It all collapses to: 1) What do you define the meaning of "electron size"? 2) What actually is an electron? 3) Electrons are NOT Newtonian objects, but we are asking a Newtonian question about size?
No one mentions that in classical terms the radius of the electron reduces as its speed and relativistic mass increase. The effective wavelength (a classical indicator of size) also reduces with relativistic velocity. Also classically other models other than a simple sphere were considered for the shape of an electron.
in this video's description box, "6:15 on the left" is given for a correction. Apparently, the righthand side of 5:19 is the specification that should be given. #suggestion: post your comment as a "pinned" comment.
The laws of physics say that energy cannot be created or destroyed just transferred. That’s a fascinating concept, something has always existed without a beginning or an end.
Ok, the Electron is incredible small, but what is determining its Electromagnetic Charge? What is the Physical mechanism behind (+ and -)? - Just a simple question!
Dr. Roger Penrose has suggested instead of trying to create a particle called the "graviton" to explain gravity, why not try to describe subatomic particles in terms of spatial curvature, as in the twist in a piece of real thread. What if we add one extra spatial dimension to the "Twistor Theory" of Dr. Roger Penrose? It can be "chiral" by having either Right-hand or Left-hand twist. It can be "Quantized", based on the number of twist cycles. If Physicists describe electrons as point particles with no volume, where is the mass of the particle? Can one extra spatial dimension produce a geometric explanation of the 1/2 spin of electrons? The following is an extension of the old Kaluza-Klein theory. Can a twisted 3D 4D soliton containing one extra spatial dimension help solve some of the current problems in Particle Physics? What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Geometric Unity of Eric Weinstein and the exploration of one extra spatial dimension by Lisa Randall and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? Is the following idea a “Quantized” model related to the “Vortex Theory” proposed by Maxwell and others during the 19th century? Is the best explanation of the current data a form of “Twistor Theory” first proposed by Dr. Roger Penrose during 1967? During recent years Dr. Peter Woit has explored Twistor Theory as a possible solution to help explain the current Standard Model. Has the concept of the “Aether” been resurrected from the dead and relabeled as the “Higgs Field”? In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit). Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. Are these the “Flux Tubes” being described by many Physicists today? When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton. The term “entanglement” in this case is analogous to three twisted ropes being wrapped around each other in a way which causes all of the ropes to move if someone pulls one of the ropes. Does the phenomenon of “Asymptotic Freedom” provide evidence that this concept is the correct interpretation of the experimental data now available? Can the phenomenon of "Supercoiling" help explain the "Multiple Generations" of particles in the Standard Model? The conversion of twist to writhe cycles is well understood in the structure of DNA molecules. Can the conversion of twist to writhe cycles and vice-versa help explain "neutrino oscillations"? Within this model neutrinos are a small, twisted torus produced when a tube becomes overtwisted and breaks producing the small, closed loop of twisted tube (neutrino), and a twisted tube open on each end, which is shorter than the original. (Beta Decay) Within this subatomic model gravity is produced by a very small higher dimensional curvature imbalance within atoms, which causes all atoms to be attracted to all other atoms. This extremely weak attraction reveals the very small scale of the curvature imbalance. This produces the curvature of spacetime on a larger scale like the solar system which is required to counterbalance this small imbalance in the individual atoms.
Well electrons are either one-dimentional or two-dimensional objects in three-dimensional space so how can a size be fixed ? This why can only know the probable location on any observation.
Based upon the experimental results, it appears that an appropriate answer might be, as small as you want to make it, which I find a bit strange. For example, what if we localized an electron to a region smaller than its Schwarzschild radius? Of course, I have no idea how one might accomplish that. Exercise for the reader: calculate the energy required by a photon to localize an electron to within its Schwarzschild radius by Compton scattering. Still, it does present a theoretical conundrum.
