• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

202 submissions , 160 unreviewed
4,981 questions , 2,140 unanswered
5,340 answers , 22,629 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
813 active unimported users
More ...

  Where is the evidence that the electron is pointlike?

+ 9 like - 0 dislike

I'm writing a piece about the electron, and I'm having trouble finding evidence to back up the claim that the evidence is pointlike.

People tend to say the observation of a single electron in a Penning trap shows the upper limit of the particle's radius to be 10-22 meters. But when you look at Hans Demelt’s Nobel lecture you read about an extrapolation from the measured g value, which relies upon "a plausible relation given by Brodsky and Drell (1980) for the simplest composite theoretical model of the electron". This extroplation yields an electron radius of R ≈ 10-20 cm, but it isn't a measurement. Especially when "the electron forms a 1 μm long wave packet, 30 nm in diameter".

It's similar when you look at The anomalous magnetic moment and limits on fermion substructure by Brodsky and Drell. You can read things like this: "If the electron or muon is in fact a composite system, it is very different from the familiar picture of a bound state formed of elementary constituents since it must be simultaneously light in mass and small in spatial extension". The conclusion effectively says if an electron is composite it must be small. But there's no actual evidence for a pointlike electron.

Can anybody point me at some evidence that the electron is pointlike?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:18 (UTC), posted by SE-user John Duffield
asked Sep 1, 2016 in Experimental Physics by John Duffield (-20 points) [ no revision ]

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:18 (UTC), posted by SE-user Constantine Black
Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/24001/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/119732/2451 and links therein.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:18 (UTC), posted by SE-user Qmechanic

Hello what's this?

Can I advise anybody here that there's actually NO evidence that the electron is pointlike.

5 Answers

+ 9 like - 0 dislike

One who is familiar with the history of particle physics, and physics in general, knows that physics is about observations fitted with mathematical models.

This review examines the limits on size we presently accept for the fundamental particles which presently are at the foundation of the present standard model of particle physics.

This analysis of what "point like " means is reasonable in my opinion.

The size of a particle is determined by how the particle responds to scattering experiments, and therefore is (like the size of a balloon) somewhat context-dependent. (The context is given by a wave function and determines the detailed state of the particle.)

On the other hand, the deviations from being a point are usually described by means of context-independent form factors that would be constant for a point particle but become momentum-dependent for particles in general. They characterize the particle as a state-independent entity. Together with a particle's state, the form factors contain everything that can be observed about single particles in an electromagnetic field.

The measurable quantities are the form factors:

For example, in electron scattering at low energies, the cross section for scattering from a point-like target is given by the Rutherford scattering formula. If the target has a finite spatial extent, the cross section can be divided into twofactors, the Rutherford cross section and the form factor squared.

From these measurable form factors one can get a limit for the size of the electron, no proof of real "point" nature can be given. Models are only validated or falsified, and the "point" nature of the electron is a model of the existing data involving electrons which has not been falsified.

The point nature works in the present standard model of physics because our experiments cannot probe smaller distances than these limits, and the SM which depends on these pointlike elementary blocks WORKS.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:18 (UTC), posted by SE-user anna v
answered Sep 1, 2016 by anna v (2,005 points) [ no revision ]
+ 6 like - 0 dislike

Before addressing the pointlike nature of the electron, let's consider the proton. It was found that when the energy with which particles (such as electrons) scatter off a proton exceeds a certain level (about 1 GeV), it starts to resolve the proton. What we mean by that is that, below this energy the scattering cross-section seems to follow a scale invariant curve (a pure power law), while at this scale, the curve for the scattering cross-section as a function of energy changes its behaviour, indicating the presence of a specific scale. This scale (1 GeV) is called the QCD scale, because it turns out that quantum chromodynamics (QCD - the underlying theory that binds together the constituent in the proton) becomes confined at this scale (below the QCD scale the QCD interactions become invisible; above it one sees the effects of this interaction because one can peer inside the proton).

