Talk:Electron/Archive 2

187:

the particles fault - it does not have to 'obey' any theory created by a named scientist - no matter how respectable. Also the the magnetic moment is described as being along the spin axis - this is a common misconception (especially in teaching textbooks) - it is not - the electron does not have a 'spin axis' (This is probably due to a misinterpretation of the word spin). The property known as spin is chiral (and interacts in a chiral way with other chiral particles - i.e. other electrons / light) and the 'spin field' is spherically symmetrical (it is not a spinning top!). To describe it as a spinning top (i.e. with an axis of rotation) is a simplification but unfortunately does not give a true impression of the nature of the property known as spin and I suggest is a barrier to further/proper understanding.

1712:

who you gonna call? You guessed it! the electron. Now the next question is, of course, how does the electron get rid of angular momentum, and that's what the argument is all about. Now when Neils Bohr postulated his orbits he actually worried about their angular momentum properties but now we're smarter and have orbitals which dont have angular momentum but only energy levels and probably values. And we've got around the angular momentum problem by defining the emissions of the electron in units of erg-seconds, which of course has the same dimensional units as does angular momentum. So I can't explain how the electrons get rid of excess angular momentum and you're on your own. But I'm pretty sure you'll see the need for electrons in the physical accumulation process. WFPM

220:

not questioning whether or not the classification of particles known as fermions includes electrons - hope fully my re-written statement (see above) will clarify what is was trying to say "The electron is classified as a fermion and as such should obey fermi-dirac statistics - all experiments performed so far have verified this." or as an expanded alternative: "The electron has spin +/- 1/2 The electron is included in the group of particles classified as a fermion and as such should obey fermi-dirac statistics - all experiments performed so far have verified this." to replace "The electron has spin ½ and is a fermion (it obeys Fermi-Dirac statistics). In addition to its intrinsic angular momentum, an electron has a magnetic moment along its spin axis."

160:

It's the nature of experiment that a theory can at least be assumed to be true until an experiment shows otherwise. How about this then - "The electron is classified as a fermion and as such should obey fermi-dirac statistics - all experiments performed so far have verified this." Still need citations or equivalent for such experiments though. Also note that an electron can have spin 1/2 or -1/2 (Stern-Gerlach experiment perhaps?) the current text does not make this clear - this is why I added that particular piece of info to the text (see revision 20:22, 11 February 2006 ) As it stands now the text might be taken to read that an electron only has spin 1/2 (and not -1/2) if this is your view please say so.

1368:

system. About as realistic as saying your family resembles a solar system with your dad and mom as the sun and all the kids as planets. It's a model to some degree, but in no way physically realistic. The electron manifests itself in ways which under some tests, resemble a physical particle orbiting the nucleus; but in other tests, it behaves nothing like that. Similar to the models of the brain throughout the centures; first the brain resembled a hydraulic system; then it resembled a telephone switchboard; then it resembled a hologram; now it resembles a computer. None of which are physically realistic.

31: 1210:

called Bohr radius (5.291772108.10E-11 m). The mass of a proton also can be calculated but is far more difficult.The charge of an electron can be calculated with e = sqrt.(10E+7.alpha.mp.lp)= 1.602171653.10E-19 C. Planck charge is then qp = sqrt (mp.lp)= 5.930996971.10E-22 C. Nota Bene that coulomb ìs sqrt kg.m. That is of great importance to other value like ohm = m/s.

1440:

when in the off positon but I am wondering why the bulb does. It will glow for awhile and then go off and then come back on. Sometimes it will get brighter if I touch it. I tried switching the bulbs from one lamp to the other and only the same bulb does this in either lamp. Any ideas on what may be causing this? Please respond to makewine@yahoo.com

1271:

combination of spin up plus spin down with a probability 1/2. That's not a half-electron. That's a state that you can try to measure and you see with probability 1/2 the whole electron with spin up and with complementary probability the whole electron with spin down. Probabilities don't have to be halves here if you select different axis.

1094:(c) 1991, Kluwer Acad Pub, David references D. Bender et al (1984) Tests of QED at 29GeV center of mass energy, Phys. Rev., D30, 515. His words are: "Scattering experiments limit the size of the electron (i.e. the size of the domain in which momentum transfer takes place) to less thadn 10-18 m ." bvcrist 1439:

I have two lamps using recently installed fluorescent bulbs that are connected to the same on/off switch. A couple of nights ago I noticed that one of the bulbs was glowing dimly even though the switch was in the off position while the other bulb remained dark. The switch itself is designed to glow

1266:

As was first emphasized by Feynmann, all electrons are exactly indistinguishable. That's indeed a very nontrivial statement that couldn't be even stated before quantum mechanics. However, it has to be true according to both our theoretical knowledge (quantum field theory that describes electrons) and

