Talk:Electron/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Dungeons and Dragons

These charts and pictures, that are not real photographs, look like something from a D&D video game. Do people who believe in electrons play lots of Warcraft because they have small penis's? Or do they believe in electrons because they are very small, and need to believe in something smaller to make their smallness seem like its bigness? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.32.166 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 15 September 2008

History

I remember reading that the experiments leading the discovery of the electron were performed in 1897, not 1896 as is stated in the history section. Can anyone verify this with a source?--68.36.99.29 (talk) 07:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Fermi Dirac statisitics - and electron spin

I removed the comment in the text ("electrons obey fermi-dirac statistics" or similar) I am not questioning the validity of the theory - just to say that to put it this way seems to be putting the chicken before the egg - Fermi did not invent/create the electron so that it would OBEY his theorys? - how about: "The electron is classified as a fermion and as such should obey fermi-dirac statistics"

Also the statement suggesting an elctron has a spin axis has returned - but no reason given...HappyVR

An electron has spin-1/2. An electron is a fermion. Electrons obey Fermi-Dirac statistics. None of these facts are in question experimentally, so no "should" is necessary. -- Xerxes 21:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not questioning whether or not an electron is a fermion - if the group of particles known as fermions includes electrons then obviuosly an electron is a fermion - this second 'fact' cannot be verified experimentally. Where is the experimental evidence that electrons obey Fermi-Dirac statistics? It's the nature of experiment that a theory can at least be assumed to be true until an experiment shows otherwise. How about this then - "The electron is classified as a fermion and as such should obey fermi-dirac statistics - all experiments performed so far have verified this." Still need citations or equivalent for such experiments though. Also note that an electron can have spin 1/2 or -1/2 (Stern-Gerlach experiment perhaps?) the current text does not make this clear - this is why I added that particular piece of info to the text (see revision 20:22, 11 February 2006 ) As it stands now the text might be taken to read that an electron only has spin 1/2 (and not -1/2) if this is your view please say so.HappyVR 21:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh, the person who invented 2+2=4 didn't know about electrons either, but it should come to no surprise to anybody that 2 electrons +2 electrons = 4 electrons. The magic of science is exactly that old theories, like addition, work for many things not anticipated by their inventors. user:ilya

Re: Electron spin

(properties and behaviour - paragraph 3)

I have made changes to the text - in the section concerning spin - here are my reasons - The electron has spin +/- 1/2 This does not imply it is a 'fermion' or that it obeys 'fermi-dirac' statistics - A fermi-dirac statistics are meant to apply to particles spin 1/2 - if the theory is wrong it is not the particles fault - it does not have to 'obey' any theory created by a named scientist - no matter how respectable. Also the the magnetic moment is described as being along the spin axis - this is a common misconception (especially in teaching textbooks) - it is not - the electron does not have a 'spin axis' (This is probably due to a misinterpretation of the word spin). The property known as spin is chiral (and interacts in a chiral way with other chiral particles - i.e. other electrons / light) and the 'spin field' is spherically symmetrical (it is not a spinning top!). To describe it as a spinning top (i.e. with an axis of rotation) is a simplification but unfortunately does not give a true impression of the nature of the property known as spin and I suggest is a barrier to further/proper understanding.HappyVR 17:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You clearly do not have a reasonable modern understanding of spin in physics. I recommend that you start learning about spin by reading the wikipedia article on the subject, which is not too bad. In particular, read the section on spin direction. You also apparently do not understand the spin-statistics theorem, which is what implies that spin-1/2 particles are fermions. Regardless of whether the spin-statistics theorem is true (even though it probably is), electrons are both spin-1/2 and fermions. So with respect to electrons, the question of the general validity of the theorem is moot. -- Xerxes 21:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You do not seem to be reading my points correctly... I was criticising the fermion/electron aspect in a grammatical sense, does this make my point clearer.(I assume fermions can have spin -1/2 as well as +1/2). Maybe my statement "This does not imply it is a 'fermion' " was a bit over the top? I am not questioning whether or not the classification of particles known as fermions includes electrons - hope fully my re-written statement (see above) will clarify what is was trying to say "The electron is classified as a fermion and as such should obey fermi-dirac statistics - all experiments performed so far have verified this." or as an expanded alternative: "The electron has spin +/- 1/2 The electron is included in the group of particles classified as a fermion and as such should obey fermi-dirac statistics - all experiments performed so far have verified this." to replace "The electron has spin ½ and is a fermion (it obeys Fermi-Dirac statistics). In addition to its intrinsic angular momentum, an electron has a magnetic moment along its spin axis."

