What Is the State and Shape of an Electron?

[think]

I just wanted to ask what is the state(solid,liquid,gas) and shape of electron? I know this is a weird question. But, electron has to be something? Please tell!

 

[benzun_1999]

electrons

You are asking weather electron are solid liquid are gas but now one knows wether an electron really exists? or weather it is a wave or a particle.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by benzun_1999
You are asking weather electron are solid liquid are gas but now one knows wether an electron really exists? or weather it is a wave or a particle.

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.

 

[benzun_1999]

but....

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.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by benzun_1999
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.

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?

 

[benzun_1999]

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

 

[joc]

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.

 

[neutroncount]

Originally posted by benzun_1999
but if you follow a proof based science you have to accept that electrons don't exist when you don't moniter them.(because if you don't monitor them you can't prove that they exist)
This may look kidish but i think this might be true because to prove the existence of an electron you all ways need an wave, so i believe that electrons don't exist in an atom when they are not being interfeared by any waves.

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.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by benzun_1999
bso i believe that electrons don't exist in an atom when they are not being interfeared by any waves.

So then what holds molecules together?

 

[mceddy2001]

bezun where do u get ur background knowledge from? I am sorry but you are wrong. But people like you who criticize 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.

 

[benzun_1999]

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.
-benzun

 

[joc]

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.

 

[benzun_1999]

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 let's 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.
-benzun
Please go easy on me.

 

[neutroncount]

Originally posted by benzun_1999
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 let's 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.
-benzun
Please go easy on me.

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).

 

[benzun_1999]

can you please explain it a bit more!

i feel that all atoms have a field.

 

[neutroncount]

Originally posted by benzun_1999
can you please explain it a bit more!

i feel that all atoms have a field.

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.

 

[benzun_1999]

ok...

Ok i accept that electrons exist...
What made me think like this is nothing but the schrodiengers cat theory.
-benzun

 

[neutroncount]

Originally posted by benzun_1999
Ok i accept that electrons exist...
What made me think like this is nothing but the schrodiengers cat theory.
-benzun

Schrodinger's illustration was an attempt at humor concerning superposition in the quantum world.

 

[elas]

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

 

[quartodeciman]

Robert B. Laughlin Horst L. Störmer Daniel C. Tsui Discovery and theory of the fractional quantum Hall effect --->
http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1998/index.html

Horst L. Störmer "The Fractional Quantum Hall Effect" --->
http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1998/stormer-lecture.html

"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

"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."

 

[elas]

quartodeciman

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.

 

[quartodeciman]

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. :)

 

[mormonator_rm]

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).

 

[selfAdjoint]

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?

 

[mormonator_rm]

Good question. We must understand a few things about electrical charge in order to see an answer here. The electron charge is actually a composite of the isospin and hypercharge of a particle given by;

Q = I~3 + Y

where Q is the electrical charge in units of positron charge, I~3 is the isospin magnitude (an eigenvalue of the isospin number Iz), and Y is the weak hypercharge, which follows from;

Y = (b + S + C + B + T)/2

where b is the baryon number (0 for mesons, 1 for baryons, and -1 for antibaryons), and S, C, B, and T are the flavor numbers for the heavier quarks. The quarks each have baryon number 1/3, and the anti-quarks the opposite. Up and down quarks have I~3 eigenstates of Iz = 1/2, and the heavier quarks all have Iz = 0.

For example, the charges of pions (members of an isospin triplet) follow this rule: since they have no heavy quark flavors and a baryon number of zero, their charge is equal to their magnitude of I~3. So the pions have charges 1, 0, and -1, just as their I~3 eigenvalues are 1, 0, and -1 for the isospin triplet Iz = 1.

The proton and neutron also follow this, but they have I~3 eigenvalues of 1/2 and -1/2, and a baryon number of 1. So the proton has charge I~3 + b/2 = 1/2 + 1/2 = 1, and the neutron has charge I~3 + b/2 = -1/2 + 1/2 = 0. The lambda baryon gets more interesting, since it has strangeness (remember, the flavors of heavier quarks always have the same sign as the charge of the quark, hence strangeness of the strange quark is S = -1). So, the isospin-singlet lambda baryon has charge I~3 + (b + S)/2 = 0 + (1-1)/2 = 0. All of these answers follow perfectly the established pattern for finding the electrical charge.

