B Are Electrons the Building Blocks of Our Universe?

[Rev. Cheeseman]

TL;DR Summary

Are electrons everywhere or just in a single place?

I am wondering what the public or mainstream scientists think of the statement that electrons being everywhere nowadays. If electrons are everywhere, can we assume space or void is just the totality of electrons?

 

[berkeman]

Summary:: Are electrons everywhere or just in a single place?

I am wondering what the public or mainstream scientists think of the statement that electrons being everywhere nowadays. If electrons are everywhere, can we assume space or void is just the totality of electrons?

Seriously? Can you please post some links to reputable references about your question? Lordy.

 

[Rev. Cheeseman]

Seriously? Can you please post some links to reputable references about your question? Lordy.

It is all over the Internet, from your average Q&A to many pop-sci sources.

So, electrons are not everywhere then?

 

[Rev. Cheeseman]

Even many old threads in this website talked about electrons being everywhere. So, what are the current consensus about electrons?

 

[phinds]

It is all over the Internet

How did you mange to get 140 posts here of PF without realizing that that is about the worse possible "citation" ?

 

[Rev. Cheeseman]

How did you mange to get 140 posts here of PF without realizing that that is about the worse possible "citation" ?

Is this count? https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-an-electron-everywhere-at-once.11554/

So, why don't just get straight to the point and say electrons are not everywhere?

 

[Rev. Cheeseman]

What are the current consensus regarding whether electrons are everywhere or not?

 

[Dale]

The fact that some electron’s wave functions, in principle, extend everywhere means that those electrons could be found anywhere. That is a different claim from the claim that they are everywhere. There is no counterfactual definiteness in quantum mechanics. So until you measure it you cannot say where it is, only where it is likely or unlikely to be found if you do measure it.

 

[Rev. Cheeseman]

The fact that some electron’s wave functions, in principle, extend everywhere means that those electrons could be found anywhere. That is a different claim from the claim that they are everywhere. There is no counterfactual definiteness in quantum mechanics. So until you measure it you cannot say where it is, only where it is likely or unlikely to be found if you do measure it.

How do we measure electrons and what are the examples of places where electrons are unlikely?

 

[Dale]

How do we measure electrons and what are the examples of places where electrons are unlikely?

E.g. with a phosphorescent screen and anywhere that the wavefunction has a low amplitude.

 

[Rev. Cheeseman]

E.g. with a phosphorescent screen and anywhere that the wavefunction has a low amplitude.

For example, electrons in a wire has low amplitude outside the wire?

 

[Hornbein]

For example, electrons in a wire has low amplitude outside the wire?

Yes. There are far fewer electrons in air than there are in matter, and far fewer in empty space than in air. It never gets to zero, but you can get close enough for practical purposes.

 

[Rev. Cheeseman]

Yes. There are far fewer electrons in air than there are in matter, and far fewer in empty space than in air. It never gets to zero, but you can get close enough for practical purposes.

While there are fewer electrons in empty space, each individual electrons extend to infinity. Is that correct?

 

[Hornbein]

While there are fewer electrons in empty space, each individual electrons extend to infinity. Is that correct?

I'm no expert but I believe that's correct. For electrons the probability of it "tunneling" a huge distance from what you expect is miniscule but it never goes to zero.

 

[PeroK]

I'm no expert but I believe that's correct. For electrons the probability of it "tunneling" a huge distance from what you expect is miniscule but it never goes to zero.

There was an example of this from a physics lab in Chicago. They were doing an experiment with a single electron and it disappeared - into thin air, as it were. So, they emailed round all the other physics labs in the US and it turned up in a lab in Seattle. The Seattle team shipped it back to Chicago so the team there could continue their experiment with it. Amazing!

 

[Rev. Cheeseman]

There was an example of this from a physics lab in Chicago. They were doing an experiment with a single electron and it disappeared - into thin air, as it were. So, they emailed round all the other physics labs in the US and it turned up in a lab in Seattle. The Seattle team shipped it back to Chicago so the team there could continue their experiment with it. Amazing!

Not sure what's funny I believe only lab nerds laugh at your statement for example phinds??

So, electrons are not everywhere then?

 

[Rev. Cheeseman]

Not sure if @weirdoguy have the answer because he is weird?