My main point however related to the 'spin axis'. HappyVR 22:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the history of the content dispute, but let me say this is defense of the status quo:

1. There is no such thing as a spin -1/2 particle. The electron is a spin 1/2 particle. If you measure its angular momentum along a particular axis, sometimes you will get -1/2.
2. There is no difference between saying "X is classified as Y" and "X is Y", except that the former statement is awkward.
3. The electron does obey Fermi-Dirac statistics. Physics is an experimental science. There is no need to append the phrase "all experiments performed so far have verified this" to every sentence in a physics article; it is implied. There is even less of a point in appending it to just one sentence.
4. The expectation value of the spin operator is a vector. Why not call it the spin axis?

Melchoir 22:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Electrons and Down Quarks

Does anyone know if there are any theories to the possibility that the Down Quark is composed of an Up Quark and an electron? I once heard that when a Proton and Electron mix it produces a neutron. So if this is true then if you mix an Up Quark and an electron it must form a down quark...I am not sure though. - BlackWidower

This is a good question, but it turns out it doesn't work that way. A neutron that decays into a proton and an electron is also producing an antineutrino, like this:

$n\to e^{-}+p+{\bar {\nu }}_{e}$

What's really going on is this:

$d\to e^{-}+u+{\bar {\nu }}_{e}$

(With an up quark and a down quark remaining unchanged).

That decay is via the weak force. The antineutrino's presence is important, because it means the decay preserves lepton number; in the situation you're proposing, either the neutron or proton would have lepton number, or lepton number would not be conserved. In general, just because things can decay into each other doesn't mean they're "made of" each other. . -- SCZenz 22:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

So if I take an up quark, an electron and an antinutrino it will produce a down quark...another "elementary" particle, which (correct me if I'm wrong) by definition cannot be broken down? I'm sorry if I am a little sceptical but you have more experience then me so whatever it is I'll take your word for it. - BlackWidower 20:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Elementary particles interact with each other, and in the process often some disappear and others appear. For example, the decay above also happens in certain nuclei:

$p\to e^{+}+n+\nu _{e}$

which is again really

$u\to e^{+}+d+\nu _{e}$

The up quark isn't made of the positron, down quark, and neutrino, any more than the down quark is made of an electron, up quark, and antineutrino. Particle physics is certainly non-intuitive, because it's nothing like we experience in our daily lives. I hope that helps! If not, feel free to keep asking questions. -- SCZenz 20:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

My brain has just exploded...I think I get it. One question remains...can those equations be reversed? - BlackWidower 21:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

In principle, yes. But it's very hard to collide three particles in that manner, especially when one is a neutrino; in fact, it's nearly impossible. (In a sense, though, the examples I've given are reversals of each other; if you move an electron to the other side it turns into a positron and if you move an antineutrino to the other side it turns into an antineutrino.) -- SCZenz 21:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

"if you move an antineutrino to the other side it turns into an antineutrino"

