Can electrons be made?

Take a look at a Feynmann diagram for electron-positron pair creation from a photon.

No, we don't know what electrons are made of.

Theoretically, the electron can be broken down into a combination of three "quarks". It is an odd concept that the negative fundamental charge of an electron relies on a combination from three sub-particles. Any text on modern physics written in the last 30 years should be able to discuss that point at least on a qualitative level.

Dr. Richard Feinman (referenced by your other respondent) put forth an extraordinary theory regarding electron-positron pairs in his diagrams: He theorized that the positron is an electron that is moving backwards in time.

Mathematically the theory is supported and leads to a remarkable inferrence: Every single electron and positron in existence can be accounted for by only a single electron moving back and forth in time. If this is true, then the answer to your question is, "No. We already have all the electron we need. We'll just put your needs on its scheduled rounds."

q: EVEN IF THERE EXISTS SMALLER - TO A SMALLEST PARTICLE...

IT SEEMS IT WOULD HAVE TO COME FROM SOME BEGINNING

~BEFORE A 'BANG' :<)>

IN THE PREVIOUS COMMENT

REGARDING PARTICLES MOVING BACK IN TIME MAY BE RELATIVE IN OUR KNOWLEDGE OF MATH

BUT

CONTRA-RELATIVE IN A FACT:

YOU EXIST

BUT TIME , AS A PASSAGE OR THAT WITH BARRIERS TO BE 'BROKEN'

DOES NOT EXIST.

A NAMED MEASURE OF OUR PASSING FROM AGING... IS NOT A DIMENSION

IE, DETAILS OF TRAVEL- (EINSTEIN'S THOUGHTS) COMING BACK "YOUNGER"

IS ONLY ABOUT EXISTENCE AND GROWTH IN EXISTENCE, IN REALITY

-KINDA LIKENED TO ACHIEVING ENOUGH ENERGY TO GET TO 'LIGHT SPEED'

CURIOSITIES ABOUND AND WELL SO, (KEEP ASKING) BUT RE:

WARPS/ FIELDS/ RIPPLES/ FABRICS/ ETC., OF NON-EXISTENT 'TIME'

IS A LITTLE TOO 'TREKKIE' FOR OUR EXISTENCE...

jp ENERGY TRANSFER, SINCE 1976

But, electrons are leptons. So far as we now know, both electrons and quarks are fundamental particles, i.e., they show no evidence of internal structure. That doesn't mean there isn't any, only that we don't know.

Hi guest.

You said: "Mathematically the theory is supported and leads to a remarkable inferrence: Every single electron and positron in existence can be accounted for by only a single electron moving back and forth in time."

If all the electrons and positrons of the universe are just one single particle that moves forward (electron) and backward (positron) in time, there should be equal quantities of electrons and positrons in the universe. But they are not. (The quantity of positrons is negligible compared to the quantity of electrons). So it cannot be estimated as a fact. And I think that neither Feinman nor anybody else claimed that such a thing is a fact. I think that they just said that, from a "mathematical point of view", a positron is equivalent to an "electron that travels backward in time".

I never claimed it as fact. Also, you are limiting your viewpoint to one universe. A universe moving backward in time would be analogous to imaginary values in mathematics; impossible to physically achieve but necessary to complete the equation (AC current theory as one example). Observers in a universe where time is reversed from our perspective would view the electron as the odd-man-out and would perhaps observe relatively few of them.

I'm not trying to suggesst such a universe exists, but only illuminating the notion that for everything we know, there is an infinite number of things we do not. I find it likely that the positrons do exist in equal numbers, just not where we find it convinient to look. (Our present universe is not positron-friendly).

Hi,

You guys are definately over my head with your quasiphotons,and time&space contingent,and reversal of time etc,etc.

The question appeared simple to me,"Can an electron be created?"-I simply say yes.

Just look at a simple vacuam tube and the flow of electrons,space charge,Electrons created at the flip of a switch(or batteries) as a product of electrons emitted from the cathode to the anode.

Don't they teach vacuam tubes in College Physics anymore?

Anyway,just my opinion.

Would like to say that I enjoy this site and will register shortly. Always enjoy reading of different engineering,and general questions. Great site.

Donw

Hi , Guest

As you say, electrons are emited, but in no way are produced at cathode. The emited electrons are already existent there, they only circulate ! The heating of the cathode exists in order to "stimulate" the electrons to jump out in direction to anode. With this in mind read again your books. Good Luck

Anyway, to come back to basic physics...

