Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

State and shape of electron?

  1. Oct 31, 2003 #1
    I just wanted to ask what is the state(solid,liquid,gas) and shape of electron? I know this is a wierd question. But, electron has to be something? Please tell!!
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 31, 2003 #2
    In quantum field theory, an electron doesn't have a shape: it is a point of zero size.

    It also doesn't make sense for an individual electron, or even an individual molecule, to have a thermodynamic state (such as solid, liquid, or gas). The thermodynamic state of a material is determine by the combined statistical interactions of many, many particles. An individual particle, or even a small collection of them, does not have a well-defined thermodynamical state -- not even a temperature. Only a collection of particles can have a temperature, act like a solid, etc.
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2003
  4. Nov 1, 2003 #3

    You are asking weather electron are solid liquid are gas but now one knows wether an electron realy exists? or weather it is a wave or a particle.
  5. Nov 1, 2003 #4
    Re: electrons

    We now that electrons exist, you're look at the results of electrons hitting the other side of your monitor. We know that they behave as both waves and particles, quantum mechanically those two terms are not mutually exclusive. And we know that they are not solid, liquid, or gases, because those are bulk properties of molecules and atoms, not subatomic particles.
  6. Nov 2, 2003 #5

    though we can prove that electrons present when they hit the monitor. we still cannot prove that they exist when we do not monitor them.
  7. Nov 2, 2003 #6
    Re: but.............

    You kind of sound like the little kid who thinks he is hiding when he covers his eyes.

    Things don't exist when you can't see them?
  8. Nov 3, 2003 #7
    but if you follow a proof based science you have to accept that electrons dont exist when you dont moniter them.(because if you dont monitor them you cant prove that they exist)
    This may look kidish but i think this might be true because to prove the existance of an electron you all ways need an wave, so i believe that electrons dont exist in an atom when they are not being interfeared by any waves.
  9. Nov 3, 2003 #8


    User Avatar

    doesn't matter either way. we know how electrons behave - they behave as though they exist while we aren't observing them - and for all intents and purposes, they're there where we expect them to be. let's just leave the philosophy out of it.
  10. Nov 3, 2003 #9
    I can't see you....you're not a real person. You don't exist on this earth and are useless in every way......now, see how stupid that sound? Apply it to your own words.
  11. Nov 3, 2003 #10
    So then what holds molecules together?
  12. Nov 3, 2003 #11
    bezun where do u get ur background knowledge from? Im sorry but you are wrong. But people like you who criticise the system are very important. keep criticising and one day u may find a mistake with the system. It is that kind of imagination that comes up with new theories.
  13. Nov 4, 2003 #12
    Thanks mceddy, i am just trying to find mistake but hey superfreak the molecules are held together by an electric or magnetic wave caused due to inequality in charges. if we need to prove the existence of an electron we need an electric or a magnetic field which (can be assumed to be like some factor such as wave).Though it may look like foolish but take a look and tell me an experiment or any sort of proof that can prove that electrons exist without a wave or a field.
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2003
  14. Nov 4, 2003 #13


    User Avatar

    you don't know enough physics/chemistry to actually speculate meaningfully on the subject. add to that the fact that your terminology and grammar is dubious, and the result is simple incoherence. you need to learn more physics.
  15. Nov 4, 2003 #14
    i accept these facts

    i accept what you are telling joc because i am not good at either physics or chemistry. I am sorry about the grammatical errors, which i make because of my poor typing skills. I believe that if all of us think the same way we will only have a world that will tell we have reached the end but if each one thinks differently we will have a world that is ever expanding. Now lets return to the point can anyone please help me if i am wrong by proving or showing that electrons exist without a field or a wave.
    Please go easy on me.
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2003
  16. Nov 5, 2003 #15
    Re: i accept these facts

    Ummm..I'm not sure what you're talking about field or wave wise..but in electron beam wielding, a beam of electrons are shot at metal seams in a vacuum and the beam heats the metal and wields the seams. The electrons themselves produce a magnetic field (moving charges).
  17. Nov 9, 2003 #16
    can you please explain it a bit more!

    i feel that all atoms have a field.
  18. Nov 9, 2003 #17
    I thought we were talking about whether or not you think electrons exist. Soooooooooooo......