I think one of those is sopposed to be a run-of-the-mill nutrino. Also, that is interesting I did not know that. Wow, Fermion physics is facinating. :D - BlackWidower 21:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, you're right. And either one would've worked. And yes, particle physics (bosons are good too) is fascinating—that's why I study it. ;) Ask more questions any time you've got 'em. --SCZenz 22:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I have wondered for 45 years what an electron is. On the surface, it (an electon) seems impossible. It also seems that the universe is full of them and at the same time they are each and ever exactly identical except for position and momentum. Can anyone explain 'electron' without slinking under things like Hermitians and non-commutative operators and manifold Banach spaces and that sort of frilly stuff? Just asking. Just tell me where to go. To find out, I mean.--- regford 19:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Does this help? Identity and Individuality in Quantum Theory Melchoir 19:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well. I had hoped for a two-line answer as to what an electron is. But if I am given more, how can I complain? I will ponder; stay tuned.regford

I stumbled upon this and I can try to help (although I wonder if you are really a brilliant physicist in disguise). All I can say is that the answer you seek does not exist. Ask most theorists and they will tell you that they can't explain to you what an electron is. All I can say is that an electron (and any other fundamental particle) appears to be some weird "point-like" thing that has certain properties (like charge, mass etc). "Point-like" because its charactersitics literally appear point-like: i.e. its charge distribution is point-like (whereas for a proton, it is smeared out over a diameter of about a fermi) and it doesn't appear to have a "size" like the proton can be said to have a "size". Obviously there is a lot of subtlety involved and this answer is relatively crude, but that is all I can say. If you're wondering why we don't know what an electron is, it's becasue nobody has been clever enough to properly answer your question; and, I suspect, people will be asking the very same question for centuries to come. Krea 14:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because at the moment, the lead section does not comply with the MOS - it should be a two or three paragraph summary of the article's content. Worldtraveller 00:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Negative-Negative bond?

In an atom of oxygen for example, if electrons have a negative charge how do they join together in the same atom, like the 8 electrons on the second shell are in 4 groups of 2?

See covalent bonding. -- Xerxes 18:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Max speed

How fast are these babies? The Speed of light article says they can go faster than c in a blue pool of water. Is that really true? --Uncle Ed 21:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing goes faster than c; if the article says that it'll have to be fixed. On the other hand, sufficiently energetic electrons can travel at any speed under c. And what is true is that in media like water, the local speed of light can be less than c, so electrons can go faster than light. But not Faster than Light, if you see what I mean. Melchoir 21:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait, what the hell-- did you just play me? Melchoir 21:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No, no. I was aware the blue water picture. I moved it down, but then it got me wondering. Nothing can go faster than c, but the other article made it sound like electrons could.

If you're saying that the local speed of light is less than "c" (speed of light in a vacuum) THEN we should not not say that electrons can go faster than light, but rather:

• In water, the local speed of light is significantly slower than the speed of light in a vacuum (usually called c). Electrons in water cannot go faster than c of course! But they can outrace "slow photons" underwater.

Does that make sense? This is new to me. --Uncle Ed 00:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well forgive me, but it didn't sound like it was new to you from the other article! As for the caption "travelling faster than the speed of light in water", I think it's supposed to be interpreted as "travelling faster than (the speed of light in water)", which is correct, as opposed to "travelling (faster than the speed of light) in water", which would be wrong. There's a separate issue if you want to bring photons into the picture: light in water is not just photons, but photons coupled to polarization waves. Perhaps "travelling faster than the local speed of light" would be best? Melchoir 00:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Your explanation uses parentheses just the way a computer programmer would, to clarify matters of operator precedence. Like (3 * 4) + 5 vs. 3 * (4 + 5) come out differently. That helps me, because I'm a programmer! :-)

For the general reader, however, I think you've hit on a happy phrase: local speed of light. --Uncle Ed 12:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I called myself a programmer once... good times. I think the "Properties and behavior" section of this article is okay now in terms of being correct. As an editorial issue, I'm not sure how much of the material is relevant to electrons in particular. I mean, traveling at sub-light speed is common to all massive particles, and generating radiation is common to all charged particles. And I'm not sure how much space the Lorentz factor really needs here. I guess what I'm trying to say is: if you really want to work at improving the article, perhaps some other sections could use the attention? Melchoir 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This whole section should be trimmed. -- Xerxes 22:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I was reading this article and it stated that electrons can go faster than the speed of light, which totally blew my mind until I read the talk page and realized that they aren't going faster than the speed of light (c), they are going faster than 1/2c which is the speed light travels in water. Made the correction so that nobody else's head explodes by being boggled by the totally ridiculous inaccuracies in Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.210.5.223 (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Edits by anon 80.137.xx.xxx

