About very familiar “ Electron”.

About very familiar “ Electron”.
Nobody knows why electron has six ( 6 ) formulas :
a) Planck and Einstein found the energy of electron as: E=hf
b) Sommerfeld found the formula of an electron as : e^2=ah
c) Dirac found two (2) more formulas of electron’s energy:
+E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2
d) According to QED in interaction with vacuum electron’s
energy is infinite: E= ∞
e) Electron tied with atom by the energy: E=-me^4/2h*^2= -13,6eV
Nobody knows what electron is.
Physics is about behavior of matter.
Quantum physics is about behavior of quantum particles.
It is not Physics that gives behavior to matter; instead
it is behavior of matter that gives Physics theme of thinking.
“We know electron by what it does, not by what it is.”
Electron has six (6) formulas it means that this electron can be in
six different states and electron can come from one state to another.
To come from one state to another one must be some mechanism
of changes. What is mechanism of its changes? Nobody gives answer.
Scientists and Philosophers must give answer.
“One thing I have learned in a long life:
that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive
and childlike - and yet it is the most precious thing we have.”

This is why I made my physics video. My video may seem like a joke but it is no more a joke than the physics community. Nobodies ever seen an electron, nobody knows jack about what an electron is.

Planks constant was supposed to be the smallest unit, yet they discover particles that are smaller than it? So why do they not toss out the model? Because they are clowns. I believe Newtons model we should stick with because it is useful for mechanics, and not useful for anything else. So why to they try to understand the universe using a broken small particle model where it has proven itself wrong?

My video provides a new model.

I do know why electron has 6 formulas. Because math is not parallel to universal mechanics, or particle mechanics. Particle behave in a fluidic manner, not a linear mathematical manner. Our consciousness is at a scale where newton’s mechanics make sense, so we simply assume Newton’s logic makes sense, we apply mathematics to everything. Mathematics are only parallel to the scale of our consciousness. At a small scale it loses its accuracy, the formulas would approach infinite size to keep up with accuracy.

So that is why there are multiple equations that are interchangeable. Because mathematics is just trying to mimick reality, it is not reality. They are useful for simulations and calculations on how to build things in reality, but it is not reality. When you try to mimick something there are multiple approaches that would yield a close result.


Quantum MECHANICS is about statistics of physical behavior.
Quantum PHYSICS is fantasy physics to muse the masses.


True … which answered your question as to why they are confused.


The truth is that no one knows what it is that know one knows, but I know that “what an electron is”, is not one of them.

[PDF]Sixteen Elements of the Electron in Vedic Particle Physics

The electron is composed of sixteen parts, in Vedic Particle Physics,
which is a notion contrary to …
The sixteen parts of the electron indicate that the electron.

Fundamental properties[edit]
Electrons have an electric charge of −1.602×10−19 coulomb,[67]
which is used as a standard unit of charge for subatomic particles,
and is also called the elementary charge.
This elementary charge has a relative standard uncertainty of 2.2×10−8.[67]
Within the limits of experimental accuracy, the electron charge is identical
to the charge of a proton, but with the opposite sign.[70]
As the symbol e is used for the elementary charge, the electron is
commonly symbolized by e−, where the minus sign indicates the negative
The positron is symbolized by e+ because it has the same properties
as the electron but with a positive rather than negative charge.[66][67]
The electron has an intrinsic angular momentum or spin of 1⁄2.[67]
This property is usually stated by referring to the electron as a
spin-1⁄2 particle.[66]
For such particles the spin magnitude is √3⁄ 2 ħ.[note 3] while the result
of the measurement of a projection of the spin on any axis can only be ±ħ⁄2.
In addition to spin, the electron has an intrinsic magnetic moment along
its spin axis.[67]
It is approximately equal to one Bohr magneton,[71][note 4] which is a
physical constant equal to 9.27400915(23)×10−24 joules per tesla.[67]
The orientation of the spin with respect to the momentum of the electron
defines the property of elementary particles known as helicity.[72]

The electron has no known substructure.[1][73] and it is assumed to be
a point particle with a point charge and no spatial extent.[8]
In classical physics, the angular momentum and magnetic moment of
an object depend upon its physical dimensions.
Hence, the concept of a dimensionless electron possessing these properties
might seem paradoxical and inconsistent to experimental observations
in Penning traps which point to finite non-zero radius of the electron.

A possible explanation of this paradoxical situation is given below in the
“Virtual particles” subsection by taking into consideration
the Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation.

The issue of the radius of the electron is a challenging problem of the
modern theoretical physics. The admission of the hypothesis of a finite
radius of the electron is incompatible to the premises of the theory of
relativity. On the other hand, a point-like electron (zero radius)
generates serious mathematical difficulties due to the self-energy of the
electron tending to infinity.[74]
These aspects have been analyzed in detail by
Dmitri Ivanenko and Arseny Sokolov.

Observation of a single electron in a Penning trap shows the upper limit of the
particle’s radius is 10−22 meters.[75] There is a physical constant called the
“classical electron radius”, with the much larger value of 2.8179×10−15 m,
greater than the radius of the proton. However, the terminology comes from a
simplistic calculation that ignores the effects of quantum mechanics; in reality,
the so-called classical electron radius has little to do with the true
fundamental structure of the electron.[76][note 5]
[PDF]Sixteen Elements of the Electron in Vedic Particle Physics

Radius of an electron:

Electron has no constant radius.
The radius, volume, mass, energy of an electron depends on its speed.
What is minimum radius of an electron?
What is maximal radios of an electron?

An electron is merely the epicenter of of a cluster of noise. There is no actual radius. The noise slopes from very high density to very low density, fading into the distance.

a) About a “little blob of a definite amount” (electron) Feynman wrote:
“ It is important to realize that in physics today,
we have no knowledge of what energy is.
We do not have a picture that energy comes in little
blobs of a definite amount. “

b) How does single electron (having six formulas) obey
“ The Law of conservation and transformation energy / mass”?

c) Quote by Heinrich Hertz on Maxwell’s equations:
“One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulae
have an independent existence and an intelligence of their own,
that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their discoverers,
that we get more out of them than was originally put into them.”

There were many things that Feynman didn’t know. He believed in and promoted magic in the name of science. He stated, for example, that it is totally impossible for man to ever understand quantum physics. That is what magic is, “the incomprehensible”. Physics is magic for some, but certainly not for all: “You can fool some of the people all of the time and and all of the people some of the time, but…

One can come up with six formulas for anything. Mass is not conserved. And an electron demonstrates that sub-atomic particles are anentropic, proving the “Second Law of Thermodynamics” to be merely a macroscopic tendency, not really a “law” at all (just as James Maxwell said long ago).


Yes due to its ‘properties’ the electron displays more of the features found more in quantum mechanics. I think all particles would act more like that if they could, but usually they are found in clusters [atoms] or there are otherwise forces binding them. I’d theorize that at the beginning of the universe, all particles are like that, as well as them being so at base.

they don’t obey laws, they write them ~ in an ongoing sense.