Talk:Electron - Knowledge

1890:, and this article, have disparate article organizations. I've been raising the notion of standardizing the organization of these key articles to some extent. So far, I suggest that after the Introduction, there be a brief Summary or Description section summarizing the main characteristics of the particle, followed by the History section, then other sections as needed. The Summary section is to provide readers with the essentials (a Cliff Notes of the article, if you will), while the History section provides not only the history, but oftentimes key details for understanding the particles. This article could likely benefit from a brief Description section at its start - many readers will just want to know some of the basic facts up front, and prefer not to have to read the entire article and glean the main points only after some labor. Seems to me that all of these articles can be made better by synchronizing them about their relative strengths. It would be hopeless to attempt complete standardization; but these articles should at least have a similar look about them! 912:" Presumably, this means "incorrectly thought." Since Franklin arbitrarily labeled the two aspects as positive and negative (apparently), is it correct to say that he "thought" the charge carrier was positive? Or would it be more correct to say, "Franklin thought of the charge carrier as being positive, but he did not correctly identify which situation was a surplus of the charge carrier, and which situation was a deficit." It may also be interesting to note (if this is true, but I'm not an expert) that this decision on his part is what led to electrons being assigned a negative charge value and that likewise positive current is regarded as opposite to the flow of electrons (i.e., due to Franklin's arbitrary assignment). 498: 2520:

would lose lots of energy escaping from the nucleus. Also the collision rate (cross section) would be very small as nuclei are tiny objects. In reality the photon only needs to be in the vicinity of a nucleus so as to give it a small kick. Another way of thinking about the process is to consider the photon collides with a virtual electron-positron pair in the electric field of the nucleus. (It can also occur near an electron orbiting the nucleus.) Secondly it implies the electron and also the positron emerge at a finite angle theta. In reality the opening angle for the pair is close to zero degrees.

434: 2086:(point-like) electrons, i.e. elementary particles sans internal structure have perfectly equal opposite charge of the composite proton particle, just because. That kind coincidence is very suspicious to theoretical physicists, who like elegant solutions without hidden variables and magic constants such as 1/137. It even makes more sense to say the electron is a black hole, tiny as seen from the outside but with a large enough interior to contain a sub-structure or even a mini universe. 1045:

delegated individual electron? Since the electrostatic field of the sum of the protons is a summarized value, how does the loss or change in binding energy value of an individual electron result in a condition of ionization of the electrostatic charge of the atom. These questions make the data concerning the difference between the stability of the isotopes, such as: (OE53I127 (stable, -88983Nubase), and (EO54Xe127 ec, 36.345days, -88321Nubase) hard to explain and understand.

737:. Isolated electrons cannot be split into smaller components, earning them the designation of a fundamental particle. But in the 1980s, physicists predicted that electrons in a one-dimensional chain of atoms could be split into three quasiparticles: a 'holon' carrying the electron's charge, a 'spinon' carrying its spin and an 'orbiton' carrying its orbital location. In 1996, physicists split an electron into a holon and spinon. Now, van den Brink and his colleagues have 593: 2721:"Arthur Schuster expanded upon Crookes' experiments by placing metal plates parallel to the cathode rays and applying an electric potential between the plates. The field deflected the rays toward the positively charged plate, providing further evidence that the rays carried negative charge. By measuring the amount of deflection for a given level of current, in 1890 Schuster was able to estimate the charge-to-mass ratio". It was the voltage he was varying. 572: 244: 666: 488: 467: 425: 277: 1577: 2786:"The Coulomb force interaction between the positive protons within atomic nuclei and the negative electrons without, allows the composition of the two known as atoms." This sentence appears in the introduction. I am sure it is meaningless, but I am not qualified to correct it. I would delete it but cant find a way to do that. 1313:, but it doesn't show the value in the abstract. The value comes from other linking websites. No reachable cites have an error term, so I'm not going to add it to the article. Ironically, the error term on the value in the article doesn't contain the mean value given here. Welcome to science; mind the gap. 2344:

I believe the Standard Model should be mentioned in the introduction, because it provides a direct connection to fermions, leptons, and electrons. Mentioning the Standard Model creates a logical process for the explanation of the behavior of the electron and a provides curious readers an opportunity

2112:

each electron did not create a diffraction when 2 slits were open, but rather hit the wall at a particular point. A diffraction picture was created only after many hits happened. For me it seems this rather means that each electron passed through one slit only. However, I am not a physicist and might

904:

which seems to have mixed up the two Hauksbees, perhaps regarding them as one person. Also, the Keithley citation incorrectly points to page 207, which is about events of the 1800s, not 1700s. Hauksbee (the elder) is discussed starting on page 15 (where it says he performed a demonstration relevant

2340:

I liked a well defined section in a sentence for symbols, abbreviations, or units in a sentence for a definition. I put the symbols in a parenthesis and wrote denoted to show a direct relationship to the term and separate symbols from a sentence. Although I think there is a better way to do this on

1783:

The apparent paradox (mentioned above in the properties subsection) of a point particle electron having intrinsic angular momentum and magnetic moment can be explained by the formation of virtual photons in the electric field generated by the electron. These photons cause the electron to shift about

1282:

Ah, now that's a good alternative which I hadn't heard of before. Fair enough, and I don't think I'll be touching the article - I might come back to it at a later date to implement your suggested means, but the section below is my priority. Sorry if there's been any misunderstanding over my intent -

766:

One caution: when solid-state physicists speak of a "particle" they are talking about a mathematical construction describing the collective behavior of electrons moving through matter. That isn't to say that the phenomena they're presenting are fake or insignificant -- it's probably good work. It's

741:. Orbitons could also aid the quest to build a quantum computer — one stumbling block has been that quantum effects are typically destroyed before calculations can be performed. But as orbital transitions are extremely fast, encoding information in orbitons could be one way to overcome that hurdle." 2802:

It is certainly neither meaningless nor incorrect. There are positive protons within an atomic nucleus. There are electrons without the nucleus. (This is the less common usage of "without", meaning "outside of".) They are positively and negatively charged, respectively. The Coulomb force draws them

2567:

I see there is only mentioned Dehmelt's paper, which fits parabola to g-factor of proton and triton (both built of 3 fermions), extrapolating that electron built of 3 fermions would need 10^-22m radius - I think it is crucial to emphasize here that it claims only to exclude "electron being composed

2085:

That is a bizarre statement, because the charge of the electron and the proton are opposite equals, as measured down to 10^-21 precision, yet protons have 3 quarks inside of them (according to currently standing scientific theory). It is a "deus ex machina" claim to say that solid-cast or size-less

1817:

Update - got through the source, which in turn cites for the interpretation at issue Huang's Statistical Mechanics, page 75...I happened to have a copy of the second edition on my shelf, and I'm not seeing this on or around page 75, and there's no entry for Zitterbewegung or Dirac equation or Spin

1161:

Why on earth should citations not be wrapped or at least condensed to 1-2 lines? One person's infrequent need of editing the citation is a detriment to any other user who wishes to see the content of, and edit the page. This doesn't seem at all logical to me, and if someone could explain, please do

1044:

Assuming that our developed concepts related to the magnetic and electrical properties are essentially correct, where is it established that the ratio of electrons to protons has to be exactly one to one? If it is, how do we explain how the individual proton inside the nucleus is able to manage its

2348:

While I do believe my bold edits did not keep important relationships that the original sentences provided, I found the paragraph all over the place and lacking structure! I think the mention of quantum mechanics for the electron should be written with more unity and cohesion to provide the reader

1130:

Exactly. It's a semi coincidence that the Greek words for amber and "going" (ion) both end with "on", but this is a common Greek word ending associated with neuter nouns and present participial case verbs. So here a compound or portmanteau word happened to be the same as one of its original roots.

