Talk:Electron

Template:WP1.0

Dungeons and Dragons

These charts and pictures, that are not real photographs, look like something from a D&D video game. Do people who believe in electrons play lots of Warcraft because they have small penis's? Or do they believe in electrons because they are very small, and need to believe in something smaller to make their smallness seem like its bigness? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.32.166 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 15 September 2008

Density function image

I've made a newer version of the density function image, i think it should replace the old one.

Hydrogen

Yey or ney? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PoorLeno (talk • contribs) 22:49, 16 August 2008

Making it clear for a lay reader

Look, I do have a physics degree, and I can understand the vast majority of what is stated here, but it it going to be clear for a layreader?

The opening paragraph is too technical:

"The electron is a fundamental subatomic particle that carries a negative electric charge. It is a spin-½ lepton that participates in electromagnetic interactions, its mass is approximately 1 / 1836 of the proton. Together with atomic nuclei (protons and neutrons), electrons make up atoms. Their interaction with adjacent nuclei is the main cause of chemical bonding."

I think we should aim to make article understandable for the average person, particularly in the opening section.

I think it would be better if the opening section read as folloms:

"The electron is a fundamental subatomic particle that carries a negative electric charge. It participates in electromagnetic interactions and its mass is approximately 1 / 1836 of the proton. Together with atomic nuclei (protons and neutrons), electrons make up atoms. Their interaction with adjacent nuclei is the main cause of chemical bonding."

and then later went on to explain the term "is a spin-½ lepton". This article presupposes far too much on the part of the reader. -confusedmiked —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.24.189 (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

See above. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, I've been working steadily to enhance the article (since here), including making it more readable for the lay reader. But it's a long, long way from being finished. Yes the lead needs work, but personally I prefer to leave addressing the lead section until the last; that way all the ducks are in a row and the lead can be written to reflect the article content. Yes I want to make the article easier to read and bring it up to FA quality, but that is just going to take time. (It is a lot of work tracking down suitable references and trying to make it both clear and correct.) Once it is ready, I plan to take it through the standard PR/GA/FA review process, and then it will get a good copy-edit. Until that happens, well if your template addition manages to attract any useful help, I'll be pleasantly surprised. ;-) Thanks for the feedback.—RJH (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

History

I remember reading that the experiments leading the discovery of the electron were performed in 1897, not 1896 as is stated in the history section. Can anyone verify this with a source?--68.36.99.29 (talk) 07:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Fermi Dirac statisitics - and electron spin

I removed the comment in the text ("electrons obey fermi-dirac statistics" or similar) I am not questioning the validity of the theory - just to say that to put it this way seems to be putting the chicken before the egg - Fermi did not invent/create the electron so that it would OBEY his theorys? - how about: "The electron is classified as a fermion and as such should obey fermi-dirac statistics"

Also the statement suggesting an elctron has a spin axis has returned - but no reason given...HappyVR

An electron has spin-1/2. An electron is a fermion. Electrons obey Fermi-Dirac statistics. None of these facts are in question experimentally, so no "should" is necessary. -- Xerxes 21:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not questioning whether or not an electron is a fermion - if the group of particles known as fermions includes electrons then obviuosly an electron is a fermion - this second 'fact' cannot be verified experimentally. Where is the experimental evidence that electrons obey Fermi-Dirac statistics? It's the nature of experiment that a theory can at least be assumed to be true until an experiment shows otherwise. How about this then - "The electron is classified as a fermion and as such should obey fermi-dirac statistics - all experiments performed so far have verified this." Still need citations or equivalent for such experiments though. Also note that an electron can have spin 1/2 or -1/2 (Stern-Gerlach experiment perhaps?) the current text does not make this clear - this is why I added that particular piece of info to the text (see revision 20:22, 11 February 2006 ) As it stands now the text might be taken to read that an electron only has spin 1/2 (and not -1/2) if this is your view please say so.HappyVR 21:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh, the person who invented 2+2=4 didn't know about electrons either, but it should come to no surprise to anybody that 2 electrons +2 electrons = 4 electrons. The magic of science is exactly that old theories, like addition, work for many things not anticipated by their inventors. user:ilya

Re: Electron spin

(properties and behaviour - paragraph 3)

