Re: The Electron

[Larry Cartwright <exit60@CABLESPEED.COM>]

Josh Green wrote:
> I'm not so much concerned with something I can draw on a piece
> of paper as much as something I can imagine.

What we really "know" about the electron and other subatomic particles
may not lead to them being "things" that we can can easily imagine. 
Perhaps a first step in being able to more accurately imagine them would
be to stop calling them "particles".  Consider the following from a 1998
essay by Steven Weinberg, whose Nobel prize is one testimony to his
grasp of the topic:
 
"The Standard Model is a field theory, which means that it takes the
basic constituents of nature to be fields —- conditions of space,
considered apart from any matter that may be in it, like the magnetic
field that pulls bits of iron toward the poles of a bar magnet -— rather
than particles."

"In the past two decades it has been realized that any theory based on
quantum mechanics and relativity will look like a field theory when
experiments are done at sufficiently low energies.  The Standard Model
is today widely regarded as an 'effective field theory,' a low-energy
approximation to some unknown fundamental theory that may not involve
fields at all."

Best wishes,

Larry

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Larry Cartwright               Retired Physics Teacher
<exit60@cablespeed.com>        Charlotte MI 48813 USA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Information is not knowledge, 
 knowledge is not wisdom, 
 and wisdom is not foresight. 
 Each grows out of the other and we need them all." 
                                    (Arthur C. Clarke)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~