What is the electron?

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
1

Robert Milliken, who weighed electron, in his Nobel speech ( 1923)
told, that he knew nothing about “last essence of electron”.
In that case there is one old joke.
One professor asked a student:
“ What is an electron?”
“ Ah, God damn it! I have forgotten. And in fact even in the morning I knew it. ”-
the student answered.
“ You should recollect it without fail, - professor said – because you were
the unique person who knew, what electron was, and you had suddenly forgotten!”
This old joke does not grow old.
And today a question: “What is the electron?” remains without answer.
How the electron looks nobody knows.

There isn,t the Maxwell’s theory / SRT without electron.
The electron is a main hero in the Maxwell’s theory and SRT.

  1. What does the electron do in Maxwell’s theory?
    Maxwell’s equations have no relation to the movement of the electron.
    They describe the distribution of electromagnetic waves
    but not the movement of a particle such as an electron.
    In Maxwell’s theory, the electron is considered local,
    as though the particle is “at rest”.
    This means that it particle does not move rectilinearly,
    but rotates around the diameter (has the form of a sphere).
    The rotation of the electron creates electrical waves.

But everybody knows, that an electron is not a firm sphere.
Everybody knows, that its form can be changed.
And these changes describes by SRT.
2) What does the electron do in SRT ?
At the beginning of the last century many scientists
(Einstein, Lorents, Fitzgerald, Poincare, Abraham) were interested in the question:
“What will take place, if the electron (Maxwell’s), creating an electrical field,
begins to move - rectilinearly? “
All of them came to the conclusion that there would be radical changes with the electron.
These changes are described by the Lorentz transformations.
That is, when the originally rotating electron (sphere) begins to move rectilinearly,
during movement it gradually will change its geometrical form.

But nobody understands the borders of the electron,s changes.
So, what are the borders of this change?
Quantum theory gives an answer to this question.
It says that at the interaction of the electron with the vacuum, his energy and mass
become infinite. Physicists do not understand what to do with infinite sizes,
and therefore they have invented “a method of renormalization”,
a method “to sweep the dust under the carpet” / Feynman./
This method is abstract.
The situation can be understood in another way.
Electrons, having the geometrical form of a sphere, lost their volume and turned
into an indefinitely flat circle. In this reason, infinite sizes of the electron occurred.
But in physics we know only one particle which has the form of a flat circle.
It is a quantum of light, which flies rectilinearly with speed c= 1.
Therefore, the electron can turns only into a quantum of light.
That is why, the electron and /or a quantum of light is the same particle in different states.

It is proved, when electron leaves atom, its electric field changes.
The spherical field will be transformed to an ellipse field.
And in process of his removal the ellipse field is more and more extended.
And in a limit (at the moment of breaking-off ) the electron gets the form of a string.
(String theory).
Therefore, electron can have the different geometrical forms: circle, sphere and string.

In the books it is written, that electrons interact among themselves with the help
of a quantum of light. In the books it is written that an electron in an atom passing
from one orbit to another radiates a quantum of light.
It should be understood as follows.
The electron has a quantum of light in a “pocket” or under a “shirt”
which it gives freedom from time to time.
Why is it necessary for the electron to hide a quantum of light?

2

i can very ambiguously say that it seems more comfortable to imagine that all these particles you describe are not billiard balls bouncing around a pool table, but disturbances in the all-ancompassing fabric that makes up the universe.

like when the atom is formed, it doesnt “attract an electron from somewhere and start it spinning around the nucleus”, it actually is creating ripples in the fabric, and we identify those ripples as electrons (and the electrons create their own ripples). and when atoms are plasma (so hot they dont have electyrons), that simply means that they are bumping around too fast to create a substantial wake in the water, they are skipping around on top instead of digging in and creating waves.

some scientist somewhere said pretty certainly (but not experimentally verifiably) that since the electron doesnt contain enough energy to continue orbiting the nucleus, it needs to be constantly extracting energy out of the zero point field. this makes me feel more like its actually directly connected to that all-encompassing membrane that string theory claims makes up all particles. the visualization of the things you describe just seems a lot different if you think of it that way. i dont know how to answer your specific question about electrons hiding quantums of light. id just say that they are quantums of light in that they are a specifically disturbed section of the fabric just like everything else, and when you smack that disturbance around a certain way, it will change into photons which have their specific shape and behavior because thats what the fabric does when its imbued with all that energy.

