“shape” here is a meaningless concept and the article title is tiring bullshit clickbait, as per usual. The real thing is that they were able to better predict where elections may be found, and in what state, or (as another comment very nicely put it) they managed to mmsoet of make a population density map for electrons
The usual misleading sensationalistic title. It isn’t the “shape of the electron” at all. A less misleading – but still not quite correct – explanation is that they have determined the statistical distribution of electron quantum states in a material. Very roughly speaking, it tells us where we’re more or less likely to find an electron in the material, and in what kind of state. Somewhat very distantly like a population density graph on a geographical map. Determining such a population density doesn’t mean “revealing the shape of a person”.
The paper can also be found on arXiv. What they determine is the so-called quantum geometric tensor. I find the paper’s abstract also misleading:
The Quantum Geometric Tensor (QGT) is a central physical object…
but it’s a statistical object more than a “physical” one.
It’s a very neat and important study, and I don’t understand the need to be so misleading about it :(
sepi@piefed.social
on 26 Jan 2025 15:39
nextcollapse
Uh... So are they like tiny basketballs or what?
Aquila@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Jan 2025 20:22
nextcollapse
The question of what an electron really is, is still open as far as I know. Even the question of whether it’s a “particle”, is still open. In many or most theories the question of “what it is” is somewhat bypassed. In quantum field theory you describe electrons as a field (like the electromagnetic field), but all fields have the peculiar property that they show energy exchanges in very localized, point-like regions of space – that’s why you can think of them as particles sometimes. Take a look at Wald’s book to get an idea.
There are even still open theories that try to describe electrons as mini charged black holes; not to speak about strings, and so on…
cynar@lemmy.world
on 27 Jan 2025 12:22
nextcollapse
They are a quantised wave in the electromagnet field. The concept of shape or object size breaks down at this level.
Some scientists refer to them as point like, since we can’t measure any diameter on them. It’s more likely tied to their current wavelength. The faster they move, the more energy they have, and the shorter the wavelength. The shorter their wavelength, the smaller they are. Unfortunately this is also a vector (speed and direction) so their shape is different depending on the direction you measure them. Even more confusing, relativity comes to play too. Their velocity is different for different observers, therefore their apparent size is different.
Most experiments don’t bother dealing with this however. They just assume it’s point like, and that seems to align very well with experimental results.
threaded - newest
Not gonna lie, I was hoping there’d be an image of the shape…
Thanks, saved me the click
“shape” here is a meaningless concept and the article title is tiring bullshit clickbait, as per usual. The real thing is that they were able to better predict where elections may be found, and in what state, or (as another comment very nicely put it) they managed to mmsoet of make a population density map for electrons
The usual misleading sensationalistic title. It isn’t the “shape of the electron” at all. A less misleading – but still not quite correct – explanation is that they have determined the statistical distribution of electron quantum states in a material. Very roughly speaking, it tells us where we’re more or less likely to find an electron in the material, and in what kind of state. Somewhat very distantly like a population density graph on a geographical map. Determining such a population density doesn’t mean “revealing the shape of a person”.
The paper can also be found on arXiv. What they determine is the so-called quantum geometric tensor. I find the paper’s abstract also misleading:
but it’s a statistical object more than a “physical” one.
It’s a very neat and important study, and I don’t understand the need to be so misleading about it :(
Uh... So are they like tiny basketballs or what?
Teleporting basketballs
The question of what an electron really is, is still open as far as I know. Even the question of whether it’s a “particle”, is still open. In many or most theories the question of “what it is” is somewhat bypassed. In quantum field theory you describe electrons as a field (like the electromagnetic field), but all fields have the peculiar property that they show energy exchanges in very localized, point-like regions of space – that’s why you can think of them as particles sometimes. Take a look at Wald’s book to get an idea.
There are even still open theories that try to describe electrons as mini charged black holes; not to speak about strings, and so on…
They are a quantised wave in the electromagnet field. The concept of shape or object size breaks down at this level.
Some scientists refer to them as point like, since we can’t measure any diameter on them. It’s more likely tied to their current wavelength. The faster they move, the more energy they have, and the shorter the wavelength. The shorter their wavelength, the smaller they are. Unfortunately this is also a vector (speed and direction) so their shape is different depending on the direction you measure them. Even more confusing, relativity comes to play too. Their velocity is different for different observers, therefore their apparent size is different.
Most experiments don’t bother dealing with this however. They just assume it’s point like, and that seems to align very well with experimental results.
Bro a whole wall of text, didn't even answer if they were like basketballs or no. Wow.
More like this: …wikimedia.org/…/Reddy_Kilowatt_with_wall_outlet_…
Thank you!
Science journalism doesn’t require science degrees… but it really should.
that is not the shape of my electron