2519:

At present there is a very nice looking diagram illustrating the process of photon converting to an electron-positron pair in the vicinity of a nucleus. Unfortunately it has two problems. Firstly, it implies the photon hits the nucleus. This is incorrect. If it were true the electron and positron

2854:

The issue of the radius of the electron is a challenging problem of modern theoretical physics. The admission of the hypothesis of a finite radius of the electron is incompatible to the premises of the theory of relativity. On the other hand, a point-like electron (zero radius) generates serious

880:

suggests that the amber effect may have been experienced by prehistoric humans before electric fish, but that seems not to have been a "recorded experience," and in any case, that still pre-dates the ancient Greeks.) If the Electricity article is, in fact, correct, then I would suggest that the

1642:

I see this very interesting discussion related to assumptions, inconsistency, disproving and falsifiability applied to a scientific aspect. When the measurements point to non-zero values of some quantity which by some assumption is considered zero, isn't this an example of disproving and

1430: 2336:

While an electron is a subatomic particle, it is more specifically an elementary particle. The subatomic particle definition includes both elementary and composite particles under the definition. I choose to specify the electron as an elementary [article to be more precise.

1215:{{cite book | last = Anastopoulos | first = C. | year = 2008 | title = Particle Or Wave: The Evolution of the Concept of Matter in Modern Physics | url = http://books.google.com/?id=rDEvQZhpltEC&pg=PA236 | pages = 236–237 | publisher = ] | isbn = 0-691-13512-6 }} 1221:{{cite book | last = Anastopoulos | first = C. | year = 2008 || title = Particle Or Wave: The Evolution of the Concept of Matter in Modern Physics || pages = 236–237 | url = http://books.google.com/?id=rDEvQZhpltEC&pg=PA236 | publisher = ] || isbn = 0-691-13512-6 |} 1798:), but it sounds like it's a historical survey of different (and mutually-contradictory) ideas about Zitterbewegung. So, is it a controversial/unsubstantiated interpretation being presented as fact, or am I an ignoramus (or both)? 15:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC) 915:

4. I don't get why "fast-moving" was changed to "quickly-moving" (31 May 2012,‎ 129.173.102.179). The former ("fast-moving") is correct English, and sounds better. The same paragraph also has "fast moving" which should probably be "fast-moving" as well. --

1965:

If I understand correctly, only left-handed electrons interact via the weak force. If correct, its pretty important and should be included here. Probably both in the RH Table, and in the missing text discussion of spin, chirality, isospin and weak isospin;

1776:

My understanding is that Zitterbewegung is inherent in the Dirac equation, and that spin was generally agreed upon to be an elementary/irreducible concept...but both of these seem to be contradicted in the last paragraph of the Virtual Particles section:

2858:

The article could possibly mention here the rather controversial theory of electrons being "pocket blackholes" which allegedly explains the radius duality problem - through a true size of singularity (i.e. zero) vs a measurable event horizont-ish size.

1985:

I believe the solar cell, the radio, vision and the incandescent light are examples of the electron to photon process. I do not know the mechanics of this process. I just accept what appears to be obvious and go from there.Does anyone share this view?

1064:

The etymology given is incorrect. Electron is not "a combination of the word electric(icity) and the Greek suffix "tron", meaning roughly 'the means by which it is done'"; it comes from the word "elektron" in Greek which means "amber". Here's proof:

881:

above-mentioned assertion needs to be revised, and further suggest that if the cited reference (Shipley) backs up the erroneous assertion (I haven't checked it), then that reference should be regarded as being somewhat less than reliable.

1685:

I can't follow what you are saying. I don't know what you mean by "taking the limit". If you have an alternative wording for the phrase in the article, "upper limit of the particle's radius is 10 meters", feel free to propose it here.

1788:), which results in a net circular motion with precession. This motion produces both the spin and the magnetic moment of the electron. In atoms, this creation of virtual photons explains the Lamb shift observed in spectral lines. 905:

to this subject matter in 1706, not 1737), and Du Fay is discussed starting on page 19. Perhaps they meant to point to page 20 (which I can't access)? Could someone who knows the subject matter help straighten all this out?

808:

new particles. As well, the wiki pages on those three quasi-particles state explicitly that the electron is made up of those; rather than being an elementary particle itself. Should the article be amended to state as such?

1104:)." This makes sense if you consider that the word originally referred to (again quoting the OED) "the electric charge associated with a univalent ion"; and this is clear from the first recorded citation (GJ Stoney, in 1572:{\displaystyle \mathbf {L} =\left({\tfrac {1}{2}}\times 1.61619997\times 10^{-35}{\text{ m}}\right)\times \left(6.52485{\text{ kg m/s}}\right)={\frac {1}{2}}\left({\frac {h}{2\pi }}\right)={\frac {1}{2}}\,\hbar ,} 2951: 2632:

The relevant extrapolation is in the plot I have put in stack above - he draws g-factor for proton and triton (both composed of 3 fermions) and concludes limit for "electron composed of three smaller fermions".

1671:

Zero is given by 10e-infinite. 10m is a finite value, non-zero value. Considering it zero here by taking the limit doesn't make sense. I think the article is not clear enough and the discussion is legitimate.--

2349:

with a clear picture. It seemed that the electron's Standard Model definition should follow a logical structure, with a careful step-wise analysis of the electron's properties associated with each step/level.

1209:

Hmm. Well, I guess that's a simple limitation of wiki-markup and inline citations. That being said, does a citation template really have to encompass 10 lines? In the current edition, the following is present:

2855:

mathematical difficulties due to the self-energy of the electron tending to infinity. Observation of a single electron in a Penning trap suggests the upper limit of the particle's radius to be 10−22 meters.

166: 1405: 1227:

I'm absolutely not saying that it *can't or shouldn't* be used, because I understand the fact that ease-of-use is important; it just seems a bit obnoxious to take up *so many* lines in the editbox...