So, you might ask, "why not just say that 3Q = I~3 + Y?" Well, its not that simple. For example, the neutral terms of the electro-weak Lagrangian are derived from hypothetical particle fields coupling to the isospin and weak hypercharge of a particle. The initial term, with arbitrary couplings g and g', is;

g(W~3)(I~3) + g'(B)(Y)

where W~3 and B are the pure particle states that would couple only to isospin and hypercharge, respectively. In reality, we have a mixture of these states determined by the Weinberg angle that mediates the weak and electromagnetic forces. The result is the (massless) photon field A and the (massive) weak neutral field Z. When we reform the equation to find the terms with the new fields A and Z, we find;

(I~3 + Y)(g sin(theta))A + (I~3 - (I~3 + Y)sin^2(theta))(g'/sin(theta))Z

(Sorry, I haven't taken the time to figure out the math symbols yet, I'm in a hurry!) When we take Q = I~3 + Y and e = g sin(theta) = g' cos(theta), we find the result;

QeA + (I~3 - Q sin^2(theta))(2e/sin(2xtheta))Z

Note that QeA is the familiar electromagnetic interaction, and the other term is the weak neutral current. As you can see, the positron charge e falls right out of the thing. And the isospin and hypercharge are the basis of the electro-weak interaction, leading to the electrodynamic term. To start using fractional charges as a basis could be extremely inconvenient for the electro-weak model and new physics, and would require some overhaul to the standard model that I think would be unnecessary. It wouldn't be impossible, but it would really make a mess.

 

[elas]

The fractions found in fractional charged electrons are exactly the same as those that can be found on the cosmic scale in wave form. I have not yet replaced the wave page on my website (at present under revision). But if you measure the rings around Halle-Boppe, the distances between planets and the distance between the arms of a theoretically ideal spiral galaxy; then the outer distance is always 1/3 of the whole. The next gap in is 2/5 of the remaining distance and so on, 3/7, 4/9 5/11 etc.
Although this is a very crude way of accounting for interplanetary distances, it is surprisingly, the most accurate and the only one to predict the positions of all planets including the asteroids.
This suggest that somehow fractional charges are related to the wave structure and leads me to suggest that all natural waves contain the same total force or force carrier.

 

[JohnBarchak]

The extended electron

Hi Think
The extended electron has a long and rich history. As Kirk T. McDonald points out in "Limits on the Applicability of Classical Electromagnetic Fields as Inferred from the Radiation Reaction",
http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/accel/radreact.pdf
H.A. Lorentz was one of the first to study the extended electron:
"The present formulation of the radiation reaction is due to Lorentz' investigations of the self force of an extended electron, beginning in 1892 [4] and continuing through 1903 [5]. The example of dipole radiation of a single charge contrasts strikingly with Maxwell's discussion of reaction forces during specular reflection. There is no net momentum radiated by an oscillating charge with zero average velocity, but energy is radiated. The external force alone can not account for the energy balance. An additional force is needed, and was identified by Lorentz as the net electromagnetic force of one part of an extended, accelerated charge distribution on another."
[4] H.A. Lorentz, “La Theorie ´Electromagnetique de Maxwell et son Application aux Corps Mouvants”, Arch. Ne´erl. 25, 363-552 (1892), reprinted in Collected Papers (Martinus Nijho®, The Hague, 1936), Vol. II, pp. 64-343.
[5] H.A. Lorentz, “Weiterbildung der Maxwellschen Theorie. Elektronen Theorie”, Enzykl. Math. Wiss. 5, part II, no. 14, 151-279 (1903), especially secs. 20-21; “Contributions to the Theory of Electrons”, Proc. Roy. Acad. Amsterdam 5, 608 (1903), reprinted in Collected Papers, Vol. III, 132-154.

