What is an Electron? How Times Have Changed

When the electron, the first subatomic particle to be identified, was discovered in 1897, it was thought to be a tiny speck with electric charge, moving around on a path governed by the forces of electricity, magnetism and gravity. This was just as one would expect for any small object, given the incredibly successful approach to physics that had been initiated by Galileo and Newton and carried onward into the 19th century.

But this view didn’t last long. Less than 15 years later, physicists learned that an atom has a tiny nucleus with positive electric charge and most of an atom’s mass. This made it clear that something was deeply wrong, because if Newton’s and Maxwell’s laws applied, then all the electrons in an atom should have spiraled into the nucleus in less than a second.

From 1913 to 1925, physicists struggled toward a new vision of the electron. They had great breakthroughs and initial successes in the late 1920s. But still, something was off. They did not really find what they were looking for until the end of the 1940s.

Most undergraduates in physics, philosophers who are interested in physics, and general readers mainly learn about quantum physics of the 1920s, that of Heisenberg, Born, Jordan and of Schrödinger. The methods developed at that time, often called “quantum mechanics” for historical reasons, represented the first attempt by physicists to make sense of the atomic, molecular, and subatomic world. Quantum mechanics is all you need to know if you just want to do chemistry, quantum computing, or most atomic physics. It forms the basis of many books about the applications of quantum physics, including those read by most non-experts. The strange puzzles of quantum physics, including the double-slit experiment that I reviewed recently, and many attempts to interpret or alter quantum physics, are often phrased using this 1920s-era approach.

What often seems to be forgotten is that 1920s quantum physics does not agree with data. It’s an approximation, and sometimes a very good one. But it is inconsistent with Einstein’s relativity principle, a cornerstone of the cosmos. This is in contrast to the math and concepts that replaced it, known as relativistic quantum field theory. Importantly, electrons in quantum field theory are very different from the electrons of the 1920s.

And so, when trying to make ultimate conceptual sense of the universe, we should always be careful to test our ideas using quantum field theory, not relying on the physics of the 1920s. Otherwise we risk developing an interpretation which is inconsistent with data, at a huge cost in wasted time. Meanwhile, when we do use the 1920s viewpoint, we should always remember its limitations, and question its implications.

Overview

Before I go into details, here’s an overview.

I have argued strongly in my book and on this blog that calling electrons “particles” is misleading, and one needs to remember this if one wants to understand them. One might instead consider calling them “wavicles“, a term itself from the 1920s that I find appropriate. You may not like this term, and I don’t insist that you adopt it. What’s important is that you understand the conceptual point that the term is intended to convey.

Most crucially, electrons as wavicles is an idea from quantum field theory, not from the 1920s (though a few people, like de Broglie, were on the right track.) In the viewpoint of 1920s quantum physics, electrons are not wavicles. They are particles. Quantum particles.

Before quantum physics, an electron was described as an object with a position and a velocity (or a momentum, which is the electron’s mass times its velocity), moving through the world along a precise path. But in 1920s quantum physics, an electron is described as a particle with a position or a momentum, or some compromise between the two; its path is not definite.

In Schrödinger’s viewpoint [and I emphasize that there are others — his approach is just the most familiar to non-experts], there is a quantum wave function (or more accurately, a quantum state) that tells us the probabilities for the particle’s behavior: where we might find it, and where it might be going.

A wave function must not be identified with the particle itself. No matter how many particles there are, there is only one wave function. Specifically, if there are two electrons, then a single quantum wave function tells us the probabilities for their joint behavior — for the behavior of the system of two electrons. The two electrons are not independent of one another; in quantum physics I can’t say what one’s behavior might be without worrying about what the other is doing. The wave function describes the two electrons, but it is not either one of them.

Then we get to quantum field theory of the late 1940s and beyond. Now we view an electron as a wave — as a ripple in a field, known as the electron field. The whole field, across all of space, has to be described by the wave function, not just the one electron. (In fact, that’s not right either: our wave function has to simultaneously describe all the universe’s fields.) This is very different conceptually from the ’20s; the electron is never an object with a precise position, and instead it is generally spread out.

So it’s really, really important to remember that it is relativistic quantum field theory that universally agrees with experiments, not the quantum physics of the ’20s. If we forget this, we risk drawing wrong conclusions from the latter. Moreover, it becomes impossible to understand what modern particle physicists are talking about, because our description of the physics of “particles” relies on relativistic quantum field theory.

The Electron Over Time

Let me now go into more detail, with hope of giving you some intuition for how things have changed from 1900 to 1925 to 1950.

1900: Electrons Before Quantum Physics

A Simple Particle

Pre-quantum physics (such as one learns in a first-year undergraduate course) treats an electron as a particle with a definite position which changes in a definite way over time; it has a definite speed v which represents the rate of the change of its position. The particle also has definite momentum p equal to its mass m times its speed v. Scientists call this a “classical particle”, because it’s what Isaac Newton himself, the founder of old-school (“classical”) physics would have meant by the word “particle”.