2981: 2946: 1309:

5.48579909067 e-4 amu. Measured by S. Sturm, F. Köhler, J. Zatorski, A. Wagner, Z. Harman, G. Werth, W. Quint, C. H. Keitel & K. Blaum. Paywalled cite of their published article is here

1818:

or Electron in the index (nor do I recall this from when I plowed through it last year, though I wasn't exactly thorough); obviously this refers to a different edition, so perhaps it was removed?

1613:, the upper bound of electron radius is 10e-22m, which shows an inconsistency with the assumptions of a point particle. I also notice an unexplained reversion of this notice by Materialscientist.-- 1036:(S.Sturm, F.Köhler, J.Zatorski, A.Wagner, Z.Harman, G.Werth, W.Quint, C.H.Keitel & K.Blaum). Even though it needs to be averaged, the 2014 measurement should be the dominant one. 13 April 2015 1657:

No, this isn't an inconsistency. The "upper bound" means the electron radius cannot be larger than 10m. Zero meters is consistent with that limit. I think the article is clear enough as it stands.

2695:

This is not about some secondary sources, but article discussed in the same sentence - using crucial assumption directly stated there, which should be also clearly stated while referencing it.

1863:

A useful link on the connection between Zitterbewegung and electron is: A. O. Barut and A. J. Bracken, “Zitterbewegung and the internal geometry of the electron,”Phys. Rev. D 23, 2454 (1981).--

1704:

applies here to radius of the electron. The mentioned exponentiated value is different from zero. Zero (electron radius) can only be seen as 10 by applying the mentioned mathematical concept.--

2108:"Quantum properties" section states that an electron can pass through two slits simultaneously. Is this a commonly accepted theory? In recent experiment on a double-slit electron diffraction 1032:). The current stated value of 5.4857990946(22)e−4 given by P.J. Mohr, B.N. Taylor, and D.B. Newell (2011) seem as though it is long overdue to be updated with 0.000548579909067 amu from 843:

If "they have no known components or substructure," isn't Dr. Zahid Hasan creating a lot of confusion by saying that the Weyl fermion is "the most basic building block of all electrons"? (

2132:

Can someone access the following article by S. J. Brodsky and S. D. Drell Physical Review D 22, 2236 (1980) and add to article details about internal structure probing of the electron?--

1112:, cannot be removed from the atom; but they become disguised when atoms chemically unite." I think this supports the idea that the coinage was a sort of compound form of "electric ion". 1805: 1249:

That's... awful. You have to read almost all of the citation to find anything. If it really annoys you, you can move everything in the ref section, and use <ref name="Bob1995"/: -->

395: 357: 258: 870:

The ancient Greeks noticed that amber attracted small objects when rubbed with fur. Apart from lightning, this phenomenon is humanity's earliest recorded experience with electricity.

2971: 2810:

But, I also see that the sentence could be viewed as confusing. If you have a suggested replacement, and you're unable to put it in the article, I'd be happy to put it in for you.

283: 2986: 2571:

There are missing cross-section based augments, but their naive extrapolation to resting electron (without Lorentz contraction) suggests ~100mb, what corresponds to ~2fm radius.

2313:? Everything we see around us is made up of matter but it doesn't exhibit wave-particle duality, or am I missing something? And "have properties" seems like pretty poor grammar. 3001: 1283:

I don't not value the maintenance of citations - they're important and things like deadlinks or made-up-stuff make me cringe - but I don't really like untidy markup either...

981:

I think the electron mass in u is wrong. It should be something like 1/1830 u, which is 5.5e-4 u rather than the "1,822.88e-1 u" that has been posted in the info-bar.

962:

A reference to Stoney's nephew, the Dublin-based physicist George FitzGerald as the origin of "electron" has been fixed it should be to George Johnstone Stoney himself.

2782:

The Coulomb force interaction between the positive protons within atomic nuclei and the negative electrons without, allows the composition of the two known as atoms.

160: 2247: 2243: 2229: 1909:

I don't know if there is a template for this request but anyway... Lately there has been no useful edits by IPs. Most, if not all of them, have been reverted by

554: 3011: 633: 1700:

I see this discussion which seems to be needing a clarification. Perhaps the mentioned phrase "taking the limit" points to the consideration whether the

643: 92: 2966: 2378:. Chemistry is an entire discipline different like Physics, Chemistry is not a phenomena is a discipline, phenomena whould be "chemistry reactions". 2996: 2976: 544: 3016: 2757:

From the 2019 redefinition of SI base units, that took effect on 20 May 2019, its value is exactly 1.602176634×10 C by definition of the coulomb.

2061: 376: 319: 2028:

Like all matter, electrons have properties of both particles and waves, and so can collide with other particles and can be diffracted like light.

2305:

It says in the lead "Like all matter, electrons have properties of both particles and waves". I'm no pysicist but shouldn't this read "Like all

2831: 2179: 1946: 876:

article, which states that the ancient Egyptians documented their experiences with electric fish long before the ancient Greeks came around. (

497: 2956: 2008:

No, this is not correct. These processes are all well-understood in physics, and cannot be described as an "electron-to-photon conversion". —

742: 98: 2450:

I agree, but that is not the point. I was trying to accommodate anon's objection. As it is formulated, the article says that chemistry is a

3006: 2941: 850: 609: 2185: 1108:, 1891), "A charge of this amount is associated in the chemical atom with each bond . These charges, which it will be convenient to call 2860: 2393: 2133: 1850: 1833: 1735: 1705: 1644: 1341: 748: 2195: 2991: 2544: 2087: 2057: 1819: 1070: 810: 520: 996:

That's what it says in the info box: 5.5×10 u or u. Note the difference between 1,823e-1 (which is 182.3) and (which is 1/1823). —

2768: 1993: 1672: 1614: 1314: 900:, who was also a scientist, but that's not enough to show his relationship to this subject matter. Further confusing the matter is 2575: 1809: 2961: 1864: 1372: 438: 57: 901: 1628:

Who said this is an inconsistency? Note that different techniques may give different radii - this is common in atomic physics.

1594:

It's as if the electron spins as fast as allowed on some indeterminate circle on a sphere with a diameter of one Planck length!

600: 577: 112: 43: 1332:

What data are there about the radius of an electron? Is it a true point particle or its radius has the order of magnitude of

1264: 1187: 117: 33: 1849:

Spin can also be related to the finite non-zero radius of the electron as pointed out by Penning trap experimental values.--

511: 472: 87: 1066: 2904: 2290: 447: 844: 181: 2655: 1633: 877: 253: 78: 2037:

in any process. It is always a matter of absorption or emission of bosons. Can the statement be reformulated better?

