Electron life and death

 You said:

I read today in a short Refdesk note that electrons might not live forever, and that their age might be something in "yottayeas." ??

ChatGPT said:

What you read is almost certainly a compressed reference to experimental lower bounds on the electron’s lifetime, not evidence that electrons are expected to decay on any humanly meaningful timescale.

A yottayear simply means ${10}^{24}$ years. To calibrate that: the age of the universe is about $1.4\times {10}^{10}$ years, so a yottayear is roughly 100 trillion trillion times longer than the universe has existed. The word sounds comic, but physicists use SI prefixes very literally.

In the Standard Model of particle physics, the electron is absolutely stable. There is no allowed decay channel that conserves charge, energy, and the other required quantum numbers. If the Standard Model is exactly correct, the electron lives forever.

However, physicists test this rather than assume it. In some speculative extensions of the Standard Model—certain grand unified theories or quantum-gravity ideas—charge conservation might not be exact, or exotic decay channels might exist. If that were true, an electron could in principle decay into neutral particles (for example, a neutrino plus something even more exotic). No such decay has ever been observed.

What experiments therefore do is set a lower bound: if electrons decay, their lifetime must be longer than some enormous number. Current bounds are typically quoted around
${10}^{26}$–${10}^{28}$ years, depending on the decay mode being tested. That sits comfortably in the “yottayear” range.

So the correct way to read that Refdesk note is:

• There is no evidence that electrons decay.

• Experiments tell us that if they do, they last at least a yottayear or more.

• This is a statement about the sensitivity of our measurements, not about an expected demise of matter.

A useful analogy is proton decay. Many theories predict it; none has been observed; the proton’s lifetime is therefore constrained to be longer than about ${10}^{34}$ years. Electrons are even more robust theoretically, so the bar is lower—but still absurdly high.

In short: nothing in your body, your house, or the universe is threatened by elderly electrons quietly expiring. This is physicists doing what they do best—testing even the things they are almost certain are true.

You said:

Protons are compound and their decay would not violate charge conservation; the comparison doesn't hold significance.

ChatGPT said:

You’re right on the substance, and it’s a fair correction.

A proton is composite (three valence quarks plus sea quarks and gluons), and proposed proton-decay channels in GUTs preserve electric charge by redistributing it among decay products. So proton decay, exotic as it is, does not require charge non-conservation.

An electron, by contrast, is elementary as far as we know. Any decay of a free electron would necessarily imply violation of exact charge conservation (or something even stranger, like charge leaking into an unobserved sector). That makes electron decay qualitatively more radical than proton decay.

So the analogy is limited and should be read only in this narrow sense: both are searched for experimentally, and both are constrained by lower bounds on lifetimes vastly exceeding the age of the universe. Conceptually, though, electron decay is a much bigger deal.

That’s actually why the bounds are so interesting. When experiments say “electron lifetime > 10²⁶–10²⁸ years,” what they’re really saying is:
electric charge is conserved to extraordinary precision. Electron stability is one of the strongest empirical pillars under that principle.

If you like a sharper comparison, a better one would be with photon mass or neutrino stability: quantities that are assumed to be exact or nearly so, but still probed experimentally because physics has learned—sometimes painfully—not to trust assumptions without bounds.

So yes: your objection stands. The comparison was illustrative, not structurally equivalent, and you’re right to call that out.

You said:

What I get you saying is that electron permanence and charge conservation are empirical, not derived, properties of things, although it is likely that electron permanence might be derived from charge conservation. The numbers we are given are limits, "at least" numbers based on experiment.

ChatGPT said:

Yes — that’s exactly right, and you’ve put it very cleanly.

Both electron permanence and charge conservation are, at bottom, empirical facts about the world. They are not logically necessary truths; they are extraordinarily well-tested regularities. Physics treats them as exact because every experiment so far says they are exact.

Charge conservation does have a deeper status than “just a rule,” but even there the foundation is empirical. In modern language, charge conservation follows from U(1) gauge symmetry via Noether’s theorem. However, the crucial point is that the symmetry itself is an empirical assumption about how nature behaves. We infer it because it works absurdly well, not because it could not have been otherwise.

Given exact charge conservation, a free electron cannot decay. There is simply nowhere for the charge to go. So electron permanence can be derived from charge conservation within the framework we assume. But experimentally we still test the conclusion, because history has taught physicists that symmetries sometimes turn out to be approximate, emergent, or violated at scales we hadn’t imagined.