Whether incorporated into the article, or as an external link, these edits violate the policy Wikipedia:No Original Research. Please review this policy, and argue here on the talk page before re-adding those edits. Further reintroduction of these edits without discussion will be considered vandalism. -- SCZenz 20:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Book called Enigmatic Electron has these values:

• The book titled "The Enigmatic Electron" provides these values:

• 1. R(E) (point-like charge radius)-------------------<1 x 10-16 cm
• 2. R(0) (classical radius)--------------------------2.82 x 10-13 cm
• 3. R(C) (Compton sized electron)------------------3.86 x 10-11 cm
• 4. R(E) Effective (R(E) = 2/5 RC)-------------------1.5 x 10-11 cm
• 5. R(E) Effective - Corr (R(E) = XX R(C)-------------1.3 x 10-11 cm
• 6. R(H) (based on Compton radius)--------------------4 x 10-12 cm
• 7. R(H) (based on classical radius) -----------------4.09 x 10-12 cm
• 8. R(H) QM-Corrected (R(H) = (sqrt of 3)*R(C))----6.69 x 10-11 cm
• 9. Scattering results before 1992 imply--------------< 1 x 10-16 cm
• 10. Scattering results very recently imply------------< 1 x 10-18 cm

• R(E) is electric charge based radius
• R(H) is magnetic field based radius

Ref on electron size

In an article by D. Hestenes (Ariz State Univ) in the book called The Electron (c) 1991, Kluwer Acad Pub, David references D. Bender et al (1984) Tests of QED at 29GeV center of mass energy, Phys. Rev., D30, 515. His words are: "Scattering experiments limit the size of the electron (i.e. the size of the domain in which momentum transfer takes place) to less thadn 10-18 m [9]." bvcrist

Yes, the crucial language here is "less than". These experiments are merely putting upper bounds on a number that theoretically is zero. -- Xerxes 21:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Physicists Brian Greene, J.A.Wheeler and Alexander Burinskii have suggested that the electron may be gravitationally collapsed (see Black hole electron ). In this view the electron will approach its Schwarzschild radius size (1.35x10 exp-57 meter radius). --DonJStevens 19:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Dipole moment

Any experts out there want to add something about measurements of the electron's EDM?

The Particle Data Group says that it is 0.07 ± 0.07 × 10^-26 e cm... --Strait 01:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant in addition to measured limits, what the implications of a non-zero EDM would be. Bodhitha 16:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Mass

This article says 9.1093826(16) E−31 kg, but Google say 9.10938188 E-31 kg. [1] Does it depend on energy level due to extra energy = extra mass? EamonnPKeane 19:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The best-accepted values for fundamental constants change over time as measurements get bet better. The wikipedia article should state clearly where the number comes from to avoid any ambiguity. (It would be nice if the Google calculator did the same, but that's their business.) Itub 13:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes mass can be calculated with Planck'units as in the case of an electron: me = mp.lp / (alpha.ao)= 9.1093826.10E-31 kg where mp is Planck mass (2.176450508.10E-8 kg), lp is Planck length (1.6162428210E-35 m), alpha = 1/1370359991 and ao is the radius of the 1s orbital in the H-atom also called Bohr radius (5.291772108.10E-11 m). The mass of a proton also can be calculated but is far more difficult.The charge of an electron can be calculated with e = sqrt.(10E+7.alpha.mp.lp)= 1.602171653.10E-19 C. Planck charge is then qp = sqrt (mp.lp)= 5.930996971.10E-22 C. Nota Bene that coulomb ìs sqrt kg.m. That is of great importance to other value like ohm = m/s.oscar emile83.82.99.83 21:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Flipping an electron

