Can the electrostatic force be infinite in magnitude?
$begingroup$
The magnitude of the electrostatic force between two charges $Q$ and $q$ separated by a distance $r$ is given by $$F=frac{kqQ}{r^2}$$ but the minimum value of $r$ must be $10^{-15} rm m$. Therefore, my question is can the electrostatic force ever be infinite?
forces electrostatics electric-fields singularities coulombs-law
New contributor
$endgroup$
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
The magnitude of the electrostatic force between two charges $Q$ and $q$ separated by a distance $r$ is given by $$F=frac{kqQ}{r^2}$$ but the minimum value of $r$ must be $10^{-15} rm m$. Therefore, my question is can the electrostatic force ever be infinite?
forces electrostatics electric-fields singularities coulombs-law
New contributor
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
First, you should explain why you think the minimum value $r$ can be is $10^{-15}$, since that would help know where you are coming from. Second, if you take this to be true, then wouldn't that necessarily mean the force cannot be infinite? It sounds like you are actually questioning this "minimum $r$" idea, which we cannot comment on since we do not know why you think this is the case.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday
$begingroup$
@AaronStevens I think it's supposed to be the diameter of an electron.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
yesterday
$begingroup$
@BobD I thought it is supposed to be the length scale of the atomic nucleus?
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday
$begingroup$
@AaronStevens Yeah, could be. I my based my comment on the following reference Pauling, Linus. College Chemistry, San Francisco: Freeman, 1964 "The radius of an electron has not been fully determined exactly but it i known to be less than $1^{-13}$cm. But others have it different. I think the OP
$endgroup$
– Bob D
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@AaronStevens I suspect Aditya is referring to the so-called "classical radius of the electron". Aditya - if that's the case, you should edit your question to make this explicit.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
The magnitude of the electrostatic force between two charges $Q$ and $q$ separated by a distance $r$ is given by $$F=frac{kqQ}{r^2}$$ but the minimum value of $r$ must be $10^{-15} rm m$. Therefore, my question is can the electrostatic force ever be infinite?
forces electrostatics electric-fields singularities coulombs-law
New contributor
$endgroup$
The magnitude of the electrostatic force between two charges $Q$ and $q$ separated by a distance $r$ is given by $$F=frac{kqQ}{r^2}$$ but the minimum value of $r$ must be $10^{-15} rm m$. Therefore, my question is can the electrostatic force ever be infinite?
forces electrostatics electric-fields singularities coulombs-law
forces electrostatics electric-fields singularities coulombs-law
New contributor
New contributor
edited yesterday
Qmechanic♦
106k121971227
106k121971227
New contributor
asked yesterday
AdityaAditya
173
173
New contributor
New contributor
1
$begingroup$
First, you should explain why you think the minimum value $r$ can be is $10^{-15}$, since that would help know where you are coming from. Second, if you take this to be true, then wouldn't that necessarily mean the force cannot be infinite? It sounds like you are actually questioning this "minimum $r$" idea, which we cannot comment on since we do not know why you think this is the case.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday
$begingroup$
@AaronStevens I think it's supposed to be the diameter of an electron.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
yesterday
$begingroup$
@BobD I thought it is supposed to be the length scale of the atomic nucleus?
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday
$begingroup$
@AaronStevens Yeah, could be. I my based my comment on the following reference Pauling, Linus. College Chemistry, San Francisco: Freeman, 1964 "The radius of an electron has not been fully determined exactly but it i known to be less than $1^{-13}$cm. But others have it different. I think the OP
$endgroup$
– Bob D
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@AaronStevens I suspect Aditya is referring to the so-called "classical radius of the electron". Aditya - if that's the case, you should edit your question to make this explicit.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
1
$begingroup$
First, you should explain why you think the minimum value $r$ can be is $10^{-15}$, since that would help know where you are coming from. Second, if you take this to be true, then wouldn't that necessarily mean the force cannot be infinite? It sounds like you are actually questioning this "minimum $r$" idea, which we cannot comment on since we do not know why you think this is the case.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday
$begingroup$
@AaronStevens I think it's supposed to be the diameter of an electron.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
yesterday
$begingroup$
@BobD I thought it is supposed to be the length scale of the atomic nucleus?
