Talk:Electron
|
|
Template:Todo1 Template:WikiProjectNotice
| Contents |
Is the electron a small black hole?
The text below has been wikified into an article black hole electron. Please see that article for continued discussion. linas 05:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Some theorists have suggested (recently Brian Greene suggested in his book The Elegant Universe, chapter 13) that the electron may be a micro black hole. In general relativity, there is no minimum mass for a black hole and there is no gravitational time dilation limit, other than (the unrealistic) zero seconds per second. Very small mass black holes would look like elementary particles because they would be completely defined by their mass charge and spin. A Kerr-Newman black hole has charge and spin. This type of spin has no exact counterpart in the classical world. The extreme time dilation required at the photon capture region, indicates that the electron gravitational field has a ring singularity. This ring singularity could be described as a closed loop vibrating string. Black hole theory predicts that a black hole with charge and spin will have magnetic moment equal to charge times angular momentum divided by mass. This correctly defines the electron magnetic dipole moment without the small (g-factor) correction for emission and re-absorbing of virtual photons.
If any photon is gravitationally blueshifted to the wavelength <math>\sqrt {3/2} \;2\pi l_p<math> (where <math>l_p<math>is the Planck length), it would appear to have the energy density required to collapse and produce a pair of black holes, each with a photon capture radius (<math>3G m/c^2<math> equal to the photon wavelength divided by 2 pi. This "limit wavelength" is <math>\sqrt{3\pi hG/c^3}<math>.
The photon wavelength with energy equal to the mass energy of two electron particles is (0.5) times the electron Compton wavelength. The blueshift factor or time dilation factor that will reduce a wavelength from (0.5) times the Compton wavelength to the "limit wavelength" is (1/2 pi) exponent 1/2 times (3/2) exponent 1/4 times (Planck time/ one second) exponent 1/2. This is the square root of a ratio that can be interpreted as the gravitational time dilation limit. The applicable blueshift factor is approximately 1.025 x 10 exponent -22 seconds per second. The remaining time dilation will convert electromagnetic energy to gravitational field energy by reducing the time rate, as close as is possible, to zero seconds per second. Stable electron particles can be materialized from a collapsed photon only when the blueshift time dilation and the energy conversion time dilation factors are equal. The product of the two factors is the proposed gravitational time dilation limit.
When the blueshift factor is inverted, it becomes the redshift factor that would apply to a photon as it escapes from gravitational confinement. The product of the "limit wavelength" and the redshift factor is equal to (0.5) times the electron Compton wavelength. The value (0.5) times electron Compton wavelength will then be (2 pi) times (3 pi hG/c) exponent 1/4. The square root of the product of (limit wavelength) and the length (2 pi) squared times (c times one second) is the wavelength 2 pi (3 pi hG/c) exponent 1/4. The electron mass will be (h/4 pi c) times (c/3 pi hG) exponent 1/4 using the known relationship of photon energy to wavelength.
When the value (0.5) times the electron Compton wavelength is (2 pi) times (3 pi hG/c) exponent 1/4, the mass or energy to photon wavelength relationship is defined by the gravitational constant and the electron mass. The value 3Gm times (2 pi) exponent 5 will be equal to (0.5 times electron Compton wavelength) exponent 3. The value of the Planck constant will then be determined by the more fundamental gravitational constant. The Planck constant is equal to 4 pi mc (3Gm) exponent 1/3, times (2 pi) exponent 2/3.
These relationships define electron property values based on the properties of a Kerr-Newman micro black hole.
A useful theory can evolve from a speculation to an explanatory statement that fits evidence. Some electron questions that need to be explained follow. Why does the electron appear to be much smaller than the classical electron radius? What force confines the electron energy so that it has particle properties, wave properties and gravitational field properties? Why does a free electron have a specific mass or energy value? Why is the electron spin twice as effective in producing magnetic moment as in producing angular momentum? Why does an electron in motion have a matter wavelength? How does the fine structure constant value relate to electron impedance? What is the relationship between inductance and electron kinetic energy? Since the gravitational constant determines the maximum energy that a photon can have, does the gravitational constant then determine the energy of all photon wavelengths? Why is the force that confines electron energy canceled or released when an electron and its antiparticle (positron) come together? Why is the electron gravitational field destoyed when the two particles come together? How does a gravitational field attract or bend a light beam with exactly the same acceleration as it attracts electrons? Is the gravitational field nothing more than a lens that bends the path of all electromagnetic waves toward its slower time rate central space? A black hole electron theory may provide the explanations needed. User:DonJStevens
See Talk: Time dilation. See Rotating black hole. See Also: http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/5-1/MA-DiMf.pdf
The text above has been wikified into an article black hole electron. Please see that article for continued discussion. linas 05:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I just deleted "Some theorists believe the electron may be a very small black hole.", before noticing the text above. I still leave it out, as it is only a speculation. First of all, the sentence should read: "Some theorists speculate the electron may be a very small black hole." -- you cannot believe that something may be the case, and especially, a good physicist distinguishes between a hypothesis, a preliminary theory and a well-established theory. And we cannot and should not document all preliminary hypotheses in Wikipedia. Simon A. 09:57, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
To-Do List