Hi. I remember reading an article in Scientific American, about 20-odd years ago, that claimed that if you flip an electron over 360 degrees, not all aspects of the electron appear unchanged. Instead, you have to flip it a second time to restore the electron's original state. Is something like this true or is my memory playing tricks on me? --72.70.23.153 18:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Something like that is true due to the fact that it's a spin 1/2 particle. It would be better to say that you have to rotate its wavefunction 720 degrees, though. I have to say that I've never really understood this, so perhaps someone who has grokked quantum better than me can give a better explanation? --Strait 19:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

electron splitting

I've removed text about electron splitting. Let me say how I roughly understand the thing about electrons.

As was first emphasized by Feynmann, all electrons are exactly indistinguishable. That's indeed a very nontrivial statement that couldn't be even stated before quantum mechanics. However, it has to be true according to both our theoretical knowledge (quantum field theory that describes electrons) and all experiments (intereference in double-slit experiments, for example, requires that electrons are exactly the same). That shows that you cannot split electron.

However, you can prepare electron in some state. It's typical in thought experimants to prepare electron in a state where it has definite spin in x axis, and therefore doesn't have a definite spin in z axis. When you try to perform а measurement of z-axis spin this electron effectively works as a combination of spin up plus spin down with a probability 1/2. That's not a half-electron. That's a state that you can try to measure and you see with probability 1/2 the whole electron with spin up and with complementary probability the whole electron with spin down. Probabilities don't have to be halves here if you select different axis.

Similarly, you can cook electron wavefunction that doesn't have a defined position. When you measure it in some specific region you either have a whole electron or you have no electron at all. But this can happen with some probability.

Description of electron in terms of wavefunction is only valid when you restrict yourself to signle electron (and then it must square-integrate to 1). In real QED electrons can be produced or disappearing, so the correct description involves multi-particle states.

That's why splitting electron wavefunction is a crap.

user:ilya

Are electrons planets?

http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/solaratoms.htm

I would like to see some arguments and some information on this subject in this wiki article. I also tried to add the above link but was unable to do so out of fear of screwing up the page.

Thanks, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by H4eafy (talk • contribs) 09:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Well, this is purely philosophical. I mean, it's just a rough comparison. It isn't anything practical since I doubt there can be life on an electron, and in molecules, atoms "share" electrons, which would compare to solar systems sharing planets (not really a highly rational idea). Also, what would you compare the moon circling around the earth to? Good thing you didn't add the link, since it's completely irrelevant, not to mention erroneus. Slartibartfast1992 20:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• From [2]:

so·lar1 /ˈsoʊlər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[soh-ler] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective 1. of or pertaining to the sun: solar phenomena.

nucleus=/=sun, therefore atoms=/= solar systems. QED. Backsigns 12:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The major trouble with this idea is that the only way the atom resembles a solar system and electrons resemble planets and the nucleus resembles a sun, is that way back when people had no idea what the atom was like, an understandable model which became popular was that the atom resembles a solar system. About as realistic as saying your family resembles a solar system with your dad and mom as the sun and all the kids as planets. It's a model to some degree, but in no way physically realistic. The electron manifests itself in ways which under some tests, resemble a physical particle orbiting the nucleus; but in other tests, it behaves nothing like that. Similar to the models of the brain throughout the centures; first the brain resembled a hydraulic system; then it resembled a telephone switchboard; then it resembled a hologram; now it resembles a computer. None of which are physically realistic.Gzuckier 15:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Which direction electron spins?

counterclockwise or clockwise? Also in which direction it rotates around atoms?

Spin is just a label used by physicists which can either be one of two values - "up" or "down". It doesn't have anything to do with the normal meanings of the words, it's just a label. See spin (physics).

