Talk:Electron/Archive 1

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)


 * 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)


 * 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&minus;12 m. This wavelength is $$2\pi (3\pi \frac {hG} c)^{\frac 1 4}$$, when units based on the Planck length are used. (diff where it was first added) 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
 * What's so special about one second? It's just an arbitrary unit, and has no place in formulas. Also, you seem to have tweaked the value of G to make it fit, it's really closer to 6.6742*10-11 N*m2/kg2. Goplat 16:02, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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&#8722;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?  &mdash; 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&#8722;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 "&eta;&lambda;&epsilon;&kappa;&tau;&rho;&omicron;&nu;", but derivation from the word "electricity," which, as you point out, is itself derived from "&eta;&lambda;&epsilon;&kappa;&tau;&rho;&omicron;&nu;" (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 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)

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. Hawking radiation does not cause electrons to explode or evaporate because "--black holes involved in space-tearing conifold transitions are extremal, they do not Hawking radiate, regardless of how light they become",from note 4, page 408 "The Elegant Universe". 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. The muon magnetic moment is also equal to charge times angular momentum divided by mass but it is not in the "extremal" class so it is not stable.

If any photon is gravitationally blueshifted to the wavelength  $$\sqrt {3/2} \;2\pi l_p$$ (where $$l_p$$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 ($$3G m/c^2)$$  equal to the photon wavelength divided by 2 pi. This "limit wavelength" is $$\sqrt{3\pi hG/c^3}$$. This is a special unique photon wavelength because its energy may be determined either by the Planck constant or the gravitational constant. Energy is (hc/wavelength) or (c)exponent4,times (wavelength) divided by (3pi G). When the maximum energy photon wavelength is known and its energy is specified using only the gravitational constant and light velocity, then the energy of any wavelength photon can be specified using these two constants, because photon energy is inversely proportional to wavelength.

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. P.A.M.Dirac said "The physics of the future, of course cannot have the three quantities h/2 pi, e and c all as fundamental quantities. Only two of them can be fundamental and the third must be derived from those two. I think one is on safe ground if one makes the guess that in the physical picture we shall have at some future stage e and c will be fundamental quantities and h/2 pi will be derived." This quote is from Mathematics in the Modern World (1968 Scientific American, Inc.). 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)

Naked electrons
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)

Categories
We put some thought into the categories for electron (on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics). I as a particle physicist certainly believe it is first and foremost an elementary particle (and so properly goes under lepton). But the electron, as the agent of all chemical bonds, obviously belongs to chemistry, etc. as well. We have to share. -- SCZenz 08:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I am a theoretical molecular physicist or theoretical chemist -- call me how you want -- but I don't agree with this editorial line. Electrons do not participate only to quantum chemistry, physical chemistry or molecular physics and so on but also to solid state physics, electricity, astrophysics, plasma physics, etc... If you want they play also an important role in biology or in extraterrestrial physics.  I think it is not possible to know where to stop.  Moreover why is nucleus not in the quantum chemistry category?  Do not tell me chemistry in not concerned by the movement of the nuclei.   Why is the Coulomb interaction not in quantum chemistry?  Don't you think it plays an important role too?  On the same level why is quantum mechanics not in the category quantum chemistry?  So I switch back my changes and am awaiting your comments. --147.231.28.83 08:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

It is difficult to know where to stop, yes. But I think having only one category is definitely the wrong place. I am open to the possibility that it was the wrong ones before, but I think the electron deserves at least a sample. -- SCZenz 14:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * What are you thinking at? Something like Common elementary particles together with proton, neutron, photon? I don't see your point.  For me an electron is an elementary particle and a lepton. It plays a role in many processes but I think the most important one is electricity and not quantum chemistry.  But that's an uninteresting question.  It's a bit like one would put the term force in the category engineering.  Force belongs to physics or mechanics but not to engineering. Where is the problem? --Vb 15:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Who was that comment addressed to? All I was claiming is that the electron belongs in stuff like Chemistry. Are you disagreeing with that, Vb? -- SCZenz 15:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I am Vb but I don't all the time login. Yes I am disagreeing with that.  Not with the fact that electron are important in chemistry but that they belong to that field.  All concept used in chemistry are not chemical concept.  Chemistry uses quantum mechanics, lasers or microchips but those are not chemical concepts and, in my opinion, hence don't belong to the chemistry category. --147.231.28.83 08:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Particles are commonly put into categories where they are important, for example, condensed matter physics, nuclear physics, molecular physics, and obviously particle physics. It does make sense to put the electron in categories where it is important, although prehaps not as many as there were originally Salsb 11:18, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not a good editorial line. Eletrons are important in almost all chemical, biological and physical sciences including engineering  -- electricity and electronic are good examples.  Do you really want to list them all?  On the other hand, protons, neutrons, nuclei and photons are also important in quantum chemistry.  And even more recently positrons have been used for spectroscopical purpose.  Do you really think it is necessary to list them all?  --147.231.28.83 11:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I have just checked. Neither electrons nor nuclei are in the category solid state physics nor condensed matter physics.  I think it is just right like it is because solid state physics are not concerned with electrons as such. --

