Talk:Electron

Elementary/Can't be split?

"Condensed-matter physicists managed to detect the third constituent of an electron — its 'orbiton'. Isolated electrons cannot be split into smaller components, earning them the designation of a fundamental particle. But in the 1980s, physicists predicted that electrons in a one-dimensional chain of atoms could be split into three quasiparticles: a 'holon' carrying the electron's charge, a 'spinon' carrying its spin and an 'orbiton' carrying its orbital location. In 1996, physicists split an electron into a holon and spinon. Now, van den Brink and his colleagues have an electron into an orbiton and a spinon (abstract). Orbitons could also aid the quest to build a quantum computer — one stumbling block has been that quantum effects are typically destroyed before calculations can be performed. But as orbital transitions are extremely fast, encoding information in orbitons could be one way to overcome that hurdle." [1]

Shouldn't the article's initial part include something about this? 83.14.232.226 (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

One caution: when solid-state physicists speak of a "particle" they are talking about a mathematical construction describing the collective behavior of electrons moving through matter. That isn't to say that the phenomena they're presenting are fake or insignificant -- it's probably good work. It's just that the quasiparticles are not fundamental particles in the sense of an electron or tau-neutrino. They're using electrons to do something cool, not creating new particles. Spiel496 (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Reference 124 specifically calls the "orbitons", "spinons", and "holons" new particles. As well, the wiki pages on those three quasi-particles state explicitly that the electron is made up of those; rather than being an elementary particle itself. Should the article be amended to state as such? 96.49.85.161 (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

According to quasiparticles, no. Spiel496 (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

If "they have no known components or substructure," isn't Dr. Zahid Hasan creating a lot of confusion by saying that the Weyl fermion is "the most basic building block of all electrons"? (The Weyl fermion has been found)
He's definitely creating confusion in my mind. This Phys.org article does not say it's a "quasiparticle." 75.163.204.203 (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Questions regarding History section

1. This statement ("The ancient Greeks noticed that amber attracted small objects when rubbed with fur. Apart from lightning, this phenomenon is humanity's earliest recorded experience with electricity.") seems to contradict information in the Wikipedia Electricity article, which states that the ancient Egyptians documented their experiences with electric fish long before the ancient Greeks came around. (History of electromagnetism suggests that the amber effect may have been experienced by prehistoric humans before electric fish, but that seems not to have been a "recorded experience," and in any case, that still pre-dates the ancient Greeks.) If the Electricity article is, in fact, correct, then I would suggest that the above-mentioned assertion needs to be revised, and further suggest that if the cited reference (Shipley) backs up the erroneous assertion (I haven't checked it), then that reference should be regarded as being somewhat less than reliable.

2. "In 1737, C. F. du Fay and Hawksbee independently discovered...", who is Hawksbee? It would seem to be Francis Hauksbee the elder, but the cited reference (Keithley) shows that he died in 1713. So how could he have done anything in 1737? Britannica.com shows there was also a Francis Hauksbee the Younger, who was also a scientist, but that's not enough to show his relationship to this subject matter. Further confusing the matter is English Cyclopedia by Charles Knight which seems to have mixed up the two Hauksbees, perhaps regarding them as one person. Also, the Keithley citation incorrectly points to page 207, which is about events of the 1800s, not 1700s. Hauksbee (the elder) is discussed starting on page 15 (where it says he performed a demonstration relevant to this subject matter in 1706, not 1737), and Du Fay is discussed starting on page 19. Perhaps they meant to point to page 20 (which I can't access)? Could someone who knows the subject matter help straighten all this out?

3. "Franklin thought that the charge carrier was positive." Presumably, this means "incorrectly thought." Since Franklin arbitrarily labeled the two aspects as positive and negative (apparently), is it correct to say that he "thought" the charge carrier was positive? Or would it be more correct to say, "Franklin thought of the charge carrier as being positive, but he did not correctly identify which situation was a surplus of the charge carrier, and which situation was a deficit." It may also be interesting to note (if this is true, but I'm not an expert) that this decision on his part is what led to electrons being assigned a negative charge value and that likewise positive current is regarded as opposite to the flow of electrons (i.e., due to Franklin's arbitrary assignment).

