What is the actual size of an electron?

[@comment8767]

No matter what their actual size, electrons are always accompanied by weird music.

[@mcs131313]

And utterly unrelated but captivating visuals

[@wuodanstrasse5631]

@comment8767: Thank you. It is ever so rare anymore to find someone who has such a wonderful sense of humor.

[@fuffoon]

You just explained my 17 minute nap.

[@FreeSpeechWarrior]

Hahaha 😂😂😂

[@FreeSpeechWarrior]

@jonhart-o5m 😂

[@davevann9795]

It all collapses to: 1) What do you define the meaning of "electron size"? 2) What actually is an electron? 3) Electrons are NOT Newtonian objects, but we are asking a Newtonian question about size?

[@classicsciencefictionhorro1665]

This. Technically, it is an excitation of the EM wave whose position is probabilistically determined. Right? So how do you "measure" the size of that?

[@KeystoneInvestigations]

@@classicsciencefictionhorro1665 With an EM wave ruler! 🙂

[@classicsciencefictionhorro1665]

@@KeystoneInvestigations

[@stuartdparnell]

Fundamentally speaking, the electron manifests as fields around the atom. The electron itself doesn't exist, yet it generates EM waves itself. So the field exists due to the proton, not the electron.

[@KeystoneInvestigations]

@@stuartdparnell Sure electrons exist. I have a big jar of them I keep as extras!

[@Newspap_er]

Short explanation but easy to understand

[@sjames1955]

I love that so many people here think they know the answer. The greatest minds in the world don't but random KZbin viewers do. Very comforting.

[@robloggia]

I appreciate you including the constants in your equations and that they are usually not included. I've never understood the omission of parts in equations especially educational settings in the interest of "simplicity" or "efficiency".

[@wdobni]

an electron doesn't have any size...its just a perturbation, which is a sort of disturbance, in the force otherwise known as a quantum field.......if a quantum field was a person walking down the street then an electron would be that same person punched in the face, perturbed so to speak....and a positron is just an unpleasant antiperson walking down the street getting punched in the face

[@jimgraham6722]

Agree a soliton in the electron field. It doesn't 'feel' the time dimension to any degree. Consequently it is stable with a decay half life comparable to the life of the universe.

[@fuffoon]

Yes. We too are clueless.

[@firedome8]

Yep.

[@Boballoo]

LOL! I appreciate the effort but I am not convinced.

[@purplefan204]

Good analogy - can you also explain how we can bring in the idea of perturbation having mass?

[@paulmarc-aurele5508]

The laws of physics say that energy cannot be created or destroyed just transferred. That’s a fascinating concept, something has always existed without a beginning or an end.

[@McDaniel77]

Which also is a profound contradiction for the hilarious Big Bang Theory.

[@StinkyEthien]

@@McDaniel77 Its not a contradiction. That only holds true for a time symmetric system. You can't apply that law to the expansion of the universe.

[@McDaniel77]

@@StinkyEthien Time is a conceptualisation, which means cause and effect. You can't turn back "time" because of the entropy.

[@denisyadrankov]

That'a lie considering that the stars are getting colder to the point of no fusion therefore changing the whole universe to cold and dark.

[@Boballoo]

@@McDaniel77 Time is brought into the Universe with the presence of matter. Without matter, there is no time, just space. Time is a human concept. The Universe cares not a whit about time. Time is a measurement of the motion of matter through space. No matter, no measurement, no time. If you say, "Well, yes, but if I had my watch with me in that big vast empty space . . . then I would say you brought time with you and your mass and your watch. There are no clocks without mass. Time is a local phenomenon. It is different for people in different time zones. In fact it is different for two people standing side by side as the minutest difference in the distance between the object they are looking at and their respective eyes means the light from that object arrives at their eyes at a different time. There is no such thing as simultaneity. What about time at the North pole where you stand at the apex of every time zone on earth? What time is it? See, we need all these rules and concepts and methods to make time work in our society on our Earth (it would be different on another planet of different size.) Time is a human concept. Animals for the most part do not care about time except maybe as the seasons go by. That is their clock. Plants? Maybe the Sun's rising and setting is a type of clock. Rocks? Stones? Mountains? Time is a human idea. However, it is a real phenomenon. It does exist. We made it exist. It comes from deep in our psyche attached since the dawn of matter far far far below the medulla oblongata. It exists in every atom and molecule and cell in our body. It comes from when we were particles of decaying matter. That decay of all matter is our true clock. That countdown of half-lives to our disintegration was the particle's original clock. It is imprinted on every atom of our being. The cycle of birth and death have become the human clock. Entropy is the clock of the Universe.

[@2hcobda2]

in this video's description box, "6:15 on the left" is given for a correction. Apparently, the righthand side of 5:19 is the specification that should be given. #suggestion: post your comment as a "pinned" comment.

[@Orion15-b9j]

Ok, the Electron is incredible small, but what is determining its Electromagnetic Charge? What is the Physical mechanism behind (+ and -)? - Just a simple question!

[@JoelBarnes0]

It's unknown. The quantum electric charge of elementary particles is one of the fundamental physical constants.

[@Orion15-b9j]

@@JoelBarnes0 The explanation of electromagnetis polarity can be found in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and the Universe" The polarity is a result of the spatial orientation and "Spin" - that's why we have polarization of Light, but light polarization is a different physical phenomenon.