Electrons are leptons. Leptons are currently thought to be elementary particles, i.e., not composed of smaller particles.

Total lepton number is conserved as is charge. Thus you cannot simply create a lone electron. You can, however, create an electron-positron pair; in this case, lepton number is conserved as is charge (both sum to zero).

Quarks make up the class of particles known as hadrons. Hadrons include baryons (three quarks) and mesons (quark-antiquark pair). There is recent evidence to suggest other quark arrangements, but that remains hazy.

Hi TVP45

I totally agree with you in principal. My head then runs into a brick wall at

E = M C² . If this is right, (even though its Left), then M = E/ C²

Can matter not be made? If it can then we could make electrons and some other by products.

Have I got this roughly right or am I barking up the wrong cosmological tree.

BAB

Yes, you have the right idea. Energy and mass have an equivalence that can lead to electron creation, so long as you also get the right by-products. Here's a link that shows some of this:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/particles/lepton.html#c6

Hey, thanks for the link and insight on my topic. Admittedly, I'm still in a fog. Is it that a photon that gains sufficient mass from it's speed turns spontaneously into a electron-positron pair; a sort of terminal limit? Or is it something else... anyway thanks again. Interesting.

In fact, I think I heard of this effect causing super-massive stars to implode so violently that they leave no core (neutron star) behind. The photons that energize the star turn into useless electron pairs that don't help keep the star from imploding under its own weight. With the sudden drop in numbers of energetic photons, it quickly collapses under it's own relaxed mass and fuses/detonates into total vapor!

Ok, I may have been mistaken in my original assertion that electrons are made up of three quarks - I had that confused with protons and neutrons, which both ARE believed made up of three quarks each (It's been 20 years since I last looked at this in detail). During BETA DECAY, an electron is produced along with a proton - both at the expense of a neutron. So, we have an up quark and two down quarks (neutron) decaying into two up quarks and a down quark (proton), and an electron (and an electron neutrino by-product). Sounds like there is strong nuclear force giving way in the process and, somehow, energy is emitted yet mass remains constant - a physical paradox. (I myself don't consider the electron fundamental, I just believe its true nature is not yet fully understood or revealed).

Perhaps Dr. Feinman's anti-matter is providing this additional energy since a particle and its anti-particle are mathematically massless yet produce pure energy upon contact.

As for the vacuum tube and cathode/anode method: This doesn't produce electrons, it only moves them from one place to another. As of 20 years ago, tubes were still being discussed in physics.

Hi guest. Just a correction. You said:"Sounds like there is strong nuclear force giving way in the process..." ... It's the weak nuclear force not the strong nuclear force.

You said:"... energy is emitted yet mass remains constant - a physical paradox." It can't be so. There is a lack of mass which corresponds to the emitted energy.

They are probably created some during the Particle accelerator test like in CERN

Has CERN done anything useful yet towards solving this puzzle?

Conversely has it done anything towards making particle physics more complicated?

BAB

Only if you make a positron at the same time.

today;s people believe electron is very basic and cannt be made. but future people may find amazely electron can be made of other form object or substance.

haha, every younger people should imagine bravely, and do it carefully.

our knowdege is still very at lower level com[are with the future people's.

we could suggest bravely every mass we see now can be divided and composed. the only question is some we can do now , some we cannt do yet.

If conditions are right, energy can apparently coalesce into matter. On a small scale that would have to include all the basic particles.

Of course we don't yet know just what would make energy do this.

I wonder if the umpteen particles found in high energy accelerators are simply energy from the accelerator being formed into matter, rather than having a fundamental existence as particles?

This would mean that a large amount of confusing nuclear physics would disappear, especially if we can identify what makes the energy form into matter. If we can then reverse the process? I guess that's what we are trying to do with fusion.

I wonder if the umpteen particles found in high energy accelerators are simply energy from the accelerator being formed into matter, rather than having a fundamental existence as particles?

Yes, particles are created from the kinetic energy of the collisions, hence the reason for building ever-larger (more energetic) particle accelerators. The particle physicists know this -- they rely on it. Both fundamental and composite particles are thus created, including many unstable one that quickly decay into a mixture of simpler particles and photons. A very complex but interesting process.