As per the to do list above, please feel free to contribute to electron/temp and or discuss at talk:electron/temp - the intention is that the reformatted article should replace electron in due course. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:33, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It looks good. I strongly encourage you to directly edit the Electron page, though. Be bold ! You'll get feedback much faster... Pcarbonn 15:43, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Why don't you do this: edit the current article by changing its structure, making sure that you do not remove anything. Just move things around to fit the new structure. And save it like that. Then, add things to it progressively. If you do this, I do not see why you would need a separate /temp article. I believe it is important to avoid having a separate /temp article because it creates confusion: potential contributors would have to choose which article to contribute to, and can be afraid that they would contribute for nothing if the other article is finally used. Pcarbonn 14:18, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Hey, I have now done it for you... Pcarbonn 19:48, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I didn't see this until I already modified the main article concerning the speed of an electron in a vacuum. If this is wrong, please revert. -- RichBlinne 23:09, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sub-Electron Particles
I asked the late Dr Robert Lull Forward what subatomic particles made up an Electron and he said "Charge". Supercool Dude 03:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actual answer is "no one knows". They're sometimes called Ur-particles. linas 05:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Removed
I removed this statement: The photon wavelength that has energy equal to the mass energy of one electron plus one positron is 1.2132 × 10−12 m. This wavelength is <math>2\pi (3\pi \frac {hG} c)^{\frac 1 4}<math>, when units based on the Planck length are used. (diff where it was first added (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electron&diff=7587314&oldid=7580273)) That formula has units of length/sqrt(time), not just length. If the second is your time unit, the value is close to that wavelength by coincedence. If you actually do use the Planck units you get the wavelength being 17.42 lp, which is far too small. Goplat 16:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Goplat: Please multiply the length "2 pi (3/2)exponent 1/2,times Planck length" by the length "(2 pi)squared times light velocity times one second". Find the square root of this product and tell me this is not a length dimension. This is a dimension based on the Planck length. Next,use a gravitational constant "G" value 6.6717456 times 10 exponent-11 to find the length value in meters. The value is not just close, it is correct. User DonJStevens 20 Jan 2005
Answer: The Planck length is usually said to be 1.616x10 exponent -35 meters. Only a person who is not informed would expect that there are no more than four digits in the true Planck length value definition. The true value is very close to 1.6159455x10 exponent -35 meters. We do not need to use the "second" at all to derive this value. This is based on the relationship of the Planck energy to the electron mass energy. The other energy value involved is (h) divided by (2 pi) squared. I have labeled this value "E3" in some writings. "E1"is (2/3)exponent 1/2 times Planck energy. "E2" is two times the electron mass energy. These energy values are related so that E1 equals (E2) squared, divided by E3. Solve for E1 because E2 and E3 are more precisely known. The E1 value found requires the "G" value to be 6.6717456x10 exponent-11. More information is available if you are interested. The best measured value for "G" that is available is 6.67259x10 exponent-11 plus or minus 0.00085. This is from the Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA). You will note that 6.6717456x10 exponent-11 is just within the specified range of uncertainty. Any correction factor that may be applicable to the energy equation is too small to identify from information known today. User DonJStevens Jan 22 and Jan 23 2005.
The speculative stuff now has its own article electron black hole. linas 05:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Missing noun in "Properties and behaviors" Para. 2
The sentence begins: Electrons may only contain, in integers of 'h', which is 6.63 × 10−11 Js....
What is the proper object for the verb 'contain'?
- Not only is it missing a noun, but it's a run-on sentence. Does anybody know enough about the subject matter to clean this up? — Brim 09:57, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, it makes no sense. "Electrons may only contain, in integers of 'h', which is 6.63 × 10−34 Js (this is known as Planck's constant), the amount they contain determines which shell they orbit in (k, l, m, etc.) " Electrons may contain - WHAT? It never says what. Until the author clears up this statement, I'm reverting it since I can't really tell of what relevance this has to stated purpose of the paragraph, electron motion.
Electron Motion
Hey there. I am the one who originally added in that bit, going on what my college professor had told our class mid-semester in Introductory Chem. Anyone want to expand / or disprove this?
Electrons Are Black Holes?
Electrons cannot be Black Holes. A Black Hole has over 3 times the mass of our Sun.
Black Holes can absorb all light that fall into it. Electrons bounce light off it.
Black Holes can suck in light, matter,even Time itself.
So you see, this cannot be.
Supercool Dude 03:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Reply to Supercool Dude; You may want to read Chapter 13 (page 320) from "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene before reaching a firm conclusion regarding electrons and black holes. User DonJStevens, 8 Mar 2005 and 9 Mar 2005.
etymology
The article currently claims that it's from the Greek word for electrum, the naturally-occuring alloy of gold and silver. However, that same Greek word also means amber, and I've read that the term "electricity" (and related) comes from that word, because rubbing amber was a common early way of building up charges. --Delirium 07:12, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
- This is correct. Also, the proximate origin of the word "electron" (meaning a fundamental particle) is not transliteration of the Greek word "ηλεκτρον", but derivation from the word "electricity," which, as you point out, is itself derived from "ηλεκτρον" (meaning "amber"). I too noticed the somewhat misleading etymology, and am correcting it now.
Is this American or British English?
A recent change went from meter to metre. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style doesn't help here:
American English and British English differ in their inclination to use capitals. British English uses capitals more widely than American English does. This may apply to titles for people. If possible, as with spelling, use rules appropriate to the cultural and linguistic context. In other words, do not enforce American rules on pages about British topics or British rules on pages about American topics.
Since electron is obviously international which wins? Or to put it differently should this be considered an entry in Science or Nature?
--RichBlinne 17:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)