I have made changes to the text - in the section concerning spin - here are my reasons - The electron has spin +/- 1/2 This does not imply it is a 'fermion' or that it obeys 'fermi-dirac' statistics - A fermi-dirac statistics are meant to apply to particles spin 1/2 - if the theory is wrong it is not the particles fault - it does not have to 'obey' any theory created by a named scientist - no matter how respectable. Also the the magnetic moment is described as being along the spin axis - this is a common misconception (especially in teaching textbooks) - it is not - the electron does not have a 'spin axis' (This is probably due to a misinterpretation of the word spin). The property known as spin is chiral (and interacts in a chiral way with other chiral particles - i.e. other electrons / light) and the 'spin field' is spherically symmetrical (it is not a spinning top!). To describe it as a spinning top (i.e. with an axis of rotation) is a simplification but unfortunately does not give a true impression of the nature of the property known as spin and I suggest is a barrier to further/proper understanding.HappyVR 17:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You clearly do not have a reasonable modern understanding of spin in physics. I recommend that you start learning about spin by reading the wikipedia article on the subject, which is not too bad. In particular, read the section on spin direction. You also apparently do not understand the spin-statistics theorem, which is what implies that spin-1/2 particles are fermions. Regardless of whether the spin-statistics theorem is true (even though it probably is), electrons are both spin-1/2 and fermions. So with respect to electrons, the question of the general validity of the theorem is moot. -- Xerxes 21:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You do not seem to be reading my points correctly... I was criticising the fermion/electron aspect in a grammatical sense, does this make my point clearer.(I assume fermions can have spin -1/2 as well as +1/2). Maybe my statement "This does not imply it is a 'fermion' " was a bit over the top? I am not questioning whether or not the classification of particles known as fermions includes electrons - hope fully my re-written statement (see above) will clarify what is was trying to say "The electron is classified as a fermion and as such should obey fermi-dirac statistics - all experiments performed so far have verified this." or as an expanded alternative: "The electron has spin +/- 1/2 The electron is included in the group of particles classified as a fermion and as such should obey fermi-dirac statistics - all experiments performed so far have verified this." to replace "The electron has spin ½ and is a fermion (it obeys Fermi-Dirac statistics). In addition to its intrinsic angular momentum, an electron has a magnetic moment along its spin axis."

My main point however related to the 'spin axis'. HappyVR 22:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the history of the content dispute, but let me say this is defense of the status quo:

1. There is no such thing as a spin -1/2 particle. The electron is a spin 1/2 particle. If you measure its angular momentum along a particular axis, sometimes you will get -1/2.
2. There is no difference between saying "X is classified as Y" and "X is Y", except that the former statement is awkward.
3. The electron does obey Fermi-Dirac statistics. Physics is an experimental science. There is no need to append the phrase "all experiments performed so far have verified this" to every sentence in a physics article; it is implied. There is even less of a point in appending it to just one sentence.
4. The expectation value of the spin operator is a vector. Why not call it the spin axis?

Melchoir 22:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Edits by anon 80.137.xx.xxx

Whether incorporated into the article, or as an external link, these edits violate the policy Wikipedia:No Original Research. Please review this policy, and argue here on the talk page before re-adding those edits. Further reintroduction of these edits without discussion will be considered vandalism. -- SCZenz 20:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Electrons and Down Quarks

Does anyone know if there are any theories to the possibility that the Down Quark is composed of an Up Quark and an electron? I once heard that when a Proton and Electron mix it produces a neutron. So if this is true then if you mix an Up Quark and an electron it must form a down quark...I am not sure though. - BlackWidower

This is a good question, but it turns out it doesn't work that way. A neutron that decays into a proton and an electron is also producing an antineutrino, like this:

$n\to e^{-}+p+{\bar {\nu }}_{e}$

What's really going on is this:

$d\to e^{-}+u+{\bar {\nu }}_{e}$

(With an up quark and a down quark remaining unchanged).

That decay is via the weak force. The antineutrino's presence is important, because it means the decay preserves lepton number; in the situation you're proposing, either the neutron or proton would have lepton number, or lepton number would not be conserved. In general, just because things can decay into each other doesn't mean they're "made of" each other. . -- SCZenz 22:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

So if I take an up quark, an electron and an antinutrino it will produce a down quark...another "elementary" particle, which (correct me if I'm wrong) by definition cannot be broken down? I'm sorry if I am a little sceptical but you have more experience then me so whatever it is I'll take your word for it. - BlackWidower 20:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Elementary particles interact with each other, and in the process often some disappear and others appear. For example, the decay above also happens in certain nuclei:

$p\to e^{+}+n+\nu _{e}$

which is again really

$u\to e^{+}+d+\nu _{e}$

The up quark isn't made of the positron, down quark, and neutrino, any more than the down quark is made of an electron, up quark, and antineutrino. Particle physics is certainly non-intuitive, because it's nothing like we experience in our daily lives. I hope that helps! If not, feel free to keep asking questions. -- SCZenz 20:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