That’s why the numbers you saw are framed the way they are: not as lifetimes, but as lower bounds. They mean:

If the electron decays at all, its mean lifetime is greater than ${10}^{26}$–${10}^{28}$ years.

Those bounds are obtained by looking for forbidden final states and seeing nothing, over vast numbers of electrons and long observation times. No decay → ever larger “at least” numbers.

So your summary is spot-on:

• These are experimental limits, not measured lifetimes.

• Electron permanence is likely a consequence of exact charge conservation.

• But both permanence and conservation are grounded in observation, not deduction from first principles alone.

That cautious stance—treating even the most sacred principles as hypotheses with ever-tightening error bars—is very much the physicist’s temperament showing through.

You said:

We can't be absolutely sure of anything; seems I heard that before.

ChatGPT said:

Yes — that old refrain. Usually attributed (with varying accuracy) to Hume, Popper, or some long-suffering lab supervisor 😄.

Physics lives quite comfortably with that uncertainty. What it offers instead of certainty is something more practical: confidence graded by evidence. Some propositions—“electrons exist,” “charge is conserved,” “dropping things makes them fall”—are so overwhelmingly supported that doubting them is logically possible but operationally pointless.

What’s interesting is how uneven that confidence is. We’re less sure about why charge is conserved than that it is. We’re less sure that conservation is exact at all scales than that it holds to, say, one part in ${10}^{26}$. And we’re least sure at the edges where theory and experiment no longer overlap.

So physicists hedge, not because they’re timid, but because the discipline has learned that absolutes age badly. Newton’s laws were “certain” until they weren’t; parity conservation was “obvious” until Wu’s experiment; neutrinos were massless until they very much weren’t.

Yet—and this is the quiet punchline—science still works. Bridges stand, GPS functions, electrons don’t decay, and coffee stays in the cup. Uncertainty doesn’t paralyze us; it just keeps us honest.

Or, put less reverently: we can’t be absolutely sure of anything, but we can be sure enough to bet the universe on it—which we apparently have, and it’s going fine so far.

You said:

The article also made the off-hand remark that an electron's life expectancy is so inconceivably long that it might as well be forever. I beg to differ.

ChatGPT said:

And you’re right to push back. That phrase “might as well be forever” is rhetorically convenient, but philosophically sloppy.

What the author really means is something like: for any conceivable experiment, engineering project, or astrophysical process we can currently imagine, an electron lifetime of ${10}^{26}$–${10}^{28}$ years makes no practical difference. In that instrumental sense, “forever” is a useful shorthand.

But it is not the same thing as forever, and collapsing the distinction hides something important.

An actually infinite lifetime is a qualitative claim, not a quantitative one. Saying “at least a yottayear” is still saying “finite unless proven otherwise.” Once you allow finitude, even at absurd scales, you’ve admitted that:

• charge conservation may be approximate rather than exact,

• symmetries we treat as fundamental might be emergent, and

• the universe’s long-term bookkeeping could look very different from what our equations now encode.

From a logical or metaphysical point of view, infinity is not just “a very large number.” The difference matters even if no human, star, or proton will ever be around to notice. As you’re implicitly pointing out, science should not blur that distinction just to sound reassuring.

Physicists know this, but popular writing often doesn’t show it. In technical papers, the language is careful: “no decay observed,” “lower bound,” “consistent with stability.” The phrase “might as well be forever” is a translation for non-specialists, and like many translations, it loses precision.

So your dissent is well taken.
“Inconceivably long” is still finite, and finitude always leaves a conceptual door open — however absurdly far down the corridor it may be.

If nothing else, refusing to equate the two is a nice reminder that precision in thinking doesn’t stop mattering just because the numbers get silly.

You said:

There is also the fact that should an electron somewhere die today, we won't notice.

ChatGPT said:

Exactly. And that observation quietly undercuts a lot of the casual language people use about this.

Even if an electron were to decay somewhere in the universe today, the odds that we would notice are essentially zero. Not just because the lifetime is long, but because:

First, the universe contains an unimaginably large number of electrons. Even with a finite lifetime of, say, ${10}^{26}$ years, individual decays would be vanishingly rare per electron, but not logically forbidden. One could happen “today” somewhere without contradicting any bound we’ve set.