4. I don't get why "fast-moving" was changed to "quickly-moving" (31 May 2012,‎ 129.173.102.179). The former ("fast-moving") is correct English, and sounds better. The same paragraph also has "fast moving" which should probably be "fast-moving" as well. -- HLachman (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

If nobody has any input on the above questions, I may go ahead and make relevant edits sometime soon. -- HLachman (talk) 08:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the 4 edits suggested above. -- HLachman (talk) 11:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

A reference to Stoney's nephew, the Dublin-based physicist George FitzGerald as the origin of "electron" has been fixed it should be to George Johnstone Stoney himself. Mcardlep (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Electron mass is wrong

I think the electron mass in u is wrong. It should be something like 1/1830 u, which is 5.5e-4 u rather than the "1,822.88e-1 u" that has been posted in the info-bar. Dha250 (talk) 09:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

That's what it says in the info box: 5.5×10⁻⁴ u or [1,823]⁻¹ u. Note the difference between 1,823e-1 (which is 182.3) and [1,823]⁻¹ (which is 1/1823). — HHHIPPO 17:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I expected scientific notation rather than a fraction. Regards, Dha250 (talk) 09:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

If by u they mean amu then I think the electron mass is wrong as of Feb 2014 (see http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v506/n7489/full/nature13026.html). The current stated value of 5.4857990946(22)e−4 given by P.J. Mohr, B.N. Taylor, and D.B. Newell (2011) seem as though it is long overdue to be updated with 0.000548579909067 amu from Nature 506, 467–470 (27 February 2014) (S.Sturm, F.Köhler, J.Zatorski, A.Wagner, Z.Harman, G.Werth, W.Quint, C.H.Keitel & K.Blaum). Even though it needs to be averaged, the 2014 measurement should be the dominant one. 13 April 2015

Ratio of electrons to protons

Assuming that our developed concepts related to the magnetic and electrical properties are essentially correct, where is it established that the ratio of electrons to protons has to be exactly one to one? If it is, how do we explain how the individual proton inside the nucleus is able to manage its delegated individual electron? Since the electrostatic field of the sum of the protons is a summarized value, how does the loss or change in binding energy value of an individual electron result in a condition of ionization of the electrostatic charge of the atom. These questions make the data concerning the difference between the stability of the isotopes, such as: (OE53I127 (stable, -88983Nubase), and (EO54Xe127 ec, 36.345days, -88321Nubase) hard to explain and understand.WFPM (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Etymology of electron

The etymology given is incorrect. Electron is not "a combination of the word electric(icity) and the Greek suffix "tron", meaning roughly 'the means by which it is done'"; it comes from the word "elektron" in Greek which means "amber". Here's proof: http://artflx.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/efts/dicos/woodhouse_test.pl?keyword=^Amber, subs. 66.108.43.59 (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• The etymology given is not quite right, but it is also untrue to say it comes from Ancient Greek elektron (except indirectly, of course). The OED gives: " < electr- (in electric) -on (in ion)." This makes sense if you consider that the word originally referred to (again quoting the OED) "the electric charge associated with a univalent ion"; and this is clear from the first recorded citation (GJ Stoney, in Transactions of the Royal Dublin Society, 1891), "A charge of this amount is associated in the chemical atom with each bond [...]. These charges, which it will be convenient to call electrons, cannot be removed from the atom; but they become disguised when atoms chemically unite." I think this supports the idea that the coinage was a sort of compound form of "electric ion". Widsith (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. It's a semi coincidence that the Greek words for amber and "going" (ion) both end with "on", but this is a common Greek word ending associated with neuter nouns and present participial case verbs. So here a compound or portmanteau word happened to be the same as one of its original roots. But it came from two words anyway. Also the date for coinage was 1891 not 1894 and I will fix that. SBHarris 16:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Citations