734: 148: 2764:---- NIST is not the International Authority; but in such matters it is always very careful to be exactly right. 738: 198: 767:

just that the quasiparticles are not fundamental particles in the sense of an electron or tau-neutrino. They're

2246:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

897: 712: 224: 424: 243: 2360: 854: 2864: 2389: 2137: 1854: 1837: 1739: 1648: 752: 2900: 2726: 2281: 2180:

http://article.pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/ppv/RPViewDoc?issn=1480-3291&volume=52&issue=8&startPage=1310

2163: 2091: 1832:

Perhaps the original articles by Foldy and Wouthuisen or the book reference should be checked for details.--

1823: 1709: 1586: 1345: 1074: 814: 703: 698: 693: 688: 683: 215: 211: 207: 203: 122: 1997: 1676: 1618: 1310: 849:

He's definitely creating confusion in my mind. This Phys.org article does not say it's a "quasiparticle."

1910: 1868: 1629: 1288: 1232: 1167: 142: 2523:

I have created a new diagram to replace the existing one. The replacement will take place within a week.

2356: 2355:

I am new to wikipedia editing and wished my contributions were better executed and improved the article.

931:

If nobody has any input on the above questions, I may go ahead and make relevant edits sometime soon. --

276: 2772: 2722: 2410: 2385: 2310: 2265:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2253: 2118: 1935: 1919: 1318: 1029: 453: 263: 2621: 2162:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2186:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080817094058/http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu:80/news/article/18277

2114: 2883: 2791: 2787: 2741: 2700: 2637: 2585: 2497: 2440: 2381: 2306: 2220: 1989: 1801: 138: 2526: 2196:

https://web.archive.org/web/20081207041522/http://grin.hq.nasa.gov:80/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2000-003012.html

1131:

But it came from two words anyway. Also the date for coinage was 1891 not 1894 and I will fix that.

2919: 2530: 2406: 2321: 1701: 948: 932: 917: 174: 68: 608:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

519:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2923: 2875: 2839: 2815: 2173: 2076: 1971: 1757: 1691: 1662: 1260: 1183: 1084:

The etymology given is not quite right, but it is also untrue to say it comes from Ancient Greek

967: 952: 936: 921: 833: 776: 718: 229: 83: 2250:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

188: 2576:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/397022/experimental-boundaries-for-size-of-electron

2266: 2042: 2009: 1895: 1727: 1284: 1228: 1163: 1117: 338: 267: 64: 2807:

called an atom. An atom is the composition of protons, electrons, and (optionally) electrons.

2767:

Therefore, the values in the article should now be as above, and the uncertainties removed.

2515:

Replacement figure about photon to electron-positron conversion in the vicinity of a nucleus

1951: 1931: 1915: 1726:

Another experimental fact that points to non-zero electronic radius is the existence of the

1361: 1272: 1195: 1017: 986: 889: 714: 665: 226: 2918:

Shouldn't the mass display as 0.9ish rontograms? Kilograms feels like a very bad unit here

2874:

To 2 edit spa: Please do not use Knowledge talk pages to discuss your own views of physics

2273: 2189: 2056:

I didn't find any citation about how many quarks up and quarks down does have an Electron.

893: 2879: 2737: 2696: 2666: 2633: 2581: 2493: 2436: 1749: 1731: 1418: 2199: 1413:

and consider the electron to be a point orbiting on a circular orbit of radius one-half

592: 571: 2674: 2607: 2552: 2479: 2474:"). To me it's no big deal, but I understand anon's objection. What do others think? - 2426: 2315: 2232:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 1785: 1600: 1268: 1191: 1050: 825: 503: 2272:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

1067:

http://artflx.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/efts/dicos/woodhouse_test.pl?keyword=^Amber,%20subs

896:. So how could he have done anything in 1737? Britannica.com shows there was also a 154: 2935: 2835: 2811: 2662: 2072: 1967: 1753: 1687: 1658: 1414: 1256: 1179: 1145: 1142: 1137: 1132: 963: 829: 772: 2376:

Electrons play an essential role in numerous physical phenomena, such as , chemistry

1752:

article doesn't even mention the size of the core ion. Please drop this discussion.

2596: 2038: 1891: 1610: 1113: 997: 2341:

each part, it would be helpful to have units or symbols better clarified in text.

1028:

If by u they mean amu then I think the electron mass is wrong as of Feb 2014 (see

2804: 2239: 1013: 982: 873: 487: 466: 2761: 2470:, to avoid listing chemistry in a list of phenomena in the domain of physics (" 2238:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 1337: 493: 1772:

Virtual Particles: Zitterbewegung "caused by" virtual photons, "causes" spin?

2670: 2603: 2548: 2475: 2422: 1333: 1046: 605: 1929:

Yet another disruptive editing. Is there any one who reads this talk page?

858: 818: 756: 2345:

to connect terms to understand the electron's place in quantum mechanics.

2155: 37: 1311:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13026.html

2459: 2451: 1883: 1012:

Sorry, I expected scientific notation rather than a fraction. Regards,

805: 516: 1177:

Multi-line citations are much easier to parse, to edit and to verify.

735:

managed to detect the third constituent of an electron — its 'orbiton'

1887: 1030:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v506/n7489/full/nature13026.html

2622:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-8949/1988/T22/016/pdf

716: 228: 747:

Shouldn't the article's initial part include something about this?

2472:

such as electricity, magnetism, chemistry and thermal conductivity

2109: 2580:

Are there any other experimental boundaries for electron size? --

1795: 1730:

in ionic solutions. A point particule (zero radius) can't have a

1218:

I could see the following be condensed much like the first line:

2352:

My main concerns were flow and clarity in regards to the edits.

1251: 2927: 2908: 2887: 2868: 2843: 2819: 2795: 2776: 2745: 2730: 2704: 2678: 2641: 2611: 2589: 2556: 2534: 2501: 2483: 2444: 2430: 2397: 2364: 2326: 2295: 2141: 2122: 2095: 2080: 2065: 2046: 2012: 2001: 1975: 1955: 1940: 1924: 1899: 1872: 1858: 1841: 1827: 1761: 1743: 1713: 1695: 1680: 1666: 1652: 1637: 1622: 1603: 1349: 1322: 1292: 1277: 1236: 1200: 1171: 1148: 1121: 1078: 1054: 1021: 1007: 990: 971: 956: 940: 925: 837: 780: 1913:, so I wanna know whether you agree to semi-protect this page 886:

In 1737, C. F. du Fay and Hawksbee independently discovered...

719: 659: 418: 230: 28: 15: 771:

electrons to do something cool, not creating new particles.

2205:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

1400:{\displaystyle \mathbf {L} =\mathbf {r} \times \mathbf {p} } 2952:

Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once

2899:

Should it be "The electron is..." or "An electron is..."?

2409:

all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See

2166:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

2033:

I don't think that in present day theories electrons ever

2490:

Chemistry is an entire discipline different like Physics

2190:

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/18277

793: 2600: 2541: 2467: 2418: 2159: 797: 388: 369: 350: 331: 312: 2200:

http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2000-003012.html

1448: 1088:(except indirectly, of course). The OED gives: " < 947:

I went ahead and made the 4 edits suggested above. --

910:

Franklin thought that the charge carrier was positive.