The energy with which a scattering experiment is performed determines the resolution of the experiment. What this means is that the energy translates to a distance [see clarification below]. For higher energies, one can observe smaller distances. Above the QCD scale the resolution is small enough that one can observe distances smaller than size of the proton.

One other very important thing to notice is that the mass of the proton is also roughly equal to the QCD scale (using Eintein's famous equation $E=mc^2$). This is important because that means that the same scale is responsible both for the size of the proton and the proton's mass.

Now let's turn to the electron and the question of its pointlike nature. Obviously, we cannot do scattering experiments at infinite energies. Therefore, the resolution with which we can observe the electron is limited by the largest energy that we can produce in collider experiments. The cross-section that we observe from a pointlike particle is therefore determined by the resolution with which we observe it. With current experiments one sees that the scattering cross-section of the electron follows a scale invariant curve. Hence, no scale where the electron is resolved has yet been seen. An important observation though is that the energies with which the scattering has been done, far exceeds the mass of the electron. So if there does exist an energy scale where the electron would be resolved, such a scale would be very high above the scale set by the mass of the electron.

The thing about scales in physics is that they don't just fall out of the air. There are usually very specific dynamics involved that produce such scales. In the case of particles bound together, one would normally expect the mass of the bound particle to have roughly the same scale as that associated with the size of the bound particle. If the size of a particle is so much smaller than its mass, then there would have to be an amazingly powerful reason for that.

For this reason, although we cannot measure the electron's size to infinitely small distances, it is believed that the electron must be pointlike.


Just to address some of the comments. To resolve means that one observes something with a resolution that is smaller than the size of the object. The resolution of an observation refers to a physical distance. In particle physics, for instance, the resolution is directly related to the energy of the scattering process. (Energy gives the frequency via $\hbar$ and frequency gives wavelength via $c$. The wavelength is the physical distance that defines the resolution.) The notion of a resolution is widely applicable in observations. For example, in astronomy a telescope would be able to resolve a galaxy if the resolution of the telescope is smaller than the size of the galaxy in the image.

Some comments seem to suggest that the electron should have a finite size due to the electric field that is produced by its electric charge. Unfortunately this does not work either. The electric field decays as a power law away from the electron. Such a power law does not have a scale. It is scale invariant. As a result the field cannot give a scale that one can interpret as the size of the electron.

See here for Particle Data Group information about lepton (electron) compositeness.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:18 (UTC), posted by SE-user flippiefanus
answered Sep 2, 2016 by flippiefanus (60 points) [ no revision ]
+ 5 like - 0 dislike

There's never any direct experimental proof that anything does not exist, including a nonzero electron radius. But we have a very good (you might even say "Standard") Model that describes the electron as a point particle and accurately explains all known experimental data (at least, data describing processes involving electrons). With no experimental reason to expect electrons to have a nonzero radius, Occam's Razor suggests that we should consider electrons to be pointlike until there is a concrete reason not to.