Electron is as the photon - a wave. As such, waves are intrinsically spread-out. Their energy, charge and mass are a wave and therefore their position is spread-out as a wave. Where is the wake of a boat? One can point to the wake of a boat, but upon closer inspection it becomes clear the wake is spread over several cycles. Same with an electronic wave in a circuit, say the square-waves in a digital computer. Look more closely at the rising or falling edge and one sees a tiny ringing of a wave. Like the wake, from a distance the edge's position appears sharp and easily identifiable, but upon closer inspection, the signal is a wave and the wave cannot be precisely located to a single time/position. (more...) When one measures waves, their position is defined by a 'wavelength,' not a point. And when one wants to describe a wave's approximate position at a single point in time, one describes its "Full Width Half-Max" (FWHM). FWHM is generally accepted as the wave's "position." But if one were to attempt to capture say, a single-photon of that wavy-signal, they would find that any detector located at a single position in space, would have only a probability of detecting the wave. Take for example a single photon of 10cm-wavelength microwave energy impinging a metal surface with probes every 1cm. As the wave hits the surface, only one of those detector-probes will collect the energy of the photon. Which detector is a probability of chance (not a 'quantum' probability). The photon is not a probability-wave and that probability-wave in no way "collapses," (although the single-photon wave would most definitely go down one of those ten detector-holes if it didn't reflect). The photon is comprised of E&H-fields. The same E&H fields one can measure all the way down to DC with a voltmeter. The same fields that exist between the terminals of a 9V-battery and that can be 'tasted' by licking the 9V battery's terminals. Photon is a real object, not a 'probability-wave.' Likewise the electron. The electron is also a wave. A matter wave. Electron has a charge, and therefore E&H-fields, BUT it also has a matter-wave component. And just as the photon's E&H fields are out-of-phase (90° out-of-phase in free-space), so too the electron's electromagnetic-charge-"wave" is out-of-phase (by 2) with its matter-wave (which is evidenced as "Spinors"). The electron is therefore not a probability-wave as you, dear reader, have been taught. The electron (proton, neutron, muon, etc) are real waves, with real physical measurables and real physical measurable solution to Schrödinger's wave equation. Proof? Take ψ, a probability wave virtually identical to QM's Ψ and plug-it into Maxwell's wave-equation. Guess what? ψ is a valid solution to Maxwell's wave-equation. How can that be, you say? Two valid solutions to the same Maxwell wave equation? Yes, my friends. A little remembered fact about differential equations is that they may have many solutions. Just because you found one, doesn't mean there aren't others. In fact, a probabilistic solution is merely a dumbed-down version of the E&H wave-equation solution. And if one were to work-through all the maths, they will find our new Maxwell's little-ψ exhibits all the same "strangeness" as big-Ψ does in QM. "Unknowability" suddenly appears. as do "collapsing wave-functions" and all the other nonsense that's been taught for a hundred-years. Matter-waves also exhibit "exclusion" (two matter-waves can't be in the same place at the same time), and not the superposition of Maxwell-waves. This vid says two electron's can occupy the same "state," which is true, but they also can't occupy the same place/position, thus they 'bounce' off each other. deBroglie was a grad-student on the verge of expulsion when he proposed matter was a wave, so he equivocated. He allowed that matter was also a solid-point (which was incorrect). It made his advisors happy and saved his career to equivocate. Unfortunate, since deBroglie was correct that matter is a wave and his advisors (who informally included Einstein) were incorrect.
Suppose we allow for a vacuum that is simply dispersed electrons that seem like neutrons within their buffer? Then it can be seen that the motion of an electron through the vacuum cannot travel in a straight line but must travel around these vacuum "neutrons". Maybe that could explain the gyrating motion instead of virtual photons.
According to the Goedecke non radiation condition, the atomic electron is a two dimensional sphere surrounding the proton and therefore your statement that the proton radius, being smaller than than the atomic electron radius, is not "plausable", makes no sense to me. In fact. it makes perfect sense.
