This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
What proof is there that electrons are particles?
Hello TED,
I'm not a physicist but the field interrests me...
And something within physics strikes me as very strange.
Namely that electrons are particles...
In the stuff I've been thought electrons were depicted as being 'small round things in an orbit around an atom'. And I can accept that were it not for the other observation that molecules are groups of several atoms being held together by the attraction and repulsion of the atoms and electrons.
It seems to me that you can always create a situation where the electron (if it is a particle) will collide with either other electrons or with other atom-nucleus'.
Therefor to me it seems a lot more logical that the "electron" is actually a force or a field rather than a particle.
But I am hoping that someone would have a link or an explanation which can show me why an electron is actually a particle.
Gail . 50+
Though I don't necessarily agree with the conclusion that the wave collapses to form reality. I am more with those who say that it is more probable that reality (all particles) are always wave energy.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Richard Krooman 50+
For me the concepts are much more important. We can make mathematical models while not understanding anything. But when you understand something it is (for some people at least ;)) easy to make a mathematical model out of it.
In the lecture of Feynman that I watched yesterday he explains that the Mayans civilisation could very accurately predict (by counting) when the planet venus would be where in the sky. But they had no idea that it was another planet.
For me it is much more important to know that there is a planet out there than it is to know exactly when it will be visiable.
Same for all other parts of physics... I find it more important to know why reactions occur than which.
You could say that
"What happens" = observation.
"How it happens" = math.
"Why it happens" = understanding.
Although both the what and the how are important... I'm much more interrested in the why :)
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Richard Krooman 50+
I think I gave you the wrong impression.... I agree with what you said except for what I point out in my reaction.
I'm gratefull for your post :)
natasha nikulina 50+
Math is actually doing the same, i am not sure it can be viewed this way , but math is probably in a better position here. It doesn't supply the division with a description, iow. it doesn't language it, the more abstract, the more real, paradoxically :) But even mathematics, if you take Kurt Goedel, is an uncertain enterprise.
Nothing is secure.
george lockwood 20+
Robert Haacke
As a result of this, it doesn't make sense to think of the electron as being a particle that flies around inside of molecules. It is really neither truly a particle nor a wave.
Richard Krooman 50+
I am a guillable person... and to be honest I don't see why it would be hard to believe that electrons are neither particle nor wave (but have properties of both).
However... then why have I been thaught that it is a "tiny ball moving around a spherical tiny nucleus like mad"?
Couldn't they at least say that they are not sure what it is?
Because all explanations I've ever heard start of by saying that an electron is a really small ball moving around an atom.... Heck even on TED there is an animated movie explaining atoms / particles in that way.
Robert Haacke
Richard Krooman 50+
natasha nikulina 50+
Richard Krooman 50+
Anyway for me it is not a large step to go from "gas like atoms/molecules" to a solid object... because it just means that the force they have pulling them together is greater than the force pressing on it.
Won't you agree that if you think of the world just as forces.... that it means that:
a solid = more internal force than force trying to 'seperate it'.
a liquid = slightly more internal force than force trying to "seperate it" however when you apply extra force you can split it.
a gas = such a weak force that it gets seperated and eventually forms a mixture based on several properties.
natasha nikulina 50+
I've just tried to explain why people prefer ' tiny objects ' to stay in the picture ; maybe because it is something that can be 'hold', it gives human psychy the comfort of understanding.
Richard Krooman 50+
And if I as a 'normal person' can already figure this out try to imagine how many people are being misslead because their teachers told them that electrons and atoms are similar to different types of balls moving around influencing eachother.
peter lindsay 30+
Richard Krooman 50+
For me it is similar to the difference between gas and a solid (I know that in this case it is a strange analogy).
I always thought that electrons were small solid things in a space... but now that I've thought things through I realize that it makes much more sense to think about them as if they are gasses within a space.
I know that both analogies are wrong... but it is easier to think about things we can both visualize than talking in terms of forces/fields.
Richard Krooman 50+
It might be better to look at it with a view of only forces rather than objects?
peter lindsay 30+
Richard Krooman 50+
Thanks I think it's pretty clear to me already. Just the idea that they are not "tiny solid objects" helps me understand a lot more of physics.
Although it also gives rise to many other questions but I'll figure it out :)
edward long 100+
Fritzie Reisner 100+
There are sites devoted to physics where actual physicists will answer your questions! The American Physical Society is one where the explanations you get will be entirely reliable.
Here is a site that will direct you to reliable sites aimed at the non-specialist: http://pdgusers.lbl.gov/~aerzber/aps_particle.html
This is an area where there are lots of misunderstandings among those who are not physicists.
Richard Krooman 50+
It is funny... I was actually typing the post after just having watched an old lecture from Feynman on another site.
In that he basically talks about the duality your first linked page is about.
That talk seemed to heavily object the idea that "electrons are particles" (in the sense that they are physical objects).
Peter Lindsay above already commented on that that particles don't have to be physical (solid objects) in physics but merely individually measurable quantities.
I'll look into the other site tomorrow as it seems like a decent place to start a search from, but today I unfortunately don't have the time to start the search ;).
Fritzie Reisner 100+
I know you know, Richard, that Conversations is not super reliable for scientific explanations, but I think sometimes people new to the site think Conversations is the TED speakers talking.
I had a bona fide quantum physicist look at some of our little physics discussions here a few weeks ago and his reaction gave me the idea of always posting links to the real authoritative sources when someone asks a physics question.
Richard Krooman 50+
But when enough people read / think about the question there is a really high chance that someone will be able to either give you the answer or link you to an answer.
In this case my problem is that the answers that I had been given in the past seem to be very difficult to combine with some more recent information. (as recently I've been watching some more physics lectures from Walter Lewin / Richard Feynman)
I've already had quite a few posts here describing things that, to me, make a lot of sense. Now it's up to me to see which (if not all) explanations seem most plausible. (where here plausible would mean most broadly supported by science)
What kinda freaks me out the most though is that within a few hours from posting this... I've already seen an explanation that pretty much tells me that what I've learned in the "physics" class in highschool was wrong.
That is quite upsetting (if it's true) that the scientific world moves this slow and that I got thought something that has been disproven for more than 60 years (at the time that I learned it).
Anyway I'll try to read up on the subject and see what happens with the newly gained knowledge :)
Thanks again for your feedback.
Fritzie Reisner 100+