My brain has just exploded...I think I get it. One question remains...can those equations be reversed? - BlackWidower 21:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

In principle, yes. But it's very hard to collide three particles in that manner, especially when one is a neutrino; in fact, it's nearly impossible. (In a sense, though, the examples I've given are reversals of each other; if you move an electron to the other side it turns into a positron and if you move an antineutrino to the other side it turns into an antineutrino.) -- SCZenz 21:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

"if you move an antineutrino to the other side it turns into an antineutrino"

I think one of those is sopposed to be a run-of-the-mill nutrino. Also, that is interesting I did not know that. Wow, Fermion physics is facinating. :D - BlackWidower 21:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, you're right. And either one would've worked. And yes, particle physics (bosons are good too) is fascinating—that's why I study it. ;) Ask more questions any time you've got 'em. -- SCZenz 22:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I have wondered for 45 years what an electron is. On the surface, it (an electon) seems impossible. It also seems that the universe is full of them and at the same time they are each and ever exactly identical except for position and momentum. Can anyone explain 'electron' without slinking under things like Hermitians and non-commutative operators and manifold Banach spaces and that sort of frilly stuff? Just asking. Just tell me where to go. To find out, I mean.--- regford 19:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Does this help? Identity and Individuality in Quantum Theory Melchoir 19:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well. I had hoped for a two-line answer as to what an electron is. But if I am given more, how can I complain? I will ponder; stay tuned.regford

I stumbled upon this and I can try to help (although I wonder if you are really a brilliant physicist in disguise). All I can say is that the answer you seek does not exist. Ask most theorists and they will tell you that they can't explain to you what an electron is. All I can say is that an electron (and any other fundamental particle) appears to be some weird "point-like" thing that has certain properties (like charge, mass etc). "Point-like" because its charactersitics literally appear point-like: i.e. its charge distribution is point-like (whereas for a proton, it is smeared out over a diameter of about a fermi) and it doesn't appear to have a "size" like the proton can be said to have a "size". Obviously there is a lot of subtlety involved and this answer is relatively crude, but that is all I can say. If you're wondering why we don't know what an electron is, it's becasue nobody has been clever enough to properly answer your question; and, I suspect, people will be asking the very same question for centuries to come. Krea 14:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because at the moment, the lead section does not comply with the MOS - it should be a two or three paragraph summary of the article's content. Worldtraveller 00:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Negative-Negative bond?

In an atom of oxygen for example, if electrons have a negative charge how do they join together in the same atom, like the 8 electrons on the second shell are in 4 groups of 2?

See covalent bonding. -- Xerxes 18:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Max speed

How fast are these babies? The Speed of light article says they can go faster than c in a blue pool of water. Is that really true? --Uncle Ed 21:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing goes faster than c; if the article says that it'll have to be fixed. On the other hand, sufficiently energetic electrons can travel at any speed under c. And what is true is that in media like water, the local speed of light can be less than c, so electrons can go faster than light. But not Faster than Light, if you see what I mean. Melchoir 21:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait, what the hell-- did you just play me? Melchoir 21:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No, no. I was aware the blue water picture. I moved it down, but then it got me wondering. Nothing can go faster than c, but the other article made it sound like electrons could.

If you're saying that the local speed of light is less than "c" (speed of light in a vacuum) THEN we should not not say that electrons can go faster than light, but rather:

• In water, the local speed of light is significantly slower than the speed of light in a vacuum (usually called c). Electrons in water cannot go faster than c of course! But they can outrace "slow photons" underwater.

Does that make sense? This is new to me. --Uncle Ed 00:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well forgive me, but it didn't sound like it was new to you from the other article! As for the caption "travelling faster than the speed of light in water", I think it's supposed to be interpreted as "travelling faster than (the speed of light in water)", which is correct, as opposed to "travelling (faster than the speed of light) in water", which would be wrong. There's a separate issue if you want to bring photons into the picture: light in water is not just photons, but photons coupled to polarization waves. Perhaps "travelling faster than the local speed of light" would be best? Melchoir 00:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Your explanation uses parentheses just the way a computer programmer would, to clarify matters of operator precedence. Like (3 * 4) + 5 vs. 3 * (4 + 5) come out differently. That helps me, because I'm a programmer! :-)