an electron doesn't have any size...its just a perturbation, which is a sort of disturbance, in the force otherwise known as a quantum field.......if a quantum field was a person walking down the street then an electron would be that same person punched in the face, perturbed so to speak....and a positron is just an unpleasant antiperson walking down the street getting punched in the face
The size of an electron: is it really a mystery? No, it can be explained very simply but precisely by a classical model. According to this model, the electron is made up of two charges orbiting each other at the speed of light. The mass of the electron is not intrinsic, but results from the configuration by a fundamental process. This classical model explains all the particle's properties precisely, without any use of QM. For example, the precision for the mass is almost 10^-6 (unlike the Higgs, which gives us no value at all). It explains the spin and the magnetic moment exactly. It explains the g-factor with the same value as the Schwinger result. It explains the Lamp shift. It explains the energy-frequency relation instead of postulating it as QM does. And much more. Then the size of the electron is well defined. It follows from this model as 4*10^-13 m. The same as Erwin Schrödinger calculated in his well-known 1930 paper. How much do we really need QM?
If the galaxy represents a human for scale that’s 100,000 light years across then an electron would be the size of the moon. Let that sink in for a minute.
😮😅😅 merci pour cette vidéo c'est vrai que les élèves français assez étranger en fait si on les observe ils sont fondamentalement sous forme de corpuscules et bien😊 on va aller mesurer sous forme d'onde😊😅
The electron does NOT have atomic mass, it has INERTIAL MASS, that is, movement, gyroscopic inertia, gravity, TIME, GREATNESS. The electron is light ✨️ that is born from a particle, the atom ⚛️ when they gain energy and escape from the atom ⚛️ and are transmitted as electromagnetic waves, a form of energy. How long an electron is is irrelevant.
If we imagine the descrete space and in each atom of space hold the electron with probability greater then zero we can describe volume of electron. From the shape of this volume we can calculate avarage diameter of electron.
An electron could be thought of as a hollow ball of negative charge where the mutual repulsion of the negative charge is perfectly balanced with the inward gravitational pull of the mass of the electron.
Gravitation and the electromagnetic force both have an 1/r dependence with vastly different factors. They can never cancel out. You might be thinking of neutron stars, but in that case gravitational pull and exchange interaction caused by the Pauli exclusion principle cancel each other out. Those two forces have very different dependencies on distance. Also: if an electron were a charged ball the factor between spin and angular momentum (g-factor) would be only about half as big as it is.
You mean *the* electron, right? There's only one in the entire universe, maybe. Probably not. But it's a fun theory where there's only one electron in the whole universe, but it's everywhere because it's traveling through time. Forward, it's an electron. Backwards, it's a positron. ...given we've seen electron/positron conversion, I think it's a silly theory.
Pair-creation/annihilation events basically correspond to an electron changing directions in time, and we observe plenty of those, but the problem with the one-electron universe idea is that it only works in a universe in which the number of positrons is equal to the number of electrons +/- 1, but the universe we observe has many more electrons than positrons. All the positrons in the universe could be part of such an arrangement, but if all the positrons were part of a single such arrangement, you'd need additional electrons that never switched directions.
It is better to study the Quantum and Physical Sciences of Energy... Electrons are bubbles of still fine particles moving faster than light 🚨🕯️... The baseline of physics to observe. My Way 😊😊😁😁😂😂 bye bye... TY.
I don't think you've quite understood. The electron is not fixed in its position. Regardless of whether it's point-like, spherical or a two-dimensional string, it's effectively 'smeared out' as illustrated by the Schrödinger equation that defines it as a system.
No matter what their actual size, electrons are always accompanied by weird music.
It all collapses to: 1) What do you define the meaning of "electron size"? 2) What actually is an electron? 3) Electrons are NOT Newtonian objects, but we are asking a Newtonian question about size?
This. Technically, it is an excitation of the EM wave whose position is probabilistically determined. Right? So how do you "measure" the size of that?
@@classicsciencefictionhorro1665 With an EM wave ruler! 🙂
@@KeystoneInvestigations
No one mentions that in classical terms the radius of the electron reduces as its speed and relativistic mass increase. The effective wavelength (a classical indicator of size) also reduces with relativistic velocity.
Also classically other models other than a simple sphere were considered for the shape of an electron.
in this video's description box, "6:15 on the left" is given for a
correction.
Apparently, the righthand side of 5:19 is the specification
that should be given.
#suggestion: post your comment as a "pinned" comment.
