Electrons & Photons: Are They Tiny Gaseous Planets?

[nescient]

I am not sure if this is the way to ask questions here but having nobody to ask and little time, i hope i can get a fast reply here.
So since the scaler the universe above us i.e. bigger than us is so huge and we aren't even sure about it further than sight (acc to my book), isn't it just like plausible that there would be much more fundamental stuff then we expect. The spatial scale is a weird thing. Matter changes forms at different scales of clustering.
My question ig would be, isn't it plausible that the electrons and photons are like tiny gaseous planets or smth?
with the gases being analogous to even much more fundamental particles?

That'd explain both the dual natures.

 

[pinball1970]

I am not sure if this is the way to ask questions here but having nobody to ask and little time, i hope i can get a fast reply here.
So since the scaler the universe above us i.e. bigger than us is so huge and we aren't even sure about it further than sight (acc to my book), isn't it just like plausible that there would be much more fundamental stuff then we expect. The spatial scale is a weird thing. Matter changes forms at different scales of clustering.
My question ig would be, isn't it plausible that the electrons and photons are like tiny gaseous planets or smth?
with the gases being analogous to even much more fundamental particles?

That'd explain both the dual natures.

Just Google wiki both these things. Photon and electron.

 

[nescient]

I was not aware i needed to know more about them, you think so? Did you understand my doubt? is it invalid due to lack of basic knowledge? Thanks for the reply!

 

[nescient]

Just Google wiki both these things. Photon and electron.

oh, i shouldve mentioned you.

 

[pinball1970]

oh, i shouldve mentioned you.

Apologies I was not trying to be a jerk. You will get a lot of good information from wiki.
Have a read then ask your questions, there are professional scientists on this site.
I use the site for this very reason.
EDIT: Also just a quick mention that personal theories are not allowed. There is over 120 years of published Science to get your teeth into.
That is what is discussed and trust me, that is enough.

 

[Astronuc]

My question ig would be, isn't it plausible that the electrons and photons are like tiny gaseous planets or smth?

This question is somewhat unintelligible. What is smth?

It is our understanding that electrons and photons are fundamental. They are not considered composite particles.

Electrons have mass, photons do not have mass. All electrons are considered to identical, each having the same rest mass. Photons have different energy, which is their defining characteristic more or less. They are not like 'tiny gaseous planets'.

isn't it just like plausible that there would be much more fundamental stuff then we expect.

It's possible, but difficult to quantify/ascertain. If we accept/believe the local physics is the same at the furthest observed part of the universe, then we believe we expect we would observe other fundamental particles locally, if they existed. As far as we can observe, the physics is the same locally as it is far far away.

with the gases being analogous to even much more fundamental particles?

No. A composite particle would consist of a collection of fundamental particles.

Electrons are not considered composite particles.

In addition to learning about photons and electrons, one should also research nucleons (protons, neutrons), which are composite particles consisting of quarks, which are considered fundamental particles. Also, learn about atoms, with nuclei consisting of protons and neutrons, which are surrounded by electrons.

 

[nescient]

I

Apologies I was not trying to be a jerk. You will get a lot of good information from wiki.
Have a read then ask your questions, there are professional scientists on this site.
I use the site for this very reason.
EDIT: Also just a quick mention that personal theories are not allowed. There is over 120 years of published Science to get your teeth into.
That is what is discussed and trust me, that is enough.

Noted! i have no contact to tell me these things or discuss with (mentioning for context) so far from offended I am indebted to you. Also i'd like to apologise for wasting your time and thank you a lot for taking time to answer and for informing me about the prestige of this site.

 

[pinball1970]

I

Noted! i have no contact to tell me these things or discuss with (mentioning for context) so far from offended I am indebted to you. Also i'd like to apologise for wasting your time and thank you a lot for taking time to answer and for informing me about the prestige of this site.

No problem. Astronuc posted to you so I would check that out.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I was not aware i needed to know more about them, you think so?

You seem to feel that you know 'enough' about them to suggest an alternative theory about their natures. That may be where you went wrong - from the point of view of Physics Forums - if you wanted to get any good answers. There are plenty of forums about that would be prepared to discuss totally unfounded ideas. Just do a Google search using some of your proposed model as search terms. Many other people would be only too happy to engage with you.