Also, the electrons don't really rotate, but the probability of where it is spreads around where the orbit would be. Both these are quantum effects.

Ask on the science reference desk for a better answer. --h2g2bob (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

delocalized electrons

could someone more knowledgeable than I insert delocalized electrons somewhere in the article? --MKnight9989 12:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

after glow of fluorescent lamp

I have two lamps using recently installed fluorescent bulbs that are connected to the same on/off switch. A couple of nights ago I noticed that one of the bulbs was glowing dimly even though the switch was in the off position while the other bulb remained dark. The switch itself is designed to glow when in the off positon but I am wondering why the bulb does. It will glow for awhile and then go off and then come back on. Sometimes it will get brighter if I touch it. I tried switching the bulbs from one lamp to the other and only the same bulb does this in either lamp. Any ideas on what may be causing this? Please respond to makewine@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.108.3.241 (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know but I've noticed the same thing in fluorescent tubes, as well as TV screens (CRT). I suspect phosphorescence. Gzuckier 15:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

Electrons are obviously not neutral, they carry a small negative charge. Article tagged as it should be.204.187.34.100 05:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. Melchoir 06:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Electraqanta

I was just wondering if the electron was the quanta of electromagnetism. If this is the case than how can it be magnetically atracted to a, for example, proton? They would ave to exchange magnetism quanta, meaning electrons! Can someone plese help? 76.188.26.92 21:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the quantum of electromagnetic force is the photon. 81.174.226.229 (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Je m'y perde.

When my class was talking about electrons I commented to my science teacher that light was a photon (another person asked what light was). She said that was true, but that the photon is a type of electron. If this is so, than couldn't some electrons trael at c? I think she is wrong nut need to know for sure. Can someone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.26.92 (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

She's wrong. Photons and electrons are different. Electrons can't travel at c because they have mass. 81.174.226.229 (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Finding the actual position of an electron is now possible. http://www.livescience.com/php/video/player.php?video_id=080222-ElectronRide 71.191.70.153 (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Adam.

Chemical bonding

I thought it was the interaction of an atom's electron field with that of another atom that was the prime mechanism of chemical bonding. I thought it was really nothing to do with nuclei. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.25.222 (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC) Thinkact (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

does anybody no wat electrons are —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.23.209 (talk) 03:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Electrons and chemistry

Sorry if I offended anybody especially theoretical physicists with my brief section on the above, but owing to the enormous importance of the electrons in the atomic and molecular structure, bonding, and chemical reactions I feel that the subject is treated much too superficially here, surely deserving better treatment. LouisBB (talk) 05:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Negatrons and positrons

The comment on "negatrons" needed a citation to indicate this terminology is still occasionally encountered today. Schweber uses the term "negaton" instead of "electron" in the cited book, "An Introduction to Relativistic Quantum Field Theory", but does not seem to use the word "electron" to mean either a negaton or a positron, perhaps to avoid ambiguity. Can anyone provide an example of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.162.62 (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

To those persons wondering about the need for a particle in nuclear physics with the properties of an electron I suggest that you call up a picture of the Whirlpool galaxy and think about the physics of the event. Here we have a lot nucleons and atoms being accumulated under conditions (I call it chaotic} of occurrence of an excessive amount of angular momentum (Mvr), and the nucleons of the atomic nuclei don't have a way of getting rid of any significant amount. So who you gonna call? You guessed it! the electron. Now the next question is, of course, how does the electron get rid of angular momentum, and that's what the argument is all about. Now when Neils Bohr postulated his orbits he actually worried about their angular momentum properties but now we're smarter and have orbitals which dont have angular momentum but only energy levels and probably values. And we've got around the angular momentum problem by defining the emissions of the electron in units of erg-seconds, which of course has the same dimensional units as does angular momentum. So I can't explain how the electrons get rid of excess angular momentum and you're on your own. But I'm pretty sure you'll see the need for electrons in the physical accumulation process. WFPMWFPM (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)