Why on earth should citations not be wrapped or at least condensed to 1-2 lines? One person's infrequent need of editing the citation is a detriment to any other user who wishes to see the content of, and edit the page. This doesn't seem at all logical to me, and if someone could explain, please do so. Techhead7890 (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Multi-line citations are much easier to parse, to edit and to verify. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I guess that's a simple limitation of wiki-markup and inline citations. That being said, does a citation template really have to encompass 10 lines? In the current edition, the following is present:

{{cite book
 | last = Anastopoulos | first = C.
 | year = 2008
 | title = Particle Or Wave: The Evolution of the Concept of Matter in Modern Physics
 | url = http://books.google.com/?id=rDEvQZhpltEC&pg=PA236
 | pages = 236–237
 | publisher = [[Princeton University Press]]
 | isbn = 0-691-13512-6
 }}

I could see the following be condensed much like the first line:

{{cite book | last = Anastopoulos | first = C.
 | year = 2008 || title = Particle Or Wave: The Evolution of the Concept of Matter in Modern Physics || pages = 236–237
 | url = http://books.google.com/?id=rDEvQZhpltEC&pg=PA236
 | publisher = [[Princeton University Press]] || isbn = 0-691-13512-6 |}

I'm absolutely not saying that it *can't or shouldn't* be used, because I understand the fact that ease-of-use is important; it just seems a bit obnoxious to take up *so many* lines in the editbox... Techhead7890 (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

That's... awful. You have to read almost all of the citation to find anything. If it really annoys you, you can move everything in the ref section, and use <ref name="Bob1995"/> (this is partially implemented in Atom), but please keep the citations on multiple lines. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, now that's a good alternative which I hadn't heard of before. Fair enough, and I don't think I'll be touching the article - I might come back to it at a later date to implement your suggested means, but the section below is my priority. Sorry if there's been any misunderstanding over my intent - I don't not value the maintenance of citations - they're important and things like deadlinks or made-up-stuff make me cringe - but I don't really like untidy markup either... Techhead7890 (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

New mass

5.48579909067 e-4 amu. Measured by S. Sturm, F. Köhler, J. Zatorski, A. Wagner, Z. Harman, G. Werth, W. Quint, C. H. Keitel & K. Blaum. Paywalled cite of their published article is here http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13026.html, but it doesn't show the value in the abstract. The value comes from other linking websites. No reachable cites have an error term, so I'm not going to add it to the article. Ironically, the error term on the value in the article doesn't contain the mean value given here. Welcome to science; mind the gap. 68.2.82.231 (talk) 06:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Radius

What data are there about the radius of an electron? Is it a true point particle or its radius has the order of magnitude of attometres or zeptometres and how can be determined?--188.26.22.131 (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The electron is considered to be a point particle.

If we take the 'classical' definition of angular momentum

$\mathbf {L} =\mathbf {r} \times \mathbf {p}$

and consider the electron to be a point orbiting on a circular orbit of radius one-half Planck length with a linear momentum equal to the Planck momentum, we get

$\mathbf {L} =\left({\tfrac {1}{2}}\times 1.61619997\times 10^{-35}{\text{ m}}\right)\times \left(6.52485{\text{ kg m/s}}\right)={\frac {1}{2}}\left({\frac {h}{2\pi }}\right)={\frac {1}{2}}\,\hbar ,$

thus an angular momentum of one half (of the reduced Planck constant), which is the spin of the electron.

It's as if the electron spins as fast as allowed on some indeterminate circle on a sphere with a diameter of one Planck length!

