Electron - massless or not

  • Thread starter Cosmo16
  • Start date
138
0
It was my understanding (however my understandings are wrong 99.9% of the time) that a electron was massless, and that it took the form of a wave that collapsed into a specfic point when it was "located"

however, I was told that im my friends AP physics class, there are told to use the mass of an electron.

So, is an electron massless or not?
 

ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
35,045
3,879
Cosmo16 said:
It was my understanding (however my understandings are wrong 99.9% of the time) that a electron was massless, and that it took the form of a wave that collapsed into a specfic point when it was "located"
however, I was told that im my friends AP physics class, there are told to use the mass of an electron.
So, is an electron massless or not?
Where did you get the idea that electron is massless? Ernest Lawrence won the Nobel Prize in Physics for finding the e/m ratio of the electron. This ratio is not infinite.

Zz.
 

Tom Mattson

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,476
20
Step 1: Go to Google.
Step 2: Type in "electron mass".
Step 3: Hit "Search".

At the tippy-top of the page it will say:

Google said:
electron mass = 9.10938188 × 10-31 kilograms
 

DaveC426913

Gold Member
18,182
1,796
An electron masses about 1/2000th of a proton.
 

Tom Mattson

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,476
20
Yeah, but what if he also thinks the proton is massless!
 
138
0
maybe I was thinking of somthing else.

right now my brain is on overload. For me overload usually equals insaness whcih usually equals stupid questions
 

Pengwuino

Gold Member
4,854
10
I bet he is talking about an electron. I know I didn't even know what a neutrino was before college and he hints at being in HS
 

George Jones

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,209
757
ZapperZ said:
Where did you get the idea that electron is massless? Ernest Lawrence won the Nobel Prize in Physics for finding the e/m ratio of the electron. This ratio is not infinite.
Zz.
I'm being overly pedantic, but Ernest Lawrence won the Nobel Prize for the cyclotron. Through the work of J.J. Thomson, Millikan, and others, the e/m ratio of the electron was already known (probably to at least 3 significant figures) when Lawrence built his first cyclotron, so if Lawrence added anything to this issue, it was just more digits.

At the risk of adding to the confusion, the Cosmo16 may have had the following misconceptions in mind. Light is wave a and light doesn't have mass, therefore when the electron is a wave it doesn't have mass. All particles have mass, so when the electron is a particle it has mass. Thus, an electron only has mass when it switches its character from that of a wave to that of a (massive) particle. How does the massless wave become a massive particle?

Finally, an interesting bit of trivia with respect to the "wave-particle duality" of the electron. In grossly over-simplified (enough to be quite misleading) terms, J.J. Thomson won the Nobel prize for showing that the electron is a particle, and his son, George Paget Thomson, won the Nobel prize (along with Davisson) for showing that the electron is a wave!

Regards,
George
 

ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
35,045
3,879
George Jones said:
I'm being overly pedantic, but Ernest Lawrence won the Nobel Prize for the cyclotron. Through the work of J.J. Thomson, Millikan, and others, the e/m ratio of the electron was already known (probably to at least 3 significant figures) when Lawrence built his first cyclotron, so if Lawrence added anything to this issue, it was just more digits.
You're right. I should have been more careful. Millikan had more to do with measuring e/m.

At the risk of adding to the confusion, the Cosmo16 may have had the following misconceptions in mind. Light is wave a and light doesn't have mass, therefore when the electron is a wave it doesn't have mass. All particles have mass, so when the electron is a particle it has mass. Thus, an electron only has mass when it switches its character from that of a wave to that of a (massive) particle. How does the massless wave become a massive particle?
Finally, an interesting bit of trivia with respect to the "wave-particle duality" of the electron. In grossly over-simplified (enough to be quite misleading) terms, J.J. Thomson won the Nobel prize for showing that the electron is a particle, and his son, George Paget Thomson, won the Nobel prize (along with Davisson) for showing that the electron is a wave!
Regards,
George
Unfortunately, now its my turn to be "pedantic".

When you solve the Schrodinger equation for electrons, the MASS of the electrons is in there. The kinetic energy term explicitly contains the mass. Thus, even when you get a "wave" solution for the electrons, the mass of the electron is explicitly in the solution. So it is not correct to say that when it can be described via the wavefunction, it is massless.

Also, the "wave" of light is NOT the same "wave" as for electrons. We must not confuse the two simply because the name "wave" is being used for both. The wavefunction is not a physical wave like water waves. The QM wavefunction exists in a "configuration space" that can be complex. Physical wave, such as water waves and the solution to Maxwell equation, exists in real space. So those two are not the same beast and shouldn't be used as an analogy of one another.

Zz.
 

George Jones

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,209
757
ZapperZ said:
Unfortunately, now its my turn to be "pedantic".
Why is this unfortunate?

I said that these points were all misconceptions that Cosmo16 might have had in mind.

I was that hoping that my wording would provoke you into pendantry mode, so that you would explain to Cosmo16 why these points are misconceptions. :smile:

Regards,
George
 

ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
35,045
3,879
Oh, sorry. Now I see your point.

I blame it on lack of sleep. That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

:)

Zz.
 

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
For the sake of pedantry (or historical correctness, if you will)...

The e/m ratio was first measured by JJT at about 1.3*1011C/kg (correct value about 1.76...) using a modified Crookes' tube (the precursor to the modern electron gun). This was in 1897. The charge itself (from which the mass would be deduced) was also first measured by JJT and colleagues (Wilson & Townsend) using ionized water droplets which were collected in an acid and changed its pH. They got an approximate value of 1*10-19C by 1901. Millikan used ionized oil drops instead of water droplets and was able to make a much more accurate measurement of e (getting about 1.6 ...) using a tunable E-field to suspend the droplet against gravity. His work culminated in 1913 (he started in 1906, and spent roughly 7 years on just this one experiment !).
 
Last edited:
78
0
Electron mass has a series of very important consequences: starting with cyclotronic frequency that is inverselly proportional to m... (Lawrence example retains its mean) ...so it got a certain inertia... passing through another question like antimatter interaction (if e- meets e+ you got a photonlike energy of twice electron mass in c squared units as it occurs on LEP facility at CERN).
Nevertheless... back to atomic level... it is basical reminding that fundamental magnetic behaviour is provided, yes, by spin of the electron, but it just becomes a powerless subject in massless hypothesis: Bohr magneton formula keeps mass, too (i.e. no mass no magnetic momentum).
It appears also in Bohr radius: realizing a mu-mesic atom you can think of electrons and muons as equals but their masses are different.
In beta decay, relativistical approch says electron mass is meant to grow up... but this is not a trouble (on this way you find starting point for Compton effect).
In crystals effective mass is a theorethical concept that is furnished with a dynamical meaning. But this is another story, because it depends on system complexity.
More generally in matter wave theory overall, hamiltonian operator, that straightforward leads to energy eigenvalues, has a mass-including kinetic term... so: no mass, no meaning.
If matter is a wave, that wave is to be a material one. We can't get away without that mass!
 

Related Threads for: Electron - massless or not

  • Posted
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • Posted
Replies
5
Views
7K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top