986:

I was reading this article and it stated that electrons can go faster than the speed of light, which totally blew my mind until I read the talk page and realized that they aren't going faster than the speed of light (c), they are going faster than 1/2c which is the speed light travels in water. Made

880:"travelling (faster than the speed of light) in water", which would be wrong. There's a separate issue if you want to bring photons into the picture: light in water is not just photons, but photons coupled to polarization waves. Perhaps "travelling faster than the local speed of light" would be best? 692:

to be some weird "point-like" thing that has certain properties (like charge, mass etc). "Point-like" because its charactersitics literally appear point-like: i.e. its charge distribution is point-like (whereas for a proton, it is smeared out over a diameter of about a fermi) and it doesn't appear to

687:

I stumbled upon this and I can try to help (although I wonder if you are really a brilliant physicist in disguise). All I can say is that the answer you seek does not exist. Ask most theorists and they will tell you that they can't explain to you what an electron is. All I can say is that an electron

186:

I have made changes to the text - in the section concerning spin - here are my reasons - The electron has spin +/- 1/2 This does not imply it is a 'fermion' or that it obeys 'fermi-dirac' statistics - A fermi-dirac statistics are meant to apply to particles spin 1/2 - if the theory is wrong it is not

437:

So if I take an up quark, an electron and an antinutrino it will produce a down quark...another "elementary" particle, which (correct me if I'm wrong) by definition cannot be broken down? I'm sorry if I am a little sceptical but you have more experience then me so whatever it is I'll take your word

1329:

Well, this is purely philosophical. I mean, it's just a rough comparison. It isn't anything practical since I doubt there can be life on an electron, and in molecules, atoms "share" electrons, which would compare to solar systems sharing planets (not really a highly rational idea). Also, what would

268:

Does anyone know if there are any theories to the possibility that the Down Quark is composed of an Up Quark and an electron? I once heard that when a Proton and Electron mix it produces a neutron. So if this is true then if you mix an Up Quark and an electron it must form a down quark...I am not

219:

You do not seem to be reading my points correctly... I was criticising the fermion/electron aspect in a grammatical sense, does this make my point clearer.(I assume fermions can have spin -1/2 as well as +1/2). Maybe my statement "This does not imply it is a 'fermion' " was a bit over the top? I am

159:

I'm not questioning whether or not an electron is a fermion - if the group of particles known as fermions includes electrons then obviuosly an electron is a fermion - this second 'fact' cannot be verified experimentally. Where is the experimental evidence that electrons obey Fermi-Dirac statistics?

138:

I removed the comment in the text ("electrons obey fermi-dirac statistics" or similar) I am not questioning the validity of the theory - just to say that to put it this way seems to be putting the chicken before the egg - Fermi did not invent/create the electron so that it would OBEY his theorys? -

89:

These charts and pictures, that are not real photographs, look like something from a D&D video game. Do people who believe in electrons play lots of Warcraft because they have small penis's? Or do they believe in electrons because they are very small, and need to believe in something smaller to

1711:

and think about the physics of the event. Here we have a lot nucleons and atoms being accumulated under conditions (I call it chaotic} of occurrence of an excessive amount of angular momentum (Mvr), and the nucleons of the atomic nuclei don't have a way of getting rid of any significant amount. So

1684:

The comment on "negatrons" needed a citation to indicate this terminology is still occasionally encountered today. Schweber uses the term "negaton" instead of "electron" in the cited book, "An Introduction to Relativistic Quantum Field Theory", but does not seem to use the word "electron" to mean

1367:

The major trouble with this idea is that the only way the atom resembles a solar system and electrons resemble planets and the nucleus resembles a sun, is that way back when people had no idea what the atom was like, an understandable model which became popular was that the atom resembles a solar

1270:

However, you can prepare electron in some state. It's typical in thought experimants to prepare electron in a state where it has definite spin in x axis, and therefore doesn't have a definite spin in z axis. When you try to perform а measurement of z-axis spin this electron effectively works as a

939:

in particular. I mean, traveling at sub-light speed is common to all massive particles, and generating radiation is common to all charged particles. And I'm not sure how much space the Lorentz factor really needs here. I guess what I'm trying to say is: if you really want to work at improving the

1209:

Sometimes mass can be calculated with Planck'units as in the case of an electron: me = mp.lp / (alpha.ao)= 9.1093826.10E-31 kg where mp is Planck mass (2.176450508.10E-8 kg), lp is Planck length (1.6162428210E-35 m), alpha = 1/1370359991 and ao is the radius of the 1s orbital in the H-atom also

