# Charge conservation (split from Magnetic Vector Potential)

## Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, studiot said:

Open mind?

to listen to  a man who talks about (in the 20 seconds before your timestamp)

magnets being better than electric because you don't destroy the charge when you extract energy

One of the most basic laws of the universe is that charge can be neither created nor destroyed.

Conservation of charge is even more fundamental than conservation of energy since it is unaffected by relativity, which conservation of energy is not.

Then he goes on to claim that he get five times the energy out from his magnet than what he puts in, although he also claims he puts zero energy in so I suppose that is technically correct since 5 times nothing is still nothing.

The he goes on to conjour upt the spirit world by separating the magnetic field form the magnetic vector potential.

Talking of spirits

Can I offer you a glass of  alcohol free alcoholic drink?

Oh and by the way

To quote Martin Gardner, a well known journalist and mathematician

reference

Studiot.

where are gone two electric charge of "electron" and "positron" when they are annihilated. Are they really annihilated? And by the way ---- even their mass.

##### Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, dhimokritis said:

Studiot.

where are gone two electric charge of "electron" and "positron" when they are annihilated. Are they really annihilated? And by the way ---- even their mass.

What does the conservation Law state?

In an isolated system charge is conserved.

So in your isolation box you have one elctron and one proton, net system charge zero.

Apply your favourite annihilation method (which is?   )

Result net system charge zero.

+1 for the Conservation Laws.

##### Share on other sites
On 9/15/2018 at 10:48 AM, studiot said:

What does the conservation Law state?

In an isolated system charge is conserved.

So in your isolation box you have one elctron and one proton, net system charge zero.

Apply your favourite annihilation method (which is?   )

Result net system charge zero.

+1 for the Conservation Laws.

Studiot

Your answer about my question is somewhat in right sense. But IT ISN’T fully satisfactory in my opinion:

You bring as an answer the lack of evidence of charges in atom, via “Conservation law”, when we are sure for existence of them.

It is interesting using some “rubber stamps”, instead of clarifying openly the essence.

So the question: “conservation law” ----- what this mean?

In this case needed clarity:  exists electric charges in product of annihilations or not. I mean in Photons?

This was my question.

If “conservation law of charges” applied even in this case, I say yes -- they exist.

We know that in atoms they exist, but shadow each other. Their existence is in a certain “specific volume of space”, moving in spherical trajectories so they create spherical bodies that we call atoms. They are anchored in spherical bodies by ”Mass charge” with which they “coexist” in sub particles of matter.

In the case of photons we have electric charges positive, shadowed by the same number of electric charge negative, (via Conservation law of charge--- right or no?). I say – yes.

But in photons we have not an evidence for some mass charge.

If in photons were not something that balance the attraction of “+e” with “-e” the multitude of frequencies would be impossible.

And here became imperative existence of “ Conservation of Mass charges” even though in photons.

Absence of any mass in photon must be explained in the same phenomena of shadowing of the contrary charges as in electron charges. That is in existence of anti Mass charge.

##### Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

If in photons were not something that balance the attraction of “+e” with “-e” the multitude of frequencies would be impossible.

The electromagnetic propagating in the vacuum includes the electric field wave, the magnetic field wave and other waves. Have you ever tried to formulate, in detail, the wave of the electric displacement? You can ask: electric displacement in a vacuum? Yes, it is formulable, it is coherent and the consequences are as broad as they are interesting. The wave does not carry charge. But the analysis shows that the phenomenon is virtually equivalent to a charge density wave traveling in the direction of propagation. The elementary charge of the vacuum polarization does not have the same value as the charge of the electron. It's about 3.3 times bigger. You can virtually formulate everything as if each half cycle of the photon contained an elementary charge of the corresponding sign and the mentioned value.

To see a bit more, you can go to this thread:

Edited by quiet

##### Share on other sites
14 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

We know that in atoms they exist, but shadow each other. Their existence is in a certain “specific volume of space”, moving in spherical trajectories so they create spherical bodies that we call atoms. They are anchored in spherical bodies by ”Mass charge” with which they “coexist” in sub particles of matter.

Charges do not have trajectories in atoms.

14 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

In the case of photons we have electric charges positive, shadowed by the same number of electric charge negative, (via Conservation law of charge--- right or no?). I say – yes.

