What is an Electron?

You learned what an electron is in school… or DID YOU? You probably learned that it’s a “negatively charged particle” but there’s so much more to these weird, wild little particles than that.
#electrons #atoms #theoreticalchemistry
You might also like:
How Can You See an Atom?:
• How Can You See an Atom?
How Oxygen Masks Brought Down a Plane:
• How Oxygen Masks Broug...
What Are Isotopes? | Chemistry Basics:
• What Are Isotopes? | C...
Forever Chemicals:
• Forever Chemicals
Why is Carbon the Key to Life? (On Earth, Anyway):
• Why is Carbon the Key ...
Credits:
Executive Producers:
George Zaidan
Hilary Hudson
Producers:
Elaine Seward
Andrew Sobey
Darren Weaver
Writer/Host:
George Zaidan
Scientific consultants:
Michelle Boucher, PhD
Michael E. Peskin, PhD
Paul Lujan, PhD
Brianne Raccor, PhD
Sources:
Interview with Michael Peskin PhD
www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/scien...
www.theguardian.com/science/2...
www.nature.com/articles/natur...
www.nature.com/articles/s4146...
engineering.princeton.edu/new...
www.wired.com/story/how-did-p...
www.sciencedaily.com/releases...
www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/focus/en/pr...
www.frontiersin.org/articles/...
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/...
web1.eng.famu.fsu.edu/~dommel...

[@ckrysze]

I appreciate the simple admitting of the things that we simply don’t know yet. The clarity that gives is refreshing.

[@robertsala8031]

YES! Albert Einstein said “I have spent my life studying them and yet I do not know what a photon is.”.

[@Roflgryph0nWoW]

Everyone always asks what is electron. No one asks how is electron 🥺

[@ACSReactions]

well maybe more people would take interest if electron weren't so negative all the time (I'm so sorry)

[@twothreebravo]

@@ACSReactions Just needs to break out of their shell.

[@Hecarim420]

Maybe I'm wrong and I don't understand something, but isn't it really an electron with a "positive" charge and a positron with a "negative" charge (or vice versa) and we made up a story about a sad electron for easier math 🤔

[@amicloud_yt]

@@Hecarim420 what??

[@twothreebravo]

@@Hecarim420 no. Maybe lay off the 420.

[@ElectronFieldPulse]

Also, the reason you cant have two spin up particles is because the wave functions deconstructively interfere, leaving those areas with a probability of 0. So, wave mechanics in QFT explains the Pauli exclusion principle

[@twothreebravo]

If Uncle Habib wants to make an apple pie from scratch he must first invent the universe.

[@ACSReactions]

For more info on electrons, photons, and other subatomic fun, check out SLAC’s KZbin channel kzbin.info/door/KzqyRUej9BI5dhdjwF09vQ and CERN’s KZbin channel kzbin.info/door/rHXK2A9JtiexqwHuWGeSMg

[@ikocheratcr]

The URLs in the comment have an extra ")" at the end each

[@SpotterVideo]

Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: : "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damned good." Ernest Rutherford When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are actually a part of the quarks. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" make sense based on this concept. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons. Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.

[@Roberto-REME]

Outstanding video and very well narrated. You made it interesting, entertaining and informative. Really well done!

[@Robert_McGarry_Poems]

Yeah, but what _is_ an electron.

[@Eris123451]

That was fun, clear and with enough, "we simply don't knows," in it to be reassuringly honest.

[@albertolando5268]

Wow guys, your channel is getting better and better at each video, never trivial topics, but also treated in a light and, at the same time, meaningful way. Thank you for the insights, keep on doing things as you are doing them!

[@jacobwolfe3002]

0:16 Can we get Uncle Habib's apple pie recipe?

[@ACSReactions]

Sorry, Uncle Habib shares his recipe with no one

[@nyzrh]

First step is to create an universe.

[@doingwell5629]

One of the best explanation of the topic. Well done!

[@dojinho]

Very well done. I like the rather joyful tone of the narration and the very significant examples given. Kudos!

[@theorize999]

Now I see why, Space Time sent me over, good video! I’m subscribed!

[@sogerc1]

Space Time sent me too.

[@nyzrh]

Same O/

[@MrMctastics]

Pbs space time enjoyers incoming

[@oneobjective5448]

This guy is a great presenter!

[@ACSReactions]

Glad you like him!

[@MacchiStrauss]

Really, I want more videos with him.