 

[PeroK]

So, electrons are not everywhere then?

There may not be many in a neutron star:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ph...-and-electrons-in-a-neutron-star-intermediate

 

[f95toli]

Can I ask why you are specially asking about electronics?
If you are thinking about the fact that wavefunctions -in principle- extend to infinity that applies to everything; there is nothing special about electrons.

 

[Rev. Cheeseman]

There may not be many in a neutron star:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ph...-and-electrons-in-a-neutron-star-intermediate

Instead electrons and protons become neutrons, according to your link.

 

[Rev. Cheeseman]

Can I ask why you are specially asking about electronics?
If you are thinking about the fact that wavefunctions -in principle- extend to infinity that applies to everything; there is nothing special about electrons.

I'm asking about electrons, not electronics. Sorry. I asked because of the abundance of "electrons are everywhere" statements all over the Internet and that leads me think whether this opinion still holds.

So, an individual electron doesn't extend infinitely and they can be found anywhere but not everywhere?

 

[PeroK]

In QFT the electron field, like all fields, is defined across all of spacetime. That said, the theory doesn't extend to include gravity. The extent to which the QFT extends across the cosmos is debatable.

 

[f95toli]

Sorry, my spellchecked autocorrected to "electronics" for some reason.

Again, we don't know what statements you've seen.
But no, electrons are not "everywhere" anymore than anything else. There is nothing "special" about electrons in this context. You could make the same statement about say muons (which are similar to electrons) or even cats if you consider the wavefunction of composite objects)

 

[sophiecentaur]

So, electrons are not everywhere then?

If you were to re-state that question in a form that actually makes sense then you might get some sensible answers. You are really not in a position to insist that PF answers your questions in your terms. Apart from "all over the Internet", where have you looked that might indicate your question actually means anything?

 

[Rev. Cheeseman]

The extent to which the QFT extends across the cosmos is debatable.

Ok, so we are not sure whether electrons extends across the cosmos but according to Quantum Physics, electrons are assumed to be infinite in extend but not sure in the context of classical physics.

But no, electrons are not "everywhere" anymore than anything else. There is nothing "special" about electrons in this context.

So, in classical physics electrons are not everywhere. How about in quantum physics?

 

[Rev. Cheeseman]

If you were to re-state that question in a form that actually makes sense then you might get some sensible answers. You are really not in a position to insist that PF answers your questions in your terms. Apart from "all over the Internet", where have you looked that might indicate your question actually means anything?

Is this counted? https://www.quora.com/Are-electrons-everywhere-at-once

 

[Lord Jestocost]

How about in quantum physics?

The probabilities which one calculates on basis of the quantum mechanical formalism are not the probabilities of where electrons are. It are the objective probabilities of where an observer will find them.

 

[PeroK]

Is this counted? https://www.quora.com/Are-electrons-everywhere-at-once

Quora is not reliable, although the first few answers there look quite sound.

 

[Hornbein]

There may not be many in a neutron star:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ph...-and-electrons-in-a-neutron-star-intermediate

You mean the core of a neutron star. Such cores are believed to contain a few percent of protons and electrons. Since the cores are extremely dense the density of electrons is very high. There is also the unique property that the protons form a superconductor.

The crust of the neutron star is extremely dense with electrons, so much so that it conducts heat slowly. This combined with low surface area means neutron stars hold their heat for a long time.

 

[PeroK]

You mean the core of a neutron star. Such cores are believed to contain a few percent of protons and electrons. Since the cores are extremely dense the density of electrons is very high. There is also the unique property that the protons form a superconductor.

The crust of the neutron star is extremely dense with electrons, so much so that it conducts heat slowly. This combined with low surface area means neutron stars hold their heat for a long time.

Electrons are everywhere it seems!

 

[sophiecentaur]

If you were to re-state that question in a form that actually makes sense then you might get some sensible answers.

I meant that statement in all seriousness. You haven't explained what you actually mean by it. You have just been restating it but more emphatically. You could mean it in the same way as 'are cats everywhere in the Universe' or you could mean 'how localised is an electron in space' or something else.

 

[Dale]

While there are fewer electrons in empty space, each individual electrons extend to infinity. Is that correct?