PF's brief is to discuss established theories or credible new evidence. You haven't given us either of those so you can't expect gentle replies. Sorry.

 

[nescient]

This question is somewhat unintelligible. What is smth?

It is our understanding that electrons and photons are fundamental. They are not considered composite particles.

Electrons have mass, photons do not have mass. All electrons are considered to identical, each having the same rest mass. Photons have different energy, which is their defining characteristic more or less. They are not like 'tiny gaseous planets'.It's possible, but difficult to quantify/ascertain. If we accept/believe the local physics is the same at the furthest observed part of the universe, then we believe we expect we would observe other fundamental particles locally, if they existed. As far as we can observe, the physics is the same locally as it is far far away.No. A composite particle would consist of a collection of fundamental particles.

Electrons are not considered composite particles.

In addition to learning about photons and electrons, one should also research nucleons (protons, neutrons), which are composite particles consisting of quarks, which are considered fundamental particles. Also, learn about atoms, with nuclei consisting of protons and neutrons, which are surrounded by electrons.

This question is somewhat unintelligible. What is smth?

It is our understanding that electrons and photons are fundamental. They are not considered composite particles.

Electrons have mass, photons do not have mass. All electrons are considered to identical, each having the same rest mass. Photons have different energy, which is their defining characteristic more or less. They are not like 'tiny gaseous planets'.It's possible, but difficult to quantify/ascertain. If we accept/believe the local physics is the same at the furthest observed part of the universe, then we believe we expect we would observe other fundamental particles locally, if they existed. As far as we can observe, the physics is the same locally as it is far far away.No. A composite particle would consist of a collection of fundamental particles.

Electrons are not considered composite particles.

In addition to learning about photons and electrons, one should also research nucleons (protons, neutrons), which are composite particles consisting of quarks, which are considered fundamental particles. Also, learn about atoms, with nuclei consisting of protons and neutrons, which are surrounded by electrons.

smth, is a filler, short for 'something'. Sorry about that i just wasn't aware up until now about the kinds of professionals here till mr. pinball pointed it out.

My doubt is based on more personal theories and many of them could highly be oversights.
Though its just hard to imagine 'a wave nature' when the teachers start with calling have a disturbance and then just slyly transition to vacuum and never give direct answers.

It really was just very hard to imagine quantization and waves at the same time. Since a mechanical rope wave for instance has force acting up and down and so do vibrations (at least in two direction), so what makes the photons or wave of the same origin keep going in in one direction one after the another? Having that doubt i had moved onto dual nature topic A elementary science (w.r.t your standards) and it just made sense that it they were further smaller particles then that would explain why they act like waves in a hindered motion (diffraction or double slit) and as a particle in unhindered motion as the fundamental particles would scatter or something. It was silly. Just assuming more fundamental particles helped me imagine it and i thought id verify if its possible before solidifying it.

It also makes it easier to imagine the absorption of a photon (its energy ik) by an electron to move to a higher energy level.

Plus the fact that we don't even know the real range of the universe, what's above, what's below, doesn't help.

Thank you deeply for interacting, i apologise for using your time.

 

[nescient]

You seem to feel that you know 'enough' about them to suggest an alternative theory about their natures. That may be where you went wrong - from the point of view of Physics Forums - if you wanted to get any good answers. There are plenty of forums about that would be prepared to discuss totally unfounded ideas. Just do a Google search using some of your proposed model as search terms. Many other people would be only too happy to engage with you.

PF's brief is to discuss established theories or credible new evidence. You haven't given us either of those so you can't expect gentle replies. Sorry.

Yes, you are right. And no i was not expecting gentle replies, I wasn't aware of the nature of this site. I do seem to feel i know enough, though not about science as it is, but about reality i suppose. SORRY to all you folks honestly. I swear i tried to find other sites but mostly no one answers satisfactorily. Take for example the question, my do we need 'displacement' when the reality is distance. I couldn't find the answer. Then i reasoned that since almost all of science we humans have developed is for practical uses only, that is why we need relative quantities like time, and others built on it. And furthermore, it wasn't a conscious decision to develop the concept of time, it's something that was evolutionarily inherent.

Thank you for spending your time to inform me, again. I'm indebted much. No further offences lol.

