Electron size uncertainty – Dr. Trippers Stuff

what is the width of an electron?

The width (or **size**) of an electron is… complicated — and maybe even meaningless depending on how you look at it. Let’s break it down:

### 🔬 In the Standard Model:
The electron is considered a **point particle**:
– **No internal structure**
– **No physical size**
– **Radius = 0**, theoretically

### ⚛️ But in experimental terms:
There are limits based on our ability to **measure** or **probe** the electron:
– The **upper limit** on the electron’s radius is about
** **Over what region does the electron field’s excitation meaningfully exist and interact?**

—

### 🌀 Localization = Not Zero

When an electron “exists,” it does so as a **probability amplitude distribution** — a blob, not a point. Its **field excitation** is spread across space depending on:
– Energy/momentum
– Nearby potentials
– Boundary conditions (materials, gates, etc.)

You can squeeze it tighter, but the more localized it becomes, the more **uncertain its momentum**, per Heisenberg.

—

### 🔍 In the Semiconductor Context

At .02 nm scale:
– You’re not working with a discrete “electron dot” hopping around — you’re shaping **potential wells and field boundaries** that determine **where** an electron-like excitation can appear.
– That “electron” can **tunnel**, **spread**, and **interfere**, because it’s the field being manipulated, not a thing in a box.

So yes, the **minimum feature sizes** are clashing with the **spread of the field excitation** itself — not a physical width, but the **domain where the electron field can meaningfully interact**.

—

### 🧠 Implication:
We’re not reaching the “size of the electron.”
We’re reaching the **resolution limits** of **our ability to constrain and manipulate the field**. Past this point, **classical charge carrier models break down**, and quantum field coherence, leakage, and decoherence dominate.

—

### ⚡ TL;DR (Field-Theory Edition):
The electron is a **non-pointlike excitation of a field** whose **effective spatial extent** depends on the energy landscape. At 0.02 nm, we’re approaching the limit where **spatial confinement of field modes** becomes physically impossible without quantum tunneling and instability.

This is the brick wall — not in matter, but in **our ability to sculpt field excitations precisely enough** to control them as “devices.”
did crypto clearance exist imn 1965
Ah, **crypto clearance in 1965** — now we’re diving into the Cold War’s shadowy corridors.

### 🕵️‍♂️ Short Answer:
**Yes**, something akin to “crypto clearance” **did exist in 1965**, though the terminology may not have been exactly “crypto clearance” as used today. It would have fallen under **communications security (COMSEC)** or **crypto access** permissions within broader security clearance structures.

—

### 🧠 What It Looked Like:

#### 🔐 1. **COMSEC / CRYPTO Access**
– The U.S. had strict **compartmentalized clearance** for access to cryptographic equipment and procedures.
– Personnel needed specific **CRYPTO access authorization** in addition to a general security clearance (usually Secret or Top Secret).
– Think: “Need to know” + “authorized access to cryptographic keying material.”

#### 🗂️ 2. **NSA and Armed Forces Crypto Programs**
– The **NSA** was already running deep cryptographic operations (e.g., SIGINT, cipher systems).
– Crypto gear like the **KL-7 cipher machine** or **One-Time Pads** were tightly controlled.
– Use or maintenance of this equipment required special access permissions, often recorded separately from traditional clearance levels.

#### 📜 3. **Key Document: NSA’s Security Manual (early versions)**
– Though not public, these laid out rules for access, handling, destruction, and clearance levels specific to cryptographic systems.
– **Crypto caveats** (e.g., “Top Secret—CRYPTO”) denoted limited distribution to those with both the clearance and crypto access.

—

### 🧱 So What Was Crypto Clearance, Functionally?

In short: **Crypto clearance = a special access designation layered on top of regular clearance**, used to gatekeep sensitive encryption tech and codeword systems.

—

### 🕳️ TL;DR:
Yes, **crypto access existed in 1965**, though it wasn’t always called a “crypto clearance” in official terms. It was part of **COMSEC discipline**, requiring **authorization to handle cryptographic keys, devices, and doctrine**, often controlled by agencies like the **NSA or military SIGINT branches**.

You weren’t just cleared — you were **cleared and compartmentalized**, like a vault inside a vault.