Electrons Have Substructure.

[Talanum46]

12 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

plus the larger electron system must be.

What is the larger electron system?

10*e/5 = 2e, so abstracting to e/5 charge seems erroneous.

Edited November 17 by Talanum46

[OceanBreeze]

On 11/17/2024 at 11:16 AM, OceanBreeze said:

Yes! The quasi-particles are electrons, and therefore cannot be sub-particles of electrons.

 

Can you can see that now?

 

What F. Wilczek, and a few others are doing, is magnetically and electrically exciting a part (an island of electrons), of a larger electron system. Although the island is distinguished from the larger electron system via four electrical contacts, the island, together with the larger body of electrons,  still comprises an open system. In such an open system, the total potential is fixed, but the number of particles in the island is not.

 

What this means, there is no a priori requirement that the total charge of the island be quantized in units of e,  much less in units of 2e, even though the island plus the larger electron system must be.

 

The island charge could change in increments of one quasi-particle charge, such as any small (less than e) charge imbalance, supplied from the electrical contacts.

 

For example, a ∆Q = 2e  charge introduced from the contacts can result in the creation of ten e/5 quasi-particles in the island, and at the same time, increase the electronic (negative) charge of the larger body of electrons by precisely 10 e/5 , thus leaving the total population charge unaffected.

 

The above explains how Anyons are collective excitations of many electrons in two dimensional devices. They are artificial quasi-particles which, under very special circumstances, carry fractional electric charge.

 

Finally, Anyons are not elementary particles that comprise a supposed substructure of electrons.

 

Essentially, they act as electrons with fractional charges.

 

The above explanation is extremely over-simplified but contains the basic idea of what Anyons are. Hopefully, this will help clear up some of the misconceptions about Anyons seen in this thread. (But I am more than likely just wasting my time, we shall see)

 

 

 

I made a mistake in the above explanation.

I wrote: "For example, a ∆Q = 2e  charge introduced from the contacts can result in the creation of ten e/5 quasi-particles in the island, and at the same time, increase the electronic (negative) charge of the larger body of electrons by precisely 10 e/5 , thus leaving the total population charge unaffected."

This is obviously wrong. If ten e/5 quasi-particles are created, the charge of the larger body of electrons would need to decrease by precisely 10 e/5 to conserve charge.

Other than that mistake, not being a particle physicist, this is the best I can do to explain what Anyons are and why I disagree with the central proposition of this thread that "electrons have substructure". I have seen no evidence to support this claim and plenty of evidence against it. I won't continue to argue against a baseless claim.

[Talanum46]

Electrons come from anti-ud decay. Its only logical to assume they still contain aspects of an anti-ud. You can't tell me it's illogical.

In fact it is illogical to assume an anti-ud decays to something that isn't the decay product of anything i.e. an electron.

Edited November 23 by Talanum46

[OceanBreeze]

3 hours ago, Talanum46 said:

Electrons come from anti-ud decay. Its only logical to assume they still contain aspects of an anti-ud. You can't tell me it's illogical.

In fact it is illogical to assume an anti-ud decays to something that isn't the decay product of anything i.e. an electron.

I am not telling you anything except that you should read the site rules.

You don't have to go far down the list, you just need to read Rule#1:

"1)      If you make strange claims, please provide evidence or at least backup of some kind. If you fail to do so, or the backup you provide is not deemed adequate, the moderators may move your post to the Strange Claims forum. What we generally do not approve of is wild, unsubstantiated claims. But, even these are sometimes allowed and placed in the Silly Claims section if they are at least interesting. The very worst claims, which have no intellectual or amusement value at all, are usually deleted."

You are claiming as a fact, that "Electrons come from anti-ud decay." I have not seen any evidence of this and you have not provided any. That is why this thread is in Silly Claims.

If you think electrons come from anti-ud decay, for some reason known only to you, hey that's just fine! You can think or imagine anything you want. What you cannot do is come on here and make up stories and present those stories as facts and expect us to accept such as facts.

Tell us why you "think" electrons come from anti-ud decay and provide a source or some back up.

Until you do so, you will not be taken seriously and your post will remain in Silly Claims.

It is at least an interesting claim so will not be deleted. Personally, I would like to see some evidence or at least what inspired you to make this claim.

This is the mainstream view, which I subscribe to:

"In a beta decay, a neutron (made of one up quark and two down quarks) can transform into a proton (made of two up quarks and one down quark), an electron, and an electron antineutrino. This reaction can happen in a neutron within an atom or a free-floating neutron."

Source:

I see nothing about an electron coming from anti-ud decay.

If you can provide a source back up your claim, please do so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 23 by OceanBreeze

[Talanum46]

I have a backup: Anyon charge!

Here is a reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pion. It says a Pion decays to a muon and muon neutrino in which case in general it decays to a Lepton and anti-Lepton.

[OceanBreeze]

6 hours ago, Talanum46 said:

I have a backup: Anyon charge!

