Electron-Ness: Why Are All Electrons Identical?

Go to your local store and buy several items of the same product - say a package of three golf balls. Though the golf balls appear identical, closer examination will reveal ever so slight differences. One ball maybe fractionally larger; another ever so slightly less spherical; perhaps the third is ever so slightly lighter. The generality that extends from this is that any two seemingly identical products will have nevertheless slight variations in their properties.

Now buy a packet of three electrons (or their antimatter equivalent, the positron). Each electron, or positron, will be identical in size, mass and electric charge to as many decimal places as you care to measure. All electrons (and positrons) are 100% absolutely identical clones.

Take one electron and one positron and bring them together. They annihilate releasing a fixed amount of energy. Take another electron and another positron and repeat the scenario. The pair will annihilate releasing an identical amount of energy in the process. The amount of energy released in each electron-positron annihilation case is the same, to as many decimal places as you can measure. That's quite unlike taking a match from a box of matches, striking same and releasing its stored chemical energy as heat energy. Another match from the same box wouldn't release, to as many decimal places as you care to measure, the absolutely identical amount of heat energy.

How come identical golf balls aren't but identical electrons (or positrons) are?

Electrons (or positrons), having mass, can be created from energy (just like mass can be converted to energy as in the case of the electron-positron annihilation process). You (human intelligence) can't create identical golf balls, but a seemingly non-intelligent natural process (Mother Nature by any other name) can create or produce copies of a fundamental particle, like an electron (or positron), that are clones of one another down to the nittiest-grittiest detail.

Even with quantum mechanics in force, you'd think energy could create or be converted into an electron with twice the standard electron mass or twice the electric charge, or thrice even. But no. You see one electron you've seen them all - every electron that is, was or will be, anywhere, everywhere, anytime, every time in our Universe. Electrons, like Black Holes, have no hair. That means they have no individual personality. In fact Black Holes can be said to have some fuzz because they can and do differ in terms of size, mass and electric charge. Electrons have the exact same size, mass and electric charge, so absolutely no hair! Relative to Black Holes, electrons (and positrons) are absolutely bald!

Invoking all things quantum is still a bit of a cop-out in that while quantum means things are this or that, one unit or two, one energy level or two energy levels, there's no explanation as to why it's only one or two, not one & a half. It just is, but why remains a mystery.

Why are all electrons (and positrons) identical?

1) Of course THE cop-out answer is that that's just the way God wanted it and no correspondence will be entered into regarding the matter.

Unfortunately, there is no real evidence for the existence of any deity past and/or present that stands up to any detailed scrutiny.

2) One could resort to an explanation via string theory merged with quantum physics. String theory just replaces elementary particles as little billiard balls for elementary little bits of string (albeit not string as we know it). Now maybe, as in all things quantum, these strings can be one unit in length, or two units, or three units, or four units, etc. Any positive whole number multiple of one string length is okay. Now say that a two length unit of string is an electron. A two unit length of anti-string is therefore a positron.

Or, one can suggest that strings vibrate and can only vibrate at specific frequencies as any musician playing a stringed instrument knows. So, a string vibrating at one allowed frequency is an electron; if it vibrates at another allowable frequency maybe that's a proton or a neutron. Again, a vibrating anti-matter string would produce manifestations of the antimatter particles, a positron being dependent upon one of the allowable vibrating frequencies.

Of the two possibilities, it's the vibration rate theory that's preferred. All strings are of the same fundamental length - their rate of vibration can differ, but at precise intervals. What causes strings to vibrate at the rate they do, and how they can change rates of vibration (morph from one kind of particle into others) are questions better left for another time.

Unfortunately, string theory has no credibility in terms of any actual experimental evidence, and, to add insult to injury, it requires the postulation of ten to eleven dimensions in order to fit the pieces together. If string theory gets some experimental runs on the board then, and only then, will it be time to take strings seriously.

3) Well, one other possible explanation is that all electrons are absolutely identical because there is only one electron in actual existence. If you see the same object twice, thrice of a zillion times over, then it's the same object and the fact that it is consistently identical is not a great mystery. But how can the Universe contain only one electron? That seems to be the least obvious statement anyone could ever make - the statement of a total wacko.