Photons have no charge. There is no evidence that they have both positive and negative charge.

14 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

But in photons we have not an evidence for some mass charge.

If in photons were not something that balance the attraction of “+e” with “-e” the multitude of frequencies would be impossible.

Asserted without evidence.

14 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

And here became imperative existence of “ Conservation of Mass charges” even though in photons.

Absence of any mass in photon must be explained in the same phenomena of shadowing of the contrary charges as in electron charges. That is in existence of anti Mass charge.

Asserted without evidence.

##### Share on other sites
On 9/18/2018 at 5:13 PM, quiet said:

It's about 3.3 times bigger. You can virtually formulate everything as if each half cycle of the photon contained an elementary charge of the corresponding sign and the mentioned value.

My question to Studiot was about the meaning of “conservation of ….things”.

If there is a conservation, this must be in a specific volume.

And there must be a precise amount.

After your post in photons the charge equivalent of waves is 3,3 time bigger than electric charge. And is “virtually” that it is nowhere.

This is not “conservation”

I think that here comes the necessity to explain for not professionals: exact the concept of charge. For this was my post.

In my hypothesis a charge is embedded in “some – thing” that I call “sub-particle of matter”.

The sub particles of mater may create different common particles of matter with mass. They posses gravity. They create spherical structure.

Are centered in bodies.

Have not any evident charge via conservation of equal numbers of +e, -e . That is “hidden charges”. But their existence gave some perceived phenomena.

The sub particles of matter may create different common particles of energy, which are called photons.

They don’t posses perceived gravity.

They don’t present a perceived center of charge.

They move in radial, linear movement. They create helicoidally structure in their trip.

The evidence of existence of electric charges is display of their transitive electric and magnetic fields ( Which are the main properties of electric charges) in the physic part of space where they pass-by.

As for their gravity properties, my hypothesis is the same.

##### Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, dhimokritis said:

My question to Studiot was about the meaning of “conservation of ….things”.

If there is a conservation, this must be in a specific volume.

And there must be a precise amount.

Yes indeed but I did not quite understand your question, perhaps you could try again more simply?

On 18/09/2018 at 8:09 PM, dhimokritis said:

In the case of photons we have electric charges positive, shadowed by the same number of electric charge negative, (via Conservation law of charge--- right or no?). I say – yes.

But in photons we have not an evidence for some mass charge.

This seems (in English) self contradictory.

The first line seems to assert that photons have charge.

The second seems to deny this.

The point I am making is simply that wherever you draw the boundary round the 'specific volume' because I also said it is isolated, total or net charge is conserved within that volume.

It does not prevent the charges within that volume being either free or bound to each other. So whether the charge is within an atom or not is irrelevant.

Oh and there is no charge (=zero) associated with a photon (as swansont has already confirmed).

Edited by studiot

##### Share on other sites
On 9/19/2018 at 4:50 AM, swansont said:

Charges do not have trajectories in atoms.

So electrons in particles, where are embedded charges, are fix in an atom? That seems strange..

On 9/19/2018 at 4:50 AM, swansont said:

Photons have no charge. There is no evidence that they have both positive and negative charge.

Isn't electric fields and magnetic fields the property exclusive for charges?

On 9/19/2018 at 4:50 AM, swansont said:
On 9/18/2018 at 5:13 PM, quiet said:

The electromagnetic propagating in the vacuum includes the electric field wave, the magnetic field wave and other waves. Have you ever tried to formulate, in detail, the wave of the electric displacement? You can ask: electric displacement in a vacuum? Yes, it is formulable, it is coherent and the consequences are as broad as they are interesting. The wave does not carry charge. But the analysis shows that the phenomenon is virtually equivalent to a charge density wave traveling in the direction of propagation. The elementary charge of the vacuum polarization does not have the same value as the charge of the electron. It's about 3.3 times bigger. You can virtually formulate everything as if each half cycle of the photon contained an elementary charge of the corresponding sign and the mentioned value.

To see a bit more, you can go to this thread:

.

##### Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, dhimokritis said:

So electrons in particles, where are embedded charges, are fix in an atom? That seems strange..

No, they are not fixed. I said they do not have trajectories. There is a probability distribution where you might detect them, but they do not follow classical trajectories. They could be anywhere.

51 minutes ago, dhimokritis said:

Isn't electric fields and magnetic fields the property exclusive for charges?