[@ArnabBose]

Loved the video! I wanted to say though, as a matter of fact we do know why two electrons with same quantum state cannot occupy the same space. Granted as we keep asking "why", there's something that we wouldn't know - but we do have a very satisfactory understanding of the first few why's. The quick summary is that joint quantum wave distribution of two indistinguishable spin half particles is antisymmetric, they change sign when the particles are swapped. This property forces the probability amplitude to be zero along the portion where they are exactly at the same place.

[@stoferb876]

Thank you. Suddenly the Pauli exclusion principle made a little more sense to me than before. And I just realized that this is also why quantum tunneling is occasionally possible. Right? When their probability waves overlap they cancel out each other. But there's still some tiny probability that one particle will if sufficiently close to the other to suddenly end up existing on the other side of it. As if it had tunneled through it.

[@ArnabBose]

Tunneling is actually slightly even simpler, as it is wholely explained with only one particle. A summary is that before observing an electron, it's wave function is never bounded in space. It extends everywhere just with vanishingly small amplitude. That means an electron you're working with here, may even turn up in the Andromeda galaxy in the next moment. (Things are a lot complicated since there's only one electron field of which all the electrons between here and there are purturbations, but let's for the moment imagine an universe with a single electron.) So when we place a barrier of some sort, the wave function never vanishes on the other side. The barrier just causes it to decay very quickly (exponentially wrt width of the barrier). This results in every once in a while when we make an observation to localize the electron, it appearing on the other side of the barrier - since the wave function can collapse anywhere it exists (albeit with different probabilities). A crucial thing to note when comparing with Paul's exclusion principle, is that the joint wave function is actually zero for us to find the two electrons there on top of each other - i.e. that will never happen. Whereas, for tunneling, it's never zero, it's just small in magnitude.

[@denissemedina6023]

😞

[@dreadformer]

@@denissemedina6023real

[@utsavlal9175]

PBS Space time sent us and I can't say that I was disappointed. Great video

[@alexiswoodberry9119]

Space Time sent me- this is really good!

[@Alex_-zh3pn]

PBS space time sent me here, I know understand the concept so much better. Thank you!

[@tommurphy1153]

And as weird as all that was... that was the dumbed down version :)

[@ACSReactions]

Oh--we know.

[@tommurphy1153]

@@ACSReactions Just to be clear... I thought it was an excellent review and the right place to stop before going down the "it may even be in two places at the same time, kinda!" quantum rabbit hole :)

[@MrStarchild3001]

More videos like this, please. This was amazing. Physics book we have no idea might give you an idea.

[@marksusskind1260]

So, an electron is a promise.

[@ACSReactions]

Electrons are what you feel in your heart.

[@zeynaviegas5043]

@@ACSReactions maybe the real electrons are the friends we made along the way

[@b43xoit]

Well, I did write code to generate an antipromise.

[@IanGrams]

Good to see George writing and hosting an episode instead of just being a taste tester 😄 I'd say this was a pretty good "Electrons 101" though I think the description of spin could be improved to emphasize the electrons themselves aren't actually spinning, but rather it's an intrinsic angular momentum. Maybe do an episode about the Stern-Gerlach experiment next?

[@yiannisleontis2499]

Congrats!!!! Excellent video!!!! We are waiting for more...

[@svara2095]

Even though KZbin recommended me this video, I neglected for some reason but PBS spacetime reminded of this video again and he sent me here.. Nice video!

[@user-uu7sk8bz5l]

Wonderfully explained .Thank You Sir

[@kevinmorgan2317]

Very good. And concise.

[@amaliaantonopoulou2644]

Wow!I finally simply understand the Pauli's principle. Thank you for sharing!

[@regular-joe]

Sent here from PBS Spacetime, subscribed for content and engaging presentation😄.

[@marccygnus]

PBS Space Time pointed me in your direction. You've a new subscriber based on the quality of this single video, the first I've seen. Very nice work!

[@SSMLivingPictures]

Fun video, nice work!

[@k7iq]

I *SO* like your style !

[@saiganeshmanda4904]

Super awesome video! Great explanation! Is that his house or your common studio?

[@billcook7483]

Fascinating video , really enjoyed it .

[@Sparky-vj2dq]

Excellent. Came from Spacetime.

[@123456psk]

I love the video so much. Please send more videos

[@rayoflight62]

Great explanation of electrons for the non-initiated! One thing I would have added, without taking any of the "magic" out of your great presentation, is that the word "spin" referred to an electron, indicates its "quantum spin". True you didn't mentioned "quantum" in any part of your presentation, but you could have easily said the the spin doesn't refer to a rotation in space, but to all the links an electron has with its surroundings. Thank you...