The laws of physics say that energy cannot be created or destroyed just transferred. That’s a fascinating concept, something has always existed without a beginning or an end.
Which also is a profound contradiction for the hilarious Big Bang Theory.
Ok, the Electron is incredible small, but what is determining its Electromagnetic Charge? What is the Physical mechanism behind (+ and -)? - Just a simple question!
It's unknown. The quantum electric charge of elementary particles is one of the fundamental physical constants.
if a nucleus was a dinner plate then the electron would be a poppy seed located on the moon
I found this virtually entertaining.
Dr. Roger Penrose has suggested instead of trying to create a particle called the "graviton" to explain gravity, why not try to describe subatomic particles in terms of spatial curvature, as in the twist in a piece of real thread.
What if we add one extra spatial dimension to the "Twistor Theory" of Dr. Roger Penrose? It can be "chiral" by having either Right-hand or Left-hand twist. It can be "Quantized", based on the number of twist cycles.
If Physicists describe electrons as point particles with no volume, where is the mass of the particle?
Can one extra spatial dimension produce a geometric explanation of the 1/2 spin of electrons? The following is an extension of the old Kaluza-Klein theory. Can a twisted 3D 4D soliton containing one extra spatial dimension help solve some of the current problems in Particle Physics?
What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Geometric Unity of Eric Weinstein and the exploration of one extra spatial dimension by Lisa Randall and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? Is the following idea a “Quantized” model related to the “Vortex Theory” proposed by Maxwell and others during the 19th century? Is the best explanation of the current data a form of “Twistor Theory” first proposed by Dr. Roger Penrose during 1967? During recent years Dr. Peter Woit has explored Twistor Theory as a possible solution to help explain the current Standard Model.
Has the concept of the “Aether” been resurrected from the dead and relabeled as the “Higgs Field”?
In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit).
Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant.
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature.
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. Are these the “Flux Tubes” being described by many Physicists today? When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton. The term “entanglement” in this case is analogous to three twisted ropes being wrapped around each other in a way which causes all of the ropes to move if someone pulls one of the ropes. Does the phenomenon of “Asymptotic Freedom” provide evidence that this concept is the correct interpretation of the experimental data now available? Can the phenomenon of "Supercoiling" help explain the "Multiple Generations" of particles in the Standard Model? The conversion of twist to writhe cycles is well understood in the structure of DNA molecules. Can the conversion of twist to writhe cycles and vice-versa help explain "neutrino oscillations"? Within this model neutrinos are a small, twisted torus produced when a tube becomes overtwisted and breaks producing the small, closed loop of twisted tube (neutrino), and a twisted tube open on each end, which is shorter than the original. (Beta Decay)
Within this subatomic model gravity is produced by a very small higher dimensional curvature imbalance within atoms, which causes all atoms to be attracted to all other atoms. This extremely weak attraction reveals the very small scale of the curvature imbalance. This produces the curvature of spacetime on a larger scale like the solar system which is required to counterbalance this small imbalance in the individual atoms.
Well electrons are either one-dimentional or two-dimensional objects in three-dimensional space so how can a size be fixed ? This why can only know the probable location on any observation.
Based upon the experimental results, it appears that an appropriate answer might be, as small as you want to make it, which I find a bit strange. For example, what if we localized an electron to a region smaller than its Schwarzschild radius? Of course, I have no idea how one might accomplish that. Exercise for the reader: calculate the energy required by a photon to localize an electron to within its Schwarzschild radius by Compton scattering. Still, it does present a theoretical conundrum.
An electrons size is determined by it's charge
Electron is as the photon - a wave. As such, waves are intrinsically spread-out. Their energy, charge and mass are a wave and therefore their position is spread-out as a wave. Where is the wake of a boat? One can point to the wake of a boat, but upon closer inspection it becomes clear the wake is spread over several cycles. Same with an electronic wave in a circuit, say the square-waves in a digital computer. Look more closely at the rising or falling edge and one sees a tiny ringing of a wave. Like the wake, from a distance the edge's position appears sharp and easily identifiable, but upon closer inspection, the signal is a wave and the wave cannot be precisely located to a single time/position. (more...)