— Tentacles^{✉ mailto:Tentacles} 05:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The article mentions that by observations in Penning trap, the upper bound of electron radius is 10e-22m, which shows an inconsistency with the assumptions of a point particle. I also notice an unexplained reversion of this notice by Materialscientist.--5.15.17.255 (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Who said this is an inconsistency? Note that different techniques may give different radii - this is common in atomic physics. Materialscientist (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I see this very interesting discussion related to assumptions, inconsistency, disproving and falsifiability applied to a scientific aspect. When the measurements point to non-zero values of some quantity which by some assumption is considered zero, isn't this an example of disproving and inconsistency?--86.125.189.40 (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No, this isn't an inconsistency. The "upper bound" means the electron radius cannot be larger than 10^-22m. Zero meters is consistent with that limit. I think the article is clear enough as it stands.Spiel496 (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Zero is given by 10e-infinite. 10^-22m is a finite value, non-zero value. Considering it zero here by taking the limit doesn't make sense. I think the article is not clear enough and the discussion is legitimate.--5.15.26.251 (talk) 08:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't follow what you are saying. I don't know what you mean by "taking the limit". If you have an alternative wording for the phrase in the article, "upper limit of the particle's radius is 10⁻²² meters", feel free to propose it here. Spiel496 (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I see this discussion which seems to be needing a clarification. Perhaps the mentioned phrase "taking the limit" points to the consideration whether the mathematical concept of limit applies here to radius of the electron. The mentioned exponentiated value is different from zero. Zero (electron radius) can only be seen as 10^−inf by applying the mentioned mathematical concept.--193.231.19.53 (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Another experimental fact that points to non-zero electronic radius is the existence of the solvated electron in ionic solutions. A point particule (zero radius) can't have a solvation shell, can it?--86.125.189.40 (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The solvation shell article doesn't even mention the size of the core ion. Please drop this discussion. Spiel496 (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Virtual Particles: Zitterbewegung "caused by" virtual photons, "causes" spin?

My understanding is that Zitterbewegung is inherent in the Dirac equation, and that spin was generally agreed upon to be an elementary/irreducible concept...but both of these seem to be contradicted in the last paragraph of the Virtual Particles section:

The apparent paradox (mentioned above in the properties subsection) of a point particle electron having intrinsic angular momentum and magnetic moment can be explained by the formation of virtual photons in the electric field generated by the electron. These photons cause the electron to shift about in a jittery fashion (known as zitterbewegung),[89] which results in a net circular motion with precession. This motion produces both the spin and the magnetic moment of the electron.[9][90] In atoms, this creation of virtual photons explains the Lamb shift observed in spectral lines.[83]

I've yet to get past the source's abstract (http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0985), but it sounds like it's a historical survey of different (and mutually-contradictory) ideas about Zitterbewegung. So, is it a controversial/unsubstantiated interpretation being presented as fact, or am I an ignoramus (or both)? 15:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:3400:74:387B:B56A:92D3:EA18 (talk)

Update - got through the source, which in turn cites for the interpretation at issue Huang's Statistical Mechanics, page 75...I happened to have a copy of the second edition on my shelf, and I'm not seeing this on or around page 75, and there's no entry for Zitterbewegung or Dirac equation or Spin or Electron in the index (nor do I recall this from when I plowed through it last year, though I wasn't exactly thorough); obviously this refers to a different edition, so perhaps it was removed? 67.180.84.49 (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the original articles by Foldy and Wouthuisen or the book reference should be checked for details.--89.120.32.251 (talk) 12:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Spin can also be related to the finite non-zero radius of the electron as pointed out by Penning trap experimental values.--89.120.32.251 (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

A useful link on the connection between Zitterbewegung and electron is: A. O. Barut and A. J. Bracken, “Zitterbewegung and the internal geometry of the electron,”Phys. Rev. D 23, 2454 (1981).--5.15.32.60 (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Standardize subatomic particle organization?

I've noted that the articles for neutron, proton, and this article, have disparate article organizations. I've been raising the notion of standardizing the organization of these key articles to some extent. So far, I suggest that after the Introduction, there be a brief Summary or Description section summarizing the main characteristics of the particle, followed by the History section, then other sections as needed. The Summary section is to provide readers with the essentials (a Cliff Notes of the article, if you will), while the History section provides not only the history, but oftentimes key details for understanding the particles. This article could likely benefit from a brief Description section at its start - many readers will just want to know some of the basic facts up front, and prefer not to have to read the entire article and glean the main points only after some labor. Seems to me that all of these articles can be made better by synchronizing them about their relative strengths. It would be hopeless to attempt complete standardization; but these articles should at least have a similar look about them! Bdushaw (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Request: Make this page semi-protected

