Is an electron considered a singularity by some physicists?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of electrons, specifically whether they can be considered singularities or point-like particles. Participants explore various interpretations within quantum electrodynamics, the implications of these interpretations, and the potential resemblance between electrons and black holes.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that electrons, being point-like particles, might be interpreted as having infinitely dense mass, leading to problematic implications regarding gravitons and energy levels.
  • Others argue that the concept of electrons having an infinitesimal spatial character leads to infinite energy, which is partially addressed by the existence of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs.
  • A participant questions whether the features of electrons could resemble a black hole singularity and mentions the existence of groups exploring the three-dimensional character of electrons.
  • One participant suggests a hypothetical scenario where an electron is modeled as a small sphere, questioning its internal structure and the lack of experimental evidence against the point particle model.
  • Another participant asserts that there is no fully satisfactory classical point-particle model of an electron, emphasizing the reliance on approximations in current theories.
  • Some participants reference discussions on the resemblance between black holes and elementary particles, indicating ongoing exploration beyond the standard model.
  • It is noted that the concept of running coupling in quantum field theory contradicts the notion of particles being truly point-like, suggesting an extension of particles in some form.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of electrons, with no consensus reached on whether they can be classified as singularities or point-like particles. The discussion remains unresolved with various interpretations and hypotheses presented.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the absence of experimental evidence to definitively support or refute the point particle model, as well as the reliance on approximations in existing theories. The discussion also highlights the complexity of defining the nature of particles within quantum field theory.

lightoflife
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I read this book called How To Teach Relativity to Your Dog by Chad Orzel. In the book he discusses how an electron is known to have mass but is also considered a point like particle.

He said that some interpretations consider the electron thus to have an infinitely dense mass which should generate gravitons, which gravitons should also have mass and thus generate gravitons. Thus this is quite a problematic interpretation.

Other interpretations in quanum electrodynamics consider the electrons' aspect of the electrical charge in an infintesimal space so thus they should have infinite energy and this is problematic also though solved partially by having virtual particle - antiparticle pairs appearing and disappearing in the locality of the electron thus spreading the electron charge.thus avoiding energies with infinity values.Anyway my question revolves around shouldn't these supposed features of the electron resemble a black hole and its' singularity?? Myself, I thought there were a groups of physicists that found experimental or mathematical evidence that electrons were not point like but did possesses some three dimensional spatial character?

If all particles with mass are point-like then are they not microsingularities? What is the evidence that electrons and other particles are point-like?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hypothetically, if we assume that an electon is a small sphere of radius let's say 10^[-24] m, would it be "full" or "empty"? Assume it was full. With what ? Assume a qurk-type internal structure. Devise a theory to explain this and make predictions and invent experiments to confirm your theory. If everything goes in your favor, you get yourself a Nobel. Has this been done yet? No.

At this very moment, there is no shred of experimental evidence which would force us yo abandon the point particle model in classical physics and of a quantum field in quantum physics.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba
To the contrary! There is no classical fully satisfactory point-particle model of an electron! There are well-working approximations, used to, e.g., construct particle accelerators like the LHC, but there is no fully selfconsistent theory of the dynamics of charged point particles. The best model we have in this respect is relativistic quantum field theory (particularly quantum electrodynamics, QED), which is in a somewhat better state in the sense that you can define it in the sense of (resummed) perturbation theory.
 
There has been a related discussion in a recent thread, starting with http://[URL post[/url].
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The idea of running coupling in QFT is a direct negation of the idea that a particle is point-like. If particles were really point like (not having size), then coupling factors would be constant. The fact that they aren't means that particles somehow extend around.

From classical analogies, electron as a non-uniform cloud is much better explanation than electron as a point.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
9K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K