    You can feel all the bull**** you want. That doesn't mean it's true. Drop what you think you know and start learning. An electron is a particle. You can fire one individually at a detector and pick it up. You can produce a beam of them easily by heating a piece of metal (like a needle or a filament) and produce a stream of them off of it. But they hit air molecules to quickly so they don't travel too far. If done in a vacuum, you can fire them at phosphorous and ta-da! you have a tv or monitor. Control that beam with magnetic fields and you can make a picture sweep to make moving pictures.

    But to you question, what makes up an atom's properties are it's individual parts, the elmentary particles that make it up; protons, neutrons, electrons.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 9, 2003
  19. Nov 10, 2003 #18

    Ok i accept that electrons exist.........
    What made me think like this is nothing but the schrodiengers cat theory.
  20. Nov 10, 2003 #19
    Re: ok.....

    Schrodinger's illustration was an attempt at humor concerning superposition in the quantum world.
  21. Nov 16, 2003 #20
    The 1998 Nobel Prize for Science was awarded to three scientist who divided an electron into Fractionally Charged Particles. How could they do this if the electron is not a particle?.
    Surely the best way to consider the electron is as a wave carrying field. The field gives it its particle nature and the wave that by its own wave force extends beyond the field limits, gives it its wave form
  22. Nov 16, 2003 #21
    Robert B. Laughlin Horst L. Störmer Daniel C. Tsui Discovery and theory of the fractional quantum Hall effect --->

    Horst L. Störmer "The Fractional Quantum Hall Effect" --->

    "Fractional charge is the most puzzling of these observations..."
    "And yet we know with certainty, that none of these electrons has split up into pieces."

    Störmer home page --->
    http://www.phys.columbia.edu/faculty/stormer.htm [Broken]

    "Novel electron quantum-fluids form, which exhibit fractional quantum numbers (such as 3/7, 5/11…) and they harbor objects that carry an exact fraction of an electron charge, e.g. 1/3 e."
    "The interaction of many electrons rather than the property of any individual particle is at the origin of all such observation."
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  23. Nov 18, 2003 #22

    Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding of fractional charges. I was relying on an article in SciAm which does not make this point clearly.
    Have been enjoying the debate in Theory Development - Why all the nut cases how about a contribution.
  24. Nov 18, 2003 #23
    Of course, it would be fair and righteous to ask what these "objects" with the fractional charge are, and I might have more trouble answering that. :)
  25. Nov 20, 2003 #24
    fractional charges within electron

    This is quite interesting. Quarks are the only fundamental particles that we know of that have a fractional electric charge. It would be very interesting if an electron contains a quark and an antiquark; this could follow from the fact that a system composed of an down quark and an anti-up quark can couple into an electron and an anti-neutrino via virtual W- production (this is a common occurance in the decay of a neutron into a proton). If we can take this to mean that the (d + -u) system is equivalent to a (e- + -(v~e)) system, then it is possible that an electron is a composite of a down quark, an anti-up quark, and an electron-neutrino, in other words a system (d + -u + v~e). If the experiment mentioned in earlier post shows some results consistent with the electron containing fractional charges -1/3 and -2/3, then maybe we have something there. It would be an excellent confirmation of quark-lepton compositeness, just not in the way we were originally looking for it, and neutrinos would end up being the only fundamental leptons.

    Now, in scatterring experiments, electrons do not show any scaling behavior, i.e. there is no energy dependence; hence the electron has always been considered a point-like particle, while mesons and baryons, which have scaling behaviors on order of 1/s^2, 1/s^4, etc., are clearly composites of smaller partons (quarks and gluons).
  26. Nov 20, 2003 #25


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I have never understood this fuss about fractional charges. The electron was the first particle detected (by Thomson, 1899) and naturally its charge was taken as unity. When the quarks were introduced, with charges 1/3 and 2/3, it seems to me only tradition and convenience kept us from redefining the quantum of charge as 1/3 of the old one and saying that the charge on the electron is 3 in the new system. In fact I have seen papers that do exactly this. Where is the stone tablet that says everything is about the electron?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook