User talk:Aoosten

I'm a newby here. Can anyone tell me how one can add E (energy) and m (mass) in the definition of the Dirac Spinor: i.e. [phi; phi*sigma.p/(E+m)] ?

Thanks in advance. Worf.

You are probably referring to a normalisation factor. The normalised wave function will still be covariant under Lorentz transformation, meaning that it complies with special relativity. Check a good textbook on the free Dirac wave function.

Be bold!
Aoosten, be bold]!] When you find an error (as you did for [[Beta particle), go and correct it! It actually takes less time than writing in the talk page :-) Ciao, Sergio Ballestrero 15:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Bold
Occasionally I like to leave it to the author... Aoosten 22:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Electromagnetic mass contribution
For a homogeneous charge distribution of radius re=2.89*10-15 m the field energy equals the electron rest mass. If we shrink the radius to 10-57 m then the field energy would be ~1036 GeV.

This value is a sizeable fraction of the energy of the known universe and there is more than just this one electron to account for.

Similarly, the lower bound of 10-24 gives an electromagnetic mass contribution of 106 GeV. How does the theory deal with that?

Aoosten (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Epstein Page Vandalism
I hate the way he's behaved in the recent past with respect to Dr. Biden (and the way his editor responded to everyone's completely expected reaction by acting as though gaslighting and conspiracy theories are appropriate behavior from an editor for a major paper just because they're now expected behavior from a President, and his complete lack of understanding that there exists a significant difference between the honorary doctorates he spends so much time talking about in that article, and the fact that he's been writing terrible things for several decades and was not only rewarded with a lecturing gig at a University for years but continues to receive opportunities to publish them, and that he and similarly terrible people seem to be the only Americans born in the 1930s likely to survive this crisis) but defacing wikipedia is never the correct response to it. It's childish and completely inappropriate for a user who has been here as long as you have. Adding stuff to the Wikipedia page from any of the many, many sources responding to it that meets attribution standards also would not be entirely appropriate, but would have been basically above reproach. Reverting it yourself is really the best call you can make here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autotechnica (talk • contribs)