How is electron formed? Why does it travel?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Skhandelwal
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Electron Travel
Click For Summary
Electrons are fundamental particles classified as leptons, not made up of other particles. Neutrinos and antineutrinos are also types of leptons. The concept of "spin" in quantum mechanics does not imply that electrons physically spin like a ball; rather, it is an intrinsic property related to their quantum state. Electrons do not orbit protons in the classical sense but occupy orbitals defined by probability distributions. The attraction between electrons and protons is due to the Coulomb force, while chemical reactions between molecules arise from various interatomic and intermolecular forces, primarily electrostatic in nature.
  • #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
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K