[@WillyBluefield]

It's real fricking small ... but compared to nothing, it's infinitely large. It's all about perspective.

[@williamwalker8107]

But where does its charge come from?

[@WillyBluefield]

@@williamwalker8107 Fart gas.

[@dhm7815]

The NIST Reference on Constants, Units, and Uncertainty (2022) --- Mass of an electron = 9.1094 e-28 grams. Mass of a proton = 1.6726 e-24 grams. Mass of a neutron = 1.6749 e-24 grams. A proton has a mass of 1836.1 electrons. A neutron has a mass of 1838.7 electrons. Source: National Institute of Standards of the USA.

[@jamesrarathoon2235]

No one mentions that in classical terms the radius of the electron reduces as its speed and relativistic mass increase. The effective wavelength (a classical indicator of size) also reduces with relativistic velocity. Also classically other models other than a simple sphere were considered for the shape of an electron.

[@aleonyohan6745]

I don't know what's more mind-boggling, the massive scale of the universe, or the miniscule weirdness of particle physics. What an incredible universe we live in. Absolutely fascinating. I am extremely grateful for my existence and the knowledge to understand the physical world.

[@GeoffV-k1h]

No one seems able to explain what a particle is. They can talk about its properties, behaviour in certain conditions, even its 'size', but not what it IS.

[@ToCoSo]

The smallest packet of energy that moves through a field. I think I have had the word particle stuck in my head as a little ball, whereas they are packets of energy and not solid objects like I always visualised.

[@jimgraham6722]

@@GeoffV-k1hThey are.likely solitons in their respective fields. Think of a smoke ring, a tangible object with size and properties but actuality just a special form of wave. Why and how particles are perpetuated is still a bit of a mystery but likely involves the way they interact with various other fields of spacetime. The photon for example is massless so travels at the speed of light and doesn't experience the time dimension. Consequently photons are ageless. Light photons emitted 13bn years ago, near the beginning of the universe, are still detectable today. Other particles (free neutrons for example) are prone to decay into other particles or eventually, simply back to pure energy or nothing at all. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton

[@comment8767]

Pseudonym used by Bill Clinton.

[@HeavyMetalMouse]

'Particle' is the classical name for what we now understand to be a localized excitation in a quantum field. Traditionally, to be understood as 'a particle', a phenomenon should have a set of relatively consistent properties, discrete from whatever system it is in. This is why, in quantum models, we talk about how 'particle-like' or 'wave-like' a given phenomenon is. For example, when an electron is behaving more 'particle-like', it is behaving mostly as a discrete entity, while when it is behaving more 'wave-like', its behaviour is dominated by interaction effects (self-interaction included) that don't permit a simple discrete explanation. Essentially, 'particle' as a term is a relic of classical mechanics, and is only retained in quantum models because it is a familiar term that relates the quantum model concepts back to the classical ones in a meaningful way. The excitation in the electron field that we call 'an electron' in quantum models is the same phenomenon that was understood in the classical model to be 'an electron' (i.e. 'a particle'). For this reason, we still speak of the physical phenomenon as 'an electron' and speak of it as 'a particle', with the understanding that, in a quantum model, we are ultimately talking about something that we *used* to describe as 'a particle' in the classical sense and which it is convenient to still refer to by that name when talking about it as a physical phenomenon. It is important to understand here that nothing about 'the electron' (the actual physical phenomenon) has changed at any point in this process, only our ability to more accurately measure, understand, and model the properties and behaviour of that phenomenon, with more accurate measurements and models revealing its nature to be less simple than previously thought, and refining our understanding of its interactions with other phenomena. In situations where classical effects dominate, the classical model is generally sufficient to understand a particle, so those models and the term itself, are still useful, and thus the continued use of the term relating back to those models is still helpful for talking about the phenomena being studied. So when we talk about a particle's properties and behaviour, we are really are using a convenient shorthand of language to talk about a particular, generally localized phenomenon that, under many common conditions, behaves as a discrete classical object that we can isolate and identify as 'a particle' and the behaviour that localized phenomenon in various interactions. It does not strictly matter that 'particle' is not the best term for what we're talking about anymore due to its classical definition, the language and its use, like most things in life, fit the context of their new use.

[@jimgraham6722]

@@HeavyMetalMouse Good contribution. I tend to think of particles as solitons, object like wave excitations. When you think of a smoke ring, something you can see and has a physical presence but behaves differently to most things in our everyday experience you start to get the picture.

[@tomnoyb8301]