147.231.28.83 11:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC) I said particles, not electrons, if you browse through the subatomic particles category and subcats you will see particle placed in various categories where they are important Salsb 11:22, August 31, 2005 (UTC) Your argument has validity, but I disagree. Electrons, and nuclei as well, should be in a few relevant categories--similar to the way photon is in Category:Optics. If we discuss carefully about the best categories to include, would you think adding them would be ok? -- SCZenz 14:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course I am ready to discuss and find a compromise. The example you give about the photon is not really equivallent.  Optics is somehow the theory of light.  Since the theory of the photon is a theory of light I fully understand that photon pertains to this category.  The theory of the electrons and of the nuclei is not a part of quantum chemistry.  Similarly I would have less opposition to including electron in the category of electricity.  This would be somehow coherent with including photons into optics.  Though the theory of electrons pertains to particle physics and not to a theory of electricity which is the the theory of electric fluxes and displacement of charges.  If you insist on setting electrons within quantum chemistry, atomic physics, molecular physics and physical chemistry, I will insist on setting them into electricity, electronic, plasma physics, condensed state physics, solid state physics and critalography. Isn't that a bit too much? --147.231.28.83 10:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Your statement that"[t]he theory of the electrons and of the nuclei is not a part of quantum chemistry" is not accurate. Much of the theory in quantum chemistry involves explicitly studying the configurations of electrons in molecules. If you don't believe me, flip through a few journals on quantum chemistry, or check out conference proceedings. As far as putting the electron in  "plasma physics, condensed state physics, solid state physics and critalography" (sic), that would be going overboard from something where electrons are central to where they are less so. A case could be made for putting the electron in the latter categories, but a much weaker case Salsb 11:22, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Optics is not the theory of light. The best current theory of light is electroweak theory. Optics is an approximation that describes the way the photon acts in the real world. Electroweak theory is also the current best theory of electrons; chemistry is, similarly, an approximation that describes how electrons act in the real world--with extremeley important effects, obviously. As far as I'm concerned, we should really have the electron in Category:Leptons, Category:Chemistry or some appropriate subcategory, and Category:Electricity. How does that sound? -- SCZenz 14:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup
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)

Whats an electron?
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)


 * 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)

Is it possible that an electron is just a standing wave of electromagnetic energy bounded in a quantum corral -- like the man from IBM research said on the TV?--Light current 05:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)

I see! A corrall is like where you keep horses, but in this case it keeps the energy in by bouncing it of the sides. --Light current 05:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * A "quantum corral" sounds more complicated than an "electron" to me. What is that made out of?  -- SCZenz 10:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

THe man from IBM research didnt say how its was formed, but he had a picture of his model of the electron standing wave pattern on the PC screen. Could have been a BH for all I know. Can EM exist inside a BH and if so, would it bounce back off the Schwarzchild surface back into the interior?--Light current 14:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)

The problem with an electron being a BH is that energy (or anything) cannot escape it. So how does an electron carry energy and interact with photons etc. BTW whats a photon?--Light current 14:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Just looked up geon .This semms to describe more or less what the IBM man was talking about. ie the corall is formed by the gravitational field energy!(possibly)--Light current 14:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Unortunately there are technical problems with the idea, and nobody takes it too seriously. -- SCZenz 16:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)

Don, I like the idea of geons apart from the question: How does the geon carry energy and re-emit (as per photons) if it is a black hole? or are you saying its just on the point of becoming one? BTW would you care do define what you been by 'closed loop wave'? (Sorry I habe a cold!)--Light current 16:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)

All I'm looking for here is for someone to tell me if there is a theory that considers the electron as a little packet of EM radiation (pure energy). If so, how does it interact with photons, carry charge, get excited etc. Surely someone can tell me if there is such a theory and what its called??--Light current 20:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The answer to your question, as stated, is: There is no such theory. -- SCZenz 21:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Pity!--Light current 00:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

The man from IBM research's name is Dr. Don Eigler. You can look him up on Google where there are many links to his work. Also look at black hole page where I erroneously left some posts on this. :-)

Copied from SCZenZ talk

''Quantum Coral

DON EIGLER These are just the electrons which are trapped in the surface layer, but within the surface layer they're free to move around. These electrons are waves. And the waves when they move, they sometimes bang into features on our surface like the step edges or individual atoms which might be sticking out of the surface. Now when a wave bangs into something, it reflects off of that thing, and when you have reflected wave adding together with the incoming part of the wave, it sets up what we call a standing wave. These are regions where there are large oscillations which are fixed where they are in space, and regions where oscillations go to zero.

MICHAEL RIORDAN I've always felt that the wave function was just a description of a reality and the reality was deeper, it was a particle. And the wave function was just something mathematical up in a physicists head. To actually see a physical wave function rippling across the surface is rather disturbing. If I was really honest I'd probably have to tell you that I need to go back and reassess the way I've pictured the world.

DON EIGLER Well I'm probably somewhere in error or maybe I'm just a heretic. I don't believe in this wave particle duality mumbo-jumbo, I think it's mostly just the left over baggage of having started off to understand the world in terms of particles and then being forced because of the quantum revolution to think of the world in terms of waves. And we're stuck with this dualistic way of looking at these very small particles. Don't even think about them as particles, electrons are waves. And if you think of them in terms of waves you will always end up with the right answer. Always.

My bolding''

Look up Don Eigler of IBM on Google. He has made some interesting progress on surfaces at the atomic level You can look here also [1]. :-)--Light current 03:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Hers a nice little theory.. Can anyone find any holes in it?--Light current 14:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)

So I assume you agree with the group maths of spherical rotation? Is it worth me studying it or is it nonsense?--Light current 16:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)