Mordred

So am I to assume your not interested in the physics method of determining the mass via experiment is valid? mass is resistance to inertia change by the physics definition of mass. The determinant factors on what causes mass is detectable by how those particles behave when they are scattered, defracted etc. Apply the laws of inertia that is the physics method. Mass doesn't depend on length period. Density yes but not length. Your barking up the wrong tree if you think otherwise. I concur latex would be far more legible and its not hard to learn, I would be more than happy to teach you the basics sufficient that you can latex 90 % the equations you will ever use. I have the same question on the c2 and e. Hogwash to this part, the Higgs boson applied experimental basis, so does the electron. There is plenty of experimental and repeatable tests for these two particles. Though the Higgs is off topic in this thread. Yes there is fewer test for the Higgs, but it was the tests that confirmed the mass. The Electron has plenty of tests examining its mass, every elementary particle does.... do a little research ( first be clear on what the term mass means under physics though...) then perhaps you will realize the mass term is affected by how strongly it couples to a field ie interacts with.) Compton wave is simply the wrong approach to understanding why particles have the invariant rest mass they do. Period.

lets deal with this question first, which is not determined by the Compton wavelength....it does not contribute to the mass term but can be used to measure the mass term. Ie Compton scattering of electron to photon for example.

Those terms are involved in the quarks/gluon and flavor family of SU(3). Yes there is extensive work of those eightfold way terms, which has similarities to the color interactions as well as flavor interactions of the strong and weak force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eightfold_Way_(physics)

Yes but until you know the electrons properties determine its Compton wavelength prior to knowing its mass. The Compton wavelength certainly matches the mass term I already stated that. @OP try looking directly at the experimental history used to determine the mass terms of the electron and proton. ie for electron the Millikan oil drop experiment may be a good place to start. Though quite frankly the Maxwell equations are useful... https://www.physics.utoronto.ca/~phy224_324/experiments/em-electrons/em-electron.pdf here is a useful article.

Try the method mentioned here on wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_rest_mass the Compton wavelength isn't the right methodology. In all cases the mass will be determined via experimentation with its relation to inertia ie mass is resistance to inertia change. Sure we can estimate the mass of some arbitrary particle but this depends on how we project the particle will behave in its interactions. This will only estimate a range of possible masses. Much like the Higgs boson for example we had a range of possible values but until we discovered the Higgs boson we couldn't determine with certainty its mass.

How would a waveform exist in the first place if you require decoherence for time to occur. This makes absolutely no sense, A waveform requires time just to allow change in the transverse and longitudinal components. If you have no waveform to decohere....

oh I seriously doubt your ready for all the applicable formulas that defines the baryon octet, nonet and meson nonet just yet. the formulas are very extensive

Both the field and particle spin has wavefunction characteristics this makes sense under particles being field excitations so the symmetries are related. for dipolar spin 1, 1/2 etc ie electromagnetic group SU(2) this group is represented by the Pauli matrixes. the quadrupole spin 2 group is the SU(3) group.(which will correlate to the SO(3.1 Poincare group. Under LQC however the SU(3) can be represented by the double cover [latex]SU(2)\otimes SU(2)/\mathbb{Z}[/latex] those are the key symmetry groups along with the U(1) gauge for the SM particles. gravitation affects the geometry of spacetime so your last question makes little sense Study how spin relates to spinors under Pauli. http://web.pa.msu.edu/people/mmoore/Lect33_Spin.pdf

No, the graviton or even the gravitational field has specifically spin 2 symmetry characteristics. This is confirmable via the detection of GW waves in so far as the transverse and longitudinal wave components behave as to the construct design of the LIGO detectors requires the those spin 2 symmetries to be accurate. I know getting more technical I would lose you lol but the wave components must be quadrupole which is represented as spin 2 under gauge symmetry. (requires the Gell-Mann matrixes for other readers) where as spin 1/2 defined under the Pauli matrixes.

