Talk:Electron/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks, but the current article looks quite good, if a little technical, whereas the /temp one is not there at all - lots of areas need filling out, and I am loath to replace a "finished" article with one that is half cooked. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:00, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: Hey, I have now done it for you...  Pcarbonn 19:48, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: To-Do List

message: 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)
thread_title: Sub-Electron Particles

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is this American or British English? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Is the electron a small black hole?

message: Can someone (more knowledgeable than me when it comes to physics) add a paragraph to the article about naked electrons and the change in electron charge resulting from the cloud of virtual electron/positron pairs surrounding a "real" electron? thanks. :) -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 20:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naked electrons 

message: Last para needs a good clean up - Light current
:Actually, as ill-formatted original research, it needed a good deleting.  I have done so.  -- SCZenz 04:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: This page is all very well but it doesnt actually tell you exactly what an electron is (does it)? What's it made of etc.--Light current 04:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't know that for sure, but as far as we know it's a fundamental particle and isn't "made of" anything.  Our most advanced current model (Quantum Electrodynamics) would call it a "quantum of the electron field," which I freely admit isn't very helpful. ;)  -- SCZenz 04:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't know what a "quantum corral" is.  The electron has more properties than just electromagnetic energy, though--it also has charge and other quantum numbers.  In any case, many things are possible, and the true nature of fundamental particles is one of the main areas of research in theoretical physics today.  -- SCZenz 05:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: A "quantum corral" sounds more complicated than an "electron" to me.  What is that made out of?  -- SCZenz 10:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Objects in a black hole only go in one direction: down.  So there's no need for it to bounce.  Except for Hawking radiaition, of course--which, oddly enough, is one of the main arguments against an electron being a black hole.  John Archibald Wheeler investigated using macroscopic gravitational magnetic entity to model particles, but the work is probably not too promising and in any case inapplicable to real particles without a working theory of quantum gravity.  The relationship between gravitationally-bound systems and elementary particles (and in particular the black hole electron and geon (physics) articles) is something I'm planning to fix up, eventually, but unfortunately it requires me to do a lot of reading. -- SCZenz 14:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Hawking radiation lets stuff escape from black holes.  But it's true that small black holes would not act like electrons.  As for what a photon is, this is easier to give a satisfactory answer for.  If you take the electric field and the magnetic field, and quantize them according to the usual rules of quantum mechanics, you get photons.  In other words, it's a localized electromagnetic wave.
Would you be prepared to say that a photon is a wavelet of EM energy?--Light current 22:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Wavelet isn't a physics term, and I don't know it well enough.  But a photon is certainly a localized wave of EM energy.  -- SCZenz 05:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Unortunately there are technical problems with the idea, and nobody takes it too seriously.  -- SCZenz 16:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The value of the geon concept is that it shows how a closed loop electromagnetic wave can be a gravitational field source with angular momentum. At the limit condition, where the closed loop wave is a single photon, the geon is a quantum mechanical entity with quantized angular momentum, quantized energy (dependent on size) and therefore quantized equivalent mass. A photon in this configuration is unstable. It is required to have energy density such that it is just on the edge of collapsing to form black hole particles or flying apart and radiating its energy away.  -- DonJStevens 14:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: According to Geon (physics), geons are known to be approximately stable.  However, it is not known if they fall apart given an exact solution, because no exact solution has yet been found (the math is, presumably, very hard).  Certainly a geon is not a black hole.  Moreover, neither geons nor black holes can have anything certain said about them when their mass is comparable to that of an electron, because we have no complete theory of quantum gravity. -- SCZenz 17:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The answer to your question, as stated, is: There is no such theory. -- SCZenz 21:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer "There is no such Theory" (yet) is certainly correct but new information is constantly being gathered and evaluated. The conclusion noted by Brian Greene that extremal black holes do not emit Hawking radiation provides an explanation for electron stability. By introducing a gravitational time dilation limit, with equal time dilation factors applicable outside of the gravitational "quantum corral" and within the corral, I want to explain the electron quantized mass value. An evaluation of Kerr-Newman black hole properties by those who specialize in GR is expected to confirm this and bring us one step closer to a BH electron theory. -- DonJStevens 13:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Light current: I want to see what the man from IBM research said about a quantum corral. Can you tell me his name or tell me how to obtain this information? - You asked for a closed loop wave definition. A closed loop wave is a wave that follows itself around a path like a snake chasing its tail. The path is typically described as a ring. Also, a geon as described by Wheeler, is not stable. Some theorists would probably say it has a 50/50 chance of collapsing to become ever more dense or flying apart and radiating its energy away. If it does collapse to black hole density, it cannot materialize a single Kerr-Newman black hole (with charge) because a positive charge particle cannot be created without also creating a negative charge particle. Full collapse would produce two BH particles with the required ratio of angular momentum to magnetic moment.--- DonJStevens 14:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah, it doesn't say anything.  Most of the technical stuff is details of SU(2), which has long been part of the quantum mechanical treatment of spin.  However, there are no equations or real explanations of how the properties of electrons arise from these standing waves, or indeed an explanation of why they'd be stable.  (The actual quantum mechanical fields representing particles with reasonably well-defined momentum and position tend to spread out over time, reflecting the growing uncertainty in their location--but if you measure where they are, you always get a particle again.) -- SCZenz 15:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whats an electron?