Two Simple Particles

Two particles are just two of these objects. That’s obvious, right? [Seems as though it ought to be. But as we’ll see, quantum physics says that not only isn’t it obvious, it’s false.]

Two Particles in the “Space of Possibilities”

But now I’m going to do something that may seem unnecessarily complicated — a bit mind-bending for no obvious purpose. I want to describe the motion of these two particles not in the physical space in which they individually move but instead in the space of possibilities for two-particle system, viewed as a whole.

Why? Well, in classical physics, it’s often useful, but it’s also unnecessary. I can tell you where the two particles are in physical space and be done with it. But it quantum physics I cannot. The two particles do not, in general, exist independently. The system must be viewed as a whole. So to understand how quantum physics works, we need to understand the space of possibilities for two classical particles.

This isn’t that hard, even if it’s unfamiliar. Instead of depicting the two particles as two independent dots at two locations A and B along the line shown in Fig. 2, I will instead depict the system by indicating a point in a two-dimensional plane, where

• the horizontal axis depicts where the first particle is located
• the vertical axis depicts where the second particle is located

To make sure that you remember that I am not depicting any one particle but rather the system of two particles, I have drawn what the system is doing at this moment as a star in this two-dimensional space of possibilities. Notice the star is located at A along the horizontal axis and at B along the vertical axis, indicating that one particle is at A and the other is at B.

Moreover, in contrast to the two arrows in physical space that I have drawn in Fig. 2, each one indicating the motion of the corresponding particle, I have drawn a single arrow in the space of possibilities, indicating how the system is changing over time. As you can see from Fig. 2,

• the first particle is moving from A to the right in physical space, which corresponds to rightward motion along the horizontal axis of Fig. 3;
• the second particle is moving from B to the left in physical space, which corresponds to downward motion along the vertical axis in Fig. 3;

and so the arrow indicating how the system is changing over time points downward and to the right. It points more to the right than downward, because the motion of the particle at A is faster than the motion of the particle at B.

Why didn’t I bother to make a version of Fig. 3 for the case of just one particle? That’s because for just one particle, physical space and the space of possibilities are the same, so the pictures would be identical.

I suggest you take some time to compare Figs. 2 and 3 until the relationship is clear. It’s an important conceptual step, without which even 1920s quantum physics can’t make sense.

If you’re having trouble with it, try this post, in which I gave another example, a bit more elaborate but with more supporting discussion.

1925: Electrons in 1920s Quantum Physics

A Quantum Particle

1920s quantum physics, as one learns in an upper-level undergraduate course, treats an electron as a particle with position x and momentum p that are never simultaneously definite, and both are generally indefinite to a greater or lesser degree. The more definite the position, the less definite the momentum can be, and vice versa; that’s Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle applied to a particle. Since these properties of a particle are indefinite, quantum physics only tells us about their statistical likelihoods. A single electron is described by a wave function (or “state vector”) that gives us the probabilities of it having, at a particular moment in time, a specific location x₀ or specific momentum p₀. I’ll call this a “quantum particle”.

How can we depict this? For a single particle, it’s easy — so easy that it’s misleading, as we’ll see when we go to two particles. All we have to do is show what the wave function looks like; and the wave function [actually the square of the wave function] tells us about the probability of where we might find the particle. This is indicated in Fig. 4.

As I mentioned earlier, the case of one particle is special, because the space of possibilities is the same as physical space. That’s potentially misleading. So rather than think too hard about this picture, where there are many potentially misleading elements, let’s go to two particles, where things look much more complicated, but are actually much clearer once you understand them.

Two Quantum Particles

Always remember: it’s not one wave function per particle. It’s one wave function for each isolated system of particles. Two electrons are also described by a single wave function, one that gives us the probability of, say, electron 1 being at location A while electron 2 is simultaneously at location B. That function cannot be expressed in physical space! It can only be expressed in the space of possibilities, because it never tells us the probability of finding the first electron at position 1 independent of what electron 2 is doing.

In other words, there is no analogue of Fig. 2. Quantum physics is too subtle to be squeezed easily into a description in physical space. Instead, all we can look for is a generalization of Fig. 3.

And when we do, we might find something like what is shown in Fig. 5; in contrast to Fig. 4, where the wave function gives us a rough idea of where we may find a single particle, now the wave function gives us a rough idea of what the system of two particles may be doing — and more precisely, it gives us the probability for any one thing that the two particles, collectively, might be doing. Compare this figure to Fig. 2.

In Fig. 2, we know what the system is doing; particle 1 is at position A and particle 2 is at position B, and we know how their positions are changing with time. In Fig. 5 we know the wave function and how it is changing with time, but the wave function only gives us probabilities for where the particles might be found — namely that they are near position A and position B, respectively, but exactly can’t be known known until we measure, at which point the wave function will change dramatically, and all information about the particles’ motions will be lost. Nor, even though roughly that they are headed right and left respectively, we can’t know exactly where they are going unless we measure their momenta, again changing the wave function dramatically, and all information about the particles’ positions will be lost.