3

Maxwell’s theory considered action of an electromagnetic field.
Fitzgerald and Lorents first began to consider electron in this theory.
Then and other scientists ( Poincare, Abraham, Einstein) become interested
with this question. And, proceeding from the Maxwell’s theory,
Einstein has created SRT.
The Maxwell’s theory and SRT are interconnected theories.
The main and unique hero of this theory is electron.
And only electron has changes which are described by SRT…

But!
But all have taken a great interest in only mathematical calculations and
began to consider changes of the car, train, plane, rocket
from the point of SRT view.
It is only mathematical abstraction.
How is it possible to compare electron with the car, train?
Unless is there a theory of a train, creating an electromagnetic field?
Unless is there a theory of a proton, creating an electromagnetic
or proton -magnetic field?
In our terrestrial life we use only service of the electromagnetic field.

4

The world of electron.

But maybe these electrons are World,
where there are five continents:
the art,
knowledge,
wars,
thrones
and the memory of forty centuries.

/ Russian poet V. Brusov./

5

Electrons are very interesting and confusing, such as the electron travels all possible path before it reaches its destination. So all ready we have got to measure the movement of an electron in probability… and that always comes up in an infant number. Have you ever come to think that the math rules we have now don’t apply to the movement of electrons?

Newton and Einstein both made up the math they used in their physics, and if you make up the math then you know that you got the right answer

6

There are mathematicians who like mathematics
for the beauty of mathematical calculations bringing to art.
The connection with reality does not interest them very much.
One mathematician came to give a lecture. There is nobody in the classroom, but he has a plan
and he begins his monologue. Becoming enthusiastic he suddenly notices two students in the room. He continues the lecture joyfully and after some time he notices that three of them are going away. “Here it is,- mathematician thinks sadly,- now one more student will come and nobody will be here again”.
It seems, that calculation has been done correctly, but being turned from the concreteness,
it evokes a smile. That is the price of mathematical abstract logic for the gap with the reality.
A lot of mathematical models that are leaned on the numerical knowledge of the world,
look in such way.

7

Many years ago man has accustomed some wild
animals (wolf, horse, cat, bull , etc.)
and has made them domestic ones.
But the man understands badly the four-footed friends.
In 1897 J. J. Thomson opened new particle - electron.
Gradually man has accustomed electron to work for him.
But the man does not understand what an electron is.

8

A religious person wrote to me stating :

"We are more than the sum total of our chemicals. Mind does not equal brain. The brain is part of the mind, but there is a metaphysical reality which is part of the mind. We have souls. We each have a spirit. "

I answer:

Do you think matter is not deep ? Even the simplest particle, the electron, is composed of an infinite number of items or sums as described in quantum electrodynamics and according to the feynman diagrams. Matter is infinite and it is not a “just” anything. What is in a word, the soul ? this word is so vague that it could equally be applied to matter and chemicals. And according to those religions where matter is god, that would also be blasphemy. Don’t underestimate matter or the creation. And matter is also spiritual and metaphysical.

9

…the electron and the photon are the same particle in different states.
My version of this idea is in a paper “Superluminal quantum models of the electron and the photon”
at superluminalquantum.org .
Richard Gauthier

10

The electron could simply be a giant brain. If the elementary neuron or processing elements are of the planck size, 10 to the minus 32 mm, then the electron could be composed of trillions and trillions of planck sized neuron like items composing it into a final giant brain. Each electron then could be equivalent to trillions of human brains with trillions of more power and internal experiences and emotions and internal universes.

Alternatively the electron could simply be another complete universe with trillions of galaxies each star being a structure much smaller then the planck size, say 10 to the minus 100 mm. So there is alot to explore down there…

11

Hold it - huge misunderstanding in the goal of modern sub-atomic physics. Most of what’s going on in here is in ambiguous terms, anyways.