For the general reader, however, I think you've hit on a happy phrase: local speed of light. --Uncle Ed 12:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I called myself a programmer once... good times. I think the "Properties and behavior" section of this article is okay now in terms of being correct. As an editorial issue, I'm not sure how much of the material is relevant to electrons in particular. I mean, traveling at sub-light speed is common to all massive particles, and generating radiation is common to all charged particles. And I'm not sure how much space the Lorentz factor really needs here. I guess what I'm trying to say is: if you really want to work at improving the article, perhaps some other sections could use the attention? Melchoir 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This whole section should be trimmed. -- Xerxes 22:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I was reading this article and it stated that electrons can go faster than the speed of light, which totally blew my mind until I read the talk page and realized that they aren't going faster than the speed of light (c), they are going faster than 1/2c which is the speed light travels in water. Made the correction so that nobody else's head explodes by being boggled by the totally ridiculous inaccuracies in Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.210.5.223 (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Book called Enigmatic Electron has these values:

• The book titled "The Enigmatic Electron" provides these values:

• 1. R(E) (point-like charge radius)-------------------<1 x 10-16 cm
• 2. R(0) (classical radius)--------------------------2.82 x 10-13 cm
• 3. R(C) (Compton sized electron)------------------3.86 x 10-11 cm
• 4. R(E) Effective (R(E) = 2/5 RC)-------------------1.5 x 10-11 cm
• 5. R(E) Effective - Corr (R(E) = XX R(C)-------------1.3 x 10-11 cm
• 6. R(H) (based on Compton radius)--------------------4 x 10-12 cm
• 7. R(H) (based on classical radius) -----------------4.09 x 10-12 cm
• 8. R(H) QM-Corrected (R(H) = (sqrt of 3)*R(C))----6.69 x 10-11 cm
• 9. Scattering results before 1992 imply--------------< 1 x 10-16 cm
• 10. Scattering results very recently imply------------< 1 x 10-18 cm

• R(E) is electric charge based radius
• R(H) is magnetic field based radius

Ref on electron size

In an article by D. Hestenes (Ariz State Univ) in the book called The Electron (c) 1991, Kluwer Acad Pub, David references D. Bender et al (1984) Tests of QED at 29GeV center of mass energy, Phys. Rev., D30, 515. His words are: "Scattering experiments limit the size of the electron (i.e. the size of the domain in which momentum transfer takes place) to less thadn 10-18 m [9]." bvcrist

Yes, the crucial language here is "less than". These experiments are merely putting upper bounds on a number that theoretically is zero. -- Xerxes 21:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Physicists Brian Greene, J.A.Wheeler and Alexander Burinskii have suggested that the electron may be gravitationally collapsed (see Black hole electron ). In this view the electron will approach its Schwarzschild radius size (1.35x10 exp-57 meter radius). --DonJStevens 19:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

Can't we do better than "a very small mass": small compared to what? Also in, "The electron is a spin-1/2 lepton which participates in electromagnetic interactions and is defined by convention to have a charge of −1", why just mention the electromagnetic interaction? Shouldn't we say "...which may interact with other fundamental particles through gravitation and the electroweak interaction (electromagnetism and weak interaction) depending on the specific particle it is interacting with". Lastly: UNITS! -1 of what? Krea 20:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The charge is in atomic units, of course. I've added that to the introduction. Itub 13:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No units are necessary. The charge of the electron defines the units. Only the electromagnetic charge was mentioned because the original wording says "lepton which participates in electromagnetic interactions"; that is, as opposed to neutrinos which are "leptons which do not participate...". -- Xerxes 18:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Surely stating that it is charged relates to the fact it participates in EM interactions. We have said lepton with no more explanation, why not put it as having an electric charge which would say all this.Jameskeates 10:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Electrinos

A few years back, someone proposed that you could split an electron in half if you zapped it with light while it was suspended in liquid helium. Have any experiments of this nature been attempted so far?

I think it should be referenced in this article, or perhaps one could be written about electrinos themselves. Electrino Article from 2000... --HantaVirus 13:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that it should not be referenced in this article, because electrinos are either total crap or a non-physical abstraction. Given that a SPIRES search turns up zero results for "electrino" while the same search for "electron" yields 15113 hits (and similarly at ISI Web of Knowledge, even if it is not total crap, it clearly isn't of much interest to physicists. --Strait 22:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You thinking that it is crap does not detract from the fact that material on the subject exists (beyond the aforementioned article [1] [2]). As part of NPOV, attention is supposedly to be paid due to all views, however unlikely the phenomena that they describe may be. There are a slew of articles devoted to classically irrational concepts in existence on Wikipedia, and they remain because it is biased to presume them to be invaluable simply because they have yet to be proven or are not rigorously studied by physicists. --HantaVirus 13:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Assuming enough people have written on the topic of electrinos for them to be considered [[Wikipedia:Notable|Notable], it's one thing to have an article on electrinos which acknowledges that some people believe in them while also acknowledging that the vast majority of physicists do not accept the theory as correct. It's another thing to include this discussion in the main article on electrons, because that makes it seem like electrinos are a mainstream idea, when, in fact, they are incredibly obscure. -- Strait 15:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Should we think the same about Matter Creation?