Well, one explanation goes something like this. Our one electron has zipped back and forth between the Alpha and Omega points again, and again, and again. Now multiply 'again' by zillions upon zillions upon zillions of times. When you take a cross section at any 'now' point in time between the Alpha and the Omega, there will be zillions upon zillions upon zillions of electrons visible 'now'. Simple, isn't it?

Unfortunately, while there is no violation of physical laws at the micro level in travelling through time (apart from going forward at a rate of one second per second which we do whether we like it or not), no exact causality mechanism has been proposed to explain how and why an elementary particle shifts gear into time reverse (or forward again).

Back to the original question, why are all electrons identical? Or not, as the case may be.

4) Perhaps in other parallel universes, ones that have different physics, all electrons (if they have electrons at all) might not be identical. That possibility is akin to asking about numbers of angels dancing on pinheads. There's just no way of ever knowing since parallel universes are beyond the reach of science as we know it.

But say each member of the particle zoo weren't identical to every other member in kind. Say electrons came in a thousand variations of mass and electric charge; ditto the other elementary particles. You'd have a particle jungle. If that were the case, presumably it would prove to be very difficult to create identical atoms of the elements and identical molecular compounds and ultimately it would prove difficult to build up the structure of our Universe as we know it, including us. An analogy might be that it's far easier to assemble a ten piece jigsaw puzzle and one with a billion pieces. Our particle zoo seems to be a Goldilocks zoo - not too many particles and variations thereof; not to few either (I mean a universe composed of just identical electrons is equally as bad for life as we know it). Of course if that - the Goldilocks particle zoo - weren't so, we wouldn't be here to ponder the issue.

Moving on up the chain, assuming all members of the particle zoo are identical then atoms of any particular element must be identical - if you've seen one gold atom, you've seen them all (though owning them all is quite a different matter). If elements come in different isotopes, then all the specific isotope atoms of that element are identical.

Further moving on up the chain, if identical atoms combine with other different identical atoms, then presumably the resulting molecules will be identical. While that's true, it's only true up to a point, because eventually you can get molecules that while seemingly identical, have handedness. That is, your hands, while identical, aren't identical because one has a left-handed orientation; the other has a right-handed orientation. That's the point things start to fall apart or break down.

That apart, macro objects, like golf balls, are composed of millions of atoms and/or molecules. If a golf ball has one more, or one less molecule than another, well the two aren't identical.

5) Introducing the maths connection: Here, there and everywhere, on a flat surface, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line; triangles have a sum total 180 degrees; 2 + 2 = 4. In each case, it is so to as many decimal places as you care to calculate. Every 7 is identical to every other 7 - no more and no less. That's true whether or not one is dealing with base ten, or in binary (base two).

So what's the connection? All computer generated simulations, in whatever context, for whatever purpose, are ultimately software programs, which in turn are just mathematical constructions. All you see are ultimately expressions of maths, of binary bits, of 0's and 1's, something on or off. So if you simulate some object using binary software programming, and you create another object using the exact same binary software coding, then those two virtual objects are identical. Now, call what you have simulated, 'electrons'. So if all electrons are identical, maybe it's because they are mathematical constructions - the end products of computer software/programming.

In simulations, virtual objects can interact with other virtual objects (more mathematical wizardry). Change happens. Well, that's what we observe in our reality too. The question is, is our reality really real reality, or simulated reality? Are our electrons identical because each is the product of an identical piece of binary software programming? That may not ultimately be the answer, but it's an answer. Electrons are the same since they are all constructed from the same mathematical whole cloth of binary bits - of 0's and 1's.

Discussion: One may argue that there are indeed differences between electrons (and positrons), we just haven't measured to enough decimal places yet. While that might be true, I personally wouldn't want to bet on it.

Conclusion: I started out with the question of why all electrons are identical. The answer is, I don't know and neither, I suspect does anyone else. However, the foundation of physics (itself the foundation for the other sciences) is grounded in maths, and maths, as noted above, has no problem with the concept. All identical equations yield identical results; the 'equals' sign itself demands identicalness. Perhaps maths has more fundamental 'reality' than anyone has given it credit for. That's certainly the case if we should happen to be inhabiting a software generated, simulated Universe

Postscript: The concept of identicalness can bring us into some weird scientific and philosophical territory. Two people examining the same object will not agree to the Nth degree that the object under consideration is the exact same object, an identical object, when compared from each person's perspective. Perception is ultimately a function of brain chemistry and no two people have the exact same brain chemistry due to various factors like genetics, age, physiology, disease, fatigue, and/or intakes of various solid, liquid and gaseous elements and compounds that directly affect brain chemistry. The differences may be really tiny and nitpicky but nevertheless present. To take another case, if three court stenographers all record and transcribe a days worth of testimony, no doubt there will be (ever so) slight differences in the final three versions.

