How is electron formed? Why does it travel?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Skhandelwal
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Electron Travel
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the formation and behavior of electrons, exploring concepts related to fundamental particles, their properties, and the nature of energy. Participants raise questions about the composition of electrons, their motion, and the implications of quantum mechanics, touching on theoretical and conceptual aspects without reaching definitive conclusions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that electrons are leptons and question how leptons can be considered as made up of energy, expressing confusion over the nature of fundamental particles.
  • There is a claim that neutrinos and antineutrinos are also leptons, leading to discussions about the classification of fundamental particles.
  • Participants debate the concept of electron spin, with some arguing that electrons do not spin in the classical sense, while others reference the concept of half-integer spin.
  • Questions are raised about why electrons do not "stick" to protons despite the attractive force, with references to atomic structure and the nature of electron orbitals.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the creation and destruction of electrons, with one stating that they are fundamental particles that are neither created nor destroyed.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of the Big Bang and the nature of time, with differing opinions on whether time had a beginning and what might have caused the Big Bang.
  • One participant suggests looking at the symmetry properties of particles, indicating a desire for a deeper theoretical understanding.
  • Clarifications are made regarding the probability density of electrons in atomic orbitals, with some participants challenging the notion that electrons simply occupy orbitals without movement.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature of electrons, their behavior, and the fundamental principles governing them. There is no consensus on several key points, including the interpretation of electron spin, the nature of their motion, and the implications of quantum mechanics.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include varying interpretations of quantum mechanics, differing understandings of fundamental particle classification, and unresolved questions about the nature of energy and its relation to particle behavior.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals exploring fundamental physics, quantum mechanics, and the nature of particles, as well as those seeking to understand the complexities of atomic structure and energy concepts.

  • #31
Oh, I watched that 6 hours long video by PBS about String Theory. Now, if I got what you were saying right, then you said at the beginning, everything was energy. However, as the temperature got cooler, things started turning into mass. But how? How does energy suddenly turn into mass? This brings another question...what is temperature? I believe temperature is the rate at which those tiny little energy strings vibrate but then again, why? What creates temperature? What controls temperature? I mean they can't be vibrating on their own as they feel like it.

I am sorry, I don't like asking these many questions...as a matter of fact, I am hating physics right now realizing I never really understood even the elementary science.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Skhandelwal, the problem with the elementary physics concepts such as energy, force, etc. are that they are usually harder to understand than derived concepts (mass, movement, etc) because it is these concepts that we observe in nature, and fundamental concepts are often either abstract or not defined (they are simply there, as a starting point for our physical description).

It is possible for energy to turn into mass. This is exactly what the famous (and often mis-quoted) formula E = M c^2 (or \gamma m c^2) says: energy and mass can be converted into each other. This is also what we observe in nuclear reactions where particles split or fuse, where the new (sum of) mass(es) is smaller than the original (sum of) mass(es), the remaining mass having been converted to energy. In fact, energy and mass are completely equivalent in principle (though in practice it's everything but easy to convert between them). As to why part of the energy of the universe is ... well, energy (light, heat, radio waves, etc) and some of it is in the form of mass, and why that part is what it is, I don't really know, so I'm afraid I also cannot give you the reason that energy started to be converted to mass when the temperature cooled. (Actually, I'm making here a distinction I just said doesn't really exist... so probably I'm making a conceptual mistake here.)

As for temperature, we should first look at entropy. Entropy tells us something about the number of states accessible to a system (actually, if there are g states in which a quantum system may be, the entropy is \sigma = \log g). Nature always seeks to increase entropy (simple example: a solid may evaporate, because then all the particles in the solid are free to move about in a gas, which gives each particle more degrees of freedom - hence more entropy). Now temperature, basically, measures how much a system wants to exchange entropy with another system. Suppose we have one (closed) system divided into two subsystems. It may be possible that one subsystem sacrifices some entropy, so that the entropy of the other system increases - in such a way that the overall entropy increases. Actually, if the systems are left free to do what they want, they will do this until there is an equilibrium (thermal equilibrium): both systems have maximal entropy. In this case, the temperature is defined to be equal in both the systems. The more "drive" there is to exchange entropy, the higher the temperature will be.

That is the way I like to look at it, for other points of view and a more precise treatment you should take a look at this page or a good book (like the one from Kittel and Kroemer).
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Skhandelwal -- Answers to everything you have asked can be found in beginning atomic and quantum physics texts. For example, you will find that the idea of spin comes from the Stern-Gehrlach experiment, which involved magnetic moments, classically associated with rotational motion. But, as it turns out, spin is, in fact, an abstract property of particles. While spin is connected with angular momentum, there's no evidence that an electron is actually spinning.
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson
 
  • #34
hasn't the speed of light been broken? i saw a couple of authorititive looking pages from the BBC, which is usually trustworthy;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/841690.stm


if its true does this mean the base of Quantum theory is wrong, rendering it all wrong? or would it cause more damage to the theory of relativity?
 
  • #35
ZeuZ said:
hasn't the speed of light been broken? i saw a couple of authorititive looking pages from the BBC, which is usually trustworthy;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/841690.stm


if its true does this mean the base of Quantum theory is wrong, rendering it all wrong? or would it cause more damage to the theory of relativity?

No, your interpretation of it is wrong. If you actually read the paper itself (and not just rely on news report), you'll see that no part of that wave actually traveled faster than c. Do a search on here and you'll see that the NEC paper has been mentioned several times, including by me.

Zz.
 
  • #36
So if it would be true, that would basically turn relativity upside down. Which means we would have to find a new theory that explains all those classically unexplainable effects which (special) relativity predicts in great detail.

But you should note the following. The relativity principle is often misquoted as "nothing can go faster than the speed of light". Actually, this is wrong; e.g. the phase velocity of a wave can exceed c, and the EPR paradox is an even "worse" example - in that the transmission is instantaneous.
The relativity principle states that "the speed of light (in vacuum!) is the same for all inertial observers" and what people who say the first quote really mean, is that no information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light. For example, studying the cases I mentioned above more closely, reveals that they cannot be used to communicate instantaneously in any way.
 
  • #37
CompuChip said:
So if it would be true, that would basically turn relativity upside down. Which means we would have to find a new theory that explains all those classically unexplainable effects which (special) relativity predicts in great detail.

But you should note the following. The relativity principle is often misquoted as "nothing can go faster than the speed of light". Actually, this is wrong; e.g. the phase velocity of a wave can exceed c
Yes, but group velocity too (anomalous refraction). What carries information is signal velocity, which is < c.

, and the EPR paradox is an even "worse" example - in that the transmission is instantaneous.
In EPR paradox superluminal action is just one of the interpretations, not a fact.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
847
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K