I don't know if there is a template for this request but anyway... Lately there has been no useful edits by IPs. Most, if not all of them, have been reverted by Materialscientist, so I wanna know whether you agree to semi-protect this page Tetra quark (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Yet another disruptive editing. Is there any one who reads this talk page? Tetra quark (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I requested a semi protection onWikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection and it has been accepted. Nice Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 12:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Weak Isospin

If I understand correctly, only left-handed electrons interact via the weak force. If correct, its pretty important and should be included here. Probably both in the RH Table, and in the missing text discussion of spin, chirality, isospin and weak isospin; imho.Abitslow (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

electron to photon conversion

I believe the solar cell, the radio, vision and the incandescent light are examples of the electron to photon process. I do not know the mechanics of this process. I just accept what appears to be obvious and go from there.Does anyone share this view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.0.253 (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

No, this is not correct. These processes are all well-understood in physics, and cannot be described as an "electron-to-photon conversion". —Quondum 16:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Nit-picking

From lead:

Like all matter, electrons have properties of both particles and waves, and so can collide with other particles and can be diffracted like light.

I don't think that in present day theories electrons ever collides in any process. It is always a matter of absorption or emission of bosons. Can the statement be reformulated better? YohanN7 (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

How many quarks up and down does have an Electron?

I didn't find any citation about how many quarks up and quarks down does have an Electron. Dorivaldo de C. M. dos Santos (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Electrons are not made up of up and down quarks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

That is a bizarre statement, because the charge of the electron and the proton are opposite equals, as measured down to 10^-21 precision, yet protons have 3 quarks inside of them (according to currently standing scientific theory). It is a "deus ex machina" claim to say that solid-cast or size-less (point-like) electrons, i.e. elementary particles sans internal structure have perfectly equal opposite charge of the composite proton particle, just because. That kind coincidence is very suspicious to theoretical physicists, who like elegant solutions without hidden variables and magic constants such as 1/137. It even makes more sense to say the electron is a black hole, tiny as seen from the outside but with a large enough interior to contain a sub-structure or even a mini universe. 78.131.76.15 (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Passing through two slits simultaneously

"Quantum properties" section states that an electron can pass through two slits simultaneously. Is this a commonly accepted theory? In recent experiment on a double-slit electron diffraction https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.6243 each electron did not create a diffraction when 2 slits were open, but rather hit the wall at a particular point. A diffraction picture was created only after many hits happened. For me it seems this rather means that each electron passed through one slit only. However, I am not a physicist and might miss something. Artem149598 (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Source - Brodsky and Drell 1982

Can someone access the following article by S. J. Brodsky and S. D. Drell Physical Review D 22, 2236 (1980) and add to article details about internal structure probing of the electron?--82.137.15.238 (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Electron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://article.pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/ppv/RPViewDoc?issn=1480-3291&volume=52&issue=8&startPage=1310
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080817094058/http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu:80/news/article/18277 to http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/18277
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081207041522/http://grin.hq.nasa.gov:80/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2000-003012.html to http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2000-003012.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

All matter exhibits wave-particle duality?

It says in the lead "Like all matter, electrons have properties of both particles and waves". I'm no pysicist but shouldn't this read "Like all elementary particles, electrons exhibit properties of both particles and waves? Everything we see around us is made up of matter but it doesn't exhibit wave-particle duality, or am I missing something? And "have properties" seems like pretty poor grammar. Richerman (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Reasons for edits

While an electron is a subatomic particle, it is more specifically an elementary particle. The subatomic particle definition includes both elementary and composite particles under the definition. I choose to specify the electron as an elementary [article to be more precise.

I liked a well defined section in a sentence for symbols, abbreviations, or units in a sentence for a definition. I put the symbols in a parenthesis and wrote denoted to show a direct relationship to the term and separate symbols from a sentence. Although I think there is a better way to do this on each part, it would be helpful to have units or symbols better clarified in text.

I believe the Standard Model should be mentioned in the introduction, because it provides a direct connection to fermions, leptons, and electrons. Mentioning the Standard Model creates a logical process for the explanation of the behavior of the electron and a provides curious readers an opportunity to connect terms to understand the electron's place in quantum mechanics.