Even the same person experiencing the same object or event a second, third, etc. time - say watching a film again or listening to a CD track again, won't have identical experiences, again due to the internal brain chemistry being slightly different on each occasion. That's apart from the fact that external influences like temperature, humidity, pressure, and general wear and tear (entropy) all affect that object or event and the environment between that object/event and the person experiencing the object/event. Those external factors also change from moment to moment.

People though tend to agree (brain chemistry not withstanding) on what an independent umpire says about an object or event - the independent umpire being an instrument or measuring device. Instruments are of course also subject to external influences, but aren't affected by brain chemistry - they have no brains!

Measurements tend to be numerical, and numbers are pretty straight forward. However, all measurements are subject to some uncertainty or error margins, especially analogue devices like a ruler - is it 1.510 cm or 1.511 cm or 1.509 cm? Or a thermometer - is it reading 31.37 degrees or 31.38 degrees or 31.36 degrees? Or take a standard watch or clock - is it 12:00:00 or 12:00:01 or 11:59:59?

Digital instruments however have readouts that have a finite number of places in which to display the result, so they don't tend to give you a plus or minus uncertainty error bar. A digital instrument will readout that the length IS 1.510 cm; the temperature IS 31.37 degrees; the time IS 12:00:00, and everyone looking at the readout will agree.

In the case of an electron, the independent umpire gives the same numerical results for each electron it measures. Of course there are still error bars, but with each further decimal place reached, identicalness holds and the error bars get less and less.

Science librarian; retired.

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

What Happens Inside the Atom - Electrons and the Quantum World

Our conception of the atom has undergone many changes since the day the idea that matter consisted of indivisible particles was first floated by the Indians and Greeks. However it is only in this century that we have come to know something of what truly goes on inside the atom. We are all by now familiar with the iconic picture of an atom - a circle with a couple of little circles whizzing around it, rather like the moon orbits the earth. In the case of the atom, the 'earth' is called the nucleus and the 'moons' are called electrons.

What keeps the electrons hanging around the nucleus? Well, if you remember the old adage 'like charges repel, unlike attract': electrons have a negative charge, and the nucleus has a positive charge. The flipside of this is that the electrons need energy if they are to avoid spiralling into the nucleus. This was one of the main questions at the beginning of the century: where does this energy come from? The answer turns out to be very counterintuitive: very tiny objects, like atoms, don't behave like we would expect them to, and instead follow the rules of the quantum world. The word 'quantum' implies separateness, and in the case of the atom we find that electrons are actually restricted to be at certain separate energies - an electron could have an amount of energy X, or an amount of energy Y, but it can't have an energy between X and Y. This rules out the electron from spiralling, because in order to spiral, the electron would have to go through the whole gamut of energies all the way down to zero, and that's just not allowed.

That's not all. For each separate energy level, there's only a certain amount of electrons that are allowed to be at that energy. Suppose we give each of the energy levels a number, n, starting from the one with the least energy (and hence closest to the nucleus) n=1. It turns out that n is one of four quantum numbers that, between them, say everything there is to say about an electron. The others are called l, m, and s, and as we shall see, the values that these numbers can have are limited by the first number n. These four numbers determine why there can only be a certain amount of electrons at each energy level n: another major law of the quantum world is that no two electrons can exist in the same atom if they have the same four numbers. It's a little like two ladies turning up at a high society ball with the identical same outfit; you just know somebody's going to have to go home and change.

What do the other three numbers mean? The l and m numbers are 'rotational' quantum numbers and they determine how the electron moves around the nucleus. Before we explain further, we have to interject with another major law of the quantum world, or rather an admission: we can't actually know where exactly the electron is. This is to do with the famous 'uncertainty principle' which I am sure you have heard about, even if you don't know what it means. In fact, the best we can do is say 'Well, there's an x-percent chance it's here, a y-percent chance it's there, a z-percent chance it's somewhere else, and so on...'. That's all. When showing the location of an electron, a common method is to draw an electron 'cloud', shading the cloud thickly in the areas where the electron is more likely to be, and thinly in the areas where it is less likely to be.