647:

what an electron is. On the surface, it (an electon) seems impossible. It also seems that the universe is full of them and at the same time they are each and ever exactly identical except for position and momentum. Can anyone explain 'electron' without slinking under things like Hermitians and

1664:

Sorry if I offended anybody especially theoretical physicists with my brief section on the above, but owing to the enormous importance of the electrons in the atomic and molecular structure, bonding, and chemical reactions I feel that the subject is treated much too superficially here, surely

1234:, about 20-odd years ago, that claimed that if you flip an electron over 360 degrees, not all aspects of the electron appear unchanged. Instead, you have to flip it a second time to restore the electron's original state. Is something like this true or is my memory playing tricks on me? -- 879:

Oh, well forgive me, but it didn't sound like it was new to you from the other article! As for the caption "travelling faster than the speed of light in water", I think it's supposed to be interpreted as "travelling faster than (the speed of light in water)", which is correct, as opposed to

242:

The electron does obey Fermi-Dirac statistics. Physics is an experimental science. There is no need to append the phrase "all experiments performed so far have verified this" to every sentence in a physics article; it is implied. There is even less of a point in appending it to just one

209:, which is what implies that spin-1/2 particles are fermions. Regardless of whether the spin-statistics theorem is true (even though it probably is), electrons are both spin-1/2 and fermions. So with respect to electrons, the question of the general validity of the theorem is moot. -- 170:

Heh, the person who invented 2+2=4 didn't know about electrons either, but it should come to no surprise to anybody that 2 electrons +2 electrons = 4 electrons. The magic of science is exactly that old theories, like addition, work for many things not anticipated by their inventors.

1195:

The best-accepted values for fundamental constants change over time as measurements get bet better. The wikipedia article should state clearly where the number comes from to avoid any ambiguity. (It would be nice if the Google calculator did the same, but that's their business.)

1278:

Description of electron in terms of wavefunction is only valid when you restrict yourself to signle electron (and then it must square-integrate to 1). In real QED electrons can be produced or disappearing, so the correct description involves multi-particle states.

1544:

When my class was talking about electrons I commented to my science teacher that light was a photon (another person asked what light was). She said that was true, but that the photon is a type of electron. If this is so, than couldn't some electrons trael at

428:; in the situation you're proposing, either the neutron or proton would have lepton number, or lepton number would not be conserved. In general, just because things can decay into each other doesn't mean they're "made of" each other. . -- 1274:

Similarly, you can cook electron wavefunction that doesn't have a defined position. When you measure it in some specific region you either have a whole electron or you have no electron at all. But this can happen with some probability.

1510:

of electromagnetism. If this is the case than how can it be magnetically atracted to a, for example, proton? They would ave to exchange magnetism quanta, meaning electrons! Can someone plese help?

701:

we don't know what an electron is, it's becasue nobody has been clever enough to properly answer your question; and, I suspect, people will be asking the very same question for centuries to come.

592:

In principle, yes. But it's very hard to collide three particles in that manner, especially when one is a neutrino; in fact, it's nearly impossible. (In a sense, though, the examples I've given

410: 345: 1300:

I would like to see some arguments and some information on this subject in this wiki article. I also tried to add the above link but was unable to do so out of fear of screwing up the page.

1609:

I thought it was the interaction of an atom's electron field with that of another atom that was the prime mechanism of chemical bonding. I thought it was really nothing to do with nuclei.

1387:

Spin is just a label used by physicists which can either be one of two values - "up" or "down". It doesn't have anything to do with the normal meanings of the words, it's just a label. See

119:

I remember reading that the experiments leading the discovery of the electron were performed in 1897, not 1896 as is stated in the history section. Can anyone verify this with a source?--

1183: 1026:. Please review this policy, and argue here on the talk page before re-adding those edits. Further reintroduction of these edits without discussion will be considered vandalism. -- 560: 499: 722:, but was removed from the listing because at the moment, the lead section does not comply with the MOS - it should be a two or three paragraph summary of the article's content. 596:

reversals of each other; if you move an electron to the other side it turns into a positron and if you move an antineutrino to the other side it turns into an antineutrino.) --

736:

In an atom of oxygen for example, if electrons have a negative charge how do they join together in the same atom, like the 8 electrons on the second shell are in 4 groups of 2?

149:

An electron has spin-1/2. An electron is a fermion. Electrons obey Fermi-Dirac statistics. None of these facts are in question experimentally, so no "should" is necessary. --

236:

There is no such thing as a spin -1/2 particle. The electron is a spin 1/2 particle. If you measure its angular momentum along a particular axis, sometimes you will get -1/2.