Electron is as the photon - a wave. As such, waves are intrinsically spread-out. Their energy, charge and mass are a wave and therefore their position is spread-out as a wave. Where is the wake of a boat? One can point to the wake of a boat, but upon closer inspection it becomes clear the wake is spread over several cycles. Same with an electronic wave in a circuit, say the square-waves in a digital computer. Look more closely at the rising or falling edge and one sees a tiny ringing of a wave. Like the wake, from a distance the edge's position appears sharp and easily identifiable, but upon closer inspection, the signal is a wave and the wave cannot be precisely located to a single time/position. (more...) When one measures waves, their position is defined by a 'wavelength,' not a point. And when one wants to describe a wave's approximate position at a single point in time, one describes its "Full Width Half-Max" (FWHM). FWHM is generally accepted as the wave's "position." But if one were to attempt to capture say, a single-photon of that wavy-signal, they would find that any detector located at a single position in space, would have only a probability of detecting the wave. Take for example a single photon of 10cm-wavelength microwave energy impinging a metal surface with probes every 1cm. As the wave hits the surface, only one of those detector-probes will collect the energy of the photon. Which detector is a probability of chance (not a 'quantum' probability). The photon is not a probability-wave and that probability-wave in no way "collapses," (although the single-photon wave would most definitely go down one of those ten detector-holes if it didn't reflect). The photon is comprised of E&H-fields. The same E&H fields one can measure all the way down to DC with a voltmeter. The same fields that exist between the terminals of a 9V-battery and that can be 'tasted' by licking the 9V battery's terminals. Photon is a real object, not a 'probability-wave.' Likewise the electron. The electron is also a wave. A matter wave. Electron has a charge, and therefore E&H-fields, BUT it also has a matter-wave component. And just as the photon's E&H fields are out-of-phase (90° out-of-phase in free-space), so too the electron's electromagnetic-charge-"wave" is out-of-phase (by 2) with its matter-wave (which is evidenced as "Spinors"). The electron is therefore not a probability-wave as you, dear reader, have been taught. The electron (proton, neutron, muon, etc) are real waves, with real physical measurables and real physical measurable solution to Schrödinger's wave equation. Proof? Take ψ, a probability wave virtually identical to QM's Ψ and plug-it into Maxwell's wave-equation. Guess what? ψ is a valid solution to Maxwell's wave-equation. How can that be, you say? Two valid solutions to the same Maxwell wave equation? Yes, my friends. A little remembered fact about differential equations is that they may have many solutions. Just because you found one, doesn't mean there aren't others. In fact, a probabilistic solution is merely a dumbed-down version of the E&H wave-equation solution. And if one were to work-through all the maths, they will find our new Maxwell's little-ψ exhibits all the same "strangeness" as big-Ψ does in QM. "Unknowability" suddenly appears. as do "collapsing wave-functions" and all the other nonsense that's been taught for a hundred-years. Matter-waves also exhibit "exclusion" (two matter-waves can't be in the same place at the same time), and not the superposition of Maxwell-waves. This vid says two electron's can occupy the same "state," which is true, but they also can't occupy the same place/position, thus they 'bounce' off each other. deBroglie was a grad-student on the verge of expulsion when he proposed matter was a wave, so he equivocated. He allowed that matter was also a solid-point (which was incorrect). It made his advisors happy and saved his career to equivocate. Unfortunate, since deBroglie was correct that matter is a wave and his advisors (who informally included Einstein) were incorrect.

[@wdobni]

if a nucleus was a dinner plate then the electron would be a poppy seed located on the moon

[@ubahfly5409]

You think that's wild? Well, if an atom was the size of a golf ball, golf balls would be big af ! Just let that sink in !

[@RemedyRob69]

I found this virtually entertaining.

[@DikyVb]

Lion : I am King Elephant : Dude... I am Rockefeller

[@ericberman4193]

Interesting video - thanks for producing!

[@stevenscott6337]

There’s the entire argument over whether an electron is a particle or a wave, depending on how it is observed. I’ll share this: as an electrician, the electron keeps me employed. I’m also grateful for the fluctuating energy levels of electrons in tandem with specialized cells at the back of my eyes that convert various electromagnetic wave frequencies into electrical signals that my brain interprets as color. As Tesla said, everything is energy. Einsteins equations verified it. Reality is a perception of energy wave functions. Consciousness is the only constant.

[@NicholsonNeisler-fz3gi]

String theory finally makes a prediction and we can't measure it. lol

[@TheOtherSteel]

I would try a classic method of putting a ruler with many gradations next to an electron, except a recent PBS Space Time video explained that we currently cannot "see" an electron. What I want to know is: at what distance between two electrons do they exchange virtual photons to complete an electromagnetic interaction? Except we cannot pin down exact locations for electrons. Except they do interact at certain times and don't interact at other times, so under what conditions does an interaction (EM repulsion between two electrons) begin?

[@LuisAldamiz]

You got my interest. Subbed!

[@TheTonytom]

Electrons were expelled from the quarks family for eating apples.

[@ardellolnes5663]

Everyone here is soooo much smarter than me. Im fascinated, but I don't understand a lot of it. Kinda get the gist...

[@ubahfly5409]

Gonna let you in on a lil' secret, come close. *Whispers {Many of them are just as confused as you, even moreso because they believe they aren't lol)

[@DanielBroadberry]

Ummm didn't PBS Spacetime publish the same, better explained content a few weeks ago?

[@Logically_Fallacious]

Weird, cause I’ve seen scanning tunneling microscope pics of graphene and they sure look like balls arranged in hexagons to me.

[@ubahfly5409]

That's what she said ! 😂 Wait, what

[@Logically_Fallacious]

@@ubahfly5409 There's a reason why I pitch from behind. How unfortunate it is for men, that women have a head and an arse. I wouldn't miss all the talking and whining, and just have the arse functional, with all due respect. Whoa, that made a horrible image... but it's that bad. If you don't think so, go on more dates, or like I, get married. If you ever wanted to get over your fear of death, get married. You will not only no longer fear death... but welcome it. I can say so from personal experience. In conclusion: you never know who/what you'll meet (AI Agents?) on the interwebbies... I am a word smith and a master debater... /no jk. You're welcome.