801: 173: 2982:

Knowledge level-3 vital articles in Physical sciences

2947:

Featured articles that have appeared on the main page

1433: 1375: 1254:), but please keep the citations on multiple lines. 872:") seems to contradict information in the Knowledge 604:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 515:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2242:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 739:

an electron into an orbiton and a spinon (abstract)

2052:How many quarks up and down does have an Electron? 1571: 1399: 1355:The electron is considered to be a point particle. 282:This article appeared on Knowledge's Main Page as 2071:Electrons are not made up of up and down quarks. 46:for general discussion of the article's subject. 2228:This message was posted before February 2018. 2972:Knowledge vital articles in Physical sciences 2599:. I have undone the edit to the article too: 1609:The article mentions that by observations in 1585:thus an angular momentum of one half (of the 187: 8: 2987:FA-Class vital articles in Physical sciences 2849:Black dot theory of electrons not mentioned? 2834:. Probably done within the next week or so. 2830:I'm recording a reading of this article for 2762:https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?e 2717:Schuster: should be "voltage", not "current" 1878:Standardize subatomic particle organization? 1794:I've yet to get past the source's abstract ( 266:. Even so, if you can update or improve it, 262:as one of the best articles produced by the 256:; it (or a previous version of it) has been 3002:FA-Class physics articles of Top-importance 2435:Chemistry is based on physical principles. 2563:Experimental boundaries for electron size? 2379: 2301:All matter exhibits wave-particle duality? 1987: 566: 461: 291: 238: 2154:I have just modified 2 external links on 1551: 1529: 1515: 1502: 1481: 1472: 1447: 1434: 1432: 1392: 1384: 1376: 1374: 1360:If we take the 'classical' definition of 888:", who is Hawksbee? It would seem to be 2661:Regarding the extrapolation, please see 2104:Passing through two slits simultaneously 1106:Transactions of the Royal Dublin Society 422: 1563: 1561: 568: 463: 2832:Knowledge:WikiProject Spoken Knowledge 1947:Knowledge:Requests_for_page_protection 1945:Well, I requested a semi protection on 1905:Request: Make this page semi-protected 1034:Nature 506, 467–470 (27 February 2014) 2488:I think the 1 edit anon's claim that 2370:Chemistry is not a physical phenomena 2217:to let others know (documentation at 1589:), which is the spin of the electron. 892:, but the cited reference (Keithley) 7: 1417:with a linear momentum equal to the 902:English Cyclopedia by Charles Knight 598:This article is within the scope of 509:This article is within the scope of 864:Questions regarding History section 452:It is of interest to the following 36:for discussing improvements to the 3012:High-importance Chemistry articles 2545:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Physics 2458:here is wikilinked to the article 2454:phenomenon, which is true, but... 2309:, electrons exhibit properties of 1806:2601:9:3400:74:387B:B56A:92D3:EA18 1250:(this is partially implemented in 14: 2654:Regarding the source, please see 2466:is what I tried to amend with my 2158:. Please take a moment to review 1882:I've noted that the articles for 2967:Knowledge level-3 vital articles 1435: 1393: 1385: 1377: 664: 591: 570: 496: 486: 465: 432: 423: 275: 242: 58:Click here to start a new topic. 2997:Top-importance physics articles 2977:FA-Class level-3 vital articles 2753:Charge defined, from 2019-05-20 2128:Source - Brodsky and Drell 1982 2110:https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.6243 1949:and it has been accepted. Nice 1784:in a jittery fashion (known as 845:The Weyl fermion has been found 638:This article has been rated as 618:Knowledge:WikiProject Chemistry 549:This article has been rated as 3017:WikiProject Chemistry articles 2909:21:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC) 2620:Just see the Dehmelt's paper: 1796:http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0985 1293:20:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC) 1278:15:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC) 1237:13:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC) 1201:13:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC) 1172:13:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC) 621:Template:WikiProject Chemistry 1: 2928:19:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC) 2844:20:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC) 2820:20:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC) 2296:07:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC) 2081:22:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC) 2066:13:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC) 2058:Dorivaldo de C. M. dos Santos 1981:electron to photon conversion 1873:21:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC) 1859:12:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC) 1842:12:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC) 1762:17:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC) 1744:12:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC) 1702:mathematical concept of limit 1696:21:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC) 1681:08:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC) 1667:17:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC) 1653:12:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC) 1638:22:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC) 1623:21:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC) 1323:06:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC) 1055:02:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC) 1040:Ratio of electrons to protons 733:"Condensed-matter physicists 612:and see a list of open tasks. 529:Knowledge:WikiProject Physics 523:and see a list of open tasks. 55:Put new text under old text. 2957:Old requests for peer review 2888:23:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC) 2869:11:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC) 2535:18:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC) 2502:00:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC) 2484:22:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC) 2445:21:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC) 2431:12:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC) 2398:11:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC) 2365:05:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC) 2096:19:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC) 2047:17:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC) 1956:12:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC) 1900:02:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC) 1828:18:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC) 1714:11:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC) 1340:and how can be determined?