Of course, it's completely possible that one day, higher-energy experiments will discover that electrons are composite or extended structures, and if that happens then we'll need to revise our assumption. There's precedent for this in the history of particle physics: the neutron, proton, and pion, among others, were all once assumed to be pointlike elementary particles, until a better model came along that described them as quark-gluon bound states.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:18 (UTC), posted by SE-user tparker
answered Sep 4, 2016 by tparker (305 points) [ no revision ]
Most voted comments show all comments
@JohnDuffield I completely agree with Rococo. What evidence are you referring to? You didn't list any in your question statement.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:18 (UTC), posted by SE-user tparker
@Rococo I'm not sure if I agree that "pointlike" and "elementary" mean the same thing. In string theory, strings are elementary but extended, and their mathematical description differs from that of usual QFT. I think "pointlike" is a strictly stronger notion than "elementary," and roughly corresponds to the definition I gave in my last comment.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:18 (UTC), posted by SE-user tparker
@tparker Oh, that is certainly not something that had occurred to me- fair enough. But it still seems to me that it is worth emphasizing that the above statements are true within the standard model and equivalently at any energy we have ever accessed, which seems relevant given that the OP's question was about what the experimental evidence says.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:18 (UTC), posted by SE-user Rococo
@JohnDuffield Every single on of those effects you mentioned is a result of the extendedness of the electron wavefunction, not the electron itself. They can all be explained within QED, which postulates that electrons are pointlike.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:18 (UTC), posted by SE-user tparker
@JohnDuffield If you don't accept the basic principle that the simplest explanation that fits all the data is the preferable one, then you have a basic philosophical different with the rest of the scientific community and you won't make much headway in talking to them. I take it from your lack of answer to my last question that there is no evidence that will convice you to change your mind, and you are just looking for validation of your preconceived notion.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:18 (UTC), posted by SE-user tparker
@tparker : I'm looking for hard scientific evidence. You are a) offering none and b) dismissing the hard scientific evidence that exists in favour of your preconceived notion. If that means I have "a basic philosophical different with the rest of the scientific community" and won't make much headway in talking to them, so be it.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:18 (UTC), posted by SE-user John Duffield
@tparker : re "Everyone has been constantly referring to it throughout all of these answers. See my original answer." You haven't referred to any evidence for a pointlike electron. Nor has anybody else. But we have good scientific evidence that the electron isn't pointlike. In electron diffraction and refraction, measurements of magnetic moment, the Einstein-de Haas effect, the Barnett effect, and so on. Dehmelt wasn't measuring the electron's size. He was measuring its spin.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:18 (UTC), posted by SE-user John Duffield
+ 4 like - 0 dislike

In order to answer this question we have to agree on the meaning of point-like. (This is not so obvious since nature happens to be quantum rather than classical) In practice, one has to specify a framework where the definition can be operationally, at least in principle, tested against the experimental evidence.

The tentative definition that I will adopt in the following is: a particle is point-like if every physical process (say a scattering), at any energy scale (or kinematical configuration) above a certain threshold, agrees with the prediction made by a perturbative renormalizable quantum field theory where the particle is elementary. An equivalent definition could be that the action for such a particle is dominated by its free kinetic energy at all scales above a certain threshold (or, again, that the theory is always around a Gaussian fixed point). In practice I am trading point-like for elementary which is a (slightly) better defined concept.

I had to include the notion of perturbativity to speak of particles in the first place, that is of (presumably effective) field theories that are close to a gaussian fixed point in at least a finite energy range. This definition is not perfect, but it makes clear that a theory of particles strongly interacting at all scales isn't in fact a theory of particles after all.

The proton isn't elementary because its interactions at or above the confinement scale are strongly coupled and, moreover, the theory would require infinitely many terms in the lagrangian making it non-renormalizable too. The pions, on the other hand would seem to be elementary at small energy (essentially because of their Goldstone boson nature and Adler's theorem) but the interactions become strong again at $E\sim\Lambda_\textrm{QCD}$. The interactions are non-renormalizable too. In fact, the requirement of non-renormalizability and the strong interactions usually go together in concrete realizations of compositeness.

Buying this tentative definition for point-like, we can ask whether the electron is so. The answer is yes: it is point-like, to the best of our present knowledge. In other words, up to the energy scale of the order of few tens of $\mathrm{TeV}$'s that we have been able to explore experimentally (the precise number depends on various things that would take us very far), there is no sign that the electron isn't described by the renormalizable weakly coupled quantum field theory known as the Standard Model at all scales above the $\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}$. In such a theory the electron is an elementary field.

Various caveats are in order. First, I am neglecting gravity which makes the SM non-renormalizable (and gravity may becomes strong at $M_\textrm{Planck}$). In the leading quantum theory of gravity that explains the dynamics at the Planck scale, string theory, the electron isn't quite a particle nor point-like. The Planck lenght is however so small that we can safely ignore this point for most of the questions. Second, the gauge coupling for the hypercharge in the Standard Model is believed to have a Landau pole that may break the theory at even larger energy scales than Planck. Hence, one can safely neglect the Landau pole too (quantum gravity effects kick-in much earlier).

