All that science knows about Reality and how it knows this

[Ben Dhyan]

Once again, I explained what the paper is talking about. It is NOT the 'form' or 'shape' that you are imagining. Instead, it is specifically considering the electric field produced by the electron and finding it is spherically symmetric. That is what a dipole moment is all about (EDM in the abstract you gave).

"Spherically symmetric" denotes to me that the electric field has a form!

 

[Polymath257]

"Spherically symmetric" denotes to me that the electric field has a form!

Define what it means to be a 'form'.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Define what it means to be a 'form'.

In the context of my question about the Electron, it means the spatial arrangement.

 

[Polymath257]

In the context of my question about the Electron, it means the spatial arrangement.

There is a difference between the 'spatial arrangement' of the electric field and the 'spatial arrangement' of an electron.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So don't keep us in suspense, what is the spatial arrangement of the Electron?

 

[Polymath257]

So don't keep us in suspense, what is the spatial arrangement of the Electron?

That's the whole point. An electron does not have a well-defined 'spatial arrangement'. The corresponding electric field does, but not the electron itself.

 

[Polymath257]

So don't keep us in suspense, what is the spatial arrangement of the Electron?

Once again. According to all the evidence we have, an electron is a fundamental particle. It is not 'made from' anything else. The electric field is technically 'made from' photons arranged in a spherically symmetric way. Electrons, by their nature, produce such photons around them.

 

[paarsurrey]

All that science knows about Reality and how it knows this

It is a wrong concept, science does not know and has no resources to know the real/absolute reality. Science, by definition knows only physical and material aspect of temporary reality, that just "works" for the time being, it could only go further when man discovers ti "doesn't work or won't work in future" to come, hence it has to continuously revise and make adjustments to steer it towards truth and towards absolute reality. Please
Regards

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That's the whole point. An electron does not have a well-defined 'spatial arrangement'. The corresponding electric field does, but not the electron itself.

So it may not be well defined, but defined it is, so what roughly do you think its spatial arrangement is....spherical, oblate, irregular cloud shaped???

 

[Polymath257]

So it may not be well defined, but defined it is, so what roughly do you think its spatial arrangement is....spherical, oblate, irregular cloud shaped???

The evidence so far is consistent with a point particle. if string theory is correct, it might be a little loop (but that would lead to a dipole moment).

But even if that is the case, your image of it filling up space is simply incorrect.

 

[Polymath257]

All that science knows about Reality and how it knows this

It is a wrong concept, science does not know and has no resources to know the real/absolute reality. Science, by definition knows only physical and material aspect of temporary reality, that just "works" for the time being, it could only go further when man discovers ti "doesn't work or won't work in future" to come, hence it has to continuously revise and make adjustments to steer it towards truth and towards absolute reality. Please
Regards

And what evidence do you have that there *is* anything other than the physical reality?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The evidence so far is consistent with a point particle. if string theory is correct, it might be a little loop (but that would lead to a dipole moment).

But even if that is the case, your image of it filling up space is simply incorrect.

I suggest that a point particle that occupies no space does not exist, merely an abstraction to make the mathematical model work, besides, you implied before that the electron did have a spatial arrangement.. Post #44

 

[Polymath257]

I suggest that a point particle that occupies no space does not exist, merely an abstraction to make the mathematical model work, besides, you implied before that the electron did have a spatial arrangement.. Post #44

Exactly. But we work off of evidence and observation. There are two aspects here. Quantum particles do not have definite locations at any point in time. So the concept of a spatial arrangement is problematic, at least.

That said, we *can* consider how the quantum mechanics would change if a particle has an extent and is, additionally, subject to the probabilistic aspects of quantum mechanics. The observations we have made (including the one you mentioned above) put severe limits on such fundamental particles. At this point, there is NO evidence that an electron has an extent. Now, you might say that is merely for mathematical models, but the actual observations fit those models and not the ones with electrons having extent.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Exactly. But we work off of evidence and observation. There are two aspects here. Quantum particles do not have definite locations at any point in time. So the concept of a spatial arrangement is problematic, at least.

That said, we *can* consider how the quantum mechanics would change if a particle has an extent and is, additionally, subject to the probabilistic aspects of quantum mechanics. The observations we have made (including the one you mentioned above) put severe limits on such fundamental particles. At this point, there is NO evidence that an electron has an extent. Now, you might say that is merely for mathematical models, but the actual observations fit those models and not the ones with electrons having extent.

So you are saying that there is a disconnection between the spherical photon field of the electron and the electron? I would have thought they were two aspects of one thing, the Electron (albeit the Electron is an aspect of the Atom and so on ad infinitum)?

 

[Skwim]

So this crowd is saying it is a sphere, so what shape/form are the Orbitons and Spinons that make up a perfect sphere, and what is they made of?

Your obvious trolling aside.

"Artist's impression of an electron splitting up into two new particles: a spinon carrying the electron's spin and
an orbiton carrying its orbital moment. (Graphics: David Hilf, Hamburg)"
source

​

They is made of everything that constitute electrons. Just like height and girth are made of everything they denote.