Bvcrist 05:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Dipole moment

Any experts out there want to add something about measurements of the electron's EDM?

The Particle Data Group says that it is 0.07 ± 0.07 × 10^-26 e cm... --Strait 01:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant in addition to measured limits, what the implications of a non-zero EDM would be. Bodhitha 16:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

single electron

i read somewhere maybe ten years ago that there's a theory that there is only one electron in the universe, and that it moves *really* fast, so it *appears* to be everywhere at the same time. does anybody know where this theory originated, or provide a link? thx --Sarefo 13:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[3]...google is your friend. --HantaVirus 17:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

One electron universe... Wikipedia is your friend! Melchoir 23:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Mass

This article says 9.1093826(16) E−31 kg, but Google say 9.10938188 E-31 kg. [4] Does it depend on energy level due to extra energy = extra mass? EamonnPKeane 19:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The best-accepted values for fundamental constants change over time as measurements get bet better. The wikipedia article should state clearly where the number comes from to avoid any ambiguity. (It would be nice if the Google calculator did the same, but that's their business.) Itub 13:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes mass can be calculated with Planck'units as in the case of an electron: me = mp.lp / (alpha.ao)= 9.1093826.10E-31 kg where mp is Planck mass (2.176450508.10E-8 kg), lp is Planck length (1.6162428210E-35 m), alpha = 1/1370359991 and ao is the radius of the 1s orbital in the H-atom also called Bohr radius (5.291772108.10E-11 m). The mass of a proton also can be calculated but is far more difficult.The charge of an electron can be calculated with e = sqrt.(10E+7.alpha.mp.lp)= 1.602171653.10E-19 C. Planck charge is then qp = sqrt (mp.lp)= 5.930996971.10E-22 C. Nota Bene that coulomb ìs sqrt kg.m. That is of great importance to other value like ohm = m/s.oscar emile83.82.99.83 21:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Flipping an electron

Hi. I remember reading an article in Scientific American, about 20-odd years ago, that claimed that if you flip an electron over 360 degrees, not all aspects of the electron appear unchanged. Instead, you have to flip it a second time to restore the electron's original state. Is something like this true or is my memory playing tricks on me? --72.70.23.153 18:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Something like that is true due to the fact that it's a spin 1/2 particle. It would be better to say that you have to rotate its wavefunction 720 degrees, though. I have to say that I've never really understood this, so perhaps someone who has grokked quantum better than me can give a better explanation? --Strait 19:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

electron splitting

I've removed text about electron splitting. Let me say how I roughly understand the thing about electrons.

As was first emphasized by Feynmann, all electrons are exactly indistinguishable. That's indeed a very nontrivial statement that couldn't be even stated before quantum mechanics. However, it has to be true according to both our theoretical knowledge (quantum field theory that describes electrons) and all experiments (intereference in double-slit experiments, for example, requires that electrons are exactly the same). That shows that you cannot split electron.

However, you can prepare electron in some state. It's typical in thought experimants to prepare electron in a state where it has definite spin in x axis, and therefore doesn't have a definite spin in z axis. When you try to perform а measurement of z-axis spin this electron effectively works as a combination of spin up plus spin down with a probability 1/2. That's not a half-electron. That's a state that you can try to measure and you see with probability 1/2 the whole electron with spin up and with complementary probability the whole electron with spin down. Probabilities don't have to be halves here if you select different axis.

Similarly, you can cook electron wavefunction that doesn't have a defined position. When you measure it in some specific region you either have a whole electron or you have no electron at all. But this can happen with some probability.

Description of electron in terms of wavefunction is only valid when you restrict yourself to signle electron (and then it must square-integrate to 1). In real QED electrons can be produced or disappearing, so the correct description involves multi-particle states.

That's why splitting electron wavefunction is a crap.

user:ilya

Are electrons planets?

http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/solaratoms.htm

I would like to see some arguments and some information on this subject in this wiki article. I also tried to add the above link but was unable to do so out of fear of screwing up the page.

