I still wonder about the size and shape of an electron. It has to be small, thats for sure. Some people even think its a point. Their suspicions are not totally without merit, but I have hard time going by that particular route. If I had to make a first guess about the shape of an electron, or any truly elementary mass particle, I would guess it was spherical. It could be poor intuition on my part, but a spherical shape intuitively seems to be able to shrink down to a point with the least amount baggage geometrically speaking. Plus, we observe the planets and the sun, overall, to be spherical and they are built up of more elementary particles. Of course there are surface anomalies and other phenom to planets and stars that prevent them from being perfect spheres, but the electron seems to be one of the most basic particles in our universe, so I am not adverse to imaging it to be spherical in shape as a very good first approximation. There are scientific jokes based on physicists love of spheres. I am NOT a physicist, but I do follows physics offhandedly. If I had to make an educated guess about trying to figure out the radius of an electron with an assumed spherical shape in the real universe, I would guess that the very best evidence would come from a knowledge of the first element in the periodic table, which is the hydrogen atom. It surely seems that the simplest of all atoms would hold some fundamental keys to at least placing an upper bound on the size of an electrons assumed radius, as well as that of a proton and neutron, which are currently more complex; the former two being nucleons that make up the nucleus of atoms and are modeled to be composed of quarks, which are more elementary particles, still. The electron, as far as the current model goes, does not contain quarks. Without going into great detail, I can venture a guess about what fundamental quantities might appear in the formula for the radius (or diameter) of an electron. I could be wrong. This is not an exact science. Remember that we do not know the radius of an electron even given the great success at manipulating what we do know about them. But based on some successful first theories (models) developed over the years in the history of physics that stretch across the domain of classical, quantum, and relativistic physics, I would guess that the following fundamental quantities would appear in a calculation of an electrons radius (assuming electrons are indistinguishably of about the same size and shape, which is the current assumption): I suspect well see c, the speed of light in a vacuum; I expect to see h, Planks constant; I know well see e, the magnitude of the elementary charge; I strongly assume to see both M_e, the mass of the electron, and M_p, the mass of a proton (on account of a mutually attractive force between an electron and a proton); I assume either of Mu_naught or Episolon_naught, since either can be defined in terms of the other via the speed of light in a vacuum. I also, of course, expect to see our dimensionless friend Pi. Ironically to some, I dont expect to see G, the universal gravitation constant, owing to the small effect of gravity compared to electromagnetic phenom at the microscopic level, as well as our ignorance of the BIG Picture. Maybe, just maybe, someday G will prove to intertwine with the others forming a grand unification scheme? God has hidden this aspect of total force unification well from among the others. But cosmologically, on a grand scale, where the microscopic electromagnetic forces are nearly annihilated by closeness, G may someday become an aspect of a grand unification of all the known forces in nature. Who knows for sure? I think, in my heart of hearts, that someday all of the forces of nature will be tied together into a single unified theory. The study of Gods handiwork is bound to be complex. Go figure.
Posted on: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 09:13:16 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015