03-19-11, 08:53 AM #1
What causes the charge of an electron?
Is it an inherent property of the electron? Is it a force that extends beyond the electron? What causes it?
03-19-11, 09:04 AM #2
This should be in either Physics or Cosmology.
There are, depending on which model you use, either 16 or 24 elementary subatomic particles, i.e., those which have no structure and cannot be broken down further. These consist of various kinds of quarks, leptons and bosons.
The electron is one of the leptons, one of the two types that carry a charge. If you want to ask about the "cause" of the nature of any of the elementary particles, such as "why" or "how" they came to have charge, mass, spin, or any other characteristic, you're venturing into that awkward place where pure mathematics and theoretical physics collide with philosophy, known as cosmology.
03-19-11, 10:51 AM #3
03-19-11, 11:25 AM #4
Not very helpful. Anyone else have a clue?...
No one really knows. No one really knows what or where any of the fundamental forces originate. There have been many attempts to theoretically answer the question. In a sense it has been a part of the Holy Grail of physics, the continuing search for a Unified Theory of Everything.
Charge can be described but there is no consensus within the contemporary community explaining what it really is. One of the problems we face is that all of the particles we consider fundamental are below the threshold of direct observation.
The electron charge is more a description of particle interaction than anything else. Why the interaction occurs is still a mystery. I am not sure you could get a diffinitive answer anywhere. Mass, spin, charge and the related magnetic moment are all considered fundamental.
03-19-11, 12:08 PM #5
03-19-11, 01:15 PM #6
Degrees, PhDs and even life experience in related fields have failed to answer the question to date. What we need is anyone who is interested asking questions and proposing ideas. The answer to questions like this will not come from what we know. They may come from lay questions pursued by those theorists looking for the answers.
Essentially there are no bad questions. Answers can be all over the place.
03-19-11, 01:49 PM #7
WHAT IS CHARGE and
WHY 1/137 for the fine-Structure constant and not 1/2?
The size of the one and only universe, this being its only boundary condition, is that of a 4D finite hypercube of quadric space made of infinite 3D spaces sitting atop one another, governs the quantization of energy forms, taking the form of Planck’s constant for light, and being the reason for elementary matter particles having the same magnitude of unit charge.
Charge (q) is responsible for the coulomb force:
Fq = q^2 / ( 4 * pi * e0 * r^2 )
Where e0 is a constant known as the permitivity of free space. The ratio of the coulomb strength (Fq) to Planck’s constant (hc) is called the fine structure constant, 1/137.
One might think that it should rather be 1/2 since photons are complete, having an inherent positive and negative charge that sums to neutrality, this polarity only showing forth when an electron and a positron are produced, whereas a matter particle is always an incomplete form having either a positive or a negative charge.
The reason this is not the case is because, unlike Planck’s constant, the coulomb’s force strength is not a direct assessment of unit polarity volume, for it is but a byproduct of unit polar volume just as electrostatic potential energy is a byproduct of rest energy.
A photon’s hypervolume is geometrically closed, while a matter particle’s unit polar volume is open; so, a matter particle’s net polarity prevents the spacial encapsulation of its 4th dimensional elevation of deflection, it thus being a distributional boundary condition, a family of relationships: time = unit polar volume of charge / volume.
Photons are the encapsulation of time by space, while matter particle fields are the encapsulation of space by time; thus their radically different properties.
Space is continuous and causal. The reason why a matter particle’s central deflection of elevation in time diminishes with distance is because external deflection is governed by a dimensional relationship between time and space in 4D space-time and this relationship is a constant.
Spacial deflection attenuates due to increasing volume because spatial volume causes this attenuation. Herein lies the meaning of charge. The coulomb’s force increases with the amount of external deflection, but it is not simply a case of a maximum deflection somewhere in space, but is a combination of deflection and volume, and this determines the deflection at any given range.
A matter particle distribution consists of an infinite number of concentric spherical surfaces with 4th-dimensional elevation scaled by their volume and unit polar volume. Matter particles are radically symmetrical, so the volume element of their field distribution is a sphere.
t = 3*(unit polar volume of charge) / 4*pi*r^3
External deflection decreases as the cube of the distance from a particle’s center. Whereas 3Dimensional deflections decrease as the square of distance, attenuated by increasing area, 4th-dimensional deflections decrease as the cube of distance, attenuated by increasing volume.
Unit polar volume is hc/4pi, so substituting, we can get a matter particle’s field’s actual displacement, 9.4(10^-18) / r^3, in meters, and so, since a proton’s electrostatic field is active at a radius as close as 1 fermi (10^-15) from its energy center, yields an external deflection of a trillion light years (9.4(10^27) m). Deflections of this magnitude are possible because although ‘c’ is energy’s speed limit through space, there is no limit to space’s speed through time.
03-19-11, 03:30 PM #8
03-19-11, 08:03 PM #9
03-19-11, 08:18 PM #10
Never ask a physicist why.
They don't like it because they usually don't have an answer.
They tend to get defensive and give a non answer they know you won't understand.
Some things just are as they are.
Like the value of c.
03-19-11, 08:26 PM #11
'c' (or Cee) can only be what it is, for there is only one dimensional equivalent between distance and time. I don't know what 'Dee' is, though.
OK, charge and 'c' are done. Any more questions?