Thanks, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by H4eafy (talk • contribs) 09:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Well, this is purely philosophical. I mean, it's just a rough comparison. It isn't anything practical since I doubt there can be life on an electron, and in molecules, atoms "share" electrons, which would compare to solar systems sharing planets (not really a highly rational idea). Also, what would you compare the moon circling around the earth to? Good thing you didn't add the link, since it's completely irrelevant, not to mention erroneus. Slartibartfast1992 20:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• From [5]:

so·lar1 /ˈsoʊlər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[soh-ler] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective 1. of or pertaining to the sun: solar phenomena.

nucleus=/=sun, therefore atoms=/= solar systems. QED. Backsigns 12:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The major trouble with this idea is that the only way the atom resembles a solar system and electrons resemble planets and the nucleus resembles a sun, is that way back when people had no idea what the atom was like, an understandable model which became popular was that the atom resembles a solar system. About as realistic as saying your family resembles a solar system with your dad and mom as the sun and all the kids as planets. It's a model to some degree, but in no way physically realistic. The electron manifests itself in ways which under some tests, resemble a physical particle orbiting the nucleus; but in other tests, it behaves nothing like that. Similar to the models of the brain throughout the centures; first the brain resembled a hydraulic system; then it resembled a telephone switchboard; then it resembled a hologram; now it resembles a computer. None of which are physically realistic.Gzuckier 15:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Which direction electron spins?

counterclockwise or clockwise? Also in which direction it rotates around atoms?

Spin is just a label used by physicists which can either be one of two values - "up" or "down". It doesn't have anything to do with the normal meanings of the words, it's just a label. See spin (physics).

Also, the electrons don't really rotate, but the probability of where it is spreads around where the orbit would be. Both these are quantum effects.

Ask on the science reference desk for a better answer. --h2g2bob (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

delocalized electrons

could someone more knowledgeable than I insert delocalized electrons somewhere in the article? --MKnight9989 12:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

after glow of fluorescent lamp

I have two lamps using recently installed fluorescent bulbs that are connected to the same on/off switch. A couple of nights ago I noticed that one of the bulbs was glowing dimly even though the switch was in the off position while the other bulb remained dark. The switch itself is designed to glow when in the off positon but I am wondering why the bulb does. It will glow for awhile and then go off and then come back on. Sometimes it will get brighter if I touch it. I tried switching the bulbs from one lamp to the other and only the same bulb does this in either lamp. Any ideas on what may be causing this? Please respond to makewine@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.108.3.241 (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know but I've noticed the same thing in fluorescent tubes, as well as TV screens (CRT). I suspect phosphorescence. Gzuckier 15:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do they stay in orbit?

Given that opposite charges attract, what stops an electron from crashing into the positively-charged atomic nucleus? (I presume it is not analogous to a planet orbiting a star, since electromagnetic force is so much stronger than gravity, and anyway an electron isn't really a particle at all.) Widsith 09:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing... If anyone answers (this or the question below), please tell me. 76.188.26.92 21:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It's kind of analogous. A planet doesn't fall into a star because it has enough energy to keep going round, and the same is true for an electron in an atom. 81.174.226.229 (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes they do fall in. It's called electron capture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.246.46 (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC) In Science there only 2 (emphasize 2) categories or sets of information and they are not mutually exclusive sets or categories. One catgory may be true enough to be considered as factual (under the considered conditions) and the other is opinion. And I propose to you that whereas electrons are a constituent of the atom, which I consider to be a fact, the idea of an electron orbit or orbital is not a fact, but only an opinion.WFPM70.242.160.149 (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)See Talk:Nuclear modelWFPMWFPM (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)WFPMWFPM (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

Electrons are obviously not neutral, they carry a small negative charge. Article tagged as it should be.204.187.34.100 05:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. Melchoir 06:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Electraqanta

I was just wondering if the electron was the quanta of electromagnetism. If this is the case than how can it be magnetically atracted to a, for example, proton? They would ave to exchange magnetism quanta, meaning electrons! Can someone plese help? 76.188.26.92 21:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the quantum of electromagnetic force is the photon. 81.174.226.229 (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Je m'y perde.

When my class was talking about electrons I commented to my science teacher that light was a photon (another person asked what light was). She said that was true, but that the photon is a type of electron. If this is so, than couldn't some electrons trael at c? I think she is wrong nut need to know for sure. Can someone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.26.92 (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

She's wrong. Photons and electrons are different. Electrons can't travel at c because they have mass. 81.174.226.229 (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Finding the actual position of an electron is now possible. http://www.livescience.com/php/video/player.php?video_id=080222-ElectronRide 71.191.70.153 (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Adam.