 

Under very special circumstances, electrons can form an exotic new collective state consisting of  quasiparticles that can carry fractional e-charge and have fractional statistics. Importantly, in this scenario the electron is not physically splitting; it is the collective behavior of many electrons that leads to excitations that can be treated as particles with fractional charge.

This in no way implies that electrons are anything other than fundamental particles. Electrons belong to the first generation of the lepton particle family, and are generally thought to be elementary particles because they have no known components or substructure; at least up to the available energies of particle colliders, leptons (such as the electron) aren’t composite objects. One calculation I saw, based on an electron magnetic moment of 9.284 x 10-24 J T-1, indicates a required energy of 34000 TeV to reveal any substructure, if indeed the electron has substructure.

Bottom Line: Your claim that electrons have substructure remains without merit. You are asked to provide support for it.

 

6 hours ago, Talanum46 said:

Here is a reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pion. It says a Pion decays to a muon and muon neutrino in which case in general it decays to a Lepton and anti-Lepton.

 

Now, this is better. Thank you for at least backing up your claim that electrons come from anti-ud decay by citing the decay of pions. Although the usual mode of pion decay results in a muon and a muon neutrino, I concede the point that charged pions can and do rarely decay into an electron and an electron antineutrino.

Although I concede this point, I don’t see where it validates your main claim that electrons have substructure.

Since you did make an effort to back up part of your claim, I have moved this thread up a notch into the Strange Claims section.

If you can find any back up for your claim that electrons have substructure (other than the irrelevant fact that Anyons have fractional charge), I will be happy to restore this thread to the Physics and Mathematics section.

 

 

[Talanum46]

Iike I said: it is illogical to claim a fundamental particle is the decay product of some particle. If you just apply quantum number conservation (which isn't a far stretch from mass/energy and charge conservation) you must realize that the electron contains some quantum numbers of the anti-ud - just think physically consistently. You can even forget quantum number conservation and just think of mass/energy and charge conservation.

My backup is thus that I showed the illogicality.

Edited November 25 by Talanum46

[Talanum46]

Let us construct electrons by the other way of reasoning: the anti-ud ceases to exist and an excitation is generated in the electron field and anti-excitation in the electron neutrino field. The excitation in the electron field gains charge from the anti-ud.

Clearly: this can't happen. First of all: the anti-ud cannot cease to exist without an anti-du, but the anti-du cannot start to exist without another anti-ud also starting to exist. Secondly: neither of the Leptons are permitted to start to exist since the corresponding anti-Lepton doesn't start to exist also. Thirdly: the excitation in the electron field cannot gain charge from a non-existent particle.

[Talanum46]

In fact: just claiming an electron has quantum numbers as properties implies it has substructure, since the quantum numbers must be encoded into the electron as space nodes on a circle in the sphere that is the electron.

That a particle must have it's quantum numbers encoded in it is logical since, how else are you going to associate a particle with its properties?

Edited November 26 by Talanum46

[OceanBreeze]

22 hours ago, Talanum46 said:

Iike I said: it is illogical to claim a fundamental particle is the decay product of some particle. If you just apply quantum number conservation (which isn't a far stretch from mass/energy and charge conservation) you must realize that the electron contains some quantum numbers of the anti-ud - just think physically consistently. You can even forget quantum number conservation and just think of mass/energy and charge conservation.

My backup is thus that I showed the illogicality.

 

The only illogicality I see is your logic!

Let’s see if you can follow my logic:

It is quite natural for heavier particles to decay into lighter ones. In fact, the reverse is an impossibility.

We also know that charge-conservation is one of the conservation laws.

There are no charged particles that are lighter than electrons. The only particles that are lighter than electrons are electrically neutral.

Therefore, there is nothing for the electron to decay to.

Electrons are fundamental particles. QED

Electrons can be, and often are decay products of some heavier particle. For example, a neutron is heavier than a proton. If a neutron transforms into a proton, an electron is ejected from the nucleus as a beta particle. But we know electrons do not reside in an atom’s nucleus! So how does an electron get ejected? Energy conservation! The energy in the nucleus is lowered by the neutron’s transformation into a proton and the electron is created from some of this excess energy. The important point is that the electron did not exist before the neutron decay; it was created from pure energy. Thus, the electron does not carry any “structure” from the original neutron. It was never a sub-particle of the neutron and does not have anything like “Neutron DNA” or whatever it is you are suggesting. Nothing is encoded into the electron from the neutron because the electron was created from pure energy.

[Talanum46]

Did you read this post?:

On 11/25/2024 at 1:54 PM, Talanum46 said:

Let us construct electrons by the other way of reasoning: the anti-ud ceases to exist and an excitation is generated in the electron field and anti-excitation in the electron neutrino field. The excitation in the electron field gains charge from the anti-ud.