The paper only represents one class of solutions under relativity in terms of a central potential system. Those that are readily applied under the Newton approximation under GR. The four momentum is far better suited. GR doesn't depend on a coordinate choice however can be applied under any coordinate change.

no. It is only one example of how time affects a rate of change. One doesn't need to examine decoherence to see other examples of time. As a rate of change of events.

indeed, I do not see any of the correct equations above to apply to determining a particles mass in the above. Perhaps you might start with the kinematics of a particle via the Schrodinger (non relativistic) or Klien Gordon (relativistic) wave equation and apply the correct definition of mass under kinematics. Mass is resistance to inertia change. Then recognize that the Compton wavelength is the wrong equation for this purpose but merely defines the point like characteristic of a particle on time ordered scatterings. Not its mass. It simply matches the mass term however it measures the response of mass to the local geometry is from wiki. "The Compton wavelength (λ) represents the quantum response of mass to local geometry" aka scattering for example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength For example the on shell mass term is defined via the Schrodinger equation as [latex]E^2=p^2[/latex]. PS the above requires upgrading to the Dirac wave equations to describe particles with spin. though quite frankly the Compton scattering defined by [latex]\Delta\lambda=\frac{h}{mc}(1-cos\theta)[/latex] should have provided that clue as [latex]\theta[/latex] the angle of incoming and outgoing trajectories.

Why would the time ordered events of a wave-function collapse define our perception of time ?

the river model would be pointless to describe any scalar field as a scalar field doesn't flow. ie it cannot describe the universe as a whole as the universe metric of LCDM is a homogeneous and isotropic field. (no net directional components). This also applies to the vacuum solutions of GR. The River model requires a gradient of a field to flow in either a convergent or divergent manner.

Despite my skills good or bad lol,,,,, I always enjoy reading any of your posts on the topic of relativity. Another excellent post. I particularly like to highlight relativity relies upon an invariant finite speed,c then anything massless is required to travel at this speed" I am often seen defending understanding terminology in physics. So for readers, under physics mass is resistance to inertia change the massless feature shows no resistance to inertia change ie no restrictions to reaching a maximal in information exchange. c being that maximal via any experimental observation being the limit. Light simply matches

Correct, the pulse rates vary between observers. aka gravitational redshift. This is precisely what I am talking about you receive the pulses at different rates due to time dilation. ie You can receive them at a different rate than the frequency they were sent..... time is the measure of rates of changing events aka pulses in this case. lol side note believe me if I had this wrong, there would be plenty of forum members questioning my response lol. Rightfully so if I make mistakes in a reply to any post.

fixed the latex lol ya got used to another forums command braces.

the deformation will definitely cause problems as your adding mechanical work to the system

Why would the Compton wavelength be special only for electrons and protons The Compton wavelength is involved with other particles as well.

along with what orbital component is involved in a strictly linear momentum system such as a spring ?

quite an assertion without once applying any modelling or mathematics which is also the same problem with properly understanding the river model. However further care must be taken as there is several versions of the River model with specific dynamics being examined for example this variation is specifically treating a system of particles as a vector field. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Oyvind_Gron2/publication/222095679_A_river_model_of_space/links/0a85e53bf2467ed98d000000.pdf?disableCoverPage=true it certainly does not describe another universe interacting with our own, so that is strictly your own speculation.

Considering Swansont calibrates atomic clocks for a living it might be an idea to listen to him lol

You still can't combine two conservation laws at the same time then expect correct results. You have torsion with angular components mixed with linear components with the springs. Not to mention adding hydrostatic components via pressure.... there is two laws involved in your scenario not just one. A closed system is isolated in either strictly linear or strictly angular momentum. take a careful note on what a conserved quantity entails. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conserved_quantity For example the conservation of mass energy is specifically translations along the time axis. However in your paper you are involving the x,y and z axis. Conservation of linear momentum is specifically translation only. conservation of linear momentum is rotation. You have mixed several laws in your scenario and not isolated each specifically in your analysis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law

conservation of energy applies to a closed and isolated system but you have mentioned an external device in 4. which isn't a closed system. Also your involving both conservation of linear and angular momentum from what I can translate in your document.

I don't see anything that jumps out at me as being incorrect, you could add that Hawking radiation will only occur when a BH blackbody temperature is colder than the BB of the CMB background. The evaporation itself being a thermodynamic process.