-- 1022:09:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC) 1008:17:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC) 991:09:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC) 898:Francis Hauksbee the Younger 532:Template:WikiProject Physics 3007:FA-Class Chemistry articles 2942:Knowledge featured articles 2142:14:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC) 1941:15:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC) 1925:14:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC) 957:11:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC) 941:08:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC) 878:History of electromagnetism 63:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 3033: 2796:14:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC) 2777:10:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC) 2736:So what? Text is correct. 2557:18:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC) 2492:does not call for change. 2417:To set them apart, I have 2327:15:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC) 2259:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2151:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 1350:12:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC) 1149:16:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC) 1122:14:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC) 1079:00:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC) 894:shows that he died in 1713 890:Francis Hauksbee the elder 781:21:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 757:06:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 728:Elementary/Can't be split? 644:project's importance scale 555:project's importance scale 396:Featured article candidate 358:Featured article candidate 2992:FA-Class physics articles 2746:06:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC) 2731:04:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC) 2705:18:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC) 2679:18:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC) 2642:18:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC) 2612:17:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC) 2590:09:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC) 1976:20:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC) 1604:05:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC) 972:16:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC) 859:14:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC) 838:17:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC) 819:09:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC) 727: 637: 586: 548: 481: 460: 405: 294: 290: 93:Be welcoming to newcomers 22:Skip to table of contents 2311:both particles and waves 2123:15:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC) 2013:16:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC) 2002:15:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC) 926:16:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 284:Today's featured article 21: 2962:FA-Class vital articles 2147:External links modified 1587:reduced Planck constant 796:specifically calls the 1573: 1401: 977:Electron mass is wrong 88:avoid personal attacks 2411:Help:Using talk pages 2374:In the article sayds 1574: 1402: 1060:Etymology of electron 601:WikiProject Chemistry 439:level-3 vital article 286:on November 21, 2009. 113:Neutral point of view 2803:together, forming a 2656:wp:secondary sources 2307:elementary particles 2240:regular verification 1431: 1373: 868:1. This statement (" 339:Good article nominee 118:No original research 2230:After February 2018 2209:parameter below to 512:WikiProject Physics 264:Knowledge community 2901:Professor Penguino 2284:InternetArchiveBot 2235:InternetArchiveBot 1569: 1562: 1457: 1397: 624:Chemistry articles 448:content assessment 295:Article milestones 99:dispute resolution 60: 2419:slightly reworded 2414: 2400: 2384:comment added by 2332:Reasons for edits 2260: 2004: 1992:comment added by 1911:Materialscientist 1804:comment added by 1728:solvated electron 1630:Materialscientist 1559: 1542: 1523: 1505: 1484: 1456: 1003: 725: 724: 658: 657: 654: 653: 650: 649: 565: 564: 561: 560: 417: 416: 413: 412: 313:November 13, 2008 237: 236: 79:Assume good faith 56: 27: 26: 3024: 2568:of 3 fermions". 2421:the sentence. - 2404: 2320: 2318: 2294: 2285: 2258: 2257: 2236: 2224: 2177: 2113:miss something. 1813: 1643:inconsistency?-- 1578: 1576: 1575: 1570: 1560: 1552: 1547: 1543: 1541: 1530: 1524: 1516: 1511: 1507: 1506: 1503: 1490: 1486: 1485: 1482: 1480: 1479: 1458: 1449: 1438: 1406: 1404: 1403: 1398: 1396: 1388: 1380: 1362:angular momentum 1276: 1199: 1140: 1135: 1005: 1001: 720: 668: 660: 626: 625: 622: 619: 616: 595: 588: 587: 582: 574: 567: 537: 536: 535:physics articles 533: 530: 527: 506: 501: 500: 490: 483: 482: 477: 469: 462: 445: 436: 435: 428: 427: 419: 408:Featured article 406:Current status: 391: 372: 353: 351:January 18, 2009 334: 332:January 14, 2009 315: 292: 279: 254:featured article 246: 239: 231: 192: 191: 177: 108:Article policies 29: 16: 3032: 3031: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3023: 3022: 3021: 2932: 2931: 2916: 2897: 2851: 2828: 2784: 2755: 2719: 2565: 2517: 2372: 2334: 2316: 2314: 2303: 2288: 2283: 2251: 2244:have permission 2234: 2218: 2171: 2164:this simple FaQ 2149: 2130: 2106: 2054: 2021: 1983: 1963: 1907: 1880: 1799: 1774: 1750:solvation shell 1732:solvation shell 1534: 1525: 1498: 1494: 1468: 1446: 1442: 1429: 1428: 1419:Planck momentum 1371: 1370: 1330: 1307: 1255: 1222: 1216: 1178: 1159: 1138: 1133: 1062: 1042: 998: 979: 866: 730: 721: 715: 701:: 2009 - 2012‎ 673: 640:High-importance 623: 620: 617: 614: 613: 581:High‑importance 580: 534: 531: 528: 525: 524: 502: 495: 475: 446:on Knowledge's 443: 433: 389:August 30, 2009 387: 368: 349: 330: 311: 233: 232: 227: 134: 129: 128: 127: 104: 74: 12: 11: 5: 3030: 3028: 3020: 3019: 3014: 3009: 3004: 2999: 2994: 2989: 2984: 2979: 2974: 2969: 2964: 2959: 2954: 2949: 2944: 2934: 2933: 2915: 2912: 2896: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2850: 2847: 2827: 2826:Spoken article 2824: 2823: 2822: 2808: 2783: 2780: 2754: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2718: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2659: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2615: 2614: 2564: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2516: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2415: 2371: 2368: 2357:Account Create 2333: 2330: 2302: 2299: 2278: 2277: 2270: 2203: 2202: 2194:Added archive 2192: 2184:Added archive 2182: 2148: 2145: 2129: 2126: 