Is an electron considered a singularity by some physicists?

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 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.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
36
Views
7K
Replies
38
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Back
Top