447:

Elementary particles interact with each other, and in the process often some disappear and others appear. For example, the decay above also happens in certain nuclei:

1248:

720 degrees, though. I have to say that I've never really understood this, so perhaps someone who has grokked quantum better than me can give a better explanation? --

1267:

all experiments (intereference in double-slit experiments, for example, requires that electrons are exactly the same). That shows that you cannot split electron.

931:

Heh, I called myself a programmer once... good times. I think the "Properties and behavior" section of this article is okay now in terms of being correct. As an

693:

have a "size" like the proton can be said to have a "size". Obviously there is a lot of subtlety involved and this answer is relatively crude, but that is all

608:

I think one of those is sopposed to be a run-of-the-mill nutrino. Also, that is interesting I did not know that. Wow, Fermion physics is facinating. :D -

574:

is certainly non-intuitive, because it's nothing like we experience in our daily lives. I hope that helps! If not, feel free to keep asking questions. --

1707:

To those persons wondering about the need for a particle in nuclear physics with the properties of an electron I suggest that you call up a picture of the

648:

non-commutative operators and manifold Banach spaces and that sort of frilly stuff? Just asking. Just tell me where to go. To find out, I mean.---

1330:

you compare the moon circling around the earth to? Good thing you didn't add the link, since it's completely irrelevant, not to mention erroneus.

1306: 1098:

Yes, the crucial language here is "less than". These experiments are merely putting upper bounds on a number that theoretically is zero. --

1692: 1645: 1572: 1525: 678:

Well. I had hoped for a two-line answer as to what an electron is. But if I am given more, how can I complain? I will ponder; stay tuned.

1616: 1590: 1447: 106: 836:

of light is less than "c" (speed of light in a vacuum) THEN we should not not say that electrons can go faster than light, but rather:

1556: 994: 781:; if the article says that it'll have to be fixed. On the other hand, sufficiently energetic electrons can travel at any speed under 1394:

Also, the electrons don't really rotate, but the probability of where it is spreads around where the orbit would be. Both these are

1109:

Physicists Brian Greene, J.A.Wheeler and Alexander Burinskii have suggested that the electron may be gravitationally collapsed (see

120: 1244:

Something like that is true due to the fact that it's a spin 1/2 particle. It would be better to say that you have to rotate its

1023: 276:

This is a good question, but it turns out it doesn't work that way. A neutron that decays into a proton and an electron is

987:

the correction so that nobody else's head explodes by being boggled by the totally ridiculous inaccuracies in Knowledge!

1318: 197:

You clearly do not have a reasonable modern understanding of spin in physics. I recommend that you start learning about

239:

There is no difference between saying "X is classified as Y" and "X is Y", except that the former statement is awkward.

1620: 819:

No, no. I was aware the blue water picture. I moved it down, but then it got me wondering. Nothing can go faster than

354: 289: 38: 1348:

so·lar1 /ˈsoʊlər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

1696: 1587: 1576: 1529: 839:

In water, the local speed of light is significantly slower than the speed of light in a vacuum (usually called

1649: 570:, down quark, and neutrino, any more than the down quark is made of an electron, up quark, and antineutrino. 233:

I am not familiar with the history of the content dispute, but let me say this is defense of the status quo:

1594: 1451: 1331: 1263:

I've removed text about electron splitting. Let me say how I roughly understand the thing about electrons.

712: 206: 102: 76: 71: 59: 124: 1560: 1462:

I don't know but I've noticed the same thing in fluorescent tubes, as well as TV screens (CRT). I suspect

1113:). In this view the electron will approach its Schwarzschild radius size (1.35x10 exp-57 meter radius). -- 998: 719: 583:

My brain has just exploded...I think I get it. One question remains...can those equations be reversed? -

513: 452: 201:

by reading the wikipedia article on the subject, which is not too bad. In particular, read the section on

1482: 723: 1629: 1481:

Electrons are obviously not neutral, they carry a small negative charge. Article tagged as it should be.

98: 1511: 1235: 1571:

She's wrong. Photons and electrons are different. Electrons can't travel at c because they have mass.

1314: 1214: 617:

Hehe, you're right. And either one would've worked. And yes, particle physics (bosons are good too)

1688: 1641: 1612: 1552: 1443: 990: 901:. Like (3 * 4) + 5 vs. 3 * (4 + 5) come out differently. That helps me, because I'm a programmer! :-) 94: 1685:

either a negaton or a positron, perhaps to avoid ambiguity. Can anyone provide an example of this?

1357: 139:

how about: "The electron is classified as a fermion and as such should obey fermi-dirac statistics"

1625: 1132: 1110: 898: 897:

Your explanation uses parentheses just the way a computer programmer would, to clarify matters of

1425:

could someone more knowledgeable than I insert delocalized electrons somewhere in the article? --

1310: 1211: 1670: 1410: 1395: 1186: 1022:

Whether incorporated into the article, or as an external link, these edits violate the policy

609: 584: 439: 270: 142:

Also the statement suggesting an elctron has a spin axis has returned - but no reason given...

