Splitting the electron?

my science teacher told me about that. The little pievces are named quirks.

SkimBoarder: Quarks, not quirks. Also, if you check with your teacher, you will discover that protons and neutrons (not electrons) are made up from particles called quarks.

Electrons are not composed of quarks. I think they are fundamental particles and have no substructure.

That's the popular opinion, although this article was questioning their fundamental-ness..... err I don't think that's a word but you get the idea.

Could anybody please explain for my benefit (somewhat less scientif than some) in exactly what way this supposed splitting of an electron impacts upon quantum mechanics. It's not quite clear to me how this theory could affect quantum mechanics so I would be very interested to hear more about that.

Well quantum mechanics is completely based on fundamental particles - quanta. There are only certain quantities of things such as charge which can be exchanged. Every quantity of electrical charge you can measure is a multiple of 1.6 * 10^-19 Coulombs, which is the charge on an electron.

If the electron is not a fundamental particle, then the quantum of charge is not 1.6 * 10^-19, it's something smaller which we don't know (yet). I'm not sure myself if the models we have at the moment could be adapted to this (I did ask early in the thread) but I imagine it would make a significant impact.

But, how would the splitting of an electron effect things like the uncertainty principle and quantum randomness?

Are the principles of quantum mechanics dependant on their being any fundamental quantity of charge or does it have to be 1.6 * 10^19 ?

Does the splitting of an electron imply that there are 'underlying' patterns that explain the behaviour of what was previously thought of as 'random'? Does it imply that a sub-atomic particle has a definite state before it is 'measured'?

What I'm trying to assertain here is whether this could merely re-structure quantum mechanics (as we know it) or does it completely blow it out of the water? :confused:

You're looking for the same answers as I was =)

I only have a vague understanding of quantum theory, so do not bet the ranch on what I say.

I do not think that quantum theory would be significantly hurt if the electron were dicovered to have some underlying structure. The discovery of quarks as building blocks for protons & neutrons did not undermine the uncertainty princliple or any other fundamental concept of quatum theory.

What would hurt quantum theory would be the discovery that an electron could be cut in half rather than decomposed into more fundamental particles. If you could cut it in half, there would be an implication that you could cut it into 1/3 & 2/3 or other fractions.

There is a fundamental difference between breaking an electron into two equal pieces (or two equivalent sub-particles) and breaking it into two or more different sub-particles. If it could be decomposed into a neutral particle and a charged particle, I do not think quantum theory would be seriously upset.

The decompostion of protons & neutrons into quarks almost implies structure to the electron. Quarks have charges which are 1/3 and 2/3 of the charge on the electron or proton. You get combinations like two charges of 2/3 and one of -1/3 to get a proton with a charge of one.

The above implies that the fundamental unit of charge is 1/3 not one, which suggest that maybe the elcetron is made of of particles with charge in multiples of 1/3 the electron charge.

Even if you could split an electron in half, does this imply that there are underlying patterns that govern the behaviour of an electron when they were previously thought to be random?

Does it mean that you can now measure two complementary properties of an electron with good accuracy?

Besides, even if you can somehow force and electron to splt 50/50, it doesn't mean that you can't assume that, in normal circumstances, it will always behave as if an electron is in-divisible, does it?