Jun8
9 months ago
“By definition, all of the electrons in an atom are indistinguishable, which can arguably be rephrased to say that any electron in the electron cloud is the same electron as any other one.”
For an even more mind boggling idea, see the one electron universe theory: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40080266
amelius
9 months ago
But what new insights does it bring to the table to call different things the same or not?
trashtester
9 months ago
If you have $10 in a bank account, are those individual dollars or do they all just form an account balance, which is "just" a number.
Electrons in a coherent state are the same. They don't have individual identity. There is just the wave function occupying some area in space.
A similar example is if you hit a key on a piano. This will not only produce the sine wave of the base frequency, but also a number of other frequencies, including overtones and other frequencies that provide timbre.
But these other frequencies are in reality only mathematical artifacts of doing a Fourier transform of the sound pressure from a time domain to a frequency domain.
What is real (if we ignore the molecular level and below) is that a pressure wave is propagated through the air. The individual frequencies of the wave cannot be found anywhere particular in the wave.
Likewise, the exitation of the electron field associated with some atom in a given state will, at every point, represent the combined contribution of ALL electrons.
These electrons are stacked on top of each other the same way the frequencies in a piano tone is or the way the dollars in a bank balance is. They only exist as part of a whole, not individually.
amelius
9 months ago
But now you introduced an entirely new concept (the electron field), and this is different from saying that all electrons are the same entity.
trashtester
9 months ago
Electrons (apart potentially from when the wavefunction collapses) do not exist as "particles". They're like a musical "note", simply waves in a field.
And if you do not think the wavefunction collapses (as in the Many World interpretation), "particles" are always just musical notes, just abstractions of the underlying "music"/wave function.
If so, it's fair to say that "all electrons" and "the electron field" is the same thing.
And even if it does collapse, the situation between those collapses is still that we have no indication that electrons exist as "particles" between each collapse.
Edit: Thinking of electrons as "real" between each collapse, is a bit like assuming that a deposit of $10 means the bank actually has 10 $1 bills stored in the vault that are explicitly yours.
The reality is more complicated.
amelius
9 months ago
I respectfully disagree. By saying that all electrons are the same, you are muddying the discussion. It is not helpful to anyone trying to understand what's happening, at both levels of abstraction.
trashtester
9 months ago
Ok. I'm not sure what angle you come at this from, whether you disagree with my presentation of this (if you know the Quantum Electrodynamics), or some formulation I'm making (if you're not familiar with QED).
If you ARE familiar with QED, I would appreciate it if you point out my error.
If you're not, then I would be interested in knowing what you mean by "both levels of abstraction".
I personally think the Many World Interpretation (MWI) is the most consistent interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (QM). In this interpretation, "electrons" are merely an area of space where the electron field is in an excited state. And in atoms (larger than Hydrogen), it's a bit more excited than where there is just a single electron.
Other QM interpretatons have exactly this math, but hypothesises about wavefunction collapse (which is not needed for the theory to work).
This is the main reason I don't consider individual elementary "particles" to have identity.
There is another, too, that may be more intuitive: In QED, especially in Feynmann diagrams, positrons behave exactly like electrons moving back in time. (This can happen for instance in photon-photon scattering within optical materials).
Now if you simply think such statements don't bring new insights (and you don't know QED), then I suppose this is right, at minimum for you. Which is completely fair. I also find these things really hard to grasp, and that's after spending an fair amount of time wrestling with it in my 20s.
singularity2001
9 months ago
it brings to the table that electrons in an atom are in fact not different things. The negative part and the positive part of the sine functions are still part of the same function
amelius
9 months ago
But saying that X1 and X2 are both part of Y is different from saying that X1 and X2 are the same thing.