[@ToCoSo]

What do the microscopes use to take the images, they can't see smaller than what they use to create an image.

[@Logically_Fallacious]

@@ToCoSo It's great tech from 1981, which earned the inventors a Nobel Price (that meant something back then...) Do a simple search (ya' lazy bum!) and read about it, it's one thing human's can be proud of. There's not many such things anymore. "STM senses the surface by using an extremely sharp conducting tip that can distinguish features smaller than 0.1 nm with a 0.01 nm (10 pm) depth resolution.[4] This means that individual atoms can routinely be imaged and manipulated. Most scanning tunneling microscopes are built for use in ultra-high vacuum at temperatures approaching absolute zero, but variants exist for studies in air, water and other environments, and for temperatures over 1000 °C"

[@noelcruz1298]

10^-18m. Is the size of electron. When electon in its higher velocity it behaves as a wave and uncertainty principle will apply.

[@Javed.Ahmed.Rasheed]

It is cloud of very tiny subnucleons which contributes to a very small mass at average centre of mass of cloud. This cloud changes its shape based on electric, magnetic & gravitational influence from other external electric & magnetic feilds or particles at its location of influence but its angular moment is net moment of cloud oriented in particular spatial media. It has a net electric field which is oriented along net summation to 1e charge and can not be subdivided to any fraction and feels force attraction or repulsion external electric field and permittivity of space surrounding it. It has also a net magnetic field created by the net rotation of charge of cloud which shapes based on nearby electric, magnetic & gravity effect from its external bound. It is overall a small cloud made of complex electric, magnetic field and has a centre of mass and its size, shape & movement can only be predicted when it is within an atom but when it is free to move and no external force to add linear, angular momentum, it is like a sphere. So, it may act as a paricle or a swirling cloud. This is so small, its interior is inaccessible based current science and is a fundamental unit of original creation. ALMIGHTY GOD WITH INFINITE KNOWLEDGE CREATED IT AS PART OF SIX DAYS OF CREATION, EACH DAY IS AN UNKNOWN KNOWLEDGE LIGHT OF THE ALMIGHTY GOD. This explanation is enough to create an illusion.😄🤩😊😉🙃🙂😂

[@ashsahas8822]

Because the 'measuring' means have limitations the uncertainty princille works. But if the photon size, light speed are breached, which currently are considered absolute, then surely size of these subautomic particles will be found deterministically.

[@olivercromwell3273]

Another point is that if the electron has "spin", better defined as "apparent spin", derived from it having a measurable "magnetic moment", a vector, does that imply it must have substructure?

[@kazunorimiura3526]

Pion -> Muon -> Electron: This decay causes the size to decrease. The size of the electron changes depending on the voltage.

[@alansanders4733]

The electrons in my brain find this interesting.

[@noelcruz1298]

Proton radius, 10^-15m. Electron 10^-18m. Up quarks 10^-17m. Down quarks 10^-16m. It varies wihen speeding up. ❤

[@richardotier6820]

If the electron has no size, it doesn't occupy space at least in 3D. Therefore, by default it must occupy higher dimensions - good luck with that idea.

[@paulmicks7097]

Well electrons are either one-dimentional or two-dimensional objects in three-dimensional space so how can a size be fixed ? This why can only know the probable location on any observation.

[@michaelblankenau6598]

I think the reason I can’t understand this is because I only have a virtual brain

[@GregoryHawkins-d2p]

Don't call people by their last names. Call them by their first names.

[@joseleonardofabian]

The electron does NOT have atomic mass, it has INERTIAL MASS, that is, movement, gyroscopic inertia, gravity, TIME, GREATNESS. The electron is light ✨️ that is born from a particle, the atom ⚛️ when they gain energy and escape from the atom ⚛️ and are transmitted as electromagnetic waves, a form of energy. How long an electron is is irrelevant.

[@bretts6861]

You’re clearly right, but the mainstream won’t let go of the current viewpoint because they would have to rethink charge.

[@dhm7815]

The National Institute of Standards of the USA disagrees with you. Go tell them that.

[@ElectronFieldPulse]

No, an electron is not a photon converted to an electron, where did you come up with that?

[@sjames1955]

Sure papi

[@ubahfly5409]

If the proton was represented by the size of a tennis ball the entire universe would fit inside a cardboard box the size of a universe. Just let that sink in.

[@AllYourMemeAreBelongToUs]

Excellent video!

[@TheOtherSteel]

Heisenberg'e uncertainty principle says we cannot know both the momentum and the location of an electron. This specifically implies that we can know one of those two things at any specific point in time: namely an electron's location. Except this video states we cannot know an electron's location. To my limited understanding, this appears to toss the uncertainty principle out the window. Except that would have severe consequences for QM, so my understanding must be wrong. Me - Head explodes.

[@martinsoos]

What is the diameter of a hurricane with x amount of energy. Answer, it wouldn't be measured by its edges, but by its center and the center of an opposing hurricane. If electrons are made of wave fronts with-in Ether, then it would be the equivalent of air molecules making up multiple hurricanes and therefore not measurable by its edges. Like trying to grab smoke with your bare hands is it not?

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

Its like saying gas in motion is plasma and it's a 4th state of matter when in fact it's just gas in motion, non solid not liquid. In 0ther words violating basic language to get the answers you want via musical chairs of super position lol Categorical likeness monsters mixed with task at hand. Hierarchy of material definition. Subjective becoming objective if only in on paper determinism of archemedes descrete lines used

[@CoreyChambersLA]

Scientists have a lot to work to do on the electron. They can't agree on whether all electrons are really only one electron, if it's a particle, if it travels through time etc. One thing is fore sure. We deserve a better explanation of the mighty electron.