1295: 1708: 1426: 1114: 793:, so electrons can go faster than light. But not Faster than Light, if you see what I mean. 571: 1463: 1152:

I meant in addition to measured limits, what the implications of a non-zero EDM would be.

1717: 1402: 1388: 1099: 962: 760: 745: 210: 202: 198: 150: 1127:

Any experts out there want to add something about measurements of the electron's EDM?

246:

The expectation value of the spin operator is a vector. Why not call it the spin axis?

1598: 1564: 1492: 1467: 1369: 1153: 941: 881: 807: 794: 741: 664: 425: 251: 47: 17: 621:

fascinating—that's why I study it. ;) Ask more questions any time you've got 'em. --

1666: 1406: 915: 863: 768: 679: 649: 281: 224: 188: 161: 143: 424:. The antineutrino's presence is important, because it means the decay preserves 1383:

counterclockwise or clockwise? Also in which direction it rotates around atoms?

1249: 1140: 1027: 622: 597: 575: 429: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1341: 661: 421: 605:"if you move an antineutrino to the other side it turns into an antineutrino" 1721: 1713: 1700: 1674: 1653: 1633: 1588:

http://www.livescience.com/php/video/player.php?video_id=080222-ElectronRide

1580: 1533: 1514: 1495: 1485: 1470: 1455: 1429: 1414: 1372: 1360: 1334: 1322: 1285: 1252: 1238: 1217: 1200: 1197: 1189: 1156: 1143: 1117: 1102: 1030: 1002: 965: 944: 918: 884: 866: 810: 797: 789:

true is that in media like water, the local speed of light can be less than

771: 748: 726: 705: 702: 667: 652: 625: 612: 600: 587: 578: 442: 432: 254: 227: 213: 191: 172: 164: 153: 128: 567: 1549:? I think she is wrong nut need to know for sure. Can someone help? 1073:

10. Scattering results very recently imply------------< 1 x 10-18 cm

910:

For the general reader, however, I think you've hit on a happy phrase:

1070:

9. Scattering results before 1992 imply--------------< 1 x 10-16 cm

1521: 1507: 1046:

1. R(E) (point-like charge radius)-------------------<1 x 10-16 cm

1064:

7. R(H) (based on classical radius) -----------------4.09 x 10-12 cm

1058:

5. R(E) Effective - Corr (R(E) = XX R(C)-------------1.3 x 10-11 cm

1049:

2. R(0) (classical radius)--------------------------2.82 x 10-13 cm

1090:

In an article by D. Hestenes (Ariz State Univ) in the book called

1055:

4. R(E) Effective (R(E) = 2/5 RC)-------------------1.5 x 10-11 cm

1185:

Does it depend on energy level due to extra energy = extra mass?

1067:

8. R(H) QM-Corrected (R(H) = (sqrt of 3)*R(C))----6.69 x 10-11 cm

1061:

6. R(H) (based on Compton radius)--------------------4 x 10-12 cm

1052:

3. R(C) (Compton sized electron)------------------3.86 x 10-11 cm

1041:

The book titled "The Enigmatic Electron" provides these values:

940:

article, perhaps some other sections could use the attention?

25: 1586:

Finding the actual position of an electron is now possible.

935:

issue, I'm not sure how much of the material is relevant to

1351:–adjective 1. of or pertaining to the sun: solar phenomena. 823:, but the other article made it sound like electrons could. 1296:

http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/solaratoms.htm

851:

of course! But they can outrace "slow photons" underwater.

414:(With an up quark and a down quark remaining unchanged). 803: 1356:

nucleus=/=sun, therefore atoms=/= solar systems. QED.

1282:

That's why splitting electron wavefunction is a crap.

