Talk:Electron

Lede

Should it be "The electron is..." or "An electron is..."? Professor Penguino (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I asked myself the same question, and this pertains to several articles about elementary particles. I can imagine that "the" was originally chosen because there is no other "type" of electron—there is simply "the" electron. However, that doesn't change the fact that there are several of them in this universe and that they are countable. Considering this, I believe that "a" / "an" might be the better option here. –Tobias (talk) 09:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I suppose we should defer to sources on that choice and many seem to use "the electron" but it is far universal. Many sources use "electrons", an option prevented by Wikipedia's title choice. Notice that Stoney's 1894 title was 'Of the "Electron," or Atom of Electricity' so I would take "the electron" to mean not "this electron" but the paradigm example of all electrons.

And there is Wheeler's view that their is only one electron after all: One-electron universe.

The lede here could be changed but not all the other occurrences throughout Wikipedia without a wide consensus, both from disruption and the reality that examples will come back. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Title choice? We’re discussing the lead section, which is entirely unrelated to any guidelines about titles. I'm not convinced either that we should base our decision on an 1894 description by the person who first coined the term "electron"—especially since they knew very little about it, not even that it is an actual particle, as discovered by Thomson roughly three years later—or on a nearly 100-year-old "theory" with no realistic prospect of being proven anytime soon.

I agree we should look into how sources handle this, but it would also be helpful to have a logical and comprehensible reason for our choice that goes beyond “because source ... uses the definite article”.

Linguistically speaking, an indefinite article (a / an) is used when referring to something unspecific as in "I was reading a book the other day" where the book is not identified. In contrast, the definite article "the" is used when referring to something specific or previously mentioned, as in "The book I was reading the other day was very intriguing". If you picked up pebbles from your driveway, you would be more likely to say "I picked up a stone from my driveway", rather than "I picked up the stone from my driveway", even if all the stones looked the same. This scenario parallels the situation with electrons—countless, this time absolutely identical objects that we want to describe by picking out one of them. Since they are all completely identical, it doesn’t matter which one we choose, but we would likely refer to it as "an electron". –Tobias (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, reliable sources are the best choice whenever possible. I think "electrons" would be in the running for "most common in sources". In articles the subject is bold in the lede. Using electrons would thus conflict with the title. That is why the title is relevant.

The 1894 choice is similar to many others since then. The authors are writing about a concept, the concept of "the electron". No one writes about the concept of "an electron".

Again if you prefer "an electron" in the lede here, feel free. Just don't go on a crusade. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The rule you cited states that the title should appear as early as possible in the first sentence, not that it conflicts with the title when being changed to the plural or altered in a natural way. This is, in fact, permitted directly below. There are also quite a few other prominent articles that use the plural instead of the singular, despite the singular being the actual title of the page (e.g., bird, respiratory disease, engineer).

If you want to write about the 'concept of' something, that indicates something specific, so of course, it is almost never followed by an indefinite article, as we might have noticed earlier. That’s the same principle as with '... theory', where the term is almost always singular and not plural (e.g., string theory, game theory, cognitive dissonance theory). This is more of a simple grammatical connection rather than rocket science, or a reason to believe it is the preferred way in every context.

Don’t worry, I’m not going anywhere; I’m just interested in understanding your reasoning. –Tobias (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

My reasoning: The electron/an electron/electrons are all used in multiple reliable sources: these are equivalent as far as Wikipedia goes. Thus the lede can be changed, no problem. The only other issue would be consensus to adopt one form. That does not exist, so a site-wide change would not be proper. "Truth", "logic", "grammar" are all helpful in building consensus but they are subjective and consequently not sufficient to end debate.

I hope this time I am clearer.

I suppose we could consider "Electron theory" as a title, but quite a lot of articles drop "theory". I doubt such a proposal would be welcomed even if it would be more logically correct. The electron is an idea with great value but, unlike "bird", no one will ever see an electron. Significant physics/philosophy debates ensue if one asserts an electron is an 'object'. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

My reasoning: The electron/an electron/electrons are all used in multiple reliable sources: these are equivalent as far as Wikipedia goes. Thus the lede can be changed, no problem. The only other issue would be consensus to adopt one form. That does not exist, so a site-wide change would not be proper. "Truth", "logic", "grammar" are all helpful in building consensus but they are subjective and consequently not sufficient to end debate.

I hope this time I am clearer.

I suppose we could consider "Electron theory" as a title, but quite a lot of articles drop "theory". I doubt such a proposal would be welcomed even if it would be more logically correct. The electron is an idea with great value but, unlike "bird", no one will ever see an electron. Significant physics/philosophy debates ensue if one asserts an electron is an 'object'. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the first part, but "electron theory" might be one of the most creative things I've heard in a while. I don't see why it should need to be logically correct, as an electron undoubtedly exists, regardless of its nature. It can behave in different ways—like a wave or a particle—depending on the circumstances. However, a theory in a scientific context is a coherent framework of ideas and principles that explain observed phenomena and can be tested or falsified, which clearly isn't at stake here.

If you want do determine whether an electron is an object or not, you would first need to define "object". As an elementary particle, an electron cannot be compared to something like a particle of dust. However, physics doesn't distinguish the mass of a particle from its energy, meaning that everything that has energy inevitably has mass, and vice versa—even particles like a photon. If you define an object as something that has mass, an electron qualifies as an object. Similarly, if you define an object as something with energy, it would also qualify.

On the other hand, if you try to separate the behavior of something and consider only those objects that display particle-like behavior but not wave-like characteristics, I would begin to doubt your competence on the subject. This approach would attempt to separate two properties that are interconnected on a quantum level and therefore cannot be disentangled. –Tobias (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Mass in kg?

Shouldn't the mass display as 0.9ish rontograms? Kilograms feels like a very bad unit here Nilederg (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Kg is the SI base unit of mass and therefore the preferred unit for this. Furthermore, "rontograms" are not as mathematically simple as the specification using powers. –Tobias (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

What is state of matter

What is state of matter 176.35.254.138 (talk) 13:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I added a wikilink to state of matter.  Done Johnjbarton (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Charge: What is "negative one"?

What a strange thing to say for the charge of the electron. I presume it means minus one (-1), in contrast to the charge of a proton which is plus 1 (+1) -- not "positive one". That too sounds daft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.7.217 (talk) 12:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what to say other than, if the phrase "negative one" sounds awkward or unnatural to you, that may be a problem rather specific to you. Remsense ‥ 论 12:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)