That phrasing is not accurate, with respect to what was being discussed. Charges will be involved, in some way, in the creation of a photon (more specifically, the electromagnetic interaction will be present), but photons themselves are uncharged.

———

You can have an electric field in a volume of space where there are no charges (or magnetic fields without currents). What you can know is that if there is no charge present, the divergence of any static electric field will be zero.

Also, that varying electric and magnetic fields can propagate, without any charge being present.

All of this is described by Maxwell's equations.

##### Share on other sites
On 15.09.2018 at 5:20 PM, dhimokritis said:

where are gone two electric charge of "electron" and "positron" when they are annihilated. Are they really annihilated? And by the way ---- even their mass.

$e^- + e^+ \rightarrow \gamma + \gamma + 1.022 MeV$

Prior annihilation we have charge Q=-1e + 1e = 0e

After annihilation we have charge Q=0e + 0e = 0e

Prior annihilation we have rest-mass 2*me

(and energy E=2mec2= 2 * 0.511 MeV = 1.022 MeV)

After annihilation we have energy E = 2 * 0.511 MeV = 1.022 MeV) in two gamma photons (after a while they're absorbed and/or scattered by matter, and changes to less energetic photons in much larger quantity).

Edited by Sensei

##### Share on other sites

Well put Sensei. +1

##### Share on other sites
23 hours ago, studiot said:

This seems (in English) self contradictory.

The first line seems to assert that photons have charge.

The second seems to deny this.

I don’t see (even in my scarce English) any contradiction. The electric charges and mass charges are different things (Notions). And “having not any evidence” doesn’t mean that for sure don’t exist in shadowed form

23 hours ago, studiot said:

The point I am making is simply that wherever you draw the boundary round the 'specific volume' because I also said it is isolated, total or net charge is conserved within that volume.

It does not prevent the charges within that volume being either free or bound to each other. So whether the charge is within an atom or not is irrelevant.

Oh and there is no charge (=zero) associated with a photon (as swansont has already confirmed).

May I am wrong but the next part of your answer that --- “electric charges is within an atom or not ---- is irrelevant “ that astonish me

22 hours ago, swansont said:

No, they are not fixed. I said they do not have trajectories. There is a probability distribution where you might detect them, but they do not follow classical trajectories. They could be anywhere.

There is a “probability distribution”, of what that I can detect? This “probability of distribution”------ can’t it be the “existence of something that cycling with 10^20 Hz”, in a tiny surface of a tiny volume is “everywhere

##### Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dhimokritis said:

I don’t see (even in my scarce English) any contradiction. The electric charges and mass charges are different things (Notions). And “having not any evidence” doesn’t mean that for sure don’t exist in shadowed form

Well maybe this is a language difficulty.
You have consistently said 'mass charge.'

How is that different from an electric charge?

Are you using the term to mean 'quantity of mass' whether or not that mass is electrically charged?

If so why not just say mass?

That would account for a great deal of your difficulty getting your point across.

10 minutes ago, dhimokritis said:

May I am wrong but the next part of your answer that --- “electric charges is within an atom or not ---- is irrelevant “ that astonish me

Perhaps you don't understand what is meant by an isolated system?

This is one which has a defined boundary and no matter or energy crosses that boundary.

Does this help?

Edited by studiot

##### Share on other sites

Swanson say:

That phrasing is not accurate, with respect to what was being discussed. Charges will be involved, in some way, in the creation of a photon (more specifically, the electromagnetic interaction will be present), but photons themselves are uncharged.

I think that it has to do with what is being discussed. Because is exact the “disappearance of charges “ that has to do with conservation of charge, and the “appearance” of them in so called annihilation and absorption of them which is “in some way”.

On 9/20/2018 at 1:14 PM, studiot said:

Yes indeed but I did not quite understand your question, perhaps you could try again more simply?

This seems (in English) self contradictory.

The first line seems to assert that photons have charge.

The second seems to deny this.

The point I am making is simply that wherever you draw the boundary round the 'specific volume' because I also said it is isolated, total or net charge is conserved within that volume.

It does not prevent the charges within that volume being either free or bound to each other. So whether the charge is within an atom or not is irrelevant.

Oh and there is no charge (=zero) associated with a photon (as swansont has already confirmed).

