron.
2 Recommendations
All replies (12)
Dear Andrew Wutke 1st, What is electron? Electron never been observed to this date. To my understanding, prediction of 1885 knowledge to bring it to 2023 is not science to follow.
Thales Group
General Remarks
Thank you for making the first entry in my discussion. Your feedback does not support my finding. This is good because disagreement is a differential input that fuels the progress of science, the consensus is just the maintenance of the status quo and inertia to keep the scientific process stable. Just like in a PID controller.
1 Recommendation
Thales Group
Seeing is Believing?
There are/were many things you cannot see yet they appear to exist.
No one can see the space yet few deny it. We could not see viruses until the invention of the electron microscope yet the first vaccine was invented and applied against rabies on July 6, 1885 by Louis Pasteur.
It is different with the physicist's time. No one can see it and no one will, because this is an abstraction that does not control the state of anything. It is a useful abstraction providing reference to man made synchronised clocks which can show their own state in a useful manner following Einstein's break through in 1905.
1 Recommendation
Thales Group
The Electron and progress of science
Questioning the existence of the electron is new to me, but after further reflection if is consistent with Ernst Mach belief that atoms do not exist hence this must include electrons.The distinguished physicists, philosopher and engineer and inspiration to Einstein could not convince many. Then photoelectric effect open the path to quantum theory with electron having prominent role. I certainly see the effects of electrons in every electronic device and I saw atomic spectra.
1 Recommendation
Thales Group
What your answer means to the Stoney Mass.
Since I conclusively proven that the Stoney mass does not exist because it reduces to the electron charge which no one have ever seen, hence apparently we are in agreement??
Seriously, even the Stoney Mass can retire after 152 years, we still have the Stoney Length which seems to have physical significance adopted to represent electron charge by Weyl as "gravitational radius of the electric charge"
In conclusion:
"prediction of 1885 knowledge to bring it to 2023" has proven to be unreasonably useful and successful.
1 Recommendation
Thales Group
Continuing the discussion with myself without more people willing to question my conclusion (thank you Javad Fardaei for opening it) I can say the following:
"The Stoney mass and the electron charge are the same physical quantity (more widely known as the electron charge), which both are interpreted using different systems of units of measure hence because the electron charge is real, then the Stoney mass is real, but dressed up in a different type of clothing.
1 Recommendation
Thales Group
Fixed a typo in the Stoney mass formula in the attached file, where the electron charge e was incorrectly under the square root. The e should always positive in the Stoney mass definition. The original formula had e2 under the square root which then could be either positive or negative. It is clearly positive now.
1 Recommendation
Royal Astronomical Society
Andrew Wutke, This clearly seems to be a very perceptive re-analysis of what it Stoney 'stumbled on' long ago, but needing better interpretation than doctrinal assumptions allowed. How would it handle the Majorana fermion, the brilliant 'dipole' fermion ('electron/positron') solution lauded by Fermi, explaining now common 'spin flip'. i.e. as in this fig. This proves immensely powerful in rationalising QM! But what IS 'charge'? Are 'e+/- fermion pairs' not just opposing shear plane 'vortices', which can 'cancel' or 'bind' to evolve to larger states?
2 Recommendations
Thales Group
Dear Peter Jackson
Thank you for your comment. A better interpretation of my Stoney Mass claim is always a good thing. If my current interpretation were perfect, then there would not be opposing claims. At this moment I cannot comment on Majorana fermion because I am not sufficiently familiar with this concept.
When I look at my problem again I notice this is of an ontological nature. How can it be proven if an entity exists or, even worse, that it doesn't? "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The burden of proof is on me, but anyone could help. I will add more specific comments in smaller chunks below.
1 Recommendation
Thales Group
George Stoney and the Existence of Things
There is an interesting story associated with Stoney and the problem of existence. For many years before Stoney's work, some scientists claimed the existence of elementary discrete charges of an unknown nature.
For example in 1741 B. Franklin:
The electrical matter consists of particles extremely subtile, since it can permeate common matter, even the densest metals, with such ease and freedom as not to receive any perceptible resistance.