 

[pinball1970]

smth, is a filler, short for 'something'. Sorry about that i just wasn't aware up until now about the kinds of professionals here till mr. pinball pointed it out.

My doubt is based on more personal theories and many of them could highly be oversights.
Though its just hard to imagine 'a wave nature' when the teachers start with calling have a disturbance and then just slyly transition to vacuum and never give direct answers.

It really was just very hard to imagine quantization and waves at the same time. Since a mechanical rope wave for instance has force acting up and down and so do vibrations (at least in two direction), so what makes the photons or wave of the same origin keep going in in one direction one after the another? Having that doubt i had moved onto dual nature topic A elementary science (w.r.t your standards) and it just made sense that it they were further smaller particles then that would explain why they act like waves in a hindered motion (diffraction or double slit) and as a particle in unhindered motion as the fundamental particles would scatter or something. It was silly. Just assuming more fundamental particles helped me imagine it and i thought id verify if its possible before solidifying it.

It also makes it easier to imagine the absorption of a photon (its energy ik) by an electron to move to a higher energy level.

Plus the fact that we don't even know the real range of the universe, what's above, what's below, doesn't help.

Thank you deeply for interacting, i apologise for using your time.

Asking questions is always good.

You looked it up? Good!

An electron has some mass. The photon as far as they can tell does not.
The electron is a particle, up to now a fundamental particle and part of the standard model.
The photon is a force carrier for the electron but this may be a clumsy description. @vanhees71 could give a heuristic explanation

 

[sophiecentaur]

Take for example the question, my do we need 'displacement' when the reality is distance.

That's an easy one; it's a matter if definition. If you go for a walk from home and cover 10 miles but you end up back at home, your final displacement is zero but the distance you walked is 10 miles. The distinction is often vital.

I couldn't find the answer.

Where could you have been looking? I googled "displacement and distance" and there were dozens of hits.

 

[jbriggs444]

That's an easy one; it's a matter if definition. If you go for a walk from home and cover 10 miles but you end up back at home, your final displacement is zero but the distance you walked is 10 miles. The distinction is often vital.

Where could you have been looking? I googled "displacement and distance" and there were dozens of hits.

@sophiecentaur has pointed to one distinction between "distance" and "displacement" - the distinction between actual path length and shortest possible path length (the distinction between distance between the endpoints and the odometer delta after traversing a path).

There is another distinction. A distance is a scalar quantity. A displacement is, in general, a vector.

For example, the "distance" between Davenport and Iowa City is 60 miles.

The "displacement" of Iowa City from Davenport is 60 miles westward. Meanwhile, the "displacement" of Davenport from Iowa City is 60 miles eastward (or -60 miles westward).

If one drives through Muscatine along the way, the path length will be a bit more than 60 miles. But I-80 is just so boring. Unless you like truck stops. Walcott has the "world's largest".

 

[Drakkith]

It really was just very hard to imagine quantization and waves at the same time. Since a mechanical rope wave for instance has force acting up and down and so do vibrations (at least in two direction), so what makes the photons or wave of the same origin keep going in in one direction one after the another?

The waves are not physical waves like in a rope where real particles with momentum and mass are alternately moving back and forth. The wave-like properties of particles is something more abstract that can't easily be reconciled with everyday logic. For example, an electron bound to a proton to form a hydrogen atom can be described with a wavefunction. But this doesn't mean the electron is moving around the proton in a wave-like motion. Instead it means that the probability of finding the electron at some particular point around the proton is determined by math that is very similar to that which describes classic waves like water waves or sound waves.

This wave-like math means that certain things that can happen in classical waves, such as interference, also happens to particles and systems of particles. Hence why electrons bound to atoms have 'nodes' where they have a zero chance of being found. These are functionally identical to the nodes of a vibrating string, like a guitar string, when vibrating at a single, fixed frequency. These nodes are locations where the string doesn't move at all, just like the nodes where the electrons can't be found.

And, just like how only certain frequencies can be sustained on a plucked guitar string, only certain 'frequencies' of these electron states can be occupied by an electron. That's where we get the quantum numbers of chemistry like shell, subshell, etc.

 

[bland]

@nescient, sometimes you just have to sit back and marvel at the awe and majesty of it all!