3 hours ago, Sensei said:

[Math Processing Error]

Prior annihilation we have charge Q=-1e + 1e = 0e

After annihilation we have charge Q=0e + 0e = 0e

Prior annihilation we have rest-mass 2*me

(and energy E=2mec2= 2 * 0.511 MeV = 1.022 MeV)

After annihilation we have energy E = 2 * 0.511 MeV = 1.022 MeV) in two gamma photons (after a while they're absorbed and/or scattered by matter, and changes to less energetic photons in much larger quantity).

“” Before going to identify mass energy with electric energy I think we need to make some reflection. What differs their identity?

I think:

In general --- what - ever kind of the energy, it is the result of movement of matter. We have in consideration in this post two kind of energy: Electric and mass. We identify them in their amount. For example:

Electric energy of electron particle is: Ee = (e^2) / (4*ε* Rc)

Mass energy of electron particle is : Eme = me * c^2 = (G*M^2 ) / Rc

M= Mpl.*scrt(alpha).

Ee  = Eme

They are as amount the same, in the same particle. But they differs when display one or other kind of energy.”

##### Share on other sites

Charge is not energy.

A single isolated electric charge has no 'electric'  energy, or indeterminate electric energy.

You seem unwilling to discuss the term isolated.
Why is this?

1 hour ago, dhimokritis said:

In general --- what - ever kind of the energy, it is the result of movement of matter

Or the non movement.

Have you heard of potential energy?

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dhimokritis said:

There is a “probability distribution”, of what that I can detect?

Probability of finding an electron at a particular location.

Quote

This “probability of distribution”------ can’t it be the “existence of something that cycling with 10^20 Hz”, in a tiny surface of a tiny volume is “everywhere

Well, no. Because this is physics, and we can apply physics that we know and predict how such a system would behave. An electron cycling at 10^20 Hz would emit radiation (mainly at 10^20 Hz). How do we know this? Because we can do experiments with free electrons and see that such behavior occurs. So there is no working model that allows this. It's not a viable explanation of what is happening.

##### Share on other sites
22 hours ago, studiot said:

Charge is not energy.

A single isolated electric charge has no 'electric'  energy, or indeterminate electric energy.

You seem unwilling to discuss the term isolated.
Why is this?

Or the non movement.

Have you heard of potential energy?

Where said I that charge is energy?

An isolated charge, in a Euclidian space is without any meaning.

An isolated charge, in a Physic space (Which is in the fact space that differs from sterile space of Euclidis) is (after my hypothesis) the ability of “sub particle of mater” to posses an electric field extended around itself in that space. How farther go this extension, let discus some – time, again.

e / (4*pi*ε0* X ) = U1 * (1 / X) = (1.4399643*10*-9 V. *1m. / Xm. Here X = (Equipotential radius X--- in meters.)

And “electric energy” of “electron particle” (Ee):

Ee = e * (e / (4*pi*ε0* Rc ) = e * ((1.4399643*10^-9) * 1 / (Rce)

Here Rce is Radius of electron particle after Compton wavelength.

I doubt that my poor English, may create confusion. When I say “ electric charge I doesn’t have in mind electron particle. Electron particle (in my hypothesis) posses an electric charge evident and two electric charges like photon in shadow state

“”” Potential energy, is a “possibility for an energy of movement of mater”, after the freeing the matter sub particles, anchored in what - ever anchor.””

22 hours ago, swansont said:

Probability of finding an electron at a particular location.

Well, no. Because this is physics, and we can apply physics that we know and predict how such a system would behave. An electron cycling at 10^20 Hz would emit radiation (mainly at 10^20 Hz). How do we know this? Because we can do experiments with free electrons and see that such behavior occurs. So there is no working model that allows this. It's not a viable explanation of what is happening.

Probability of finding an electron at a particular location.

I doubt that you misunderstood my idea. An electron posses an electric charge (which is evident), and two electric charge in shadow state (equal one photon in cyclic movement), anchored in the evident charge.

An electron particle is not only charge, it posses mass. And I made hypotheses that “ mass of common particles like electron particle” is result of “mass charges M” which is the ability of sub particles of matter to attract or repeal via gravity law. The mass charge doesn’t mean mass.  It is ability to create common mass in particles, moving in cyclic circles. And in precise radius Rx, like electron charge.