[@StinkyEthien]

There is consensus on just about all of that.

[@DaleKallio]

Energy and volume proportionality, implied as energy.

[@gehteuchnixan9027]

I looked at it. I took a 1,5 battery and hold it against my eye, so that the electrons can go throw my eye. I didn't see anything. That means: Proved, with sigma 5: Electrons have no size or better size 0...

[@tokajileo5928]

background music unnecessary

[@andresluqueruiz7318]

Tanks from Spain

[@midbc1midbc199]

An electrons size is determined by it's charge

[@sneakyfox4651]

Never mind the size. What colour is it? :O)

[@Rasenschneider]

Electrons might be an effect only. Not an object.

[@firedome8]

Should the question be questioned?

[@williamf7401]

Why is the speed of light in so many equations

[@許右甫]

本篇的討論只在於原子中的電子現象，而不從原子的生成邏輯來討論，這就像研究樹木只看地表上的枝幹卻不看吸收養分的根一樣，永遠在虛空幻想。 原子是中心為質子，而繞質子運行的是眾多不同能階的基本粒子，這些基本粒子的總能量稱之為電子，而這些基本粒子的能階與光粒子接近，所以只要你加能量就會將其激發出光波離開表面，等這能階被激發完，就無光釋出，但只要加高能量就會有另一能階的基本粒子接續發光，由這個觀點往前推展就是質子與中子的形成也必需符合相關的演化邏輯。 大霹靂是使本宇宙有能量，這是確定了的事實，但是是從奇點看啓，這是我無法認同的，也就是說大霹靂前的天體必然要有一個生成的空間，而這空間的能量是遠小於本宇宙的，這個宇宙零度（地球溫度下10^22°C)的母宇宙是讓10^-27焦耳的能量凝結成一顆光粒子質量的能質粒子（無中生有），能質粒子間以能階差結合成無動能、無距離與密度無限大的粒子個體，這就是黑洞最小單位，而這粒子個體間以能階差形成了相對運動，這就是引力的起源。 粒子個體間的相對運動最終以踫撞融合長大結束，在融合時動能轉化為熱能提升合體後的能階，所以黑洞越大其體內的能階越高，當黑洞體內的能階高過內聚力就會自爆，所以黑洞的體積是有極限的（估計有銀河系的大小，引力達50億光年）。 大霹靂發生前宇宙最大黑洞其周圍有最密集的黑洞系統，當黑洞自爆時失去了引力源的黑洞系統就會以切線方向離心速度飛離中心點，此時大質量黑洞就率其可影響的黑洞系統以同一個方向飛行，從側面看就是扁平狀運行的天體，這就是星系團的雛型。 大霹靂的高溫與能質粒子以質能轉換產生了電磁輻射（宇宙背景輻射）、光粒子、原始粒子（基本粒子與量子）與暗物質（能質粒子提升能階而得，所以佔總質量90%是合理的）。 赤熱的原始粒子以球狀向外擴張，最外圍的原始粒子與能質粒子接觸動能急劇下降，使粒子間的能階差發生了效應結合成粒子個體，這就是夸克誕生機制。外圍的原始粒子速度減慢與夸克的生成使後方高能量與高速度的原始粒子超過，於是宇宙最大的壓力鍋就誕生了，夸克在壓力鍋內的數量持續增加，在高溫、高壓與高密度的綜合作用下，夸克間也以能階差結合成夸克個體，於是質子與中子就誕生了，這個由原始粒子、夸克、質子與中子組成的綜合體我稱之為原始粒子濃湯。 原始粒子濃湯的擴張速度遠大於黑洞系統的離心速度，在被追過時黑洞系統成員也都以能階差截取適量的原始粒子濃湯在身上。此時裹著原始粒子濃湯的黑洞系統就已轉成星雲體，而星雲體的飛行軌跡就是紅移現象，所以宇宙擴張是離心力造成的，無需加入暗能量項次。 星系團是裹著原始粒子濃湯的黑洞系統，所以作為子系統的恒星系統也是同樣架構，以太陽系為例，太陽中心是黑洞，其周圍是高溫、高壓與高密度由夸克、質子與中子構成的硬殼，因需向中心輸送能量，所以硬殼不斷重組與擠壓，使外殼個體脫離噴出，隨離中心程度溫度與壓力也同時下降，而體積也跟著膨漲而夸克的密度也減小了，在溫度、壓力與密度綜合變動下，夸克就裂解釋放出能量與原始粒子，到表面就爆炸形成了日冕。 恒星的能量來源是夸克的逐層裂解，到恒星末期因外在壓力的卸除，硬殼內高密度的夸克間在短期內連鎖裂解釋放出巨大的能量，形成了紅巨星與超新星，而質子與中子因質量大被黑洞所拘束，只能在表面形成了硬殼，於是磁星與中子星就誕生了，當能量被吸噬殆盡就回歸黑洞原貌。 行星的質量小散熱快，當表面溫度降到600°C時，上空數百公里處的溫度近絕對零度，此處的原始粒子的動能趨近於零，當表面下的重組擠壓使高能量的質子被噴到數百公里處，因能階差很大使原始粒子主動向質子靠近，進而繞質子運轉，於是原子就生成了，而繞質子運行的眾多不同能階的原始粒子的能量總和就是電子，所以電子沒有固定形狀。

[@wuodanstrasse5631]

Thank you ever so much for your comprehensive explanation. Unfortunately, the available translation of your explanation is very poor, but as I am now in Sanya, Hainan, China, I am able to get help with proper translation from your Chinese characters. How I wish that I could meet you personally. You have my utmost respect, Sir.

