Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Compressing Electrons

  1. Apr 12, 2006 #1


    User Avatar

    Does anyone know if it is possible to compress an electron. If it is, what would happen.
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 12, 2006 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    It is not.

  4. Apr 12, 2006 #3
    I suppose yes.
    The Comptonlenght of a free electron certainly is smaller than the Comptonlenght of a neutron in which it is contained. So just capture a free electron and it will be compressed! Pm: Comptonlenght of a particle is inverse proportional to its mass.
  5. Apr 12, 2006 #4

    Meir Achuz

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    The "Compton wavelength" has nothing to do with the size of an object.
  6. Apr 12, 2006 #5
    It's not a well-stated question. To talk about an electron, you need descriptions from quantum mechanics; concepts such as "the volume of a particle" are not defined.
  7. Apr 12, 2006 #6


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Neutrons do not contain electrons.
  8. Apr 12, 2006 #7
    I think hurk4 was dealing with neutrons and electrons Compton lengths in a more general way!
  9. Apr 12, 2006 #8
    However, electron as a particle has a linear dimension of about
    [tex]10^{-18}m[\tex], that is better instrumental error which it's
    ever been found with. Naturally that electron didn't have a precise
  10. Apr 12, 2006 #9
    Just a thought. Doesn't compressing electrons violate the Pauli Exclusion Principal ?

    Best Regrads

  11. Apr 13, 2006 #10
    Compression of electrons

    Ever heard of the Plancklenght where its Schwarzschildradius is assumed to be equal to its Comptonlenght?
    Free particles with a mass less then the Planckmass only have a Comptonlenght I suppose. Can you give a better guess of its size?
  12. Apr 15, 2006 #11
    To Modey3: I think Pauli exclusion principle doesn't play any role. I supposed compression should be only spatial. I don't believe other configurational informations (i.e. spin orbitals) take any meaning here.
  13. Apr 15, 2006 #12
    Electron can't be compressed, but it's lengnth can change (Get less) when moving in very high speed's which tends to the speed of light

    That's in relativity theorem
  14. Apr 16, 2006 #13
    Indeed I have read know ("facts and mysteries inelementary particle physics" page 25) by Martinus Veltman) that if a neutron decays it dis appears and that new particles are created (a proton , an electron and a neutrino). But why than ever speak about quarks where the never appear as single particles?

    kind regards
  15. Apr 16, 2006 #14


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Because one CAN detect the signatures of their existence in particle colliders!

  16. Apr 16, 2006 #15
    How would one even begin to "compress" a fundamental particle such as an electron?!
    I don't see how that's possible. Being "fundamental" there are no secondary/tertiary/so on... components to compress.
  17. Apr 17, 2006 #16
    Compressing an electron ...

    1. As in a black hole, singularity ...?

    -- or are singularities really one charge radius big ...?

    2. As in an electron orbital, mass-energy less than 511KeV by photon emission ...?

    3. As caught between converging electromagnetic shockwaves ...?

    4. As passing through a medium of high index of refraction ...?...

    What do you want to mean, "to compress an electron" ...? Increase mass-energy; decrease; creaseless; laterally, tunneling; longitudinally; flatter...?

    5. As the electron radius is hundreds times larger than the γ-ray of equal energy, converging γ-rays equalling two electrons (one anti) must be a highly-compressed equivalence ... Is that compressed enough?

    6. Why do you insist on jumping new-theory that neutrons do not contain the electron they absorbed to emit, that sounds so presumptuous on that we define as an electron...?- Where does the definition terminate so long as it remains in the same place and is extractible, induced to emission, by neutrino-strike ... or naturally eventually by its half-life ...?

    We could equally say electrons in atomic orbitals are not electrons until they are removed, because they have different mass-energies or do not exist at all energies that electrons are capable-of....

    Or, Where does the electron go in a deuteron?-- If there is no electron in the deuteron then there is no neutron nor proton, because the electron is shared ... as meaningfully as defining an atomic electron cloud ....

    It's nice to recognize additional properties in particle-conjunction, fusion, but the particle-vs.-wave theory is so obsolete it's not even classical but cavemanical....

    Last edited: Apr 17, 2006
  18. Apr 17, 2006 #17


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Could you please point to me the physics (citing a paper would be good) that produces the theory that a neutron has in it an electron? After you do that, then explain to me the fallacy of the weak interaction.

  19. Apr 17, 2006 #18
    There are lots of experiments that have not been done or are extremely difficult to cite (even by Internet search) because they did not ask the questions I asked: Myself, I haven't even found proton-electron collisions creating neutrons releasing neutrinos ... I know of nuclear EC ... and even proton-proton collisions produce electrons via Z's ... Collision experiments done in high energy physics boost the incident particles above activation energies: and whatever mass-energy mode is there, by however much mass-energy, results in interesting products ... I'm not suggesting the neutron is not a distinct particle; I'm just saying it's not so distinct as to label a deuteron a new particle too: Both are still fusions of protons and electrons, that can come apart to the original constituents ...

    (I think the general confusion is that electrons are small enough mass-energy that it's become fashion to consider them secondary particles resulting from higher energy interactions, instead of elemental.)

    Other experiments to try: 1. Collision of a neutron and an electron: Does it stick (It certainly does not repel), and what's its Beta-decay rate: how long does it last in attoseconds (I expect it's less stable than the neutron lasting 614 sec. halflife)? They did it for H-4, Why not negaton-1 (not a negatron)? 2. Collision of a proton and an antielectron: Is there a p++ particle, and how long does it last in attoseconds before shattering in pion-kaon-Z-electron spray?

    Last edited: Apr 17, 2006
  20. Apr 17, 2006 #19


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    So to cut the crap, you have NOTHING, no experimental evidence, no theoretical foundation, to contradict such claims against the Standard Model, which DOES have PLENTY of experimental evidence.

    May I sugest, before you go any further, that you REVIEW the PF Guidelines that you have agreed to, and in particular, the overly speculative post.

    Since there has been no more development on this thread other than this, I'm closing it (it has gone off-topic). If anyone else here wishes to continue responding to the OP, please PM me and I'll reopen it.

Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook