B Are Electrons the Building Blocks of Our Universe?

[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.