For the MIE, BORN, INFELD NONLINEAR ELECTRODYNAMICS see:
http://216.239.39.104/search?hl=en&....cft.edu.pl/~b\irula/publ/BornInf.ps+born+mie

Possibly the best history of the extended electron appears in "The Electron: New Theory and Experiment" (http://www.neutrino.co.jp/abi_ftph/0-7923-1356-9.PDF ) edited by David Hestenes, Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Arizona State University, Tempe, USA and Antonio Weingartshofer; wherein A.O. Barut presents his history of the electron in "Brief History and Recent Developments in Electron Theory and Quantum Electrodynamics" This book is quite expensive and I have found no other source of Asim Barut's history of the electron.

There are now four active theoretical groups that I've read about that promote an extended particle:

Werner Hofer's Microdynamics
http://www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/~wah/md.html

Carver Mead's superconducting loops (See his book "Collective Electrodynamics")

Randell Mills' disc electrons
http://www.blacklightpower.com/science.shtml

and the Commonsense Science electron rings.
http://www.commonsensescience.org/

There are some differences between them but all support the principle that an extended distribution of accelerated charge won't radiate and that the extended particle is held together by magnetic fields generated by moving charge.

HOFER
See "Internal structures of electrons and photons: the concept of extended particles revisited" by W. A. Hofer
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9806066

In the Oct. 2002 issue of "Materials Today" pp 24-30, Werner A. Hofer presented "Unraveling Electron Mysteries" which explains *scanning tunneling microscopy* (STM). The entire article was found at:
http://www.materialstoday.com/pdfs_5_10/hofer.pdf
but I was unable to find it today. I do have an excerpt: In the Conclusion and outlook of "Unraveling Electron Mysteries" W. Hofer states:
"Given the evidence from STM simulations and experiments, it is difficult to remain in favor of the particle model of electrons. Recapturing the essentials of the preceding sections, we can say that:

(i) electrons are detected as extended charge distributions;
(ii) bonds form when the overlap of different regions of electron charge surpass a certain threshhold;
(iii) the magnetization direction of electron charge is detected in magnetic STM experiments;
(iv) the interaction between atoms is produced by charge redistributions and current flow; and
(v) the phase memory of traveling surface electrons is reduced by inelastic processes involving other electrons and phonons.

In fact, the only point where discrete properties of electrons still enter the picture is the statistical description of solid state theory. It seems that Don Eigler summed up the evidence when he said: 'I don't believe in this wave-particle duality... I think it's mostly just left over baggage of having started off understanding the world in terms of particles and then being forced, because of the quantum revolution, to think of the world in terms of waves...
Don't even think of them as particles. Electrons are waves. And if you think of them in terms of waves, you will always end up with the right answer.
Always'

This question, which touches the fundamental understanding of our physical environment, will certainly occupy scientists for some years to come. It is a fair guess, though, that its ultimate resolution will not substantially change the direction of research in STM. This research, and the profound insights it provides, has already taught us more about the nature of electrons than the wildest speculations could have envisioned twenty years ago. And it can be expected that ever more ingenious experiments, together with improved theoretical models, will ultimately improve our understanding sufficiently to
attain what is today often wishful thinking rather than scientific reality; the ability to construct electronic devices built of only a few atoms or molecules."

 

[think]

What are these extended electrons? Please explain it in simple language.

 

[JohnBarchak]

The Extended Electron

Hi Think
The current accepted model of the electron is the point particle. All of the mass and charge of the electron are located at a single point. This causes infinite mass and charge densities at that single point. Many scientists and engineers refuse to accept models that have infinite densities. Richard Feynman invented a mathematical process called "renormalization" that allows calculations without the infinite densities, but even he was not completely happy with the process - he felt that he had "swept the problem under the rug."

Extended particle models do not have infinite densities since their mass and charge are distributed over an area or volume. The history of extended particle models is very illuminating since it shows the many attempts to reconcile the observed properties of the electron with various conceptual models.

As W. Hofer indicates, our technical abilities are allowing far more knowledge about the electron than the creators of quantum theory ever thought possible. It will be a tremendous challenge to our new engineers and scientists to fit this new knowledge into a coherent theory. As Einstein said, "You know, it would be sufficient to really understand the electron."

 

[elas]

The current accepted model of the electron is the point particle. All of the mass and charge of the electron are located at a single point.