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday
$begingroup$
@AaronStevens Yeah, could be. I my based my comment on the following reference Pauling, Linus. College Chemistry, San Francisco: Freeman, 1964 "The radius of an electron has not been fully determined exactly but it i known to be less than $1^{-13}$cm. But others have it different. I think the OP
$endgroup$
– Bob D
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@AaronStevens I suspect Aditya is referring to the so-called "classical radius of the electron". Aditya - if that's the case, you should edit your question to make this explicit.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
First, you should explain why you think the minimum value $r$ can be is $10^{-15}$, since that would help know where you are coming from. Second, if you take this to be true, then wouldn't that necessarily mean the force cannot be infinite? It sounds like you are actually questioning this "minimum $r$" idea, which we cannot comment on since we do not know why you think this is the case.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday
$begingroup$
First, you should explain why you think the minimum value $r$ can be is $10^{-15}$, since that would help know where you are coming from. Second, if you take this to be true, then wouldn't that necessarily mean the force cannot be infinite? It sounds like you are actually questioning this "minimum $r$" idea, which we cannot comment on since we do not know why you think this is the case.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday
$begingroup$
@AaronStevens I think it's supposed to be the diameter of an electron.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
yesterday
$begingroup$
@AaronStevens I think it's supposed to be the diameter of an electron.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
yesterday
$begingroup$
@BobD I thought it is supposed to be the length scale of the atomic nucleus?
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday
$begingroup$
@BobD I thought it is supposed to be the length scale of the atomic nucleus?
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday
$begingroup$
@AaronStevens Yeah, could be. I my based my comment on the following reference Pauling, Linus. College Chemistry, San Francisco: Freeman, 1964 "The radius of an electron has not been fully determined exactly but it i known to be less than $1^{-13}$cm. But others have it different. I think the OP
$endgroup$
– Bob D
yesterday
$begingroup$
@AaronStevens Yeah, could be. I my based my comment on the following reference Pauling, Linus. College Chemistry, San Francisco: Freeman, 1964 "The radius of an electron has not been fully determined exactly but it i known to be less than $1^{-13}$cm. But others have it different. I think the OP
$endgroup$
– Bob D
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
@AaronStevens I suspect Aditya is referring to the so-called "classical radius of the electron". Aditya - if that's the case, you should edit your question to make this explicit.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
yesterday
$begingroup$
@AaronStevens I suspect Aditya is referring to the so-called "classical radius of the electron". Aditya - if that's the case, you should edit your question to make this explicit.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This
but the minimum value of $r$ must be $10^{-15} rm m$
sounds like you found a reference to the so-called "classical radius of the electron", possibly with some figures for the radii of atomic nuclei, but you did not fully understand what the former means.
The 'classical radius of the electron' $r_mathrm{cl}$ is the radius at which a spherical lump of charge would have an electrostatic self-energy equal to the rest energy $E_mathrm{rest} = m_e c^2$ of the electron. But the key word there is "would": the electron isn't a spherical lump of charge: as far as we can tell, it is a point particle with no internal structure that we've been able to detect ─ with a current experimental precision of the order of $10^{-18}:rm m$.
It is true, on the other hand, that when you're considering the electrostatic interactions between point particles at length scales shorter than about $10^{-10}:rm m$ (give or take, depending on what you're doing) you're going to need to change your framework from a classical viewpoint to one based on quantum mechanics, in which electrostatics remains mostly unchanged, but the whole mechanics itself (including the meanings of concepts like "trajectory", "distance" or "force") changes. Once you make that leap, the question of whether the electrostatic force can have infinite values becomes pretty much moot - but the singularity remains.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
what about Friedrich Bopp's theory of self energy of an electron as discussed in Feyman lectures Vol 2 ? Not applicable here.