Stoney was the first to measure the magnitude of the elementary charge using electrolysis, well before the electron was discovered by Thomson and named as such by Stoney. The hypothetical charge that Stoney had identified was then proved to exist experimentally.
Stoney's original experiment in 1874 estimated the electron charge to be around 1.0 × 10^-19 C, which was quite close to the modern accepted value of 1.602 × 10^-19 C. The discrepancy was due to Stoney using an inaccurate value for corresponding to today's Avogadro's number at the time.
Logic and mathematical analyses applied to chemical then electrochemical reactions suggested the discrete nature of matter well before atoms and electrons were experimentally confirmed. That was not good enough to some who doubted the existence of atoms well into the 20 Century (Mach)
The conclusion is:
Simple mathematics powerd by systematic observation and measurements can help proving the existence of things. Denying existence is a separate concern.
2 Recommendations
Thales Group
The Critique of non-existence of the stoney mass entity
The critique addressed to me was: "Only you seem to think that debating unit systems will help to understand the 'physical meaning' of a specific quantity of mass." This would render dimensional analysis useless and undermine the mathematical analysis of discovered dependencies as well.
However, this critique is misguided. Kepler, using only observations and dimensional analysis, was able to derive his new law: "The square of the orbital period of a planet is proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit." This demonstrates the power of dimensional analysis as a tool for scientific discovery.
Furthermore, Buckingham showed that the validity of physical laws does not depend on the specific system of units used.
Dimensional analysis is a powerful tool that can lead to important discoveries, and physical laws are in principle independent of the choice of units, even if some units are more convenient than others.
The critique's assertion that debating unit systems does not help understand the physical meaning of mass is therefore unfounded. Dimensional analysis has proven its value in uncovering fundamental physical relationships, regardless of the particular units employed. Dismissing this approach would be a mistake, as it risks overlooking important insights into the nature of physical quantities like mass.
2 Recommendations
Thales Group
Crafting a Robust Rebuttal to the Critique
I previously explained my position in [1] .
I intended to improve it to make a point, increasing its level of complexity. However, I found a shorter proof that Stoney Mass has no independent physical existence, and this can be typed in this message
Assumptions:
- Stoney defined the mass as an expression based on pure dimensional analysis relationship, without any implied ontological status.
- Based on Buckingham assertions physical laws do not depend on the choice of base units.
- The system of units [m s] (RMS) can validly replace the system: [kg m s As] as described in [2]
By examining the different systems of units and their corresponding expressions of the Stoney mass, we can shed light on its physical existence. When we consider the CGS and SI systems, we find that both express the Stoney mass in their respective base units of mass (grams or kilograms). However, if we were to use a different system of units, such as the Rationalized Metric System (RMS)[2], we find that there is no equivalent RMS dimensional constants as in the SI Stoney formula to combine with the electron charge to produce a mass value. Stoney Mass expression cannot be constructed in RMS.
In simpler terms, the Stoney mass is a consequence of the chosen arbitrary base units for mass and Current (consequently charge), leading to what is known as the incommensurability of units. This demonstrates that the Stoney mass is not observable or experimentally meaningful outside of the chosen context of CGS or SI units.
Thus it is evident that the Stoney mass lacks a physical manifestation beyond its theoretical formulation in specific unit systems. It exists as somewhat of an artifact caused by the incommensurability between base units of mass and charge. Note that the Planck mass expresion does not vanish under the conversion to RMS units, and a dimensional expression is still retained albeit simpler.
When we dig deeper into the fundamental interactions and physical laws, we find no empirical evidence or measurable effects associated with the Stoney mass, reinforcing the understanding that it holds no substantial physical connotation.
The mea@ning of stoney mass in SI or CGS refers to the mass equivalent of the fundamental unit of electron charge in terms of SM rest energy and (possibly) the equivalent finite electric field energy of the electron.