And again, if this is too hard to follow, try this post, in which I gave another example, a bit more complicated but with more supporting discussion.

1950: Electrons in Modern Quantum Field Theory

1940s-1950s relativistic quantum field theory, as a future particle physicist typically learns in graduate school, treats electrons as wave-like objects — as ripples in the electron field.

[[[NOTA BENE: I wrote “the ElectrON field”, not “the electrIC field”. The electrIC field is something altogether different!!!]]]

The electron field (like any cosmic field) is found everywhere in physical space.

(Be very careful not to confuse a field, defined in physical space, with a wave function, which is defined on the space of possibilities, a much larger, abstract space. The universe has many fields in its physical space, but only one wave function across the abstract space of all its possibilities.)

In quantum field theory, an electron has a definite mass, but as a ripple, it can be given any shape, and it is always undergoing rapid vibration, even when stationary. It does not have a position x, unlike the particles found in 1920s quantum field theory, though it can (very briefly) be shaped into a rather localized object. It cannot be divided into pieces, even if its shape is very broadly spread out. Nevertheless it is possible to create or destroy electrons one at a time (along with either a positron [the electron’s anti-particle] or an anti-neutrino.) This rather odd object is what I would mean by a “wavicle”; it is a particulate, indivisible, faint wave.

Meanwhile, there is a wave function for the whole field (really for all the cosmic fields at once), and so that whole notion is vastly more complicated than in 1920s physics. In particular, the space of possibilities, where the wave function is defined, is the space of all possible shapes for the field! This is a gigantic space, because it takes an infinite amount of information to specify a field’s shape. (After all, you have to tell me what the field’s strength is at each point in space, and there are an infinite number of such points.) That means that the space of possibilities now has an infinite number of dimensions! So the wave function is a function of an infinite number of variables, making it completely impossible to draw, generally useless for calculations, and far beyond what any human brain can envision.

It’s almost impossible to figure out how to convey all this in a picture. Below is my best attempt, and it’s not one I’m very proud of. Someday I may think of something better.

I’ve drawn the single electron in physical space, and indicated one possible shape for the field representing this electron, along with a blur and a question mark to emphasize that we don’t generally know the shape for the field — analogous to the fact that when I drew one electron in Fig. 4, there was a blur and question mark that indicated that we don’t generally know the position of the particle in 1920s quantum physics.

[There actually is a way to draw what a single, isolated particle’s wave function looks like in a space of possibilities, but you have to scramble that space in a clever way, far beyond what I can explain right now. We’ll see it later this year.]

Ugh. Writing about quantum physics, even about non-controversial issues, is really hard. The only thing I can confidently hope to have conveyed here is that there is a very big difference between electrons as they were understood and described in 1920’s quantum physics and electrons as they are described in modern quantum field theory. If we get stuck in the 1920’s, the math and concepts that we apply to puzzles like the double slit experiment and “spooky action at a distance” are never going to be quite right.

As for what’s wrong with Figure 6, there are so many things, some incidental, some fundamental:

• The picture I’ve drawn would be somewhat accurate for a Higgs boson as a ripple in the Higgs field. But an electron is a fermion, not a boson, and trying to draw the ripple without being misleading is kind of impossible.
• The electron field is given by a complex numbers, and in fact more than one, so drawing it as though it has a shape like the one shown in Fig. 6 is an oversimplification.
• At best, Fig. 6 sketches how an electron would look if it didn’t experience any forces. But because electrons are electrically charged and do experience electric and magnetic forces, we can’t just show the electron field without showing the electromagnetic field too; the wave function for an electron deeply involves both. That gets super-complicated.
• The wave function is suggested by a vague blur, but in fact it always has more structure than can be depicted here.
• And there are probably more issues, as I’m sure some readers will point out. Go ahead and do so; it’s better to state all the flaws out loud.

What about two electrons — two ripples in the electron field? This is currently beyond my abilities to sketch. Even ignoring the effects of electric and magnetic forces, describing two electrons in quantum field theory in a picture like Fig. 6 seems truly impossible. For one thing, because electrons are precisely identical in quantum field theory, there are always correlations between the two electrons that cannot be avoided — they can never be independent, in the way that two classical electrons are. (In fact this correlation even affects Fig. 5; I ignored this issue to keep things simpler.) So they really cannot be depicted in physical space. But the space of possibilities is far too enormous for any depiction (unless we do some serious rescrambling — again, something for later in the year, and even then it will only work for bosons.)

And what should you take away from this? Some things about quantum physics can be understood using 1920’s language, but not the nature of electrons and other elementary “particles”. When we try to extract profound lessons from quantum physics without using quantum field theory, we have to be very careful to make sure that those lessons still apply when we try to bring them to the cosmos we really live in — a cosmos for which 1920’s quantum physics proved just as imperfect, though still useful, as the older laws of Newton and Maxwell.