Talk:Electron

Electron lifetime.

The mean lifetime of the electron is given by an authoritative source,

• Citation: R.L. Workman et al. (Particle Data Group), Prog.Theor.Exp.Phys. 2022, 083C01 (2022) and 2023 update https://pdg.lbl.gov/2023/listings/rpp2023-list-electron.pdf

as $>6.6\times 10^{28}$. I propose to use this value and source in the article. I ask you to Agree or Disagree or join discussion at Project physics. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Agree. Authoritative source and technically secondary.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Agree – the experimentally verified results are what is interesting and useful here. Simply stating "stable" is making assumptions about the theory, which we know for sure is incomplete and hence flawed. Besides, we do not know that there is not a lighter particle than the electron any more than we know that the proton does not decay (and there are viable theories that predict that the proton does decay). Anyone who is adamant that we know with absolute certainty that the electron does not decay understands neither the status of theory nor the process of science. A footnote stating that the value is the experimentally determined lower limit and that it is theoretically taken to be stable would be clarifying. —Quondum 20:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  In the Standard Model, GUTs, SUSY, string theories, and all known candidate “theories of everything,” there is no particle lighter than the electron. See the law of charge conservation and the law of lepton number conservation. If there is no particle lighter than the electron, decay is impossible. 217.76.14.212 (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  So? We can say that in the article. No reputable scientist would claim with certainty that at least one of those, and nothing else, is indisputably the true final theory. The infobox can just list the experimental bounds that we have determined. —Quondum 22:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with you, and since we currently have no information about particles lighter than the electron that also carry charge, at the moment we must consider the electron and positron to be stable. 217.76.12.178 (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  I think everyone presumes that the electron is stable. However, the infobox does not carry these caveats. The question is one of what the infobox is expected to summarize. IMO, the average reader without detailed understanding does not expect to understand the necessarily terse labels in an infobox; fuller text is necessary and such a reader will seek that. The reader with a deeper understanding is going to get zero information from "stable" (they knew that already), but will get utility from not needing to search the text for the current experimental limits. —Quondum 11:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  I understand, but what experimental limits can we if we don't even know the lifetime of a proton, while the electron cannot decay due to conservation laws—both lepton number and charge? What useful information would we give the user if it’s just misinformation? After all, we currently have no particles with a charge lighter than the electron and positron. 217.76.12.178 (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  You're redirecting the discussion away from my point about what the infobox is for. No, it is not misinformation: if we watch n particles for a period of time t without decay, it is evidence for a measured lower limit on the decay lifetime of roughly nt, and we do have experiments that determine lower bounds on the lifetime of a proton. We do not need conservation to be violated in a decay, only for the events to be infrequent enough to be unobserved. —Quondum 16:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  Regarding your points:

  • "...what experimental limits can..."

  The quoted sources give elaborate discussions on the nature of the experimental limits. Please read them.

  • "...we currently have no particles with a charge lighter than the electron and positron."

  Exactly correct: the Standard model summarizes the best current model of particle physics. It does not follow that "the electron cannot decay" but rather that the best current model predicts that the electron cannot decay.

  I think we should try some compromise that includes both "stable in theory" and "limits from experiments" in the infobox. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Compromise proposal Replace the previous version:

• mean lifetime > 6.6×10²⁸ years (stable)

with

• mean lifetime > 6.6×10²⁸ years (theoretically stable)

Johnjbarton (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Including both (as you suggest) is adequately compact for an infobox, and should perhaps address most concerns about what we are communicating with the reader (regardless of which group they fall onto). I'm comfortable with that. —Quondum 18:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I still don’t understand the point of the information box, but I did get the idea of experimental limits. However, wouldn’t adding some arbitrary number for the average lifetime basically be disinformation? I suggest leaving it the way I wrote it, and if you want, you can just add a couple of sources—no problem with that.

But again, we studied the law of conservation, and since it holds, the electron simply cannot decay. If the reader is interested, they can go and read the full article, not just the template. Otherwise, why write the article in the first place? Let them explore the sections—there’s nothing wrong with that.

And what “lower bound of lifetime” are we even talking about, if the particle is immortal based to the available data; and if new data appears, we’ll add it. 217.76.10.93 (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The number we are adding is not arbitrary, but well sourced to a review by top physicists. This number is "the available data" and we can update it if new data appears. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

References

"Negaton" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Negaton has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 4 § Negaton until a consensus is reached. consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 22:01, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I found this obscure source:

• Miesowicz, M. (1977). Reminiscences on 1-st International Cosmic Ray Conference in Cracow (1947). In 15th International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 10. Published: Budapest: Dept. of Cosmic Rays, Central Research Institute for Physics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 1977. International Union of Pure and Applied Physics; Bulgarska akademiia na naukite. LCCN: 78-307721 12 volumes, p. 1 (Vol. 10, p. 1).

which describes "negaton" as a potential name for the negative charge, not a synonym for the electron. A few physics articles use it in that way, as a generic for "some negative charged particle". But more sources nowadays in math use it for kinds of solutions to KdV hierarchy equations. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Note

The article says, "All atoms are composed of electrons, protons, and neutrons". Actually, the main hydrogen atom has no neutron. See Hydrogen.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prism721721 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I added a phrase about variable numbers of protons and neutrons. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Mess

The intro is now a mess I think - partly my fault I admit. The objectionable (to me) bit is "It is an elementary particle that comprises the ordinary matter that makes up the universe, along with up and down quarks. All atoms are composed of electrons, as well as varying numbers protons and neutrons, but the electrons have almost 2000 times less mass than the other two constituents." So I kinda like the electons-and-quarks bit, but then swapping in the next sentence to protons-and-neutrons is odd. Why are p-and-n the natural comparators for electron mass? Why not compare to quarks? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Because atoms are composed of electrons, protons, and neutrons; because this is the common and sourceable comparison; because electrons, like protons and neutrons are particles with individual mass; because electrons/protons/neutrons are historically associated. Quarks are generally viewed as a different level; the article only mentions quarks one time; quarks are never seen as individual particles; quarks were discovered more than 50 years after electrons.

I fixed my error in failing to correct "comprises". Johnjbarton (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't see the need to mention quarks in such details here. Ordinary matter comes from electrons, neutrons, and protons. Those are the 'every day' particles people are dealing with. Yes if you break it down further, the valences quarks of nucleons are ups and downs. But insisting that we talk only of elementary particles is something that confuses more than clarifies at this level. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:24, 25 July 2026 (UTC)