The l quantum number tells us a lot about the shape of the cloud for a particular electron. An electron on energy level n can have any value of l from 0 to n-1. We find that the cloud is split into n-l concentric bands around the nucleus, and the shape of these bands is more complex the higher l is (it basically looks like it has been run through with a pizza slicer l times). For l=0 the cloud is just n spherical shells around the nucleus.

We can say that l gives the rotation strength and m gives the angle at which the rotation axis is tilted. m can have any value between -l and l, and the cloud for each value of m (keeping n and l the same) differs only in that it is rotated a little bit around the nucleus. The last number, s, is called spin - as well as going around the nucleus, the electrons also rotate on their own axis! However electrons can only spin like this in two ways (again another quantum law) and so there are only two possible values for the s number.

Now that we know about the four numbers we can now calculate how many electrons can stay at each energy level n. Well if n=1, l has to be 0 and so m has to be zero. The only number left is s and that means only 2 electrons are allowed. However if n=2, then l can be either 0 or 1. If l=0, then we have 2 electrons just like the n=1 case; if l=1 then m can be -1,0 or 1 and so we will have 6 electrons when we take s into account. That leaves 8 in total. In this way we can calculate the number of electrons at every energy level.

In order to save energy, the lower energy levels usually get filled up first - i.e. helium has its two electrons in the n=1 level whereas lithium, with three electrons, fills the n=1 level first and then puts the spare electron in the n=2 level. However as n gets bigger, things get a bit more complicated and you will see electrons being added to energy levels before the level below is completely full.

The author has a Ph.D in particle physics. This is the first in a series of articles exploring the concepts, structure and history of the atom. He is a member of the Sri Chinmoy Centre and is especially interested in the dialogue between the scientific and spiritual perspectives on life.

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

The Mass and Charge Differences of Protons Vs Electrons

It has been understood for a long time that an electron, in terms of mass, is about 1/1,800 that of a proton. In addition to this, it is also well understood that both the proton and the electron each have absolute, but opposite, charge values of 1. The proton having a charge value of %2B1 and the electron having a charge value of -1. What has not been understood is why is it that both objects can have precisely equal charge values yet have such a large difference in mass? It is highly unlikely that the design of the universe just so happens to have it so that this is just a nice coincidence. This can only lead me to the conclusion that there must be a mechanical explanation for this occurrence. Let us start out by defining how the inner workings of protons and electrons are designed and how they function.

Let us imagine a collection of smaller particles that are joined together in such a way so that a fixed number of them comprise a single electron. I will call these particles "Om Particles" named after the word "Om" in Hindu meaning the elementary vibration of all existence. These Om particles are connected together and arranged much like a set of baby's plastic linking beads that can be snapped together end to end. Taking this a step further, let us take enough of these particles and put them together in a string so that they can be curved around to form a closed loop. It is this loop formation of Om particles that creates our electron. I cannot be certain exactly how many Om particles it takes to form a single electron but I will surmise that careful studies of the relative fractional values of the masses of known sub-atomic particles when compared to the mass of a single electron will lead a common denominator which should tell us the value of the mass of a single Om particle and, as a result, yield the number required to form a single electron. The reason for this is that I believe that every particle in the universe is made up of these Om particles and therefore should have masses that are some multiple of the Om particle's mass.

One other piece of the puzzle that needs explanation here is why the electron has any charge at all. Well, the answer to this is simple and that it is a very tiny electrical generator. What is happening within this arrangement of Om particles is that they are moving very rapidly round and round, chasing one another's tails, so to speak. It is this rotation of Om particles that causes a surrounding field of negative charge. Please note that in a later writing I will explain why it is that these Om particles are moving in this fashion but to keep the story simple here, just accept that they do and let us get on with the rest of my explanation here and discuss the mechanics of a proton.