516: 455: 357: 292: 554: 493: 404: 339: 223:My main point however related to the 'spin axis'. 961:Agreed. This whole section should be trimmed. -- 1520:No, the quantum of electromagnetic force is the 1036:Book called Enigmatic Electron has these values: 767:in a blue pool of water. Is that really true? -- 134:Re: Fermi Dirac statisitics - and electron spin 405:{\displaystyle d\to e^{-}+u+{\bar {\nu }}_{e}} 340:{\displaystyle n\to e^{-}+p+{\bar {\nu }}_{e}} 1506:I was just wondering if the electron was the 8: 662:Identity and Individuality in Quantum Theory 205:. You also apparently do not understand the 90:make their smallness seem like its bigness? 862:Does that make sense? This is new to me. -- 1165:how many electrons can occupy the n shell 546: 527: 515: 485: 466: 454: 396: 385: 384: 368: 356: 331: 320: 319: 303: 291: 183:(properties and behaviour - paragraph 3) 1230:Hi. I remember reading an article in 718:This article was formerly listed as a 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 763:article says they can go faster than 688:(and any other fundamental particle) 555:{\displaystyle u\to e^{+}+d+\nu _{e}} 494:{\displaystyle p\to e^{+}+n+\nu _{e}} 7: 1078:R(E) is electric charge based radius 1638:does anybody no wat electrons are 1081:R(H) is magnetic field based radius 24: 1135:says that it is 0.07 ± 0.07 × 10 1178:E−31 kg, but Google say 9.10938 29: 1379:Which direction electron spins? 759:How fast are these babies? The 566:The up quark isn't made of the 349:What's really going on is this: 1496:06:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC) 1486:05:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC) 1456:15:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC) 1435:after glow of fluorescent lamp 1024:Knowledge:No Original Research 520: 459: 390: 361: 325: 296: 1: 1599:01:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 1253:19:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC) 1239:18:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC) 1218:21:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 1118:19:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC) 697:can say. If you're wondering 255:22:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 228:22:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 214:21:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 192:17:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 165:21:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 154:21:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 1665:deserving better treatment. 1623:) 00:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 1581:09:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC) 1565:21:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 1534:09:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC) 1515:21:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 1471:15:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC) 1373:15:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC) 1361:12:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC) 1323:09:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 1201:13:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC) 1190:19:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC) 1031:20:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC) 626:22:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC) 613:21:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC) 601:21:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC) 588:21:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC) 579:20:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC) 443:20:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC) 433:22:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC) 1430:12:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC) 1018:Edits by anon 80.137.xx.xxx 1738: 1675:05:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC) 1654:03:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC) 1634:00:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 1335:20:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC) 1174:This article says 9.109382 832:If you're saying that the 727:00:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC) 109:) 19:32, 15 September 2008 1722:03:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 1415:12:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC) 1157:16:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 1144:01:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC) 1003:19:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 806:-- did you just play me? 777:Nothing goes faster than 706:14:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC) 668:19:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC) 653:19:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC) 264:Electrons and Down Quarks 129:07:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC) 1701:11:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC) 1103:21:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC) 966:22:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 945:17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 919:12:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 885:00:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 867:00:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 811:21:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC) 798:21:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC) 772:21:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC) 749:18:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC) 1680:Negatrons and positrons 1660:Electrons and chemistry 1405:for a better answer. -- 732:Negative-Negative bond? 713:Knowledge:Good articles 207:spin-statistics theorem 1539: 1403:science reference desk 1291:Are electrons planets? 