2 Recommendations
Similar questions and discussions
Length contraction, a real and necessary non-reciprocal, asymmetrical phenomenon
In the following paper;
considering
a) the experimentally verified two-way SOL = c to very high accuracy [1],[2],[3],[4]
finding the light times in a configuration of train and embankment with
b) the experimentally verified twin effect, to second order approx in v/c [6],[7],[8],
c) the Sagnac effect, verified to first order approximation in v/c [5]
the result is that the SOL in the embankment is L/c
while the SOL in the train is gamma*L/c, at variance with a)
Since a) must be complied, the Sagnac effect in longitudinal motion, an experimental evidence with a lower accuracy must be ameneded by assuming the Length contraction of the train as REAL.
THis means that Length contraction cannot be niether reciprocal nor symmetrical. That involves the existance of a preferred frame in which it is clear what is the non-accelerated system which moves more or moves less once the isotropy of SOL of one system is assumed considering what has been accelerated from where.
Out and back Speed of light
[1] Michelson, A. A., Pease, F. G., & Pearson, F. (1935). "Measurement of the Velocity of Light in a Partial Vacuum." Astrophysical Journal, 82, 26.
[2] Essen, L., & Gordon-Smith, A. C. (1948). "The Velocity of Propagation of Electromagnetic Waves Derived from the Resonant Frequencies of a Cylindrical Cavity Resonator." Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 194(1038), 348-361.
[3] Evans, J., & Eisenhower, E. (1951). "An Interference Method for the Measurement of the Speed of Light." American Journal of Physics, 19(4), 356-359.
[4]. Hall, J. L., & Borde, C. J. (1976). "Measurement of the Speed of Light Using Laser Techniques." Applied Optics, 15(2), 300-304.
Test of Sagnac effect
[5] Ring laser gyro https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.15603
Test of time dilation twin effect
[6] J. Bailey “Measurements of relativistic time dilatation for positive and negative muons in a circular orbit” Nature, 268-5618,pp. 301-305, (1977).
[7] D. Hasselkamp, E. Mondry, A. Scharmann, “Direct observation of the transversal Doppler-shift” A. Z Physik A, 289: 151, (1979).
[8] B. Botermann et al, “Test of Time Dilation Using Stored Li+ Ions as
Clocks at Relativistic Speed” Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 239902 (2015).
Discussing the consequences of the existence of a rest frame in the universe
See the corresponding blog at https://restframe.blogspot.com
The detection of the existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) from everywhere around in the universe has puzzled theorists. Not least because of the discovery of a Doppler effect in the data that can only be interpreted as direct related to the velocity and the direction of the motion of the solar system. But if it is correct we have to accept that there exist a rest frame in the universe. Actually we can determine the existence of absolute space and that is not in line with the “belief” of most of the theorists.
There is another method to verify the results: counting the numbers and measuring the brightness of galaxies from everywhere around. The first results – using visible light – were not convincing. But a couple of days ago The Astrophysical Journal Letters published a paper from Jeremy Darling with results that were obtained with the help of radio waves: “The Universe is Brighter in the Direction of Our Motion: Galaxy Counts and Fluxes are Consistent with the CMB Dipole” (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ac6f08).
In other words, it is real. We can determine the existence of "absolute space". Moreover, we know from set theory (mathematics) that absolute space and phenomenological reality must share the same underlying properties otherwise we cannot detect the existence of absolute space. The consequence is that absolute space has a structure too, because phenomenological reality shows structure.
None of the grand theories in physics is founded on the structure of absolute space. Therefore we are facing a serious problem in respect to the foundations of theoretical physics (the conceptual framework of physics).
Related Publications
The current experiments like Planck and future CMB, 21-cm and other large scale structure surveys will enable cosmology to answer some of the fundamental questions in physics. The linear perturbation theory may not be accurate enough to interpret the observations from Planck and future CMB experiments. Second order effects may in particular be impo...
Among the open problems in fundamental physics, few are as conceptually significant as the “measurement problem” in Quantum Mechanics. One of the proposed solutions to this problem is the Continuous Spontaneous Localization (CSL) model, which introduces a non-linear and stochastic modification of the Schrödinger equation. This model incorporates tw...
According to some cosmologists, the big bang cosmogony and even the (now largely defunct) steady-state theory pose a scientifically insoluble problem of matter-energy creation. But I argue that the genuine problem of the origin of matter-energy or of the universe has been fallaciously transmuted into the pseudo-problem of creation by an external ca...