$endgroup$
– gansub
10 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The classical physics equation $F = frac{kqQ}{r^2}$ has to be interpreted using quantum mechanics for sufficiently small length scales. So, its probably not appropriate to say that the force becomes infinite. A typical rule of thumb for the smallest length scale for which this applies is the Compton wavelength $lambda = frac{h}{mc}$. Here $h$ is Plank's constant, $c$ the speed of light and $m$ the particle mass. For an electron, this comes out to $2.4times 10^{-12}$m, but for a proton, it would be smaller.
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Physically, an infinite force is not possible. The fact that the simple electrostatic model (Coulomb's law)
$F=frac{kqQ}{r^2}$
suggests an infinite (or at least an unbounded) force between two point charges as they get closer and closer together tells us that this must be an approximate model which does not hold for very small $r$. Either point charges do not occur in nature, or the $r^{-2}$ model is replaced by something else for small enough $r$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Aditya is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f468608%2fcan-the-electrostatic-force-be-infinite-in-magnitude%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This
but the minimum value of $r$ must be $10^{-15} rm m$
sounds like you found a reference to the so-called "classical radius of the electron", possibly with some figures for the radii of atomic nuclei, but you did not fully understand what the former means.
The 'classical radius of the electron' $r_mathrm{cl}$ is the radius at which a spherical lump of charge would have an electrostatic self-energy equal to the rest energy $E_mathrm{rest} = m_e c^2$ of the electron. But the key word there is "would": the electron isn't a spherical lump of charge: as far as we can tell, it is a point particle with no internal structure that we've been able to detect ─ with a current experimental precision of the order of $10^{-18}:rm m$.
It is true, on the other hand, that when you're considering the electrostatic interactions between point particles at length scales shorter than about $10^{-10}:rm m$ (give or take, depending on what you're doing) you're going to need to change your framework from a classical viewpoint to one based on quantum mechanics, in which electrostatics remains mostly unchanged, but the whole mechanics itself (including the meanings of concepts like "trajectory", "distance" or "force") changes. Once you make that leap, the question of whether the electrostatic force can have infinite values becomes pretty much moot - but the singularity remains.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
what about Friedrich Bopp's theory of self energy of an electron as discussed in Feyman lectures Vol 2 ? Not applicable here.
$endgroup$
– gansub
10 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This
but the minimum value of $r$ must be $10^{-15} rm m$
sounds like you found a reference to the so-called "classical radius of the electron", possibly with some figures for the radii of atomic nuclei, but you did not fully understand what the former means.
The 'classical radius of the electron' $r_mathrm{cl}$ is the radius at which a spherical lump of charge would have an electrostatic self-energy equal to the rest energy $E_mathrm{rest} = m_e c^2$ of the electron. But the key word there is "would": the electron isn't a spherical lump of charge: as far as we can tell, it is a point particle with no internal structure that we've been able to detect ─ with a current experimental precision of the order of $10^{-18}:rm m$.
It is true, on the other hand, that when you're considering the electrostatic interactions between point particles at length scales shorter than about $10^{-10}:rm m$ (give or take, depending on what you're doing) you're going to need to change your framework from a classical viewpoint to one based on quantum mechanics, in which electrostatics remains mostly unchanged, but the whole mechanics itself (including the meanings of concepts like "trajectory", "distance" or "force") changes. Once you make that leap, the question of whether the electrostatic force can have infinite values becomes pretty much moot - but the singularity remains.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
what about Friedrich Bopp's theory of self energy of an electron as discussed in Feyman lectures Vol 2 ? Not applicable here.
$endgroup$
– gansub
10 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This
but the minimum value of $r$ must be $10^{-15} rm m$
sounds like you found a reference to the so-called "classical radius of the electron", possibly with some figures for the radii of atomic nuclei, but you did not fully understand what the former means.