[@nathanielborland3073]

awesome video! I had thought that black holes only formed from a high enough concentration of mass, so I was confused when you said that a high enough density of photons would create a black hole; now I know what a kugelblitz is :P

[@mybluemars]

Fascinating & Thank You!

[@rayhansharif6518]

Brilliant presentation...❤

[@subliminalvibes]

Matt from PBS sent me and I'm pleased he did. Excellent presentation, thank you. 👌😎

[@Racerdew]

I never noticed this video was nearly 11 minutes! Great work. It’s inspiring to remind ourselves how truly mysterious the electron is!

[@vm-bz1cd]

I am surprised you did not discuss the wave particle duality of an electron😀

[@rs-tarxvfz]

This is not only funny but also describe things in very summarized way.

[@christiangodin5147]

Good day. Very good explanations, thank you.

[@terrodar19]

In summary, an electron is an elementary particle that is nothing more than a collection of properties (one of them being denominated as ‘negative’ ) is this explanation good enough? or can someone add to this

[@billsteinback7512]

Great explanation..... really.... thank you

[@connyespersen3017]

Thanks for your simple explanation of this fundamental part of the World. 💯

[@rhoddryice5412]

I got directed here by PBS Spacetime. I’m always happy to check out science channels.

[@ErikratKhandnalie]

It's astounding to me, just how many things there are in science that we *understand* really super well, but don't actually know what the hell it is.

[@climbeverest]

First time someone explained this way better than others

[@charlessimons1692]

isn't an electron (like all fundamental particles) just a value of energy in the quantum electron field?

[@EarlLedden]

What does " in the quantum electron field " add to the definition? You're defining the term by using the term. Can we just say it's a measure (value) of energy?

[@b43xoit]

@@EarlLedden Quantum field theory explains things and maybe simplifies the account, into the bargain.

[@Mike80528]

Electrons can actually be accelerated in rather small particle accelerators relative to the comparably heavy protons. Small as in smaller than an average sized room...(worked at a company decades ago that built them)

[@carpballet]

It’s always been infinitely easier to describe an electron than to describe the taste of an apple

[@jethrobo3581]

Fantastic video. Hopefully there are more...

[@cps_Zen_Run]

"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe” Carl Sagan

[@RalphDratman]

I understand that because they are spin 1, photons do not take up space, but what about photon-photon scattering, which I've recently seen mentioned in physics-related news items? Could that interaction occur because of (virtual) pair production by both electrons in a 2-electron scattering event?

[@jeffersonwu952]

Great video! I love your presentation. I asked the same question to my chemistry professor in college. He threw a bunch of equations at me and confused the hell out of me. I would really prefer that he just said: we don't know what an electron is (yet), but we do know some of its properties.

[@schmetterling4477]

An electron is a quantum of energy, momentum, angular momentum and charges (one electric, one leptonic).

[@hometown555]

What if electrons are not particles but more of just fields of energy around atoms with positive or negative charging properties and the energy just has an up spin or a down spin depending on when you take a measurement of the orbital?

[@rob40480]

Great Video! Your friends at PBS Spacetime sent me here!

[@DanielDogeanu]

That half spin might indicate that the electron exists in more dimensions than we expect.

[@jarekk.8247]

If an electron accelerates another electron gravitationally, it will lose part of its energy-mass. It is therefore possible that the current rest mass of the electron was set in the early universe (Planck era) when there was no electromagnetic force yet and only the gravitational interaction existed. The tightly packed electrons interacted gravitationally and averaged their rest masses until inflation occurred, pushing regions with different electron rest masses trillions of light years apart, and we now have a seemingly uniform universe with identical electrons.

[@raymondlancaster3355]

If this information is accurate it is a masterful explanation.

[@colder5465]

Maybe the answer is: it's an object having a table of properties. Period. Because by nowadays notions the electron is an elementary particle, i.e. not consisting of any other elementary particles then we have a truly philosophical problem: we always explain something based on what it consists of. For example, a brick house consists of bricks, bricks consist of this and that, and so on. But an electron is an elementary particle, it doesn't consist of anything. End of story. We can't put a tiny label on its side because it has no sides. The human brain simply isn't ready for such situations.

[@b43xoit]

Except that it's a quantum, not an object. The difference is that objects have identity. Quanta only have a count.

[@janalesnik7840]

Awesome and amusing video!

[@benjamindains6906]

Ty for this video, it’s helping me understand PBS Spacetime better.