Say one day we discover a discrepancy between the predictions of the Standard Model (SM) concerning the electrons and the experimental data. To be concrete, imagine one day we discover a 5~$\sigma$ discrepancy in the $g_{e}-2$ of the electron. Would that mean that the electron is composite? No, at least non-necessarily. In fact, the extra corrections $\delta_\textrm{BSM}$ in $(g_{e}-2)=\delta_\textrm{SM}+\delta_\textrm{BSM}$ could be accounted for a new weakly coupled renormalizable field theory valid above a new threshold (the mass of the new particles involved in producing $\delta_\textrm{BSM}$) where the electron is still an elementary field. There exist several models beyond the SM where this is the case: they go beyond the SM coupling new weakly interacting particles to the electron, changing some of its low energy properties; however, above the mass of these new states the electron is still accounted as an elementary particle coupled weakly to the old fields and few new ones. On the other hand, the $\delta_{BSM}$ could be explained by the electron being compositeness, i.e. non point-like. This would be the correct explanation should the new weakly coupled renormalizable theory expressed in terms of other fields than the electron. One could still insist to use the electron above the compositeness scale but the theory would be strongly interacting and non-renormalizable, in such a variable.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:18 (UTC), posted by SE-user TwoBs
answered Sep 9, 2016 by TwoBs (315 points) [ no revision ]
An interesting read, TwoBs, +1. Frank Close's Infinity Puzzle was an interesting read too.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:18 (UTC), posted by SE-user John Duffield
+ 0 like - 1 dislike

This question is about the energy of an electron. Since the energy stored in the electromagnetic field of an electron $$u_{EM}=\frac{\varepsilon}{2}|\mathbb E|^2+\frac{1}{2\mu}|\mathbb B|^2$$ must be a significant part of the energy of the electron, even the field must be regarded as a part of the electron. Which thus not is a "point".

But that was the classic model. In QED the electron is defined to be pointlike and that works well, as far as it has been possible to calculate and measure. But also astronomical calculations give good results for pointlike stars and planets. Also, I think it is a disadvantage that a "single" electron is considered to be field-less. In reality, however, no electrons are totally single, so one might wonder how close two electrons have to be before they are not single.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:18 (UTC), posted by SE-user Lehs
answered Sep 2, 2016 by Lehs (-20 points) [ no revision ]
Most voted comments show all comments
you are talking of this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electron_radius . But the electron is a quantum mechanical entity and has to be treated with quantum mechanical mathematical tools.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:18 (UTC), posted by SE-user anna v
@annav, no I'm not talking of any radius at all, even if I saw that calculation 45 years ago. But I guess that also the QED fields is supposed to store energy?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:18 (UTC), posted by SE-user Lehs
the QED field creation operator has zero energy if there is no electron there, and one electron is generated by the electron creation operator if it is there, all at one point. Thst is what "point particles" means in the standard model.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:18 (UTC), posted by SE-user anna v
I don't see how this answers the question. If you regard the electric field of an electron as "part" of it, the electron is infinitely extended, which is a patently useless notion of size.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:18 (UTC), posted by SE-user ACuriousMind
@ACuriousMind: you cannot separate an electron from its electromagnetic field - there are no neutral electrons. The electron’s electromagnetic field is part of what it is. In fact the electron’s electromagnetic field is what it is.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:18 (UTC), posted by SE-user John Duffield
Most recent comments show all comments
@dmckee, yes, could we please have some links describing these experiments? and how you get from an attometre to zero?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:18 (UTC), posted by SE-user user104372
LEP. Where else? There are other approaches to setting the limits, but they are more subtle. At LEP they collided beams of electrons and positrons at lab frame energies above 100 GeV each. Setting straight Rutherford-style limits is hard because the cross-section for elastic scattering falls like a stone with increasing momentum transfer, so most of the papers talk about searches for resonances representing excitations of electrons. The 2015 RPP suggests the the LHC sets tighter limits still, but the hadronic context means the analysis will be more model dependent.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:18 (UTC), posted by SE-user dmckee

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights