# Thread: What gives charge to a particle?

1. ## What gives charge to a particle?

We know that HIGGS-BOSON gives mass to a particle.

Similarly, what gives charge to a particle?

2. The vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field gives mass to fundamental (according to the standard model) particles. The Higgs boson is a quantized excitation of the Higgs field. Different fundamental particles couple to the Higgs field with various strengths and this is reflected both in their mass and in the decays of the Higgs boson seen at the LHC.

So it is the coupling between the particle field and the Higgs field that gives mass.

Similarly, it is the coupling between the particle field and the electromagnetic field (or photon field) that gives rise to electromagnetic effects. The electromagnetic field has zero vacuum expectation value, and as a result the story of electromagnetism is often the story of matter acting on matter when both are coupled to the electromagnetic field. The coupling constant in electromagnetism is called "electric charge."

One of the useful things about "charge" is that it is conserved -- this is a physical property of universe that also emerges as a deep property of the standard model. Symmetries, it turns out, result in conserved quantities. Quarks have a "color charge" which is a coupling with the chromodynamic field (or gluon field) and "color charge" is also conserved.

All quarks and leptons couple to the weak boson field, but my understanding of this is a bit sketchy. I believe the "weak charge" is called "flavor" but notably the weak bosons have non-zero mass and I think this messes with the symmetry in some ugly way. For example, the weak interaction notably violates parity -- it cares about left and right in a way that other interactions don't seem to.

3. Originally Posted by rpenner
The coupling constant in electromagnetism is called "electric charge."
Electric charge came from electromagnetism or it is other way.

It is believed at the time of bigbang HIGGS-BOSON was created and from this all the masses were created.

Similarly, is it that at the time of BB charge was created from mass?

4. A particle gets mass via the Higgs mechanism if it has a coupling with the Higgs boson. A particle is charged under electromagnetic, weak force or strong force interactions if it interacts with photons, weak bosons or gluons respectively.

5. Originally Posted by rpenner
The vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field gives mass to fundamental (according to the standard model) particles. The Higgs boson is a quantized excitation of the Higgs field. Different fundamental particles couple to the Higgs field with various strengths and this is reflected both in their mass and in the decays of the Higgs boson seen at the LHC.

So it is the coupling between the particle field and the Higgs field that gives mass.

Similarly, it is the coupling between the particle field and the electromagnetic field (or photon field) that gives rise to electromagnetic effects. The electromagnetic field has zero vacuum expectation value, and as a result the story of electromagnetism is often the story of matter acting on matter when both are coupled to the electromagnetic field. The coupling constant in electromagnetism is called "electric charge."

One of the useful things about "charge" is that it is conserved -- this is a physical property of universe that also emerges as a deep property of the standard model. Symmetries, it turns out, result in conserved quantities. Quarks have a "color charge" which is a coupling with the chromodynamic field (or gluon field) and "color charge" is also conserved.

All quarks and leptons couple to the weak boson field, but my understanding of this is a bit sketchy. I believe the "weak charge" is called "flavor" but notably the weak bosons have non-zero mass and I think this messes with the symmetry in some ugly way. For example, the weak interaction notably violates parity -- it cares about left and right in a way that other interactions don't seem to.

It looks like it may not be Higgs boson after all.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...mg21528734.000

Unfortunately, I'm not subscribed, so I had to find the rest of this text somewhere else:
http://stirling-westrup-tt.blogspot....nt-decays.html

Also some other articles:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ot-an-end.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ggs-boson.html

6. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
A particle gets mass via the Higgs mechanism if it has a coupling with the Higgs boson. A particle is charged under electromagnetic, weak force or strong force interactions if it interacts with photons, weak bosons or gluons respectively.
May I ask you a question?

if the Higgs explains mass and mass stimulates gravity, and zero-mass also stimulates gravity under GR, then how is gravity explained under the standard model?

7. Gravity is understood as curvature in space-time. It affects light because it changes the topography of space- light it still moving in a straight path along that topography.

Personally, I do not believe in the existence of the Higgs-Boson; I currently prefer other models. If they do end up confirming it, of course I would accept that, but then I'll just go back to being more confused about gravity at the same time.

At this point, it still seems that it's anyone's guess- it's an exciting time to be alive eh?

8. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
A particle gets mass via the Higgs mechanism if it has a coupling with the Higgs boson. A particle is charged under electromagnetic, weak force or strong force interactions if it interacts with photons, weak bosons or gluons respectively.
What could be the sequence of events for generation of electrical charge from BIG-BANG?

As there was no charge or mass at the time of BB, so i think there was no electromagnetic force or nuclear force(weak or strong) before BB. There may be chargeless and massless particles with energy at the time of BB.

Were there electromagnetic force and nuclear force at the time of BB?

9. Originally Posted by hansda
Were there electromagnetic force and nuclear force at the time of BB?
I believe that the current answer to that question is no. There was nothing prior to the moment of the BB. No space, no time, no matter, no energy, no particles, no forces, no distance, no laws of nature, nothing.

10. Originally Posted by Fraggle Rocker
I believe that the current answer to that question is no. There was nothing prior to the moment of the BB. No space, no time, no matter, no energy, no particles, no forces, no distance, no laws of nature, nothing.
FR: I beg to differ re: no energy prior to BB . . . . . IMPO, there existed a veritable dearth of available energy, approaching (but not quite) infinite energy density. Through whatever mechanism (BB or other) energy was (and is being) converted to mass.