.

 

[Polymath257]

So you are saying that there is a disconnection between the spherical photon field of the electron and the electron? I would have thought they were two aspects of one thing, the Electron (albeit the Electron is an aspect of the Atom and so on ad infinitum)?

An electron does produce the surrounding photon field, but they are separate things. Sort of like a light bulb will produce light when there is a sufficient voltage, but neither the light bulb nor the voltage are light.

In contrast to electrons, atoms actually are composites of other things. So, while an electron seems to be a fundamental particle (not made from anything else), atoms are made from protons, electrons, and usually neutrons. In turn, the protons and neutrons are made from various quarks and their interacting particles, the gluons. As far as we know, quarks and gluons are fundamental, like the electrons.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Your obvious trolling aside.

"Artist's impression of an electron splitting up into two new particles: a spinon carrying the electron's spin and
an orbiton carrying its orbital moment. (Graphics: David Hilf, Hamburg)"
source

​

They is made of everything that constitute electrons. Just like height and girth are made of everything they denote.

.

I think you will find there is a rule against persistently accusing other posters of trolling without an obvious reason. If you think you have an obvious reason, please provide the details and I will assess it?

Haha...lovely artist's impression of an Electron, there you go Polymath, now you know what the spatial structure of an Electron is like. So what are the Spinons and Orbitons constituted of and which are which in the picture? In the mean time, I await to see if this draws Polymaths' affirmation as to its rigor?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

An electron does produce the surrounding photon field, but they are separate things. Sort of like a light bulb will produce light when there is a sufficient voltage, but neither the light bulb nor the voltage are light.

In contrast to electrons, atoms actually are composites of other things. So, while an electron seems to be a fundamental particle (not made from anything else), atoms are made from protons, electrons, and usually neutrons. In turn, the protons and neutrons are made from various quarks and their interacting particles, the gluons. As far as we know, quarks and gluons are fundamental, like the electrons.

Polymath, you are digging your hole deeper and deeper as this goes on. I grant you understand the maths, but you forget that the maths only are an abstract representation of the relevant reality. So if the electron produces the surrounding photon field when excitation occurs, where is the separation between electron and the electron's photon field? For them to be two separate things, there must be a proven separation, else they are merely two aspects of one thing.

 

[Polymath257]

"Artist's impression of an electron splitting up into two new particles: a spinon carrying the electron's spin and
an orbiton carrying its orbital moment. (Graphics: David Hilf, Hamburg)"
source
​

They is made of everything that constitute electrons. Just like height and girth are made of everything they denote.
.

OK, I looked into this a bit more. Here is a presentation given on this topic:
Spin-orbital separation in 1-D | Atomic Orbital | Spin (Physics)
and an early version of the actual paper:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.1954.pdf

The upshot is that this separation is a *collective* phenomenon and is not a decay of an electron in the traditional sense of particle physics.

Some background: in quantum mechanics, there is a duality between wave and particle properties. In essence, for quantum mechanics, the two viewpoints describe exactly the same thing. Because of this, it is common and productive to think of many wave-like quantum phenomena as particles. So, for example, the collective vibration of a solid known as sound can *equivalently* be described as a 'gas' of particles called phonons. This is a collective effect of the movements of all the atoms in the solid.

In the experiment (and corresponding papers), the basic setup is in a solid that consists of bundles of long lines of atoms. Bonding between atoms only happens within the lines. Also, because of the way the atomic orbitals overlap, there is a de-localization of the electrons along the line. In this, the orbital angular momentum and the spin angular momentum are described as vibrations along the line of atoms.

If this setup is carefully stimulated, it is possible to create a situation where say, spin angular momentum is propagated along the line, but orbital angular momentum is not (or vice versa). Because of the wavelike nature of this propagation, we can equivalently describe this as a 'decay' into particles of spin and particles of orbital angular momenta.

Collective behavior like this is a bit tricky to describe to the public (or journalists) because the underlying mechanics of it is dependent on quantum mechanics and the dualities involved in its description of nature. In this case, the one-dimensional aspect is crucial to get the separation.

Fascinating!

 

[Polymath257]

I think you will find there is a rule against persistently accusing other posters of trolling without an obvious reason. If you think you have an obvious reason, please provide the details and I will assess it?

Haha...lovely artist's impression of an Electron, there you go Polymath, now you know what the spatial structure of an Electron is like. So what are the Spinons and Orbitons constituted of and which are which in the picture? In the mean time, I await to see if this draws Polymaths' affirmation as it its rigor?

Well, the lovely little pictures involving flower-shapes is supposed to represent the orbital angular momentum.and the little pictures with arrows is supposed to represent the spin angular momentum.

As I described above, the orbiton ans spinons are vibratory states involving large collections of electrons distributed along a line of atoms. The vibratory states are equivalent to particles because of quantum mechanics.