03-19-11, 08:45 PM #12
The title of this thread is
"What causes the charge of an electron? " now you made a very erudite post commencing
"WHAT IS CHARGE and WHY 1/137 for the fine-Structure constant and not 1/2?"!
can you see my problem?
Tell me why Unit polar volume is hc/4pi and no other value.
Thats closer to the spirit of the initial question.
03-19-11, 09:04 PM #13
A side issue relating to charge: Electron charge is minus one; Quark Charges can be 1/3 or 2/3
The only permissible (Id est: Known) combinations of Quarks result in protons with a charge of plus one & Neutrons with a charge of minus one (I am ignoring anti-matter particles).
The above makes me wonder if the electron has structure & is made of particles with charges of 1/2 & 2/3
If the electron is fundamental (Id est: No structure) this means that the basic unit of negative charge is minus one, while the basic unit of positive charge is 1/3 --- This seems weird & has bothered me since I took a physics course in 12th grade (over 60 years ago).
03-19-11, 09:09 PM #14
03-19-11, 09:20 PM #15
"This seems weird & has bothered me since I took a physics course in 12th grade (over 60 years ago). "
In my limited experience education only seems to teach me how much more there is to know.
It's no sin to admit it.
Last edited by DeeCee; 03-19-11 at 09:34 PM. Reason: embarassind typo
03-19-11, 09:26 PM #16
What if the electron charge as we know it, 'in the world' is a function of atomic structure and the relationship between proton and electron is something else entirely?
Is the question hidden in there discernible?
The whole charge/spin 1/2, 1/3, 1... Convention is a mathematical construct. Doesn't make it false or true. Just makes it functional...
03-19-11, 09:33 PM #17
The 1/3, 2/3 business sounds like something broke apart, such as a cylinder, for a sphere is 2/3 of a cylinder.
03-19-11, 09:40 PM #18
You started off with a vague bit of nonsense and dialled it up to ridiculous. Can you justify any of your claims? Can you provide a working model for electromagnetism which corroborates any of what you've said? You talk about volumes and deflections and polarities, so I'm assuming you've quantified some or all of this? Right? Or have you just pulled buzzwords from your backside?
If you're going to make stuff up at least have the decency to make it clear you're making stuff up. Someone who doesn't understand the buzzwords you throw around might be taken in by your nonsense and think that its the mainstream view or has some scientific grounding. If you don't know don't answer, at least if you're silent you can't infect people with your ignorance.
03-19-11, 09:54 PM #19
03-19-11, 10:06 PM #20
Suppose that energy was spiraling inward, in the potential universe, and was also necessarily shifting sidewards, and while this all was the birth of spin, especially when all was catapulted outwardly in a Big Bang, it was much more than that, being that of the all of the universe, was the outcome of the balance, the proton with its three quarks, two ‘up’ (+2/3 + 2/3 charge) and a ‘down’ (-1/3 charge), resulting in a +1 charge, but not before a neutron formed, with its three quarks, two ‘down’(-1/3 - 1/3 charge) and an ‘up’ (+2/3 charge), resulting in a 0 charge overall.
Circles do ever come into play, for they are of the field waves whirled, and, with their motion in 3D, they become as cylinders, an ‘up’ quark and a ‘down’ quark, this for sure
When the inwards spiraling stops when it can go no further inward, these so-called cylinders, being the compartments between the striations of energy, in balance, but not at rest, thus separate by the conflict of the inward direction, which has stopped, and the sidewards direction, which continues ever faster.
A sphere, which is 2/3 of a cylinder held together as its own result, being compacted to its maximum, focused inwardly, as stopped energy, its behavior now apart from the whole, while the two 1/6 half-remainders of the cylinder were released, yet strove to return to wholeness, although focused sidewards.
The 1/6 half-remainder of the bottom of a cylinder clumped with the 1/6 half-remainder at the top of the next cylinder in line, they being already near each other, and this then constituted a whole -1/3 full remainder (‘down’ quark), which tried to cling to the +2/3 sphere (‘up’ quark), yet, it didn’t balance, being +1/3 off in charge.
So, another full -1/3 remainder then attached, in this attempt to form a neutron, which it did, of neutral charge, being wholesome, but not stable, even with its balanced 0 charge from the two ‘down’ full remainders, adding to -2/3, with an ‘up’ sphere of +2/3, for now there would be an excess of bare and lonely spheres with no full -1/3 remainders available to them.
So then, soon arrives the proton form, with its +1 charge, the two ‘up’ quark spheres provide +4/3, and the ‘down’ quark full remainder -1/3. By adding one more sphere (up) and having just one full -1/3 remainder (down) we gain overall stability, for the neutron and the proton combined have 3 spheres (‘up’ quarks) and 3 full remainders (‘down’ quarks), reconciling to 3 whole cylinders, thus making the first atomic unit, with the proton being the perfect balance to the neutron, but for the fact that many forms of hydrogen have no neutron, Oh, well.
By physicsup in forum PseudoscienceLast Post: 12-21-11, 08:24 AMReplies: 18
By TimeTraveler in forum General PhilosophyLast Post: 09-28-10, 11:36 AMReplies: 138
By jerrygg38 in forum Pseudoscience ArchiveLast Post: 12-29-08, 01:35 AMReplies: 6
By Reiku in forum Pseudoscience ArchiveLast Post: 03-15-08, 07:47 PMReplies: 10