So “electron particle” move differently from sub particles of matter that structure it , electron particle move as an integrity.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dhimokritis said:

I doubt that you misunderstood my idea. An electron posses an electric charge (which is evident), and two electric charge in shadow state (equal one photon in cyclic movement), anchored in the evident charge.

Your idea did not come with any evidence, nor is there any kind of model.

1 hour ago, dhimokritis said:

An electron particle is not only charge, it posses mass. And I made hypotheses that “ mass of common particles like electron particle” is result of “mass charges M” which is the ability of sub particles of matter to attract or repeal via gravity law. The mass charge doesn’t mean mass.  It is ability to create common mass in particles, moving in cyclic circles. And in precise radius Rx, like electron charge.

This is a new idea, for which you have not presented a model. Also, electrons are point particles; there is no evidence that they have any structure, of any sort, much less moving in precise circles.

1 hour ago, dhimokritis said:

So “electron particle” move differently from sub particles of matter that structure it , electron particle move as an integrity.

You have not provided any evidence of structure.

##### Share on other sites

The absence of any evidence.

The absence of any model.

Well. The debut of non professionals in speculation forum can’t bring evidence.

They have not knowledge in many aspect of physic, they have scarce mathematical baggage. When they see from exposition of science issues, that scientist time after time gave for folk, they feel admiration. Mostly.

This not exclude doubt for “statements” that smells as “doubt inventions of scientists” and “not reasonable discoveries”.

Here they dare to find “flaws” in the “ doubt theories ”. Especially in those theories that seems openly set up for only philosophic agenda.

The only evidences that “non professionals like me” can give in some case, are “question that show disbelief”. And the lack of answers, or a set up one, is in itself an evidence, that here is something that smell flaw.

About my model of “sub-particles of matter” .

It is a naïve model, that tried to find answers for some questions that moderators of forum don’t give a satisfactory answer. Or that answers are blatantly counter intuitive.

The model of “sub particles of matter” as the “things” that structure all kind of particles, mass and mass less, is a feeble effort to link relation of mass particles with those mass less.

I have exposed my parts of model in all my posts, with aim that together the mosaic of them can stand and support each other. In this long trip I have changed some ideas.

Most of my posts are closed.

This post that I asked a question for Studiot, about “ Conservation of charges” , is triggered by absence of an satisfactory answer, about absence of charges and mass in product of annihilation.

And the absence of answer too, by you, about blatant statement of “ point electron particle” .

##### Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dhimokritis said:

The debut of non professionals in speculation forum can’t bring evidence.

Why not? There is a large amount of experimental and observational evidence out there you could use.

Also, if you have no evidence, then you have no basis for whatever claims you are making, and therefore shouldn't;t be making them.

14 minutes ago, dhimokritis said:

They have not knowledge in many aspect of physic

Then why try and make claims about a subject you don't understand. Spend your time studying instead of making stuff up. I know it is harder, but it is more rational.

15 minutes ago, dhimokritis said:

Here they dare to find “flaws” in the “ doubt theories ”

How can you find flaws in something that you admit you don't understand?

If you think you have seen a flaw, shouldn't your first question be: "Is this something I don't understand?" Isn't that more likely than the idea that millions of people (who do understand it) have not spotted the flaw?

19 minutes ago, dhimokritis said:

It is a naïve model, that tried to find answers for some questions that moderators of forum don’t give a satisfactory answer.

Why do you expect the moderators of a forum to give you answers?

Wy don't you go and study the subject?

And there are plenty of real scientists looking at models for sub-particles. Why don't you go and look at their work, which will be based on real physics. Surely that would be better than making things up about a subject you don't understand? How can that possible be useful?

22 minutes ago, dhimokritis said:

This post that I asked a question for Studiot, about “ Conservation of charges” , is triggered by absence of an satisfactory answer, about absence of charges and mass in product of annihilation.

As far as I can see, you have been given perfectly satisfactory answers. Either you don't understand them or you just reject them because you don't like them. Neither of these is an acceptable reason.

So don't try and blame others for your wilful ignorance, refusal to learn and intransigence.

##### Share on other sites
22 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

This post that I asked a question for Studiot, about “ Conservation of charges” , is triggered by absence of an satisfactory answer, about absence of charges and mass in product of annihilation.

Well I'm sorry you don't consider my answers 'satisfactory'

I am pretty sure this is due to a language difficulty.

