Are Electrons Fungible?

[RArvay]

At an early age the question occurred to me, are all electrons exactly alike? The answer, according to physics, is yes. Even if you distinguish between two electrons in terms of their spin, and other quantum descriptors, every electron is identical to every other electron in terms of mass and charge. This is what it means to be a fundamental particle.

Which brings up the following question: if two separate things are exactly alike in every respect, then do they in fact have separate identities? This is more than a philosophical question. It has been seriously proposed (by Wheeler and Feynman) that there is only one electron in all the universe. If so, then all electrons are not only identical, they have literally the same identity.

While it is interesting, let us set aside that proposal for the moment, taking a skeptical view of it.

Concerning fungibility, let’s introduce an analogy by way of money. If I have two coins, let us say pennies, they are clearly separate and distinct physical objects. Even if they seem to be exactly alike in every respect, they are not. To make the analogy easier, however, let us suppose that the two pennies have different dates on them, and have other obvious physical differences. This clarifies that they are not physically identical.

If, however, I deposit the two coins into my bank account, then for financial purposes, they cease to be distinct in terms of dollars and cents. All that matters from then on is that I have two cents in my account. I can at a later time withdraw two cents with no regard for which two pennies I withdraw. They are fungible.

Likewise, electrons can be “deposited to” and “withdrawn from” an atom during chemical reactions. An atom can absorb and emit electrons repeatedly, with no distinction between the electrons. For example an atom can lose an electron and become positively ionized, and then gain an electron, returning to its neutral state, and the result is the same regardless of whether the electron that was lost is then replaced by the same or another electron.

While semantics should not confuse the issue, it is important to regard the words “identical” and “identity” as being valid in the discussion. If two objects are identical, that is, absolutely identical, then they do not have separate identities, and are therefore one and the same object. Of course, location is part of an object’s identity, but not part of its fundamental identity. (Or is it?)

Where this discussion becomes germaine to physics is in the question of the fundamental nature of the universe. Why are all electrons the same? Not all quarks are the same. Physics has mapped out the various fundamental particles, but has not explained how this scheme of things came about. Why are there six kinds of quark? Could a universe be composed of more, or fewer? For that matter, could a hypothetical universe exist in which no two electrons are alike, each one having a different mass and charge than the others?

What overarching fundamental principle of reality causes things to be as they are?

[Yablon]

Where this discussion becomes germaine to physics is in the question of the fundamental nature of the universe. Why are all electrons the same? Not all quarks are the same. Physics has mapped out the various fundamental particles, but has not explained how this scheme of things came about. Why are there six kinds of quark? Could a universe be composed of more, or fewer? For that matter, could a hypothetical universe exist in which no two electrons are alike, each one having a different mass and charge than the others?

Robert,

Good questions, but I need to point out that the electron / quark distinction is incorrect. The up quark has charm and top counterparts in the 2nd and 3rd generations, the down quark has strange and bottom counterparts, and the electron has muon and tauon counterparts. The reason for this replication into three generations has still not been explained ever since Isador Rabi quipped "Who ordered that?" after the discovery of the muon. I have explained the raison d'être for these three generations in my paper at http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperDownl ... erID=30822, which I believe will become the accepted explanation within the next decade. I made the mistake, however, of not mentioning the explanation for three generations in the title of this paper.

Jay

[Ben6993]

Hi Robert

I have a preon model where elementary particles are composed of combinations of preons. There are three blocks of preons A, B and C and their three antimatter versions A', B' and C'. C can be divided into three colour sub-blocks Cr, Cg and Cb and there are three antimatter versions Cr', Cb' and Cg'.

You can imagine throwing dice and finding different combinations of these preons. If you do not want to imagine, then I have an excel program which rolls the dice for you. If you would like a copy, please let me know and I will email it to you, assuming I can manage to find out how to do that through this forum's contact method.

I did put this software on my Wordpress site but the site withdrew its facility to run Excel files with embedded macros, so that route is no longer available.

A drawback with combining preons is that it gives too many particles. On the other hand it also produces vacuum particles with no properties which is a good point IMO. So it produces all the Standard Model particles, and a lot more. It should give you a simple combinatorial reason why there are more quarks than electrons in terms of more ways of combining preons.

There are two types of electron: left-handed and right-handed. Are they different particles? A philosphical question perhaps. Baez (2003) has them both as massless. Again, that is a philospohical issue (what isn't?). I think of a photon as massless and it can travel between galaxies without an interaction. So being massless seems to be tied into not having an interaction. Yet the gluon is massless and I doubt that it goes very far before interacting. But it has the potential to do so even if in practice it is a frustrated traveller?

The electron gains mass by oscillating between LH and RH forms in a higgs field. And it manages that oscillation without any 'particle interactions'. So the LH or RH electron is only really massless in between interactions. The mass arises really only in the physical electron which is a rapid oscillation between LH and RH states. (As in the zitterbewegung or trembling motion of the electron.)

I am not a fan of particles being entangled, but to have a RH electron changing to a LH electron (because of a higgs field) without a 'particle interaction' implies that there is an electron field where the pure LH or pure RH forms can emerge as eigenstates out of an entangled mixture of LH and RH forms. So can one have a ratio in the mix of LH: RH as any real number? So how many types of electron does that make?

[RArvay]

I appreciate the replies.
I usually preface my posts by noting that I am not a physicist.
In this case, the topic did not IMO warrant that notice, since I was speaking in
overarching principles. I am a prodigious reader of physics at the layman level,
but not capable of the advanced math required for physics beyond that.
I am in the awkward position of being bored on discussion groups where I know more than the participants,
and boring the participants on groups where I know less than they do.

I very much value responses in which any errors I make are corrected for me,
and I hope that in some small way I can mention concepts that my intellectual
superiors may find interesting.

I am of course in no position to evaluate the hard work of actual physicists.
I just do the easy and fun part, which is to read and learn at my level.
Thank you for your replies and for your patience.

[minkwe]

Every electron is only identical to itself. Don't forget that space-time coordinates are important too. If every other property is the same, except for the space-time coordinates, then you can say they are similar but it is impossible to have two electrons at the same space-time coordinate with all other properties identical, therefore it is impossible to have two electrons which are indistinguishable. For photons, that is a whole other matter.

But to your main point, even if two objects have completely identical properties in every aspect, then the question arises, how did you even know that there were two objects to begin with to even start the discussion about 2-objects? Maybe they were previously different but then another question arises, can two objects which were previously different end with the exact same properties in every respect (ie history irrelevant)?

Can such questions even be answered?