2105: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2053: 2050: 2031: 2030: 2020: 2017: 2016: 2015: 1982: 1979: 1962: 1959: 1906: 1903: 1879: 1876: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1786:zitterbewegung 1773: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1607: 1606: 1596: 1595: 1591: 1590: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1568: 1565: 1558: 1555: 1550: 1546: 1540: 1537: 1533: 1528: 1522: 1519: 1514: 1510: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1478: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1464: 1461: 1455: 1452: 1445: 1441: 1437: 1423: 1422: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1365: 1364: 1357: 1356: 1329: 1326: 1306: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1220: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1204: 1203: 1158: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1125: 1124: 1061: 1058: 1041: 1038: 1027: 1025: 1024: 1010: 978: 975: 960: 959: 944: 943: 865: 862: 851:75.163.204.203 848: 841: 840: 826:quasiparticles 790: 788: 787: 786: 785: 784: 783: 745: 744: 729: 726: 723: 722: 717: 713: 711: 708: 707: 702: 697: 696:: 2008 - 2009 692: 691:: 2006 - 2008 687: 686:: 2004 - 2005 679: 678: 675: 674: 669: 663: 656: 655: 652: 651: 648: 647: 636: 630: 629: 627: 610:the discussion 596: 584: 583: 575: 563: 562: 559: 558: 551:Top-importance 547: 541: 540: 538: 521:the discussion 508: 507: 504:Physics portal 491: 479: 478: 476:Top‑importance 470: 458: 457: 451: 429: 415: 414: 411: 410: 403: 402: 399: 392: 384: 383: 380: 373: 370:April 22, 2009 365: 364: 361: 354: 346: 345: 342: 335: 327: 326: 323: 316: 308: 307: 304: 301: 297: 296: 288: 287: 280: 272: 271: 247: 235: 234: 225: 223: 222: 219: 218: 194: 193: 131: 130: 126: 125: 120: 115: 106: 105: 103: 102: 95: 90: 81: 75: 73: 72: 61: 52: 51: 48: 47: 41: 25: 24: 19: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3029: 3018: 3015: 3013: 3010: 3008: 3005: 3003: 3000: 2998: 2995: 2993: 2990: 2988: 2985: 2983: 2980: 2978: 2975: 2973: 2970: 2968: 2965: 2963: 2960: 2958: 2955: 2953: 2950: 2948: 2945: 2943: 2940: 2939: 2937: 2930: 2929: 2925: 2921: 2913: 2911: 2910: 2906: 2902: 2894: 2889: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2866: 2862: 2861:94.21.237.197 2856: 2848: 2846: 2845: 2841: 2837: 2833: 2825: 2821: 2817: 2813: 2809: 2806: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2797: 2793: 2789: 2781: 2779: 2778: 2774: 2770: 2765: 2763: 2758: 2752: 2747: 2743: 2739: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2728: 2724: 2723:Keith McClary 2716: 2706: 2702: 2698: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2680: 2676: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2660: 2657: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2643: 2639: 2635: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2623: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2613: 2609: 2605: 2601: 2598: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2578: 2577: 2572: 2569: 2562: 2558: 2554: 2550: 2546: 2542: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2532: 2528: 2524: 2521: 2514: 2503: 2499: 2495: 2491: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2481: 2477: 2473: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2453: 2449: 2448: 2446: 2442: 2438: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2420: 2416: 2412: 2408: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2399: 2395: 2391: 2387: 2386:200.89.74.149 2383: 2377: 2369: 2367: 2366: 2362: 2358: 2353: 2350: 2346: 2342: 2338: 2331: 2329: 2328: 2325: 2324: 2319: 2312: 2308: 2300: 2298: 2297: 2292: 2287: 2286: 2275: 2271: 2268: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2255: 2249: 2245: 2241: 2237: 2231: 2226: 2222: 2216: 2212: 2208: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2191: 2187: 2183: 2181: 2175: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2152: 2146: 2144: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2134:82.137.15.238 2127: 2125: 2124: 2120: 2116: 2111: 2103: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2078: 2074: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2063: 2059: 2051: 2049: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2036: 2029: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2018: 2014: 2011: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2003: 1999: 1995: 1991: 1980: 1978: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1960: 1958: 1957: 1954: 1953: 1948: 1943: 1942: 1939: 1937: 1933: 1927: 1926: 1923: 1921: 1917: 1912: 1904: 1902: 1901: 1897: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1877: 1875: 1874: 1870: 1866: 1861: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1851:89.120.32.251 1843: 1839: 1835: 1834:89.120.32.251 1831: 1830: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1797: 1787: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1771: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1741: 1737: 1736:86.125.189.40 1733: 1729: 1725: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1706:193.231.19.53 1703: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1693: 1689: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1645:86.125.189.40 1641: 1640: 1639: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1605: 1602: 1598: 1597: 1593: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1583: 1566: 1556: 1553: 1548: 1544: 1538: 1535: 1531: 1526: 1520: 1517: 1512: 1508: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1476: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1462: 1459: 1453: 1450: 1443: 1439: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1420: 1416: 1415:Planck length 1412: 1411: 1389: 1381: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1363: 1359: 1358: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1342:188.26.22.131 1339: 1335: 1327: 1325: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1304: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1253: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1219: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1202: 1197: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1156: 1150: 1147: 1144: 1141: 1136: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1123: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1068: 1059: 1057: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1039: 1037: 1035: 1031: 1023: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1009: 1006: 1004: 995: 994: 993: 992: 988: 984: 976: 974: 973: 969: 965: 958: 954: 950: 946: 945: 942: 938: 934: 930: 929: 928: 927: 923: 919: 913: 911: 906: 903: 899: 895: 891: 887: 882: 879: 875: 871: 863: 861: 860: 856: 852: 846: 839: 835: 831: 827: 824:According to 823: 822: 821: 820: 816: 812: 807: 803: 799: 795: 794:Reference 124 791: 782: 778: 774: 770: 765: 764: 763: 762: 761: 760: 759: 758: 754: 