[@SpotterVideo]

Dr. Roger Penrose has suggested instead of trying to create a particle called the "graviton" to explain gravity, why not try to describe subatomic particles in terms of spatial curvature, as in the twist in a piece of real thread. What if we add one extra spatial dimension to the "Twistor Theory" of Dr. Roger Penrose? It can be "chiral" by having either Right-hand or Left-hand twist. It can be "Quantized", based on the number of twist cycles. If Physicists describe electrons as point particles with no volume, where is the mass of the particle? Can one extra spatial dimension produce a geometric explanation of the 1/2 spin of electrons? The following is an extension of the old Kaluza-Klein theory. Can a twisted 3D 4D soliton containing one extra spatial dimension help solve some of the current problems in Particle Physics? What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Geometric Unity of Eric Weinstein and the exploration of one extra spatial dimension by Lisa Randall and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? Is the following idea a “Quantized” model related to the “Vortex Theory” proposed by Maxwell and others during the 19th century? Is the best explanation of the current data a form of “Twistor Theory” first proposed by Dr. Roger Penrose during 1967? During recent years Dr. Peter Woit has explored Twistor Theory as a possible solution to help explain the current Standard Model. Has the concept of the “Aether” been resurrected from the dead and relabeled as the “Higgs Field”? In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit). Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. Are these the “Flux Tubes” being described by many Physicists today? When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton. The term “entanglement” in this case is analogous to three twisted ropes being wrapped around each other in a way which causes all of the ropes to move if someone pulls one of the ropes. Does the phenomenon of “Asymptotic Freedom” provide evidence that this concept is the correct interpretation of the experimental data now available? Can the phenomenon of "Supercoiling" help explain the "Multiple Generations" of particles in the Standard Model? The conversion of twist to writhe cycles is well understood in the structure of DNA molecules. Can the conversion of twist to writhe cycles and vice-versa help explain "neutrino oscillations"? Within this model neutrinos are a small, twisted torus produced when a tube becomes overtwisted and breaks producing the small, closed loop of twisted tube (neutrino), and a twisted tube open on each end, which is shorter than the original. (Beta Decay) Within this subatomic model gravity is produced by a very small higher dimensional curvature imbalance within atoms, which causes all atoms to be attracted to all other atoms. This extremely weak attraction reveals the very small scale of the curvature imbalance. This produces the curvature of spacetime on a larger scale like the solar system which is required to counterbalance this small imbalance in the individual atoms.

[@ubahfly5409]

I mean, duh. Even a child understands this.

[@jerrykrampera8145]

Thank you sir, you have resurrected my version of reality from the ( continuing "Galileo inquisition" , CopenhagenBumpinParticleAcademics, of Aether deniers to keep their funding and tenure), to a hopeful return of what is obvious. I am a painter (not educated in physics yet fascinated) and you have laid down some inspiration here, a stream of visuals for my tomorrow file. Measuring the size of charge increase in a cosmic background is futile. A fuzzy ball lightning? I can see Nicola or James Clerk smiling at Asymptotic freedom. This video actually admitted the existence of "Vacuum itself possessing a non zero electric field (at counter 9.5)". he then called it "somethingness". A coil resulting from rotation of DYNAMO'S (Fields in the shape of Hourglass in a Doughnut) of excited perturbations of a background medium, due to wave reinforcement and pressure mediation. Tornados on Rogue Waves on tsunamis. Electromagnetic spectrum with "black hole" dynamos at the highest energy end, radiating coils out of poles into the background medium of energy potential at rest. Completing a cycle. Another Coil?

[@SpotterVideo]

@@jerrykrampera8145 Thank you for the very kind response. They are rare these days. Ernest Rutherford said a theory you cannot explain to a bartender is no good. The quest for "Geometric Unity" would help prove Rutherford was correct. Sometimes I am surprised that we have all of this talk about "Quantum Mechanics", yet nobody seems to be able to explain Planck's Constant, which is the basic unit. Your ideas above go along with this model. If you look at a coil of wire from the side, it looks like a Sine Wave drawn on a blackboard. Rotate the coil of wire and you will see the movement of the Sine Wave.

[@jdalton4552]

According to the Goedecke non radiation condition, the atomic electron is a two dimensional sphere surrounding the proton and therefore your statement that the proton radius, being smaller than than the atomic electron radius, is not "plausable", makes no sense to me. In fact. it makes perfect sense.

[@uzairhussain4856]

The intuitive idea of size applies to classical objects. Electrons are not classical objects. What electron actually is should be of no meaning to us.

[@metallicneutronbang]

Suppose we allow for a vacuum that is simply dispersed electrons that seem like neutrons within their buffer? Then it can be seen that the motion of an electron through the vacuum cannot travel in a straight line but must travel around these vacuum "neutrons". Maybe that could explain the gyrating motion instead of virtual photons.