 As the framework of modern physics has been assembled, it's become clearer and clearer that it is impossible to say what matter [i]is[/i].  This is to say that matter [i]is[/i] matter - that's the point of the word.  The only way we can define a piece of matter (such as an electron) is by defining its properties, that is, how it can be observed to behave when subjected to certain conditions.  Having been provided with the properties an electron exhibits, it makes no sense to ask [i]what[/i] it is - that's already been defined!

 Take, for example, a loaf of bread.  We can say that a loaf of bread has the properties of being matter, being brown, being spongy, and having a certain weight (to simplify things.)  If you were to ask me what a loaf of bread was, I would tell you: "A piece of matter that is brown, spongy, and weighs [i]x[/i] grams."  Are you going to ask me now, "Yes, but what [i]is[/i] it?"  Obviously, I can't describe to you what a loaf of bread is beyond describing its properties to you.
12

no, the electron are people who voted for reagan

-Imp

13

Now that’s rigging an election…

14

I electron as the best science fiction movie made in the eighties.

15

An interesting case could be that if the electron contains a universe named “A”, then the electron of the universe “A” could coincide with the original electron. Since the relationship of sizes is coherent and defined within a single universe, but does not need to be coherent outside the universe, then sizes and the concepts of “containing” or “being contained within” do not have to be respected. Hence the smallest dimension can simply conicide with the largest. You would get an infinitely recursive universe, or a sizeless universe where sizes matter and are coherent only in a small range of reciprocal dimensions.

It could be that the planck level sizes and dimensions and smaller, not only render time and space incoherent, but also logic, mathematics and the very concepts of sizes, and larger or smaller sizes or containing or contained within. Hence since greater than or less than cannot be defined, neither can logic or math be used. At 10 to the minus 1000 mm the sizes are so small that they are GIGANTIC.

16

The electron is:

  1. the set of equations that describe it, the mathematics that describe it and nothing else;

  2. the interactions it has with experimental apparatus, the way it behaves according to experimental configurations we constrain it in;

  3. the predictions we can make according to how we manipulate it;

In fact the electron and many other items of physics and science in general have no real “content” are not made up of anything but ghosts, are only understood, defined and seen through our theories which are purely linguistic-mathematical-logical constructs. It is not made up of anything except the fairy land you imagine it is “composed” of.

If we can devise an interaction or experimental apparatus that can expose other “structures” contained within the electron, then those structures also will be simply equations and purely linguistic-mathematical-logical constructs. Matter, energy, reality and the universe is a pure ghost.

Be careful because when we devise a new interaction we may be INVENTING it, making it up just for our good pleasure.

17

One could ask what an electron is composed of, or what its rules of interaction are, or what its properties under various circumstances are, or what things it is a part of, or what its origin is, or what its lifespan is.

But I agree with Emorgasm that what an electron IS is not a proper question to ask. Any more than what a molecule is, or what an atom is, or what the mind is. Each is a conceptual structure without substance, but with very real observable effects at specified magnifications of an unknowable existence. When string theory is complete, it will provide the answer to what an electron is made of. But then we will not know what a string is. We will have a more geometric, more Platonic fundamental element to contemplate, but not an answer to existence.

18

There seem to be two (at least) different questions here. What is an electron? and at a more mundane level, How can we visualise it? The former is experts only (for now) and the latter, maybe, for all of us. Here are several thoughts which may or may not add something to the ideas.

I visualise an electron as an oil-like sphere with a tendency to gather in puddles, especially when any attempt is made to measure any of it’s properties.

Has anybody considered that ‘particles’ at this size can exist in ‘say’ four of string theories dimensions (or more) and that, since we only exist in three, they are moving to a natural state that is completely immeasurable, even completely incomprehensible, to us? They are shifting “one step up the stairs” to a level that we are not even looking at. This seems far more satisfactory than “popping in and out of existence”.

A highly entertaining subject.