750: 749:83.14.232.226 743: 740: 736: 732: 731: 710: 709: 706: 705: 700: 695: 690: 685: 681: 680: 677: 676: 672: 667: 662: 661: 645: 641: 635: 632: 631: 628: 611: 607: 603: 602: 597: 594: 590: 589: 585: 579: 576: 573: 569: 556: 552: 546: 543: 542: 539: 522: 518: 514: 513: 505: 499: 494: 492: 489: 485: 484: 480: 474: 471: 468: 464: 459: 455: 449: 441: 440: 430: 426: 421: 420: 409: 404: 400: 398: 397: 393: 390: 386: 385: 381: 379: 378: 374: 371: 367: 366: 362: 360: 359: 355: 352: 348: 347: 343: 341: 340: 336: 333: 329: 328: 324: 322: 321: 317: 314: 310: 309: 305: 302: 299: 298: 293: 289: 285: 281: 278: 274: 273: 269: 265: 261: 260: 255: 251: 248: 245: 241: 240: 221: 220: 217: 213: 209: 205: 202: 200: 196: 195: 190: 186: 183: 180: 176: 172: 168: 165: 162: 159: 156: 153: 150: 147: 144: 140: 137: 136:Find sources: 133: 132: 124: 123:Verifiability 121: 119: 116: 114: 111: 110: 109: 100: 96: 94: 91: 89: 85: 82: 80: 77: 76: 70: 66: 65:Learn to edit 62: 59: 54: 53: 50: 49: 45: 39: 35: 31: 30: 23: 20: 18: 17: 2917: 2898: 2857: 2852: 2829: 2785: 2766: 2759: 2756: 2720: 2602:. Cheers. - 2579: 2573: 2570: 2566: 2525: 2522: 2518: 2489: 2471: 2463: 2455: 2380:— Preceding 2375: 2373: 2354: 2351: 2347: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2322: 2304: 2282: 2279: 2254:source check 2233: 2227: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2204: 2153: 2150: 2131: 2107: 2088:78.131.76.15 2055: 2034: 2032: 2027: 2022: 1988:— Preceding 1984: 1964: 1961:Weak Isospin 1950: 1944: 1930: 1928: 1914: 1908: 1881: 1862: 1848: 1820:67.180.84.49 1800:— Preceding 1793: 1775: 1611:Penning trap 1608: 1331: 1308: 1285:Techhead7890 1229:Techhead7890 1217: 1164:Techhead7890 1160: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1071:66.108.43.59 1063: 1043: 1033: 1026: 999: 980: 961: 914: 909: 907: 885: 883: 869: 867: 842: 811:96.49.85.161 792: 789: 768: 746: 682: 670: 639: 599: 550: 510: 454:WikiProjects 437: 407: 394: 375: 363:Not promoted 356: 337: 318: 268:please do so 257: 249: 197: 184: 178: 170: 163: 157: 151: 145: 135: 107: 32:This is the 2914:Mass in kg? 2876:WP:NOTFORUM 2805:bound state 2798:JohnjPerth 2769:94.30.84.71 2221:Sourcecheck 2115:Artem149598 2023:From lead: 2019:Nit-picking 1994:76.95.0.253 1952:Tetra quark 1932:Tetra quark 1916:Tetra quark 1734:, can it?-- 1673:5.15.26.251 1615:5.15.17.255 1338:zeptometres 1315:68.2.82.231 874:Electricity 377:Peer review 320:Peer review 161:free images 44:not a forum 2936:Categories 2880:Xxanthippe 2788:JohnjPerth 2738:Xxanthippe 2697:Jarek Duda 2634:Jarek Duda 2582:Jarek Duda 2494:Xxanthippe 2437:Xxanthippe 2291:Report bug 1865:5.15.32.60 1463:1.61619997 1334:attometres 798:"orbitons" 259:identified 2527:Chriskb19 2413:. Thanks. 2317:Richerman 2274:this tool 2267:this tool 2174:dead link 1601:Tentacles 1157:Citations 1110:electrons 802:"spinons" 704:Arguments 699:Archive 4 694:Archive 3 689:Archive 2 684:Archive 1 615:Chemistry 606:chemistry 578:Chemistry 442:is rated 101:if needed 84:Be polite 34:talk page 2920:Nilederg 2836:Timeroot 2812:Timeroot 2667:wp:SYNTH 2456:physical 2452:physical 2394:contribs 2382:unsigned 2280:Cheers.— 2156:Electron 2073:Hawkeye7 2035:collides 1990:unsigned 1968:Abitslow 1802:unsigned 1754:Spiel496 1688:Spiel496 1659:Spiel496 1421:, we get 1305:New mass 1265:contribs 1257:Headbomb 1188:contribs 1180:Headbomb 1094:electric 1086:elektron 964:Mcardlep 949:HLachman 933:HLachman 918:HLachman 830:Spiel496 806:"holons" 773:Spiel496 671:Archives 444:FA-class 401:Promoted 382:Reviewed 325:Reviewed 250:Electron 199:Archives 69:get help 42:This is 40:article. 38:Electron 2574:Stack: 2460:Physics 2405:Please 2207:checked 2178:tag to 2160:my edit 2039:YohanN7 2010:Quondum 1892:Bdushaw 1884:neutron 1500:6.52485 1269:physics 1192:physics 1114:Widsith 1090:electr- 828:, no. 642:on the 553:on the 526:Physics 517:Physics 473:Physics 303:Process 167:WP refs 155:scholar 2663:wp:NOR 2595:Not a 2462:, and 2323:(talk) 2215:failed 2170:Added 1888:proton 1504:kg m/s 1328:Radius 1014:Dha250 1002:HHIPPO 983:Dha250 804:, and 450:scale. 344:Listed 306:Result 139:Google 2853:: --> 2597:wp:RS 1966:imho. 1273:books 1196:books 1146:arris 769:using 431:This 252:is a 182:JSTOR 143:books 97:Seek 2924:talk 2905:talk 2895:Lede 2884:talk 2865:talk 2840:talk 2816:talk 2792:talk 2773:talk 2760:See 2742:talk 2727:talk 2701:talk 2675:talk 2671:DVdm 2669:. - 2665:and 2638:talk 2608:talk 2604:DVdm 2586:talk 2553:talk 2549:DVdm 2540:See 2531:talk 2498:talk 2480:talk 2476:DVdm 2468:edit 2464:that 2441:talk 2427:talk 2423:DVdm 2407:sign 2390:talk 2361:talk 2211:true 2138:talk 2119:talk 2092:talk 2077:talk 2062:talk 2043:talk 1998:talk 1972:talk 1936:talk 1920:talk 1896:talk 1869:talk 1855:talk 1838:talk 1824:talk 1810:talk 1758:talk 1748:The 1740:talk 1710:talk 1692:talk 1677:talk 1663:talk 1649:talk 1634:talk 1619:talk 1346:talk 1319:talk 1289:talk 1261:talk 1252:Atom 1233:talk 1184:talk 1168:talk 1162:so. 1118:talk 1100:(in 1096:) + 1092:(in 1075:talk 1051:talk 1047:WFPM 1018:talk 987:talk 968:talk 953:talk 937:talk 922:talk 908:3. " 884:2. " 855:talk 834:talk 815:talk 777:talk 753:talk 634:High 300:Date 175:FENS 149:news 86:and 2543:at 2248:RfC 2225:). 2213:or 2198:to 2188:to 1336:or 1102:ion 1098:-on 545:Top 189:TWL 2938:: 2926:) 2907:) 2886:) 2878:. 2867:) 2842:) 2818:) 2794:) 2775:) 2744:) 2729:) 2703:) 2677:) 2640:) 2610:) 2588:) 2555:) 2547:. 2533:) 2500:) 2482:) 2447:. 2443:) 2429:) 2396:) 2392:• 2363:) 2261:. 2256:}} 2252:{{ 2223:}} 2219:{{ 2176:}} 2172:{{ 2140:) 2121:) 2094:) 2079:) 2064:) 2045:) 2000:) 1974:) 1898:) 1886:, 1871:) 1857:) 1840:) 1826:) 1812:) 1760:) 1742:) 1712:) 1694:) 1679:) 1665:) 1651:) 1636:) 1621:) 1599:— 1564:ℏ 1539:π 1492:× 1477:35 1474:− 1470:10 1466:× 1460:× 1390:× 1348:) 1321:) 1291:) 1271:/ 1267:/ 1263:/ 1235:) 1194:/ 1190:/ 1186:/ 1170:) 1120:) 1077:) 1069:. 1053:) 1020:) 989:) 970:) 955:) 939:) 924:) 857:) 836:) 817:) 800:, 779:) 755:) 214:, 210:, 206:, 169:) 67:; 2922:( 2903:( 2890:. 2882:( 2863:( 2838:( 2814:( 2790:( 2771:( 2748:. 2740:( 2725:( 2699:( 2673:( 2658:. 2636:( 2606:( 2584:( 2551:( 2529:( 2504:. 2496:( 2478:( 2439:( 2425:( 2388:( 2359:( 2293:) 2289:( 2276:. 2269:. 2136:( 2117:( 2090:( 2075:( 2060:( 2041:( 1996:( 1970:( 1938:) 1934:( 1922:) 1918:( 1894:( 1867:( 1853:( 1836:( 1822:( 1808:( 1756:( 1738:( 1708:( 1690:( 1675:( 1661:( 1647:( 1632:( 1617:( 1567:, 1557:2 1554:1 1549:= 1545:) 1536:2 1532:h 1527:( 1521:2 1518:1 1513:= 1509:) 1496:( 1488:) 1483:m 1454:2 1451:1 1444:( 1440:= 1436:L 1394:p 1386:r 1382:= 1378:L 1344:( 1317:( 1287:( 1275:} 1259:{ 1231:( 1198:} 1182:{ 1166:( 1143:H 1139:B 1134:S 1116:( 1073:( 1049:( 1016:( 1000:H 985:( 966:( 951:( 935:( 920:( 853:( 847:) 832:( 813:( 775:( 751:( 646:. 557:. 456:: 270:. 216:4 212:3 208:2 204:1 201:: 185:· 179:· 171:· 164:· 158:· 152:· 146:· 141:( 71:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index