The interaction between an electron and a photon is represented by the Compton equation, published in 1923. A “Compton mass unit” (mC1) is; mc1 = mP2/4πme Where; mP is Plank mass me is the rest mass of an electron This is based on a quantization rule; nλC = 2πrSC Where; λC is the Compton wavelength rSC is the Schwarzschild radius Is the “Compton Mass Unit” a real exchange mass or a theoretical mass? Reference; http://newstuff77.weebly.com web-paper 08 The Compton Vector
It's not on Wikipedia but if you Google "soliton compton mass", including the inverted comma's ("), you will get 9 entries.
(You should learn how to type LaTeX-formulae on this forum; the formatting of your equations is badly broken.) Well, since you appear to be the one that came up with this unit, why don't you tell us? Why did you derive it? What is your goal with it? What is it supposed to symbolize? What is its significance? I also see you are using the Schwarzschild radius, Broglie wavelength, and Planck mass together. This suggests a mixing of GR and QM, which is a known troublesome combination. How did you resolve the issues that arise when doing that? And, it seems you missed my reply to your previous thread. Care to answer that as well?
It's constructed a Richard777 scorecard. (No guarantees regarding its accuracy!) http://sciforums.com/threads/can-a-gravitational-field-be-represented-as-a-wave-function.161422/ 1 OP (The post that started the thread.) 3 R-R (Posts by Richard777 in reply to a response given by another member. Both those posts are counted here, as one 'occurrence'.) 6 R (responses by other members aimed at Richard777 that he didn't reply to.) 12 Other R (responses by other members aimed at other members.) 4 Other stand-alone (posts by other members that don't quote anybody. I didn't bother to check who specifically they were replying to, if anybody.) http://sciforums.com/threads/can-the-periodic-table-be-arranged-as-a-stepped-pyramid.161423/ 1 OP 2 R 1 Other stand-alone http://sciforums.com/threads/can-a-...epresented-as-an-acceleration-2nd-try.161448/ 1 OP 3 R 30 Other R 3 Other stand-alone http://sciforums.com/threads/can-“thermal-vectors”-define-temperature.161488/ 1 OP 4 R 1 Other R http://sciforums.com/threads/did-israel-live-in-egypt-during-the-12th-dynasty.161508/ 1 OP 1 Richard777 stand-alone (post made by Richard777 that didn't quote anybody.) 4 Other R 2 Other stand-alone http://sciforums.com/threads/does-a-bound-electron-have-a-magnetic-dipole.161627/ 1 OP 2 Other R http://sciforums.com/threads/can-the-vector-operator-del-transform-to-a-scalar-operator.161670/ 1 OP 1 Other R http://sciforums.com/threads/is-the-“compton-mass-unit”-real.161747/ 1 OP 1 Other R 1 Other stand-alone (excluding *this* post) (Note that Richard777 has made no posts in other threads.) Only the last (this) and perhaps the previous thread can be seen as 'active'; the others have seen no activity for some time. That means that of the 8 threads Richard777 started, he actively participated to some degree in 2, and he abandoned 4, with an additional 2 running that risk. Of the 12 posts Richard777 has made, 9 contain a link directly to his website. This means that only 3 posts do not include a link (with 1 post (a reply) mentioning the website, but not providing a link to it). I'm starting to get the feeling Richard777 isn't here to discuss things (anymore?), and he is just promoting his website... which is, of course, against forum rules. Richard777, please reply to responses made to your posts and threads; you opened up the discussion, and you got people to spend time reading your material and commenting on it. It's only common courtesy to acknowledge their willingness to do so by returning the favour.
It's quite hard to work out what this formula is supposed to be. I assume you mean: \(m_C=\frac{m_P^2}{4\pi m_e}\) where $m_P$ is the Planck mass and $m_e$ is the electron mass. Then you have: \(n\lambda_C=2\pi r_{Sc}\) I don't know if the $n$ is supposed to be there, but it looks like you're saying the Compton wavelength is equal to $2\pi$ times the Schwarzschild radius, for some reason. Maybe if you could give us a bit more background...
Ah, I think I figured out why Richard777 doesn't respond: this is a cross-website spam-post. Look at this post I found elsewhere: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=76696.msg572109#msg572109 According to the timestamps I'm being served, that post was made less that two hours before the thread here, and it is also abandoned. By checking the other posts made by Richard777 over there, we recognize several other familiar threads: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=42000 But also a much longer history of not responding. Richard777 is not here for discussing his ideas. With such a clear case of bad faith posting, I'm considering ignoring his "contributions".
What actually is the policy on these kinds of "contributors"? Obviously, they never rack up infraction points, because they never reach the stage where they start flinging insults (unlike some other members). They are "on-topic" with their OP, so they don't outright seem to be spamming ("8 inches!!1one!"). Yet they continue to waste the valuable time of people that fail to recognize the uselessness of investing said time.
Well, this particular poster appears to be averaging about 2 posts a month. What he has posted is, as you say, low quality but not obviously spam. It doesn't look to me like people are investing a lot of time in replying. So, at this stage, no moderator action appears to be required. If anything, I would perhaps be inclined to move this thread to Pseudoscience or somewhere similar, but then again, it's hard to tell what it's actually about. There's always a chance that in 2 weeks, Richard might drive through again and provide an answer.
The inconvenience is indeed but a minor one; it's just that I dislike the sight of pollution in this subsection of the forum. I would suggest you follow his links and read his work, but I can't in good conscience recommend that here. Yes, let's wait and see what happens when (if?) Richard777 returns. It would be unfair to deny him the chance to respond (even though he's had more than 5 days so far).
Yes James The text has printed poorly on the website. Sorry you had trouble reading it. The quantization rule implies that only an integer number of wavelengths can occupy a circumference and yes the radius of the circumference is a Schwarzschild radius. The Compton mass unit is probably a mass representation of transferable energy. (e.g. energy transferred from a photon to an electron). regards rich
Thank you for your suggestion to learn LaTex formula. I shall make an attempt to do so. My current text is Microsoft Word. It appears adequate in a Word file however it does not post well on this website. regards Rich