When one measures waves, their position is defined by a 'wavelength,' not a point. And when one wants to describe a wave's approximate position at a single point in time, one describes its "Full Width Half-Max" (FWHM). FWHM is generally accepted as the wave's "position." But if one were to attempt to capture say, a single-photon of that wavy-signal, they would find that any detector located at a single position in space, would have only a probability of detecting the wave.
Take for example a single photon of 10cm-wavelength microwave energy impinging a metal surface with probes every 1cm. As the wave hits the surface, only one of those detector-probes will collect the energy of the photon. Which detector is a probability of chance (not a 'quantum' probability). The photon is not a probability-wave and that probability-wave in no way "collapses," (although the single-photon wave would most definitely go down one of those ten detector-holes if it didn't reflect). The photon is comprised of E&H-fields. The same E&H fields one can measure all the way down to DC with a voltmeter. The same fields that exist between the terminals of a 9V-battery and that can be 'tasted' by licking the 9V battery's terminals. Photon is a real object, not a 'probability-wave.' Likewise the electron.
The electron is also a wave. A matter wave. Electron has a charge, and therefore E&H-fields, BUT it also has a matter-wave component. And just as the photon's E&H fields are out-of-phase (90° out-of-phase in free-space), so too the electron's electromagnetic-charge-"wave" is out-of-phase (by 2) with its matter-wave (which is evidenced as "Spinors"). The electron is therefore not a probability-wave as you, dear reader, have been taught. The electron (proton, neutron, muon, etc) are real waves, with real physical measurables and real physical measurable solution to Schrödinger's wave equation.
Proof? Take ψ, a probability wave virtually identical to QM's Ψ and plug-it into Maxwell's wave-equation. Guess what? ψ is a valid solution to Maxwell's wave-equation. How can that be, you say? Two valid solutions to the same Maxwell wave equation? Yes, my friends. A little remembered fact about differential equations is that they may have many solutions. Just because you found one, doesn't mean there aren't others. In fact, a probabilistic solution is merely a dumbed-down version of the E&H wave-equation solution. And if one were to work-through all the maths, they will find our new Maxwell's little-ψ exhibits all the same "strangeness" as big-Ψ does in QM. "Unknowability" suddenly appears. as do "collapsing wave-functions" and all the other nonsense that's been taught for a hundred-years.
Matter-waves also exhibit "exclusion" (two matter-waves can't be in the same place at the same time), and not the superposition of Maxwell-waves. This vid says two electron's can occupy the same "state," which is true, but they also can't occupy the same place/position, thus they 'bounce' off each other.
deBroglie was a grad-student on the verge of expulsion when he proposed matter was a wave, so he equivocated. He allowed that matter was also a solid-point (which was incorrect). It made his advisors happy and saved his career to equivocate. Unfortunate, since deBroglie was correct that matter is a wave and his advisors (who informally included Einstein) were incorrect.
Suppose we allow for a vacuum that is simply dispersed electrons that seem like neutrons within their buffer? Then it can be seen that the motion of an electron through the vacuum cannot travel in a straight line but must travel around these vacuum "neutrons". Maybe that could explain the gyrating motion instead of virtual photons.
According to the Goedecke non radiation condition, the atomic electron is a two dimensional sphere surrounding the proton and therefore your statement that the proton radius, being smaller than than the atomic electron radius, is not "plausable", makes no sense to me. In fact. it makes perfect sense.
Ummm didn't PBS Spacetime publish the same, better explained content a few weeks ago?
Everyone here is soooo much smarter than me. Im fascinated, but I don't understand a lot of it. Kinda get the gist...
The intuitive idea of size applies to classical objects. Electrons are not classical objects. What electron actually is should be of no meaning to us.
an electron doesn't have any size...its just a perturbation, which is a sort of disturbance, in the force otherwise known as a quantum field.......if a quantum field was a person walking down the street then an electron would be that same person punched in the face, perturbed so to speak....and a positron is just an unpleasant antiperson walking down the street getting punched in the face
The size of an electron: is it really a mystery?