Not any longer. Go to Perdue University website and search for Koltick.

 

[JohnBarchak]

Hi elas
I think that Koltick has something there, but I don't think anyone has changed quantum mechanics yet.

 

[elas]

Ambitwistor

All Koltick has measured is vacuum polarization screening in quantum electrodynamics, the so-called "running" of the fine structure coupling constant. This does not contradict QFT's picture of the electron as a point particle; in fact, it is predicted by point-particle quantum field theory.

I read that Koltick et al found that an electron consists of a nucleus surrounded by 'quantum pairs'. How does this equate to a point?

Can a point exist without a radius?

No two electrons in the same atom are exactly equal to each other, how can this be so if they are dimensionless points?

Are fractionally charged electrons larger, smaller or the same size as the 'point' electron?

If a particle is a point is its 'fine structure' within or without and does it have three dimensions?

From a purely particle structure viewpoint QP seems to raise more questions than it answers.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by elas
The fractions found in fractional charged electrons are exactly the same as those that can be found on the cosmic scale in wave form. I have not yet replaced the wave page on my website (at present under revision). But if you measure the rings around Halle-Boppe, the distances between planets and the distance between the arms of a theoretically ideal spiral galaxy; then the outer distance is always 1/3 of the whole. The next gap in is 2/5 of the remaining distance and so on, 3/7, 4/9 5/11 etc.
Although this is a very crude way of accounting for interplanetary distances, it is surprisingly, the most accurate and the only one to predict the positions of all planets including the asteroids.
This suggest that somehow fractional charges are related to the wave structure and leads me to suggest that all natural waves contain the same total force or force carrier.

Do you mean the comet Hale-Bopp? If so, what rings (please post a link)? Let us know when you've updated your website with data on the relationship between planetary distances, the theoretically ideal spiral (whose theory by the way?), and ... If you have time, you might check the orbital parameters of the known minor planets (asteroids, EKB objects, trojans, NEOs, SDOs, ...) from the Minor Planet Center website, and plug in the actual values into your formulae.

 

[elas]

Ambitwistor

Thank-you for taking the time to give a detailed and very interesting reply. I have to check my facts but I think I am correct in saying the explanation in Scientific American was considerably different, perhaps because it was written for the layman, or perhaps I have misread it.

However your definition of the dimensions of a 'point' is precisely that which I place on a (Newtonian) Zero Point. To which I add that the point is a vacuum force well. That is to mean that for each different fundamental particle the Zero Point holds a different vacuum force and it is the interaction of the vacuum force on the surrounding force carrier that is responsible for the existence of the particles. The force carrier cannot be drawn into the ZP because it is something (matter) and therefore must always have three dimensions.

It is interesting to note that in my explanation of movement I make the point that it is the vacuum force that is detected not the force carrier, hence the detection of an electron as a ZP. I also make the point that it is the retreat of vacuum into ZPs that is responsible for creation. It follows that if the fundamental force is vacuum then the creation of names for the other forces is misleading because they are no more than the interaction of vacuum and vacuum force carrier as determined by the vacuum wave structure.

 

[elas]

Nereid

Please go to-

http://elasticity2.tripod.com/waves.htm

 

[Nereid]

WHICH NASA 'photograph of the comet'?

elas,

I'm sorry to say that the Hale-Bopp reference is not very helpful; you say:
"On the NASA photograph of comet I took the measurements of the dust bands (white) shown in red marks on fig W-2, these are listed as 'actual' distances in the table below. Removing the fraction shown in blue type gives a predicted distance for the next dust band towards the centre; these can be compared with the next row of actual distances. (The actual photograph cannot be reproduced for reasons of copyright. In all cases measurements are taken to the centre of the white bands)."

However, going to the official NASA website and searching on Hale-Bopp gives hundreds of hits, nearly all of which have images. Here's one which has some resemblence to your diagram:
http://apod.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970414.html

Can you please give a link to "the NASA photo of [the] comet"? BTW, links do not violate any copyright; the site which has copyrighted material should have the appropriate © symbol on it (along with a statement asserting the site owner's rights).