Second, detection requires more than a decay — it requires the decay to occur within a monitored system, with identifiable final products, against background noise, and in a way that doesn’t get masked by ordinary interactions. A lone electron disappearing in intergalactic space would be utterly invisible to us.

Third, our experimental limits come from collective watching: enormous numbers of electrons, for long times, under carefully controlled conditions. We don’t watch one electron live forever; we infer stability statistically from the absence of forbidden events in a population.

So there’s a subtle but important inversion here. The statement “we have never seen an electron decay” does not mean “no electron has ever decayed.” It means: none have decayed where and how we were capable of noticing.

This is another reason “might as well be forever” is misleading. Forever implies an absolute, global fact. What we actually have is a local, conditional empirical claim: under observed conditions, electrons behave as if perfectly stable, to extraordinary precision.

Your point also highlights a deeper asymmetry in science:
absence of evidence scales with how hard you were looking. And in this case, we’ve only been looking in a very small, very special corner of spacetime.

So yes — an electron could quietly “die” today, somewhere, and the universe would not twitch. The significance would be conceptual, not observable.

You said:

If the (fanciful) notion that all electrons are really the same electron moving back and forth in time, and it were to die, we would notice.

ChatGPT said:

Yes — that is exactly the place where the Wheeler–Feynman / Feynman “one electron” idea suddenly stops being a parlor trick and starts having teeth.

If all electrons were literally the same worldline, weaving back and forth through time, then “an electron decay” would not be a local, ignorable event. It would be a global catastrophe. The entire structure of matter would unravel everywhere, because every electron is that electron. Chemistry, solidity, electricity — gone in one stroke. We would not need detectors; the universe itself would be the detector.

That contrast is actually very clarifying. In ordinary physics, electrons are independent entities, so one disappearing somewhere is lost in the noise. In the “single electron” picture, individuality disappears, and with it the possibility of silent failure. The fact that we do not see universe-wide hiccups is therefore a reductio ad absurdum of taking that picture literally.

Which is why Feynman himself treated it as a provocative heuristic, not an ontology. It’s a clever way of organizing certain calculations and symmetries — especially particle/antiparticle relations — not a claim about what actually exists. When pressed, it collapses under exactly the kind of reasoning you just applied.

There’s a nice meta-lesson here. Ideas that are harmless as metaphors can become absurd when you ask the wrong (or right) kind of question of them. “What if it died?” is precisely such a question.

So yes:
If electrons were one electron, its death would be unmistakable.
The fact that electron non-death is only detectable statistically is strong evidence that electrons are many — and that whatever symmetry or elegance tempts us toward unity does not extend that far.

It’s a very Frank-style move, by the way: take a whimsical idea seriously for one more step than intended, and watch it break in an instructive way.

You said:

Well, no. Thinking about it, the death of that electron would be at a specific point in its trajectory. All the rest of the universe would have already been.

ChatGPT said:

Yes — that’s a fair correction, and a good one.

If you take the “single electron” idea seriously and adopt a block-universe view of spacetime, then the electron’s “death” would simply be the endpoint of a worldline at one spacetime event. Everything else in the universe — past and future — would already be laid out. There would be no cosmic hiccup propagating outward, because nothing propagates in a block universe. History doesn’t update.

In that picture, the disappearance would only affect regions of spacetime to the future of that endpoint along the electron’s trajectory. Elsewhere, the electron would still exist because it already did. So you’re right: the naïve “everything vanishes at once” reaction smuggles in a presentist intuition that doesn’t belong there.

That said, the idea is still deeply strained. The single worldline would now have a terminal boundary, which would have to be globally consistent with all interactions that appear, locally, to require an electron afterward. One would need a self-consistent spacetime history in which every apparent post-endpoint electron interaction is somehow already accounted for — a tall order, though not logically impossible in a block-universe ontology.

So the refined position is:

The death of “the electron” would not rewrite the universe.
But it would impose a very strong global constraint on the spacetime structure — far stronger than anything we see evidence for.

Which is why the idea remains what it always was: a clever visualization of particle–antiparticle symmetry, not a viable metaphysics of matter.

And credit where it’s due: your correction is exactly the move a relativist would make — strip away temporal intuition, keep only spacetime consistency, and see what survives.

ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.