[@zendoc49]

fantastic!!!! thank you

[@timothycwinn5993]

You helped me make connections I couldn’t make in the past. I felt enlightened by your explanations. Suddenly, i understood why I can’t put my hand through fermions that have half spin, and yet i can put my hand through bosons w 1 spin. This is why Reality is neither totally whispy and transparent, nor totally solid and concrete. Now i understand at least 2 reasons i can’t put my hand through a table!!! Until now i only understood the concept that the electrons in my hand will repel the electrons in the book. Now i know that two spin-up electrons or spin down electrons can’t occupy the same orbital. I always thought higher orbitals could contain more than 2 electrons. Ie N2 could contain up to 8 electrons. Are you saying they can’t?! I am not debating this; i just want to make sure I understood it correctly. If so, i definitely understand the Pauli Exclusion Principle much better now! Thank you in advance if you or someone else can confirm that my basic understanding is correct. Watching this video made my day!

[@jimsagubigula7337]

No, higher orbitals can have more than 2 electrons. This doesn't violate the Pauli exclusion principle though. It has to do with sub-orbitals. Each orbital is consisted of multiple sub-orbitals, each sub-orbital can have up to 2 electrons, with up and down spin. The first orbital has only one sub-orbital, thus it can only hold a maximum of 2 electrons. The second orbital though has 4 sub-orbitals, thus it can hold up to 8 electrons.

[@kevinbenavides92]

That fucking ending got me. Great video.

[@budcaldwell6847]

Nicely done.

[@gabedarrett1301]

What does it even mean to rotate an electron if it's a point-like mass?

[@seekingrafael5630]

I love this style of videos hehe

[@austinzizzi1142]

This is a great video

[@neoaeonmusick]

Wood the electrons relation to h-bar perhaps provide some type of measurement

[@thinkingoutloud6741]

Thank you. Entertaining.

[@SageBetko]

Sent here by PBS Spacetime. Loved this!

[@spiralni]

Electrons keep me awake late night 🫠

[@pavangaonkardonigadde]

This is amazing 🤩

[@chainfrost7851]

Just wow! This channel deserves millions of likes and subscribes

[@mydogbrian4814]

*- Excuse me but;* "you can pack as many spin 1 particles in one place until they form a black hole." - But photons are massles, so how can we have a massles black hole? - Also, if spin ½ particles (electrons) are point particles with mass. Then they would be a singularity with mass, or a micro black hole. And if so, wouldn't they explode in an instant flash due to evaporation thru Hawking Radiation?

[@b43xoit]

Photons don't have rest mass, but they do have energy, and energy is mass for purposes of gravity.

[@timl2k11]

If an electron had no volume, wouldn’t it have infinite density and therefore immediately collapse into a black hole and explode?

[@dtnicholls1]

Firstly, I have no idea. But, if I were to guess... It has mass, so it must occupy some physical space, even if that space is a point of zero volume. So, it follows that it must have some mass density. But, it is also a quantum partical... So it will have a wave function defining it's position within a given region of space, or volume. I'd guess that if you were to integrate the probability of finding the electron across all points in that region you would have your volume to divide your mass by to find it's density. That also means that if you were to scale its density by the probability of finding the electron in a given position within space, and then add all of those up you would have it's mass.

[@belg4mit]

Thou shalt not divide by zero.

[@pavolusak2488]

The elementary particle mass density in [kg.m^-3] is estimated by m^4.{1/[pi^2.(b/a)^2.2.( htrans/c)^3] } ~ ~ m^4[kg^4].1E129[kg^-3.m^-3] It is ~ 5.E8[kg.m^-3] for electron and ~1.7E98 [kg.m^-3] for Planck mass elementary paticle. The parameter (b/a) is close to 0.039...for electron. And in first approximation it is supposed to be constant. More on Research Gate.

[@PM-fs2eg]

"We can cram as much light into as small a space as we want..." I've thought about something: Seems like we can cram as much matter as we want into a black hole at the centre of which there's singularity. Could it be that matter turns into energy inside a black hole and that's the reason "matter can fit into singularity"??

[@prawnmikus]

Could dark matter be something like regular atoms but spin one? I mean, could it be massive matter but act like photons?

[@elizabethwinsor5140]

I'd elect Ron, he's the man for the job! He's in charge!

[@TomHendricksMusea]

1. Positrons and electrons are also waves. 2. When a positron and electron meet they annihilate into pure energy just like destructive interference of two mirror waves. 3. That suggests that positrons and electrons are mirror image waves. 4. That suggests that positive and negative charge are the same waves with this difference; they are mirror images of each other.