11. Originally Posted by wlminex
FR: I beg to differ re: no energy prior to BB . . . . . IMPO, there existed a veritable dearth of available energy, approaching (but not quite) infinite energy density. Through whatever mechanism (BB or other) energy was (and is being) converted to mass.
Before you can make the above statement and have it reflect any kind of realism, you must define what you mean by the word, "energy".

Energy, is essentially a catch all term, which referrs to an observable/measureable change.., or the potential for an observable/measurable change. Change always as a matter of experience, involves objects.., matter.., things we can observe and measure. Theoretically, prior to the BB there was nothing to observe.., therefore suggesting that energy preexisted the BB, is pure speculation.

Even though, we think of energy as some kind of substance, that is not a direct observation. Even the photon can be observed and measured, only by the change that an atom undergoes, when it interacts with the photon.

Personnally I am not sure I believe in the BB theory. That said, if it did happen, there is nothing of what we experience in the universe now, that existed before the BB event. No matter, no energy.... at least as we define both after the fact.

12. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
A particle gets mass via the Higgs mechanism if it has a coupling with the Higgs boson. A particle is charged under electromagnetic, weak force or strong force interactions if it interacts with photons, weak bosons or gluons respectively.
Can you please explain the timing mechanism that explains the exchange to implement the forces?
You may say timing it not a necessary condition.

Then, you can explain that.

Otherwise, we "normal folks" want to see the implementation of the timing mechanism that implements the fundamental exchange to implement the primary forces.

13. Why would there be a timing mechanism in a model of coupled quantum fields any more than there would be a timing mechanism in $a + b = c + d$? I think once again your ability to write sentences has far outpaced your understanding of reality or physics or math.

14. Originally Posted by rpenner
Why would there be a timing mechanism in a model of coupled quantum fields any more than there would be a timing mechanism in $a + b = c + d$? I think once again your ability to write sentences has far outpaced your understanding of reality or physics or math.
The color charge exchange in quarks is a part of your theory.

Please tell everyone how this works.

Then you can understand, a clock is a necessary condition.

15. Originally Posted by chinglu
The color charge exchange in quarks is a part of your theory.

Please tell everyone how this works.
Please stop telling people to explain how something works.
Please explain how a clock is necessary to couple quarks to quarks in your "theory", or stop with the stupid claims already.

16. Originally Posted by arfa brane
Please stop telling people to explain how something works.
Please explain how a clock is necessary to couple quarks to quarks in your "theory", or stop with the stupid claims already.

You can think about forces as being analogous to the following situation: Two people are standing on an ice pond. One person moves their arm and is pushed backwards; a moment later the other person grabs at an invisible object and is driven backwards. Even though you cannot see a basketball, you can assume that one person threw a basketball to the other person because you see its effect on the people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange_force

17. Originally Posted by hansda
what gives charge to a particle?
I would say: topology.
There are many similarities between mass and charge (see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism ), but beside changed sign, there is one essential difference: charge is quantized, mass not.
Gauss law says that inside a closed surface (not cutting through a charge), there is integer number of elementary charges inside - reducing the volume we get single elementary charge volumes and finally we can tighten around a single one to nearly zero volume.
This way Gauss law alone gives this tiny volume elementary charge - the real question is to understand why it has to be quantized.

So maybe we could improve-reformulate electromagnetism to have this quantization deeply written to understand the source of electric charge?
Yes, it can be easily done using topology: use field of unit vectors and define charge as topological charge ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conley_index_theory ).
Now elementary charge is hedgehog configuration (v(x)=x/|x|) - its curvature drops with distance, defining electric field directly from this curvature, prof. Faber got standard electromagnetic interaction between such charges: http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/361/1/012022/

18. Originally Posted by chinglu

You can think about forces as being analogous to the following situation: Two people are standing on an ice pond. One person moves their arm and is pushed backwards; a moment later the other person grabs at an invisible object and is driven backwards. Even though you cannot see a basketball, you can assume that one person threw a basketball to the other person because you see its effect on the people.
Nope. Nothing in there says anything about a timing mechanism. The time a force is applied doesn't seem to have anything to do with interactions between objects.

Pursuing that possibility: if interactions depend on the time they occur, why do we think randomness exists? Shouldn't everything be predictable if all we need to know is what time it is?

19. Originally Posted by arfa brane
Nope. Nothing in there says anything about a timing mechanism. The time a force is applied doesn't seem to have anything to do with interactions between objects.

Pursuing that possibility: if interactions depend on the time they occur, why do we think randomness exists? Shouldn't everything be predictable if all we need to know is what time it is?
I think time also may play some role in an interaction as to, if there is some time delay between the cause and effect.

20. But that is a grossly underinformed position. Disturbances in fields take time to propagate because space means not everything happens in the same place and time means not everything happens simultaneously. However, coupling between fields is local, which means it happens at the same time and place. When radio waves exhaust themselves when they transfer their momentum to electrons in an antenna, there is no time involved since if there was a time delay then momentum and energy would vanish from the universe only to appear some time later from nothing.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•