While I do believe my bold edits did not keep important relationships that the original sentences provided, I found the paragraph all over the place and lacking structure! I think the mention of quantum mechanics for the electron should be written with more unity and cohesion to provide the reader with a clear picture. It seemed that the electron's Standard Model definition should follow a logical structure, with a careful step-wise analysis of the electron's properties associated with each step/level.

My main concerns were flow and clarity in regards to the edits.

I am new to wikipedia editing and wished my contributions were better executed and improved the article. Account Create (talk) 05:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Chemistry is not a physical phenomena

In the article sayds Electrons play an essential role in numerous physical phenomena, such as [...], chemistry. Chemistry is an entire discipline different like Physics, Chemistry is not a phenomena is a discipline, phenomena whould be "chemistry reactions". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.89.74.149 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.

To set them apart, I have slightly reworded the sentence. - DVdm (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Chemistry is based on physical principles. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC).

I agree, but that is not the point. I was trying to accommodate anon's objection. As it is formulated, the article says that chemistry is a physical phenomenon, which is true, but... physical here is wikilinked to the article Physics, and that is what I tried to amend with my edit, to avoid listing chemistry in a list of phenomena in the domain of physics ("such as electricity, magnetism, chemistry and thermal conductivity"). To me it's no big deal, but I understand anon's objection. What do others think? - DVdm (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the 1 edit anon's claim that Chemistry is an entire discipline different like Physics does not call for change. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC).

Replacement figure about photon to electron-positron conversion in the vicinity of a nucleus

At present there is a very nice looking diagram illustrating the process of photon converting to an electron-positron pair in the vicinity of a nucleus. Unfortunately it has two problems. Firstly, it implies the photon hits the nucleus. This is incorrect. If it were true the electron and positron would lose lots of energy escaping from the nucleus. Also the collision rate (cross section) would be very small as nuclei are tiny objects. In reality the photon only needs to be in the vicinity of a nucleus so as to give it a small kick. Another way of thinking about the process is to consider the photon collides with a virtual electron-positron pair in the electric field of the nucleus. (It can also occur near an electron orbiting the nucleus.) Secondly it implies the electron and also the positron emerge at a finite angle theta. In reality the opening angle for the pair is close to zero degrees.

I have created a new diagram to replace the existing one. The replacement will take place within a week.

Chriskb19 (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

See [2] at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. DVdm (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Experimental boundaries for electron size?

I see there is only mentioned Dehmelt's paper, which fits parabola to g-factor of proton and triton (both built of 3 fermions), extrapolating that electron built of 3 fermions would need 10^-22m radius - I think it is crucial to emphasize here that it claims only to exclude "electron being composed of 3 fermions".

There are missing cross-section based augments, but their naive extrapolation to resting electron (without Lorentz contraction) suggests ~100mb, what corresponds to ~2fm radius.

Stack: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/397022/experimental-boundaries-for-size-of-electron

Are there any other experimental boundaries for electron size? --Jarek Duda (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Not a wp:RS. I have undone the edit to the article too: [3]. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Just see the Dehmelt's paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-8949/1988/T22/016/pdf

The relevant extrapolation is in the plot I have put in stack above - he draws g-factor for proton and triton (both composed of 3 fermions) and concludes limit for "electron composed of three smaller fermions".Jarek Duda (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the source, please see wp:secondary sources.

Regarding the extrapolation, please see wp:NOR and wp:SYNTH. - DVdm (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This is not about some secondary sources, but article discussed in the same sentence - using crucial assumption directly stated there, which should be also clearly stated while referencing it. Jarek Duda (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Schuster: should be "voltage", not "current"

"Arthur Schuster expanded upon Crookes' experiments by placing metal plates parallel to the cathode rays and applying an electric potential between the plates. The field deflected the rays toward the positively charged plate, providing further evidence that the rays carried negative charge. By measuring the amount of deflection for a given level of current, in 1890 Schuster was able to estimate the charge-to-mass ratio". It was the voltage he was varying. Keith McClary (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

So what? Text is correct. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC).