No. An individual electron whose wavefunction goes to infinity has a chance of being anywhere. That is not the same as extending to infinity.

Ok, so we are not sure whether electrons extends across the cosmos but according to Quantum Physics, electrons are assumed to be infinite in extend

Again, you are saying things in English that are not implied by the math. Mathematically, for some electrons, their wavefunction is nonzero at any finite distance, sometimes described as going to infinity. The wavefunction (in the position basis) gives the probability density of the electron being found at a particular location if its position is measured. It does not imply anything about the electrons extent, and if the position is not measured then it does not even imply anything affirmative about its position other than the aforementioned probability

 

[PeroK]

No. An individual electron whose wavefunction goes to infinity has a chance of being anywhere. That is not the same as extending to infinity.

There's an analogy here with Newtonian gravity. The Sun's gravitational field extends to infinity in all directions. Except that is not compatible with relativistic cosmology. The same must be true of the electron in a hydrogen atom. That you could theoretically find the electron outside the observable universe is a sign that you cannot take the humble non-relativistic model of the hydrogen atom too literally when it comes to extending to infinity.

 

[Dale]

There's an analogy here with Newtonian gravity. The Sun's gravitational field extends to infinity in all directions. Except that is not compatible with relativistic cosmology. The same must be true of the electron in a hydrogen atom. That you could theoretically find the electron outside the observable universe is a sign that you cannot take the humble non-relativistic model of the hydrogen atom too literally when it comes to extending to infinity.

Yes, that is a valid point. And I am also pointing out that even if you do take it literally it does not imply what they have been saying.

 

[pinball1970]

There's an analogy here with Newtonian gravity. The Sun's gravitational field extends to infinity in all directions. Except that is not compatible with relativistic cosmology. The same must be true of the electron in a hydrogen atom. That you could theoretically find the electron outside the observable universe is a sign that you cannot take the humble non-relativistic model of the hydrogen atom too literally when it comes to extending to infinity.

As a lay man I think I know what his confusion is with EDIT @wonderingchicken . We have both read the same pop stuff.
The wave function extends forever so could be anywhere but low probability in the troughs/high in the peaks.
Second an electron (or photon ) emitted from a source then picked up at the detector could have taken any path. All at once even? Like I said it was a pop Science thing so a tad muddy.
There was a long discussion on what 'taken a path' actually means between the quantum/physics guys here on pf so non technical guys don't have much chance.

 

[Rev. Cheeseman]

Seems like we cannot combine the classical physics (i.e relativistic cosmology) with quantum physics into a new single hypothesis as the former assumed electrons to be collections of discrete particles while the latter assumed electrons to be more of "wavy" things. I can understand why the quantum guys assumed electrons wavefunctions extend forever.

Therefore, if we assumed the universe to be finite then everything inside it will be finite while if we assumed the universe to be infinite then the extension of gravity and others such as electrons are infinite.

 

[Dale]

If you want to discuss about the challenges in creating a quantum theory of gravity then you should open a new thread in the beyond the standard model forum. Personally, I have no idea if the issue you mention is actually a problem or not.

 

[Rev. Cheeseman]

Personally, I have no idea if the issue you mention is actually a problem or not.

Which one? The statement "electrons are everywhere"?

 

[sophiecentaur]

Which one? The statement "electrons are everywhere"?

I thought we already decided that one was nonsensical.

Seems like we cannot combine the classical physics (i.e relativistic cosmology) with quantum physics

I thought "classical Physics" was older than that.
Look up "Theory of Everything" for some interesting reading - but beware of nonsense posts in there.

It seems that you still want to carry on this thread on your own terms but things are just not as simple as you would like them to be.

 

[Dale]

Which one? The statement "electrons are everywhere"?

No, I already responded thoroughly to that statement, which as a stated multiple times does not accurately reflect what the math says.

I was referring to your new statement “we cannot combine the classical physics (i.e relativistic cosmology) with quantum physics into a new single hypothesis as the former assumed electrons to be collections of discrete particles while the latter assumed electrons to be more of "wavy" things”. I don’t know if that new statement accurately represents any of the reasons that a quantum theory of gravity is challenging (I doubt it). You should ask about that in the appropriate forum.

 

[DrClaude]

This is close place to end this discussion. Thanks to all that have participated.

Thread closed.