No, it can be explained very simply but precisely by a classical model. According to this model, the electron is made up of two charges orbiting each other at the speed of light. The mass of the electron is not intrinsic, but results from the configuration by a fundamental process.
This classical model explains all the particle's properties precisely, without any use of QM. For example, the precision for the mass is almost 10^-6 (unlike the Higgs, which gives us no value at all). It explains the spin and the magnetic moment exactly. It explains the g-factor with the same value as the Schwinger result. It explains the Lamp shift. It explains the energy-frequency relation instead of postulating it as QM does. And much more.
Then the size of the electron is well defined. It follows from this model as 4*10^-13 m. The same as Erwin Schrödinger calculated in his well-known 1930 paper.
How much do we really need QM?
If the galaxy represents a human for scale that’s 100,000 light years across then an electron would be the size of the moon.
Let that sink in for a minute.
Remember that electric charge relates by the surface area and not by volume as depicts on page 5:35.
tl;dw: no experimentally detectable radius, as of yet
😮😅😅 merci pour cette vidéo c'est vrai que les élèves français assez étranger en fait si on les observe ils sont fondamentalement sous forme de corpuscules et bien😊 on va aller mesurer sous forme d'onde😊😅
The electron does NOT have atomic mass, it has INERTIAL MASS, that is, movement, gyroscopic inertia, gravity, TIME, GREATNESS.
The electron is light ✨️ that is born from a particle, the atom ⚛️ when they gain energy and escape from the atom ⚛️ and are transmitted as electromagnetic waves, a form of energy.
How long an electron is is irrelevant.
Interesting video.
Electron is not a spherical object.
Prototype of an electron on 4 foot rock nearing completion.
Now this is the kind of physics I like ! 👍👍👍 Nicely done!
A great explanation. Thanks!
If we imagine the descrete space and in each atom of space hold the electron with probability greater then zero we can describe volume of electron. From the shape of this volume we can calculate avarage diameter of electron.
An electron could be thought of as a hollow ball of negative charge where the mutual repulsion of the negative charge is perfectly balanced with the inward gravitational pull of the mass of the electron.
Gravitation and the electromagnetic force both have an 1/r dependence with vastly different factors. They can never cancel out. You might be thinking of neutron stars, but in that case gravitational pull and exchange interaction caused by the Pauli exclusion principle cancel each other out. Those two forces have very different dependencies on distance.
Also: if an electron were a charged ball the factor between spin and angular momentum (g-factor) would be only about half as big as it is.
You mean *the* electron, right? There's only one in the entire universe, maybe. Probably not. But it's a fun theory where there's only one electron in the whole universe, but it's everywhere because it's traveling through time. Forward, it's an electron. Backwards, it's a positron.
...given we've seen electron/positron conversion, I think it's a silly theory.
Pair-creation/annihilation events basically correspond to an electron changing directions in time, and we observe plenty of those, but the problem with the one-electron universe idea is that it only works in a universe in which the number of positrons is equal to the number of electrons +/- 1, but the universe we observe has many more electrons than positrons. All the positrons in the universe could be part of such an arrangement, but if all the positrons were part of a single such arrangement, you'd need additional electrons that never switched directions.
Lol, I can tell you the exact size of a single electron... Its half the size, get this, of TWO electrons...😐
"you were taught in school that electrons have no size"....i wasn't....soooo...your teachers suck
Small. Very small.
it all collapses to:1)what do you different the meaning of"size"? ) what actually is anelectron ? 3)Electron are Not Newtown question about size?
It is better to study the Quantum and Physical Sciences of Energy... Electrons are bubbles of still fine particles moving faster than light 🚨🕯️... The baseline of physics to observe. My Way 😊😊😁😁😂😂 bye bye... TY.
Particles are spherical not point like
The motion of an electron about a proton or proton-neutron nucleus is so fast that it appears to form a cloud
I don't think you've quite understood. The electron is not fixed in its position. Regardless of whether it's point-like, spherical or a two-dimensional string, it's effectively 'smeared out' as illustrated by the Schrödinger equation that defines it as a system.
@@Li.Siyuan Maybe we should ask Schrodingers' cat?