This reminds me of the interesting question that we have seen here over the past few years of : "is an electron a black hole." ?? Check the radius and mass and see what you get.

Which radius? The classical one has no meaning in quantum mechanics.
Tullio

---

Which radius? The classical one has no meaning in quantum mechanics.
Tullio

Especially when it depends on if you are looking or not.
Einstein had very big problems with that.
“Is the Moon there when no one looks?”

Funny explanation from Dr Quantum:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

Yes, of course. I have often opined that there is no such thing as an electron in terms of a physical object. None-the-less there are classical --relitivistic statements of mass and radius.

The radius is given as: 2.81794032.....x 10E -13

and the mass is claimed to be: 9.11 x 10E-28 grams

Remarkable precision for something that isn't what we say it is .

Classical electrical engineering works well with the use of these convenient fictions--even stating how many electrons moving past a point each second constitute an Ampere.

Perhaps Quantum notions of the election as just as "incorrect"
[/quote]

There is a story, narrated by Emilio Segre' in a book whose Italian edition I have edited. To explain doublets of lines in atomic spectra two Dutch physicists, G.E.Uhlenbeck and S.A.Goudsmit, proposed in 1925 that any electron has an intrinsic angular momentum of 1/2 h/2Pi, where h is the Planck constant. They sent an article to the Annalen der Physik.
When Wolfgang Pauli knew this, he objected that the equator of the electron, considered a a spinning sphere, would travel faster than the speed of light. When the two learned of this, they wanted to retire the article, but too late. So spin was accepted by physicists, and divide all particles in two main categories, fermions, whose spin is half integer and bosons, whose spin is integer, always in h/2Pi units.
Fermions obey the Pauli exclusion principle while bosons do not. Bosons fields are quantized by commutators [ab-ba} where and b are operators, fermions by anticommutators [ab+ba].
Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck never received the Nobel prize they had amply deserved, as Segre' writes in his book.
Tullio

---

The radius is given as: 2.81794032.....x 10E -13

Where did you get that from?
You cannot give a wave function a radius since it has only have an avarage radius.
Electrons are very fuzzy objects even in a classical term.

Both of these numbers are imputed from electrostatic measurements and assumed relativistic effects.

We all admit that these have no real meaning in Modern Quantum theoretical thinking.

Field theory excludes particles and vice versa. Quantum Field theory I find too arcane for my stuck-in-the- past brain.

Last year I followed an online course produced by Edinburgh University on the Higgs boson, more exactly on the Higgs field of which the boson is the quantum and I had some problems in understanding it all. But the division between bosons and fermions is crucial. Bosons are quanta of a field, fermions are particles. The photon (spin 1) is the quantum of the electromagnetic field, the graviton (spin 2) is the quantum of the gravitational field, if it exists. Neutrons, protons, electrons and neutrinos are fermions, that is they have half-integer spin. They obey the Pauli exclusion principle, which makes them build nuclei, atoms, molecules and crystals, that is the ordinary matter.
Tullio

---

Both of these numbers are imputed from electrostatic measurements and assumed relativistic effects.
We all admit that these have no real meaning in Modern Quantum theoretical thinking.
Field theory excludes particles and vice versa. Quantum Field theory I find too arcane for my stuck-in-the- past brain.

Both of these numbers are imputed from electrostatic measurements and assumed relativistic effects.

Yes. Giving an avarage result.
Since electrons can be at many positions at the same time one could argue that the electron size is about the same as an atom.
Diagram of a helium atom, showing the electron probability density as shades of gray.


"If you can explain this using common sense and logic, do let me know, because there is a Nobel Prize for you..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQ

I found this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron#Fundamental_properties

The electron has no known substructure.[1][75] and it is assumed to be a point particle with a point charge and no spatial extent.[9] In classical physics, the angular momentum and magnetic moment of an object depend upon its physical dimensions. Hence, the concept of a dimensionless electron possessing these properties contrasts to experimental observations in Penning traps which point to finite non-zero radius of the electron.

That means that not only black holes contain singularities, they are everywhere.

So how many electrons can you put into a black hole singularity?
In a simplified picture, every photon spends some time as a combination of a virtual electron plus its antiparticle, the virtual positron, which rapidly annihilate each other shortly thereafter.
Which means that the repelling forces are cancelled out and you could in theory fill the singularity with an infinit amount of electrons.