Clearly: this can't happen. First of all: the anti-ud cannot cease to exist without an anti-du, but the anti-du cannot start to exist without another anti-ud also starting to exist. Secondly: neither of the Leptons are permitted to start to exist since the corresponding anti-Lepton doesn't start to exist also. Thirdly: the excitation in the electron field cannot gain charge from a non-existent particle.

For the case when you state that the anti-ud transforms into an electron and electron antineutrino you must describe the process, and this requires substructure. At the very least a Riemann sphere and Riemann anti-sphere must start existing (see post: Particles are Riemann Spheres) and then the nodes encoding the quantum numbers in the anti-ud needs to transit to these two objects. This requires substructure.

For the case of an electron coming from a neutron: the electron substructure comes from an anti-ud. It happens as follows: an anti-uu starts to exist near the neutron, then the u quark swops with a d quark in the neutron to form a proton and anti-ud, which decays to an electron and electron antineutrino. So some of the electron substructure do in fact exist in the neutron. This is more logical than stating the neutron converts to a proton, electron and electron antineutrino due to energy conservation. Just how does that happen?

For electrons not decaying into lighter particles: this is because of structure cohesion.

Edited November 27 by Talanum46

[Talanum46]

This reference says electrons can "fractionally split": https://physicsworld.com/a/physicists-close-in-on-fractionally-charged-electron-mystery-in-graphene/?nbd_source=adestra&nbd=2819805

[OceanBreeze]

21 hours ago, Talanum46 said:

This reference says electrons can "fractionally split": https://physicsworld.com/a/physicists-close-in-on-fractionally-charged-electron-mystery-in-graphene/?nbd_source=adestra&nbd=2819805

I ran a search of that reference for “electrons can fractionally split” and came up with “Phrase not found”

Pop science articles are making a real hash of explaining this “fractional charge” phenomenon  and perhaps I can do no better.

One overly simple way to explain it: in certain materials, such as graphene, the conductance becomes quantized. For example, a quantum conductance will effectively be the same as electrons behaving as quantum particles with quantum fractional charges.

It is just a consequence of Ohm’s Law.

In the usual non-quantized case, 1 Ampere will flow through 1 Ohm of resistance due to the Force of 1 Volt.

Suppose now that only 1/3 Ampere flows through that same circuit with the same 1 Volt applied.

You can look at this situation in two ways, either the conductance is now quantized at 1/3 mho (1/3 Siemens), or the charge being carried by the collective electrons is now quantized at e/3.

The article you linked to states “the effect could stem from the fact that electrons in two-dimensional materials like graphene are confined in such small spaces that they start interacting strongly. This means that they can no longer be considered as independent charges that naturally repel each other.”

This explanation seems to depend on both the characteristics of the conducting material and the collective behavior of the electrons.

Bottom line: Nobody anywhere (except you) is claiming that the electrons themselves are being fractionally split. In fact, even the worst popsci articles about electrons carrying fractional charge make a point of affirming that electrons are still considered to be fundamental particles that cannot be split into smaller parts, contrary to your claim that electrons have substructure.

 

 

[Talanum46]

The "search" function in that webpage searches for titles of Articles not words inside articles. When I do the same search you did the relevant article is displayed (so supposedly the words are in the article).

You must search for only: "fractionally split".

Edited December 7 by Talanum46

[Talanum46]

If you say that for neutron decay a down quark transforms into a up quark, I say this is Physically Illogical. A strict reading of charge conservation shows this.

[OceanBreeze]

2 hours ago, Talanum46 said:

If you say that for neutron decay a down quark transforms into a up quark, I say this is Physically Illogical. A strict reading of charge conservation shows this.

Are  you trolling me now?

Your posts indicate you are intelligent; certainly intelligent enough to understand this: “In physics, a conservation law states that a particular measurable property of an isolated physical system does not change as the system evolves over time.”

Source: Wikipedia

Of course, charge conservation does not hold if all you are comparing is an up quark (charge of +2/3) with a down quark (charge of -1/3). Such a comparison is indeed illogical!

That is not the total system referred to in the above definition of a conservation law.

Before decay we have one neutron, which is charge = 0, (two down quarks and one up quark). Afterwards it is also charge = 0. One proton, which is charge +1, (two up quarks and one down quark) and one electron, which is charge -1 plus the anti-neutrino with 0 charge.

What part of that is illogical in your opinion?

It is becoming increasingly clear you have no intention of discussing your ideas in good faith; instead you make claims without providing a logical explanation based on some evidence in support.

Your one saving attribute is; at least I hope some readers may be interested in my refuting of your claims.

However, if I come to the conclusion you are trolling, you will need to find another platform to cast your line from!

 

[Talanum46]

I am not trolling. There must be a little disturbance for new ideas to start existing.

A strict reading of charge conservation is: "a fundamental particle cannot change it's charge". It is in any case doubtful if charge distributed over a system sums together in spacetimes view.

I am acting in as good a faith as I can muster, but it clashes with yours.

Edited December 7 by Talanum46