[@Mantramurtim]

It has no size in the macro world meaning.

[@guenni292]

Ja, Quanten sind weder Teilchen noch Wellen, es gibt dafür keine bildliche Erklärung

[@stevensexton204]

Why can’t we say the “Three Words” is a better question and I will say them here “ I or We Don’t Know” I suggest we start saying those three words and get use to them or the four words“I or We Don’t Know Anything”.

[@felixbouvet1746]

😮😅😅 merci pour cette vidéo c'est vrai que les élèves français assez étranger en fait si on les observe ils sont fondamentalement sous forme de corpuscules et bien😊 on va aller mesurer sous forme d'onde😊😅

[@ER_Murrow]

tl;dw: no experimentally detectable radius, as of yet

[@solapowsj25]

The radius of the orbit.

[@WilliamNorth-r2p]

it's all still just a theory.......that works..but unproven....right?

[@davidlinnartist]

It's "pointless"... 😂

[@goyoelburro]

A great explanation. Thanks!

[@fabrizioviscardi40]

I sub to your channel, cheers Fabrizio -- like 1005

[@KeystoneInvestigations]

Now this is the kind of physics I like ! 👍👍👍 Nicely done!

[@SteveS-s3k]

Based upon the experimental results, it appears that an appropriate answer might be, as small as you want to make it, which I find a bit strange. For example, what if we localized an electron to a region smaller than its Schwarzschild radius? Of course, I have no idea how one might accomplish that. Exercise for the reader: calculate the energy required by a photon to localize an electron to within its Schwarzschild radius by Compton scattering. Still, it does present a theoretical conundrum.

[@philoso377]

Remember that electric charge relates by the surface area and not by volume as depicts on page 5:35.

[@johnm.v709]

Interesting video. Electron is not a spherical object. Prototype of an electron on 4 foot rock nearing completion.

[@rolandotillit1798]

You are saying in order to be quantum truth it needs to be weird, which is very laughable, electrons as any other hadrons are. Bound by temperature, and so its volume and hence radio’s

[@TruthMatters137]

The main drawback of modern fundamental physics is materialism. Spirits and ether (physical vacuum) are excluded from it. That is why it has been stagnant for more than a century. Materialism is a dead end. Particle physics includes only matter and energy, despite the fact that we do not actually know what particles and energy are. We do not know how elementary particles obey physical laws. What determines their complex behavior? We do not even know what physical space is, which has the physical properties of rigidity, elasticity, inertia, dielectric permittivity and permeability. So, what do we actually know about the foundation of the universe? The modern babylonian science of the papacy, including SR, GR and quantum mechanics, is useless for our general understanding. Jesus Christ said: "I am the truth, the way and the life. Only He can save us from the deception and power of sin.

[@thecat6159]

No, it’s stagnated because we can no longer go to higher energy levels to prove theories because of the cost and complexity barrier stemming from the exponential curve for higher energy experiments. Back in the 20th century a room sized experiment could easily prove the existence and properties of an electron and proton. Now we require a hundred billion dollar particle accelerator that would take decades to build to explore new avenues.

[@olivercromwell3273]

In the normal classical world the size of an object is defined by the limits of the location of its COMPONENTS, which give it a BOUNDARY, and this extends all the way down to atoms. The problem with the electron is how many levels of substructure it might have. Finding the next level of structure might imply a classical "component boundary size" for the electron. If it has substructure and those substructures have another level of substructure, the problem is how many sublevels of structure exist and if we can ever know this, assuming it must be finite. And if we could know this, how would we describe the lowest level as we can only conceive of it as having structure, because that is how we tend to think. This dilemma means we cannot ultimately know the substance and structure of the sub-nano-universe, only how particles "behave".

[@bretts6861]

The mainstream view of the electron is obviously wrong. First, it was a planet, then it was a cloud and as well as a sea. It’s so small that it doesn’t even contribute to the weight to the atom yet it has the same but opposite negative charge as the proton. The whole concept of a negative charge is ridiculous. There is only charge.

[@SciD1]

Mathemagical entity inferred by JJ Thomson. Even he wasn't convinced. However, fame and a Nobel prize have a tendency to change one's mind... _"The electron: may it never be of any use to anybody"_ JJ Thomson

[@ericw3517]

A sphere with a radius of the Planck length?

[@Mugairyuiai]

I guarantee you nobody here went to a Diddy party.

[@YarUnderoaker]

If we imagine the descrete space and in each atom of space hold the electron with probability greater then zero we can describe volume of electron. From the shape of this volume we can calculate avarage diameter of electron.

[@rohdri]

You mean *the* electron, right? There's only one in the entire universe, maybe. Probably not. But it's a fun theory where there's only one electron in the whole universe, but it's everywhere because it's traveling through time. Forward, it's an electron. Backwards, it's a positron. ...given we've seen electron/positron conversion, I think it's a silly theory.

[@JonBrase]

Pair-creation/annihilation events basically correspond to an electron changing directions in time, and we observe plenty of those, but the problem with the one-electron universe idea is that it only works in a universe in which the number of positrons is equal to the number of electrons +/- 1, but the universe we observe has many more electrons than positrons. All the positrons in the universe could be part of such an arrangement, but if all the positrons were part of a single such arrangement, you'd need additional electrons that never switched directions.

[@destroyer2973]

An electron could be thought of as a hollow ball of negative charge where the mutual repulsion of the negative charge is perfectly balanced with the inward gravitational pull of the mass of the electron.