[@ElectronFieldPulse]

I think this would help people more if you explained an electron is a wave in the electric field. The only time you treat it differently is when it interacts with something and deposits a quantum of energy, which is why is appears as a particle in that sense.

[@schmetterling4477]

Electrons are not waves. That's just another failed mental model of people who didn't pay attention in school. :-)

[@ElectronFieldPulse]

@@schmetterling4477 - Uh, what? Electrons are comprised of waves in QFT. They also go through 2 slits in the double slit experiment. They also oscillate around a nucleus and can only have certain values because it has to oscillate as a wave enclosed around the nucleus. What are you talking about.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@ElectronFieldPulse Electrons are quanta of energy, momentum, angular momentum and charges. Quanta are not objects. They don't have either positions or paths in quantum mechanics, including in QFT.

[@ElectronFieldPulse]

@schmetterling4477 - They don't have paths until they interact with something, then the wave function collapses and a path is set in stone. Yes, quanta of energy is deposited when it interacts with something, but it is still a wave. The particle duality only occurs upon interaction. Literally all of it is described by waves up until that point. Pauli's exclusion principle works because waves deconstructively interfere causing the probability of two electrons of the same spin occupying the same space to cancel out. It is literally all wave like behavior until an interaction, and some interpretations like MW theory says nothing ever collapses. So, I don't agree. It's still all waves.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@ElectronFieldPulse A quantum is an irreversible energy exchange. It is the amount of energy that gets exchanged during the interaction. It's not a thing that interacts. It's the change of the properties of the systems that interact. You are still desperate to objectify energy. Energy is a property. It's not a thing. It was never a thing, not even when people in the 18th and 19th century tried to objectify it as the "phlogiston", a mythical "Stoff" that got exchanged when heat was flowing from one object to another. The historical "particle" nomenclature of quantum mechanics is just like the phlogiston. It's a poor mental model that believes that conserved properties have to have a material carrier. They don't have that. That's why there are no center of mass coordinates for energy.

[@denissemedina6023]

That was so cool!! Thank you , I feel smart 😅

[@markhollifield1823]

An electron is a 2 dimensional sheet of charge made up of infinitely many great circle current loops. A free electron changes size according to its energy by the deBroglie equation, smaller at high energy, larger at low energy. Bound electrons form a spherical shell of charge at a distance where its momentum balances the electrostatic pull between the electron and the nucleus. The electron has h- bar of angular momentum, but the pattern of flow in the current loops leads to a projection of h-bar/2 on the z axis, hence 1/2 spin quantum number. Electrons pair in orbitals, which is a lower energy state. Triads and higher are not lower in energy, so they don't happen.

[@SSMLivingPictures]

Spin half assumes the electron itself rotates a core? The example is ok, but it gives us two 'balls' a big and a small one. Is the smaller on the electron? If so what is it orbiting?

[@schmetterling4477]

Every video that shows balls in connection with quantum mechanics was made by a person who didn't pay attention in high school science class. ;-)

[@MichaelHarrisIreland]

I was just beginning to get it with the tiger part.

[@nyzrh]

I really like how he explained this topic. Easy to understand and intuitive. Well done...

[@bendybruce]

Hi. Do electrons come into and out of existence or were they created at the birth of the universe and are essentially eternal?

[@happiemusonda4167]

Started well but confusing toward the end!

[@user-ul5pt1yb8z]

Thanks a lot

[@johnhuldt]

Great video!

[@isonlynameleft]

What about it's Compton wavelength?

[@AntonOfTheWoods]

Awesome! Electrons (and light) are great reminders of how science is actually about making models rather than "understanding the true nature of things". We say we "understand" but that doesn't really mean anything. Being able to manipulate symbols that allow us to do cool stuff (like make electricity, etc) doesn't mean we "understand"!

[@mohananak8856]

When touch something, actually you are not touching it. It is only a feeling. The electrons outer side of the molecule in your hand can't make contact with the electron of the other molecule of other matter due to high repelletion. Distence between two electrons become zero, it means force of repelletion is infinity, not possible

[@TeslaThoughtOfThis]

We can imagine things getting as big as they can possibly get. But we can assume that there’s always gonna be something bigger than that. But when it comes to things being smaller, we can understand that that would be infinite. If you get to the smallest part of something that something can be broken up and divided into even smaller things, we will never be able to prove that there is an end to matter.

[@alancham4]

Ever heard of then Planck length? It’s only infinite in a philosophical sense of infinitely dividing things in half or something.

[@LoisSharbel]

Excellent!

[@PaulTempesta-id8wr]

Excellent video! Well done

[@ACSReactions]

Thank you! Cheers!