Charge defined, from 2019-05-20

From the 2019 redefinition of SI base units, that took effect on 20 May 2019, its value is exactly 1.602176634×10⁻¹⁹ C by definition of the coulomb.

See https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?e ---- NIST is not the International Authority; but in such matters it is always very careful to be exactly right.

Therefore, the values in the article should now be as above, and the uncertainties removed. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The Coulomb force interaction between the positive protons within atomic nuclei and the negative electrons without, allows the composition of the two known as atoms.

"The Coulomb force interaction between the positive protons within atomic nuclei and the negative electrons without, allows the composition of the two known as atoms." This sentence appears in the introduction. I am sure it is meaningless, but I am not qualified to correct it. I would delete it but cant find a way to do that. JohnjPerth (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)JohnjPerth

It is certainly neither meaningless nor incorrect. There are positive protons within an atomic nucleus. There are electrons without the nucleus. (This is the less common usage of "without", meaning "outside of".) They are positively and negatively charged, respectively. The Coulomb force draws them together, forming a bound state called an atom. An atom is the composition of protons, electrons, and (optionally) electrons.

But, I also see that the sentence could be viewed as confusing. If you have a suggested replacement, and you're unable to put it in the article, I'd be happy to put it in for you. Timeroot (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Spoken article

I'm recording a reading of this article for Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. Probably done within the next week or so. Timeroot (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Black dot theory of electrons not mentioned?

> The issue of the radius of the electron is a challenging problem of modern theoretical physics. The admission of the hypothesis of a finite radius of the electron is incompatible to the premises of the theory of relativity. On the other hand, a point-like electron (zero radius) generates serious mathematical difficulties due to the self-energy of the electron tending to infinity. Observation of a single electron in a Penning trap suggests the upper limit of the particle's radius to be 10−22 meters.

The article could possibly mention here the rather controversial theory of electrons being "pocket blackholes" which allegedly explains the radius duality problem - through a true size of singularity (i.e. zero) vs a measurable event horizont-ish size. 94.21.237.197 (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

To 2 edit spa: Please do not use Wikipedia talk pages to discuss your own views of physics WP:NOTFORUM. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC).

Lede

Should it be "The electron is..." or "An electron is..."? Professor Penguino (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I asked myself the same question, and this pertains to several articles about elementary particles. I can imagine that "the" was originally chosen because there is no other "type" of electron—there is simply "the" electron. However, that doesn't change the fact that there are several of them in this universe and that they are countable. Considering this, I believe that "a" / "an" might be the better option here. –Tobias (talk) 09:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I suppose we should defer to sources on that choice and many seem to use "the electron" but it is far universal. Many sources use "electrons", an option prevented by Wikipedia's title choice. Notice that Stoney's 1894 title was 'Of the "Electron," or Atom of Electricity' so I would take "the electron" to mean not "this electron" but the paradigm example of all electrons.

And there is Wheeler's view that their is only one electron after all: One-electron universe.

The lede here could be changed but not all the other occurrences throughout Wikipedia without a wide consensus, both from disruption and the reality that examples will come back. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Title choice? We’re discussing the lead section, which is entirely unrelated to any guidelines about titles. I'm not convinced either that we should base our decision on an 1894 description by the person who first coined the term "electron"—especially since they knew very little about it, not even that it is an actual particle, as discovered by Thomson roughly three years later—or on a nearly 100-year-old "theory" with no realistic prospect of being proven anytime soon.

I agree we should look into how sources handle this, but it would also be helpful to have a logical and comprehensible reason for our choice that goes beyond “because source ... uses the definite article”.

Linguistically speaking, an indefinite article (a / an) is used when referring to something unspecific as in "I was reading a book the other day" where the book is not identified. In contrast, the definite article "the" is used when referring to something specific or previously mentioned, as in "The book I was reading the other day was very intriguing". If you picked up pebbles from your driveway, you would be more likely to say "I picked up a stone from my driveway", rather than "I picked up the stone from my driveway", even if all the stones looked the same. This scenario parallels the situation with electrons—countless, this time absolutely identical objects that we want to describe by picking out one of them. Since they are all completely identical, it doesn’t matter which one we choose, but we would likely refer to it as "an electron". –Tobias (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, reliable sources are the best choice whenever possible. I think "electrons" would be in the running for "most common in sources". In articles the subject is bold in the lede. Using electrons would thus conflict with the title. That is why the title is relevant.