[@TheSandkastenverbot]

Gravitation and the electromagnetic force both have an 1/r dependence with vastly different factors. They can never cancel out. You might be thinking of neutron stars, but in that case gravitational pull and exchange interaction caused by the Pauli exclusion principle cancel each other out. Those two forces have very different dependencies on distance. Also: if an electron were a charged ball the factor between spin and angular momentum (g-factor) would be only about half as big as it is.

[@kiroubikiroubi2512]

Electron mass varies depending on its energy and atomic layer it is depending from. Mesure of his size probably too

[@elderzeroremorse8582]

Electrons might not be actual objects. Rather they can be efect.. Such as gravity. We don't identify gravity as a phisical oblect even though it exerts secondary efects on phisical matter

[@elderzeroremorse8582]

I view elections as an intrinsic efect. Not as a partical

[@albrechtgiese880]

The size of an electron: is it really a mystery? No, it can be explained very simply but precisely by a classical model. According to this model, the electron is made up of two charges orbiting each other at the speed of light. The mass of the electron is not intrinsic, but results from the configuration by a fundamental process. This classical model explains all the particle's properties precisely, without any use of QM. For example, the precision for the mass is almost 10^-6 (unlike the Higgs, which gives us no value at all). It explains the spin and the magnetic moment exactly. It explains the g-factor with the same value as the Schwinger result. It explains the Lamb shift. It explains the energy-frequency relation instead of postulating it as QM does. And much more. Then the size of the electron is well defined. It follows from this model as 4*10^-13 m. The same as Erwin Schrödinger calculated in his well-known 1930 paper. How much do we really need QM?

[@sabriath]

"you were taught in school that electrons have no size"....i wasn't....soooo...your teachers suck

[@seanhewitt603]

Lol, I can tell you the exact size of a single electron... Its half the size, get this, of TWO electrons...😐

[@brianday67]

Small. Very small.

[@mehdizangiabadi-iw6tn]

it all collapses to:1)what do you different the meaning of"size"? ) what actually is anelectron ? 3)Electron are Not Newtown question about size?

[@mehdizangiabadi-iw6tn]

Apparently, electrons have no size, dimension, volume, or weight. I saw that he didn't say anything in the video, so I thought maybe that's the nature of his report, meaning the line is in the middle 👉😉👍🤔

[@malcolmtbm]

ok, here's the dilemma, if something has no size and no mass, then by our reasoning it does not exist; therefore electrons do not exist; therefore, matter does not exist, which implies that what we call reality does not exist ... WE LIVE IN A SIMULATION, ahha

[@TruthMatters137]

I believe that the universe and all creations in it, from the smallest to the largest, were created by the eternal almighty Creator in accordance to His unchanging principles of unconditional love, faithfulness, and care. God said let it be light. The light is good. Love and truth is the light. Mercy and justice is in perfect harmony. Unconditional love is the only true glue that holds the universe in peace and harmony and makes its existense possible. Only the free will makes true love possible. Elementary particles exchange light. They have complex behavior. The set of rules that they obey, can not be described with one equation. They must be able to store light and to give part of it at a specific moment. Practically they are conductors of light. The light is electromagnetic wave, which emerge, propagate and attenuate in the physical medium called cosmic vacuum or aether. When the particles give off light, they create oscillations in this physical medium, that propagate in it with time.

[@niblick616]

Why should any rational person care about what you think when your post is absolute gibberish. You didn’t even say which imaginary god thing you were talking about! The word ‘god’ is effectively meaningless because it has been used for many thousands of different things!

[@roberttarquinio1288]

Particles are spherical not point like The motion of an electron about a proton or proton-neutron nucleus is so fast that it appears to form a cloud

[@Li.Siyuan]

I don't think you've quite understood. The electron is not fixed in its position. Regardless of whether it's point-like, spherical or a two-dimensional string, it's effectively 'smeared out' as illustrated by the Schrödinger equation that defines it as a system.

[@KeystoneInvestigations]

@@Li.Siyuan Maybe we should ask Schrodingers' cat?

[@ric101657]

It is better to study the Quantum and Physical Sciences of Energy... Electrons are bubbles of still fine particles moving faster than light 🚨🕯️... The baseline of physics to observe. My Way 😊😊😁😁😂😂 bye bye... TY.

[@markvis4106]

"inapplicable" is a misnomer as the term "size" is simply "discarded" due to the "scientist's inability" to apply an accurate physical measurement. simply disregarding tangible size can not disprove the existence of tangible size. size is tangible you know this and everybody knows this there is concrete evidence of this fact and you are even using that fact to estimate the tangible size of these particles. so to in turn claim there is "no applicable size" and "therefore" these particles are "not solid spheres" is BLASPHEMY you have ZERO EVIDENCE and this abuse of language is UNACCEPTABLE. i don't care if you want to continue your research regardless of being unable to directly measure the size of these particles as you can simply estimate using energy (sure nerd go ahead i don't care i'm just not interested), what i do care about is that you have NO SHAME and continue AS IF you're "some kind of genius that knows what they're doing" when you LITERALLY solve a problem by walking away from it BY DOING A 360!?!?!??!

[@larryphillips4164]

If the galaxy represents a human for scale that’s 100,000 light years across then an electron would be the size of the moon. Let that sink in for a minute.