843:). Electrons in water 556: 495: 406: 341: 1421:delocalized electrons 1309:comment was added by 711:Article removed from 557: 496: 407: 342: 42:of past discussions. 1226:Flipping an electron 1111:Black hole electron 1086:Ref on electron size 912:local speed of light 643:I have wondered for 514: 453: 355: 290: 85:Dungeons and Dragons 1232:Scientific American 1133:Particle Data Group 899:operator precedence 1332:Slartibartfast1992 1259:electron splitting 552: 491: 402: 337: 1703: 1691:comment added by 1656: 1644:comment added by 1624: 1615:comment added by 1567: 1555:comment added by 1458: 1446:comment added by 1326: 1005: 993:comment added by 420:decay is via the 393: 328: 179:Re: Electron spin 111: 97:comment added by 82: 81: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 1729: 1709:Whirlpool galaxy 1686: 1639: 1610: 1605:Chemical bonding 1550: 1441: 1304: 988: 742:covalent bonding 660:Does this help? 572:Particle physics 561: 559: 558: 553: 551: 550: 532: 531: 500: 498: 497: 492: 490: 489: 471: 470: 411: 409: 408: 403: 401: 400: 395: 394: 386: 373: 372: 346: 344: 343: 338: 336: 335: 330: 329: 321: 308: 307: 110: 91: 68: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 1737: 1736: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1682: 1662: 1607: 1542: 1504: 1479: 1464:phosphorescence 1437: 1423: 1381: 1305:—The preceding 1293: 1261: 1228: 1172: 1167: 1125: 1088: 1038: 1020: 847:go faster than 757: 734: 716: 542: 523: 512: 511: 505:which is again 481: 462: 451: 450: 383: 364: 353: 352: 318: 299: 288: 287: 269:sure though. - 266: 184: 181: 136: 117: 92: 87: 64: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 1735: 1733: 1725: 1724: 1693:220.233.162.62 1681: 1678: 1661: 1658: 1646:121.222.23.209 1606: 1603: 1584: 1583: 1573:81.174.226.229 1541: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1526:81.174.226.229 1503: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1483:204.187.34.100 1478: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1436: 1433: 1422: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1399: 1392: 1389:spin (physics) 1380: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1364: 1363: 1353: 1352: 1349: 1345: 1344: 1292: 1289: 1260: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1227: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1204: 1203: 1171: 1168: 1166: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1147: 1146: 1124: 1121: 1108: 1106: 1105: 1087: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1079: 1075: 1074: 1071: 1068: 1065: 1062: 1059: 1056: 1053: 1050: 1047: 1043: 1042: 1037: 1034: 1019: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 975: 974: 973: 972: 971: 970: 969: 968: 952: 951: 950: 949: 948: 947: 924: 923: 922: 921: 905: 904: 903: 902: 892: 891: 890: 889: 888: 887: 872: 871: 870: 869: 857: 856: 855: 854: 853: 852: 827: 826: 825: 824: 814: 813: 800: 761:Speed of light 756: 753: 752: 751: 733: 730: 724:Worldtraveller 715: 709: 685: 684: 683: 682: 673: 672: 671: 670: 641: 640: 639: 638: 637: 636: 635: 634: 633: 632: 631: 630: 629: 628: 606: 564: 563: 562: 549: 545: 541: 538: 535: 530: 526: 522: 519: 503: 502: 501: 488: 484: 480: 477: 474: 469: 465: 461: 458: 415: 412: 399: 392: 389: 382: 379: 376: 371: 367: 363: 360: 350: 347: 334: 327: 324: 317: 314: 311: 306: 302: 298: 295: 285: 265: 262: 260: 258: 257: 249: 248: 247: 244: 240: 237: 217: 216: 203:spin direction 182: 180: 177: 176: 175: 157: 156: 135: 132: 116: 113: 86: 83: 80: 79: 74: 69: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1734: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1710: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1679: 1677: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1659: 1657: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1636: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1622: 1618: 1617:87.114.25.222 1614: 1604: 1602: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1591:71.191.70.153 1589: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1566: 1562: 1558: 1554: 1548: 1540:Je m'y perde. 