Chemical bonding

I thought it was the interaction of an atom's electron field with that of another atom that was the prime mechanism of chemical bonding. I thought it was really nothing to do with nuclei. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.25.222 (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC) Thinkact (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

does anybody no wat electrons are —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.23.209 (talk) 03:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Electrons and chemistry

Sorry if I offended anybody especially theoretical physicists with my brief section on the above, but owing to the enormous importance of the electrons in the atomic and molecular structure, bonding, and chemical reactions I feel that the subject is treated much too superficially here, surely deserving better treatment. LouisBB (talk) 05:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Negatrons and positrons

The comment on "negatrons" needed a citation to indicate this terminology is still occasionally encountered today. Schweber uses the term "negaton" instead of "electron" in the cited book, "An Introduction to Relativistic Quantum Field Theory", but does not seem to use the word "electron" to mean either a negaton or a positron, perhaps to avoid ambiguity. Can anyone provide an example of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.162.62 (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

To those persons wondering about the need for a particle in nuclear physics with the properties of an electron I suggest that you call up a picture of the Whirlpool galaxy and think about the physics of the event. Here we have a lot nucleons and atoms being accumulated under conditions (I call it chaotic} of occurrence of an excessive amount of angular momentum (Mvr), and the nucleons of the atomic nuclei don't have a way of getting rid of any significant amount. So who you gonna call? You guessed it! the electron. Now the next question is, of course, how does the electron get rid of angular momentum, and that's what the argument is all about. Now when Neils Bohr postulated his orbits he actually worried about their angular momentum properties but now we're smarter and have orbitals which dont have angular momentum but only energy levels and probably values. And we've got around the angular momentum problem by defining the emissions of the electron in units of erg-seconds, which of course has the same dimensional units as does angular momentum. So I can't explain how the electrons get rid of excess angular momentum and you're on your own. But I'm pretty sure you'll see the need for electrons in the physical accumulation process. WFPMWFPM (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

there is no electron

Facts:

• 1) Faradays law of induction cannot be explained by electron theory Source: physics Textbook
• 2) Maxwells electromatetic theory is in direct violation of electron theory. Most notably from his theory displacement current is still taught as mainstream science. Source physics Textbook
• 3) In chemisty the number of electrons leaving a mass is determined by the voltage Source: chemistry textbook
• 4) In induction physics, the current is determined by the number of coils in the winding source: physics textbooks
• 5) In circiut theory the current is determined by the load Source: also physics textbook
• 6) these three things are all different
• 7) In the power industry, there is also something called "current draw" which is a current not determined by the load but the power supply Source: Con Edison training manual
• 8) All of these things with the exception of 7 are excepted theories of science that contflict with the electron. Number 4 and 5 conflict with number 3 which is part of the definition of the electron.

Known people in the scientific community who said that they did not hold electrons to be true without proof(or admitted there existance to be different than that of mainstream science)

• 1) Albert Einstien said that their existance was different
• 2) Max Planck said that he would not hold it to be true without proof
• 3) Faraday was totally against the idea before it ever came out
• 4) Tesla in his patents refers to electricity as a pressure rather than a substance
• 5) Heaviside said that electrons were compressed ether
• 6) JJ Thomson the so called discover of the electron said that he did not agree with the electron theory that was interpreted from his experiment.

Anyone else that a circuits textbook fails to mentions. Actually I find that most circuits textbooks don't even talk at all about any scientist. What I demand:

• 1) A scientific presentation of electron theory that uses the scientific method
• 2) A list of people in the scientific community who actually accepted this (and hold electrons to be a fact and more than a theory), and on what basis of the scientific method did they accept it.

Too much detail?

I'd like to propose that the three paragraphs in the history section be removed because they are too detailed and do not add significantly to the history of the electron (which I think should be at a high level). They are the following:

Thomson's 1906 Nobel Prize lecture can be found at http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1906/thomson-lecture.html. He notes that prior to his work: (1) the (negatively charged) cathode was known to be the source of the cathode rays; (2) the cathode rays were known to have the particle-like property of charge; (3) were deflected by a magnetic field like a negatively charged particle; (4) had the wave-like property of being able to penetrate thin metal foils; (5) had not yet been subject to deflection by an electric field.

Thomson succeeded in causing electric deflection because his cathode ray tubes were sufficiently evacuated that they developed only a low density of ions (produced by collisions of the cathode rays with the gas remaining in the tube). Their ion densities were low enough that the gas was a poor conductor, unlike the tubes of previous workers, where the ion density was high enough that the ions could screen out the electric field. He found that the cathode rays (which he called corpuscles) were deflected by an electric field in the same direction as negatively charged particles would deflect. With the electrons moving along, say, the x-direction, the electric field E pointing along the y-direction, and the magnetic field B pointing along the z-direction, by adjusting the ratio of the magnetic field B to the electric field E he found that the cathode rays moved in a nearly straight line, an indication of a nearly uniform velocity v=E/B for the cathode rays emitted by the cathode. He then removed the magnetic field and measured the deflection of the cathode rays, and from this determined the charge-to-mass ratio e/m for the cathode rays. He writes: "however the cathode rays are produced, we always get the same value of e/m for all the particles in the rays. We may...produce great changes in the velocity of the particles, but unless the velocity of the particles becomes so great that they are moving nearly as fast as light, when other considerations have to be taken into account, the value of e/m is constant. The value of e/m is not merely independent of the velocity...it is independent of the kind of electrodes we use and also of the kind of gas in the tube."

