Talk:Electron

"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)

"E−" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect E− 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 August 10 § E− until a consensus is reached. Jay 16:22, 10 August 2026 (UTC)