I am guessing here, but can you tell us why

Pretty well every time someone offers you an explanation you come back with new expressions that are not scientific English.

I try to keep the English simple to avoid this but

Mass charge ?

To me this is the weight of gunpowder you put in a cannon or musket.

On 22/09/2018 at 6:45 PM, dhimokritis said:

Electron particle (in my hypothesis) posses an electric charge evident and two electric charges like photon in shadow state

Surely a photon is a quantum particle of light.

Even in normal ordinary English a shadow is the absence of light.

And what does the statement that an electron possess an electric charge and two electric charges mean?

To me that adds up to three charges.

Can you not get some help with your English ?

This would be much less painful.

##### Share on other sites
23 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

And the absence of answer too, by you, about blatant statement of “ point electron particle” .

There are a number of scattering experiments which are consistent with the electron having no size — its charge is not distributed over a sphere. The only limitation is the experiment itself

##### Share on other sites

Strange:

Don’t play the role of an attorney for moderators of forum that have shown kindness to answer on questions of folk participants like me in this speculation forum.

I am grateful for the moderators that have had a conversation in my posts, even though when I have not been satisfied. The conservation in the forum is on free good well of every body. I have not any power to impose any body to answer me, or to have any right to blame some-body that his answer was not satisfactory “for me”.

About the evidence, I means that I have not any “own personal evidences”. But the known evidences by scientist, I have used in my post, with out waiting for your suggestion. So if you have good well, please answer me about those evidences, without “sophism or rubber stamp statements”:

1 - Electron and positron particles have electric charges. Photons that are by - product of their collision have not. Don’t you see a breach in the law of “Conservation of charges”?

2 – Electron is a point particle. If so it has zero volume. How much is “specific mass” of electron particle?

I think - “answers in my post have been not satisfactory”. If you think they are, you are free to think whatever you want.

You say: don’t make claims. Why not? If my claims of Hypothetical “sub particles “ give a satisfactory answer for both questions? Are they speculative? I admit they are.

##### Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dhimokritis said:

Don’t play the role of an attorney for moderators of forum that have shown kindness to answer on questions of folk participants like me in this speculation forum.

I’m not doing any such thing. I’m just giving you my opinion on your posturing.

And I don’t know why you keep going on about “moderators” answering you. Swansont is answering you as a physicist and member of the forum, not as a moderator.

##### Share on other sites
•
• Senior Members
• 1423
• 9214 posts
• Location: Somerset, England
On 9/23/2018 at 11:23 AM, dhimokritis said:

This post that I asked a question for Studiot, about “ Conservation of charges” , is triggered by absence of an satisfactory answer, about absence of charges and mass in product of annihilation.

Well I'm sorry you don't consider my answers 'satisfactory'

I am pretty sure this is due to a language difficulty.

I am guessing here, but can you tell us why

Pretty well every time someone offers you an explanation you come back with new expressions that are not scientific English.

I try to keep the English simple to avoid this but

Mass charge ?

To me this is the weight of gunpowder you put in a cannon or musket.

On 9/22/2018 at 12:45 PM, dhimokritis said:

Electron particle (in my hypothesis) posses an electric charge evident and two electric charges like photon in shadow state

Surely a photon is a quantum particle of light.

Even in normal ordinary English a shadow is the absence of light.

And what does the statement that an electron possess an electric charge and two electric charges mean?

To me that adds up to three charges.

Can you not get some help with your English ?

This would be much less painful.

•

Studiot

Thanks for the replay, your gentile soled with mild irony. And you have not why be sorry.

Any way:

About my ill used English of word "shadowed". Let say for kind of joke: the light is white, the absence is black, together they gave gray.

Have you explained why the atom is neutral? No. The gray neutrality of atom "i think" is its magnetic moment, which is the " gray shadow" of electric charges out side atom, of their interaction inside of atom". Let you see it as a non happy figure by me.

I repeat the formula of mass energy of electron particle :

Ee = me * c^2 = G * M^2 / Rc = ((Rpl * c^2 / Mpl) * (Mpl^2 / Rc),      Rc Compton radius

I have suggested that Mpl * skrt alpha "must be the charge of sub particles" that create Common mass of particles ( electron, proton, neutron).

This my hypothesis. It is your will to throw out of your consideration.