Thomson notes that "corpuscles" are emitted by hot metals and "Corpuscles are also given out by metals and other bodies, but especially by the alkali metals, when these are exposed to light. They are being continually given out in large quantities and with very great velocities by radioactive substances such as uranium and radium; they are produced in large quantities when salts are put into flames, and there is good reason to suppose that corpuscles reach us from the sun." Thomson also describes water drop experiments that enabled him to obtain a value for e that is about twice the modern value, and close to the then current value for the charge on a hydrogen ion in an electrolyte.

Is there any objection? Perhaps these could be moved to the J.J. Thomson page or somewhere else? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm for anything that better explains the electron as being a real physical particle and leaves the question as to how it was created and how it functions.WFPMWFPM (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not object to you getting rid of JJ Thomson, with your 1984-newspeak mentality and writing him out of textbooks, like Tesla, and those before him. That is if you do not object to me calling the electron what it is:

• A dogma
• anti-intelectual propaganda ,to promote
• a blatent non-scientific construct to an artificial reality
• hidden and frusterating to the would be scientist.

The scienfic method states, that you need OBSERVATION. Well I havent observed any electrons, I do not believe them to be scientific. Why dont you go erase all the history of science (including the scientific method), and replace it with your own occult priesthood? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.32.166 (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of electrons

I object to this article, being treated as a scientific matter. The scientific method states that observation is a nessesity of science. Since no one ever observed an electron, all of these ideas about electrons are not scientific. I think this article should be moved to the occult magic page instead. FACT:

• 1. Faradays experiments have not all been sorted out and defy many of the so called properties of the electron. the most notable experiment that defys the electron theory, is known as faradays law of induction, which is accepted by textbooks, but not explained.
• 2. Maxwells Electromagnetic theory, (not his equations) are against the existance of electrons (displacement current)
• 3. The units for charge are totally wrong (where does the 4 pi come in? experiment? no UNITS), and the question of what charge is, is not asked.
• 4. Current and voltage, are not clearly defined, and in the practically engineering profession are used differently in 3 fields:
  • a) chemisty: the voltage describes the amount of electrons traveled and leaving a material (metal)
  • b) Electrical power generation (motors): current is determined by the motor.
  • c) Electronics (things that use electricity): Current is determined by the load

Electrons have a non scientific nature because:

• 1. Pauli exclusion principal
• 2. Quantum levels
• 3. Negative energy
• 4. Obscure chemical properties
• 5. You cant "know" where an electron is and know its energy state

This is a blatent, non-scientific construct and artificial view of reality, on the basis that there is no OBSERVATION of electrons. The scientific method states there must be obeservation.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.32.166 (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 

The relevant wikipedia guidelines on your remarks are located here:

• Per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines, "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views".
• Per Wikipedia:No original research, "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought".

To include such viewpoints in any wikipedia article, they will need to be supported by credible sources. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

kind of like talking about manners, instead of actually dealing with what i am criticizing. this is not origianl researh. If you are a scientific article, you need to present electrons in a scientific fassion using the scientific method. You do not, so this is not an article of science. No one on the discussion page has been able to adress what I have brought up, including that I am talking about maxwells electromagnetic theory which is one citation. Along with three defintions of current and voltage all used differently in three different professions. What citation do you want? Are you complaining about my manners, because you cant deal with what I am saying? If I actually bring you the citation, which what you are not saying the facts I said are not true, would it really matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.32.166 (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is concerned with electrons, rather than electricity. The later is addressed in another article, and doing so here in the broad sense would divert focus. Your other remarks appear argumentative, inflammatory and contradictory, rather than constructive, so to me it appears unhelpful and in violation of WP policy. This may explain the lack of interest in a discussion. There is nothing further I want to say.—RJH (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Negatron Needed!

Hello. I just thought I would tell you I am going to suggest the term "negatron" to Fermilab asking them to change the antiproton's name to negatron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.128.36 (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see Keep on topic under Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#How_to_use_article_talk_pages.—RJH (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)