The 'classical radius of the electron' $r_mathrm{cl}$ is the radius at which a spherical lump of charge would have an electrostatic self-energy equal to the rest energy $E_mathrm{rest} = m_e c^2$ of the electron. But the key word there is "would": the electron isn't a spherical lump of charge: as far as we can tell, it is a point particle with no internal structure that we've been able to detect ─ with a current experimental precision of the order of $10^{-18}:rm m$.
It is true, on the other hand, that when you're considering the electrostatic interactions between point particles at length scales shorter than about $10^{-10}:rm m$ (give or take, depending on what you're doing) you're going to need to change your framework from a classical viewpoint to one based on quantum mechanics, in which electrostatics remains mostly unchanged, but the whole mechanics itself (including the meanings of concepts like "trajectory", "distance" or "force") changes. Once you make that leap, the question of whether the electrostatic force can have infinite values becomes pretty much moot - but the singularity remains.
$endgroup$
This
but the minimum value of $r$ must be $10^{-15} rm m$
sounds like you found a reference to the so-called "classical radius of the electron", possibly with some figures for the radii of atomic nuclei, but you did not fully understand what the former means.
The 'classical radius of the electron' $r_mathrm{cl}$ is the radius at which a spherical lump of charge would have an electrostatic self-energy equal to the rest energy $E_mathrm{rest} = m_e c^2$ of the electron. But the key word there is "would": the electron isn't a spherical lump of charge: as far as we can tell, it is a point particle with no internal structure that we've been able to detect ─ with a current experimental precision of the order of $10^{-18}:rm m$.
It is true, on the other hand, that when you're considering the electrostatic interactions between point particles at length scales shorter than about $10^{-10}:rm m$ (give or take, depending on what you're doing) you're going to need to change your framework from a classical viewpoint to one based on quantum mechanics, in which electrostatics remains mostly unchanged, but the whole mechanics itself (including the meanings of concepts like "trajectory", "distance" or "force") changes. Once you make that leap, the question of whether the electrostatic force can have infinite values becomes pretty much moot - but the singularity remains.
answered yesterday
Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty
86.1k23213433
86.1k23213433
$begingroup$
what about Friedrich Bopp's theory of self energy of an electron as discussed in Feyman lectures Vol 2 ? Not applicable here.
$endgroup$
– gansub
10 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
what about Friedrich Bopp's theory of self energy of an electron as discussed in Feyman lectures Vol 2 ? Not applicable here.
$endgroup$
– gansub
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
what about Friedrich Bopp's theory of self energy of an electron as discussed in Feyman lectures Vol 2 ? Not applicable here.
$endgroup$
– gansub
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
what about Friedrich Bopp's theory of self energy of an electron as discussed in Feyman lectures Vol 2 ? Not applicable here.
$endgroup$
– gansub
10 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The classical physics equation $F = frac{kqQ}{r^2}$ has to be interpreted using quantum mechanics for sufficiently small length scales. So, its probably not appropriate to say that the force becomes infinite. A typical rule of thumb for the smallest length scale for which this applies is the Compton wavelength $lambda = frac{h}{mc}$. Here $h$ is Plank's constant, $c$ the speed of light and $m$ the particle mass. For an electron, this comes out to $2.4times 10^{-12}$m, but for a proton, it would be smaller.
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The classical physics equation $F = frac{kqQ}{r^2}$ has to be interpreted using quantum mechanics for sufficiently small length scales. So, its probably not appropriate to say that the force becomes infinite. A typical rule of thumb for the smallest length scale for which this applies is the Compton wavelength $lambda = frac{h}{mc}$. Here $h$ is Plank's constant, $c$ the speed of light and $m$ the particle mass. For an electron, this comes out to $2.4times 10^{-12}$m, but for a proton, it would be smaller.