1535: 1531: 1527: 1523: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1513: 1509: 1501: 1497: 1494: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1484: 1476: 1472: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1448:159.108.3.241 1445: 1434: 1432: 1431: 1428: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1397: 1393: 1390: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1378: 1374: 1371: 1366: 1365: 1362: 1359: 1355: 1354: 1350: 1347: 1346: 1342: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1333: 1327: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1301: 1298: 1297: 1290: 1288: 1287: 1283: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1258: 1254: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1237: 1233: 1225: 1219: 1216: 1213: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1202: 1199: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1188: 1184: 1181: 1177: 1169: 1164: 1158: 1155: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1145: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1123:Dipole moment 1122: 1120: 1119: 1116: 1112: 1104: 1101: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1093: 1085: 1080: 1077: 1076: 1072: 1069: 1066: 1063: 1060: 1057: 1054: 1051: 1048: 1045: 1044: 1040: 1039: 1035: 1033: 1032: 1029: 1025: 1017: 1004: 1000: 996: 992: 985: 984: 983: 982: 981: 980: 979: 978: 977: 976: 967: 964: 960: 959: 958: 957: 956: 955: 954: 953: 946: 943: 938: 934: 930: 929: 928: 927: 926: 925: 920: 917: 913: 909: 908: 907: 906: 900: 896: 895: 894: 893: 886: 883: 878: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 868: 865: 861: 860: 859: 858: 850: 846: 842: 838: 837: 835: 831: 830: 829: 828: 822: 818: 817: 816: 815: 812: 809: 805: 804:what the hell 801: 799: 796: 792: 788: 784: 780: 776: 775: 774: 773: 770: 766: 762: 754: 750: 747: 743: 739: 738: 737: 731: 729: 728: 725: 721: 714: 710: 708: 707: 704: 700: 696: 691: 681: 677: 676: 675: 674: 669: 666: 663: 659: 658: 657: 656: 655: 654: 651: 646: 627: 624: 620: 616: 615: 614: 611: 607: 604: 603: 602: 599: 595: 591: 590: 589: 586: 582: 581: 580: 577: 573: 569: 565: 547: 543: 539: 536: 533: 528: 524: 517: 510: 509: 508: 504: 486: 482: 478: 475: 472: 467: 463: 456: 449: 448: 446: 445: 444: 441: 436: 435: 434: 431: 427: 426:lepton number 423: 419: 416: 413: 397: 387: 380: 377: 374: 369: 365: 358: 351: 348: 332: 322: 315: 312: 309: 304: 300: 293: 286: 283: 280:producing an 279: 275: 274: 273: 272: 263: 261: 256: 253: 250: 245: 241: 238: 235: 234: 232: 231: 230: 229: 226: 221: 215: 212: 208: 204: 200: 196: 195: 194: 193: 190: 178: 174: 169: 168: 167: 166: 163: 155: 152: 148: 147: 146: 145: 140: 133: 131: 130: 126: 122: 114: 112: 108: 104: 100: 99:202.89.32.166 96: 84: 78: 75: 73: 70: 67: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 18:Talk:Electron 1683: 1663: 1637: 1608: 1585: 1557:76.188.26.92 1546: 1543: 1512:76.188.26.92 1505: 1502:Electraqanta 1480: 1438: 1424: 1382: 1328: 1302: 1299: 1294: 1284: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1262: 1246:wavefunction 1245: 1236:72.70.23.153 1231: 1229: 1187:EamonnPKeane 1179: 1175: 1173: 1136: 1126: 1107: 1092:The Electron 1091: 1089: 1021: 995:74.210.5.223 936: 932: 911: 848: 844: 840: 833: 820: 790: 786: 782: 778: 764: 758: 735: 720:good article 717: 698: 694: 689: 686: 644: 642: 618: 610:BlackWidower 593: 585:BlackWidower 506: 440:BlackWidower 417: 284:, like this: 282:antineutrino 277: 271:BlackWidower 267: 259: 222: 218: 185: 158: 141: 137: 118: 88: 65: 43: 37: 1687:—Preceding 1640:—Preceding 1611:—Preceding 1551:—Preceding 1442:—Preceding 1427:MKnight9989 1401:Ask on the 1215:83.82.99.83 1212:oscar emile 1115:DonJStevens 989:—Preceding 834:local speed 785:. And what 121:68.36.99.29 93:—Preceding 36:This is an 1491:Reverted. 1477:Neutrality 438:for it. - 422:weak force 1358:Backsigns 1286:user:ilya 1182:E-31 kg. 937:electrons 933:editorial 755:Max speed 243:sentence. 173:user:ilya 77:Archive 4 72:Archive 3 66:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 1689:unsigned 1642:unsigned 1626:Thinkact 1613:unsigned 1553:unsigned 1493:Melchoir 1468:Gzuckier 1444:unsigned 1398:effects. 1370:Gzuckier 1319:contribs 1307:unsigned 1303:Thanks, 1154:Bodhitha 1139:cm... -- 991:unsigned 942:Melchoir 916:Uncle Ed 882:Melchoir 864:Uncle Ed 808:Melchoir 795:Melchoir 769:Uncle Ed 665:Melchoir 645:45 years 568:positron 252:Melchoir 107:contribs 95:unsigned 1667:LouisBB 1407:h2g2bob 1396:quantum 690:appears 680:regford 650:regford 225:HappyVR 189:HappyVR 162:HappyVR 144:HappyVR 115:History 39:archive 1601:Adam. 1522:photon 1508:quanta 1311:H4eafy 1250:Strait 1141:Strait 1100:Xerxes 1028:SCZenz 963:Xerxes 845:cannot 802:Wait, 746:Xerxes 623:SCZenz 598:SCZenz 576:SCZenz 507:really 430:SCZenz 211:Xerxes 151:Xerxes 1340:From 1176:6(16) 744:. -- 16:< 1718:talk 1714:WFPM 1697:talk 1671:talk 1650:talk 1630:talk 1621:talk 1595:talk 1577:talk 1561:talk 1530:talk 1452:talk 1411:talk 1315:talk 1198:Itub 1170:Mass 1131:The 999:talk 914:. -- 740:See 703:Krea 418:That 278:also 199:spin 125:talk 103:talk 1180:188 699:why 594:are 1720:) 1699:) 1673:) 1652:) 1632:) 1597:) 1579:) 1563:) 1532:) 1524:. 1466:. 1454:) 1413:) 1321:) 1317:• 1001:) 787:is 619:is 544:ν 521:→ 483:ν 460:→ 391:¯ 388:ν 370:− 362:→ 326:¯ 323:ν 305:− 297:→ 127:) 105:• 1716:( 1695:( 1669:( 1648:( 1628:( 1619:( 1593:( 1575:( 1559:( 1547:c 1528:( 1450:( 1409:( 1391:. 1343:: 1325:. 1313:( 1137:e 997:( 849:c 841:c 821:c 791:c 783:c 779:c 765:c 695:I 548:e 540:+ 537:d 534:+ 529:+ 525:e 518:u 487:e 479:+ 476:n 473:+ 468:+ 464:e 457:p 398:e 381:+ 378:u 375:+ 366:e 359:d 333:e 316:+ 313:p 310:+ 301:e 294:n 123:( 101:( 50:.

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

Index