Everyone is familiar with the common toy called a "Slinky". Looking at the shape of a slinky, imagine taking one end of it and pulling it around so that it comes to join the other end. We now have an object that resembles what is usually referred to as a taurus. If we look closely to this taurus shaped object, and making the assumption that our slinky is a very special "super slinky" that has approximately 1,800 windings in it, we will now have a fair representation of a proton. Each winding inside a proton is actually a single electron but instead of sitting side by side, the electrons are connected in such a way that they create a spiral formation, one after another, until you have 1,800 of them just as our super slinky does in the above example.

Just like the electron, these windings are made up of Om particles that are flowing rapidly through this formation, going round and round. Eventually, after doing some 1,800 loops they return to their starting position, much like a stunt pilot who gets a bit carried away doing consecutive loop the loops in the sky to impress his audience.

If one were to examine the electrical field that is being generated by this formation, one would see that at relatively close distance, there is a charge of negative value. But, as one moves away, the charge value flip flops and becomes positive. The reason for this is that each of the individual loops within the proton are the same as an electron and are generating a negative charge field within their close proximity. This field is being generated along the axis that the individual Om particles are revolving around. The bulk of this field is contained within the body of the taurus shape itself. Stepping back it can be seen that there is a larger flow and a secondary axis of movement to consider.

This is the path takes us around and through the central mass of the taurus shape itself. This flow is revolving about the axis that the secondary charge is being generated and is the opposite in value to the charge generated by the individual windings. This axis passes through the central hole of the taurus and is of positive charge. It is the net effect of this charge living in the outer regions surrounding the proton that gives the observed positive charge that we detect when observing the proton interacting with its environment..

Now that I have defined that the proton is simply an arrangement of electrons connected together, I will explain how it is this construction that leads to opposite but equal values of charge for the proton vs. the electron. Looking at a single electron, let us say that the Om particles are moving within it at a specific steady velocity. The distance traveled by an Om particle for it to complete one lap around the electron I will call distance "x". Now, assuming that the Om particles within the proton are moving in the same manner as those within the electron, the distance they will have to travel before they return to their starting position will be about 1,800 times "x". Taking this a step further, if a single rotation of Om particles within an electron yields a charge of -1, we can now safely come to the conclusion that the body of Om particles within the proton, moving at a net rotational velocity 1/1,800 that of an electron but, there being 1,800 times as many of them doing so, results in a net charge of +1. Hence, our measured charges are opposite but equal in value. The other way to look at it is that the body of Om particles completes a single rotation about its axis 1,800 times faster than those within a proton. Again the same result, opposite but equal charge values.

Once that this is understood, we can move on to the next issue and that is why an electron within an atom maintains a certain distance from the proton and doesn't collapse into it. One would logically conclude that since the proton is of positive charge and the electron is of a negative charge that the two should fall into one another in very short order. I am aware that quantum mechanics tries to explain this using what is called the uncertainty principal and that it is just a matter of probability that assigns the location of the electron around the nucleus of the atom, but I have a big problem with this. This "explanation" is no explanation at all. You might as well say that the electron is held out away from the proton by magical fairy dust as by probability. I do have to agree with Einstein fully on this one. God does not play dice with physics.

Looking at the above model of how the electron and proton are formed, another much more logical and mechanically reliable explanation surfaces. That is, since the charge close in to the proton is actually negative, the electron is kept at bay by this repulsive force. When you look at the charge fields surrounding the proton, the negative charge gradually gets weaker the further away from the surface you get and becomes replaced by a positive charge at a certain outlying distance. As one moves away even further, this outlying charge actually increases in strength until there is a maximal point where the charge is at its greatest and then will begin to wane if one moves away yet even further. It is at this point in the space around the proton that the electron is most tightly bound to. Sort of a "grange point" for the electron, if you will.

More complicated atomic structures that involve many protons, and neutrons, and electrons now become more readily understandable in how they behave. The electrons are all whirling about, avoiding one another because they have a like charge, yet are trapped within this certain area of space by the outerlying positive created by the protons packed together in the nucleus. This next begs the question as to why the nucleus is tightly bound together and not blown apart by the like charges that each of the protons posses. I will leave that to another writing, but rest assured that if you are able to accept what I have written so far, I do have a very nice and tidy explanation for this phenomenon as well as many others that seem to defy logic. That is until you look at them in a different light and are willing to throw away your fairy dust.

Albert Dewey

Creator of The Auto-Corner System: The world's most advanced utility for the Used Car Dealership, bar none! -- http://www.auto-corner.com/docs/features.shtml

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.