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The classical physics equation $F = frac{kqQ}{r^2}$ has to be interpreted using quantum mechanics for sufficiently small length scales. So, its probably not appropriate to say that the force becomes infinite. A typical rule of thumb for the smallest length scale for which this applies is the Compton wavelength $lambda = frac{h}{mc}$. Here $h$ is Plank's constant, $c$ the speed of light and $m$ the particle mass. For an electron, this comes out to $2.4times 10^{-12}$m, but for a proton, it would be smaller.
New contributor
$endgroup$
The classical physics equation $F = frac{kqQ}{r^2}$ has to be interpreted using quantum mechanics for sufficiently small length scales. So, its probably not appropriate to say that the force becomes infinite. A typical rule of thumb for the smallest length scale for which this applies is the Compton wavelength $lambda = frac{h}{mc}$. Here $h$ is Plank's constant, $c$ the speed of light and $m$ the particle mass. For an electron, this comes out to $2.4times 10^{-12}$m, but for a proton, it would be smaller.
New contributor
New contributor
answered yesterday
Laurence LurioLaurence Lurio
913
913
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Physically, an infinite force is not possible. The fact that the simple electrostatic model (Coulomb's law)
$F=frac{kqQ}{r^2}$
suggests an infinite (or at least an unbounded) force between two point charges as they get closer and closer together tells us that this must be an approximate model which does not hold for very small $r$. Either point charges do not occur in nature, or the $r^{-2}$ model is replaced by something else for small enough $r$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Physically, an infinite force is not possible. The fact that the simple electrostatic model (Coulomb's law)
$F=frac{kqQ}{r^2}$
suggests an infinite (or at least an unbounded) force between two point charges as they get closer and closer together tells us that this must be an approximate model which does not hold for very small $r$. Either point charges do not occur in nature, or the $r^{-2}$ model is replaced by something else for small enough $r$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Physically, an infinite force is not possible. The fact that the simple electrostatic model (Coulomb's law)
$F=frac{kqQ}{r^2}$
suggests an infinite (or at least an unbounded) force between two point charges as they get closer and closer together tells us that this must be an approximate model which does not hold for very small $r$. Either point charges do not occur in nature, or the $r^{-2}$ model is replaced by something else for small enough $r$.
$endgroup$
Physically, an infinite force is not possible. The fact that the simple electrostatic model (Coulomb's law)
$F=frac{kqQ}{r^2}$
suggests an infinite (or at least an unbounded) force between two point charges as they get closer and closer together tells us that this must be an approximate model which does not hold for very small $r$. Either point charges do not occur in nature, or the $r^{-2}$ model is replaced by something else for small enough $r$.
answered yesterday
gandalf61gandalf61
46028
46028
add a comment |
add a comment |
Aditya is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Aditya is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Aditya is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Aditya is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f468608%2fcan-the-electrostatic-force-be-infinite-in-magnitude%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
First, you should explain why you think the minimum value $r$ can be is $10^{-15}$, since that would help know where you are coming from. Second, if you take this to be true, then wouldn't that necessarily mean the force cannot be infinite? It sounds like you are actually questioning this "minimum $r$" idea, which we cannot comment on since we do not know why you think this is the case.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday
$begingroup$
@AaronStevens I think it's supposed to be the diameter of an electron.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
yesterday
$begingroup$
@BobD I thought it is supposed to be the length scale of the atomic nucleus?
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday
$begingroup$
@AaronStevens Yeah, could be. I my based my comment on the following reference Pauling, Linus. College Chemistry, San Francisco: Freeman, 1964 "The radius of an electron has not been fully determined exactly but it i known to be less than $1^{-13}$cm. But others have it different. I think the OP
$endgroup$
– Bob D
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@AaronStevens I suspect Aditya is referring to the so-called "classical radius of the electron". Aditya - if that's the case, you should edit your question to make this explicit.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
yesterday