The 1894 choice is similar to many others since then. The authors are writing about a concept, the concept of "the electron". No one writes about the concept of "an electron".

Again if you prefer "an electron" in the lede here, feel free. Just don't go on a crusade. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The rule you cited states that the title should appear as early as possible in the first sentence, not that it conflicts with the title when being changed to the plural or altered in a natural way. This is, in fact, permitted directly below. There are also quite a few other prominent articles that use the plural instead of the singular, despite the singular being the actual title of the page (e.g., bird, respiratory disease, engineer).

If you want to write about the 'concept of' something, that indicates something specific, so of course, it is almost never followed by an indefinite article, as we might have noticed earlier. That’s the same principle as with '... theory', where the term is almost always singular and not plural (e.g., string theory, game theory, cognitive dissonance theory). This is more of a simple grammatical connection rather than rocket science, or a reason to believe it is the preferred way in every context.

Don’t worry, I’m not going anywhere; I’m just interested in understanding your reasoning. –Tobias (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

My reasoning: The electron/an electron/electrons are all used in multiple reliable sources: these are equivalent as far as Wikipedia goes. Thus the lede can be changed, no problem. The only other issue would be consensus to adopt one form. That does not exist, so a site-wide change would not be proper. "Truth", "logic", "grammar" are all helpful in building consensus but they are subjective and consequently not sufficient to end debate.

I hope this time I am clearer.

I suppose we could consider "Electron theory" as a title, but quite a lot of articles drop "theory". I doubt such a proposal would be welcomed even if it would be more logically correct. The electron is an idea with great value but, unlike "bird", no one will ever see an electron. Significant physics/philosophy debates ensue if one asserts an electron is an 'object'. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

My reasoning: The electron/an electron/electrons are all used in multiple reliable sources: these are equivalent as far as Wikipedia goes. Thus the lede can be changed, no problem. The only other issue would be consensus to adopt one form. That does not exist, so a site-wide change would not be proper. "Truth", "logic", "grammar" are all helpful in building consensus but they are subjective and consequently not sufficient to end debate.

I hope this time I am clearer.

I suppose we could consider "Electron theory" as a title, but quite a lot of articles drop "theory". I doubt such a proposal would be welcomed even if it would be more logically correct. The electron is an idea with great value but, unlike "bird", no one will ever see an electron. Significant physics/philosophy debates ensue if one asserts an electron is an 'object'. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the first part, but "electron theory" might be one of the most creative things I've heard in a while. I don't see why it should need to be logically correct, as an electron undoubtedly exists, regardless of its nature. It can behave in different ways—like a wave or a particle—depending on the circumstances. However, a theory in a scientific context is a coherent framework of ideas and principles that explain observed phenomena and can be tested or falsified, which clearly isn't at stake here.

If you want do determine whether an electron is an object or not, you would first need to define "object". As an elementary particle, an electron cannot be compared to something like a particle of dust. However, physics doesn't distinguish the mass of a particle from its energy, meaning that everything that has energy inevitably has mass, and vice versa—even particles like a photon. If you define an object as something that has mass, an electron qualifies as an object. Similarly, if you define an object as something with energy, it would also qualify.

On the other hand, if you try to separate the behavior of something and consider only those objects that display particle-like behavior but not wave-like characteristics, I would begin to doubt your competence on the subject. This approach would attempt to separate two properties that are interconnected on a quantum level and therefore cannot be disentangled. –Tobias (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Mass in kg?

Shouldn't the mass display as 0.9ish rontograms? Kilograms feels like a very bad unit here Nilederg (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Kg is the SI base unit of mass and therefore the preferred unit for this. Furthermore, "rontograms" are not as mathematically simple as the specification using powers. –Tobias (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)