What causes the charge of an electron?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

IOW, you don't have an answer. Why are you even posting in this thread then?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

These are the kinds of questions that String Theory attempts to answer. It posits that each particle owes it's properties to the mode of oscillation of a fundamental quanta of energy, called a string. But even then, of course, one has every right to inquire about what it is that gives birth to such particular modes of oscillation. I'm not suggesting that there is anything more fundamental than a string, only that the question of where any fundamental quanta of anything gets it's basic properties from is probably going to be the last question that ever gets answered (if it ever gets answered at all).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Interesting info and excellent final point! Wouldn't it be interesting if hundreds of years from now science incorporated music into it's metaphorical languages, resulting in fields of research like quantum tonality, string harmonics or m-brane symphonics? Then, instead of simplifying agebraic equations to acquire intuitive and aesthetic certainty we could compose complex symphonies and fugues that acoustically "explain" on a deeper level why particles have such and such properties. At that stage a Mozart or a Bach would be as revolutionary a force in science as Einstein was!

 

No, I don’t think it would be fair to say that charge is light. It would be fair to say that light is energy, electromagnetic radiation, and natures way of transferring energy through space.

Energy and charge are different. Energy is like sound waves traveling through air, while charge is like the air.

The disturbances in the electromagnetic fields are photons and the energy of the photons is quantized. The electric field is produced by stationary charges and magnetic field by moving charges. From a different frame of reference, the fields are viewed as mixed, not separate. The electromagnetic field is primary and the charges and currents are secondary. The charges and currents are not physical entities but just a consequence of the electromagnetic field.

 

Speaking of the electron charge, did they really split the electron? :shrug:

“However, in modern quantum mechanics there is no such thing as a "half-electron," leading to much skepticism from experts in quantum theory although none of them have been able to disprove Maris's theory. It seems either Maris or quantum theory must be wrong as the theories are mutually incompatible.”

Splitting the electron bubble

Scientist believes he split the indivisible

Slicing an Electron's Charge into Three

 

Good question. I don’t think that you can really say that the electron has been split but I could be wrong. I think this describes the behavior of electrons in materials. The spinion, chargon, and the holon are more like fictional particles.

Similar to how sound waves aren’t really discrete particles. It is just the vibrations of air molecules. It’s a way to describe wave phenomena. The spinon carries the spin and the chargon the charge but it’s only used to describe the electrons behavior in materials. It is just an easier way to talk about the behavior of electrons in certain situations. If you’re interested read about spin charge separation and quasiparticles.

 

And still very often the greatest advances in our understanding of the world have come from just such breaks with what at the time was contemporary thought.

Too often we become so invested in a particular perspective that we dismiss alternate perspectives out of hand. Never argue politics or religion!

Theories are very powerful tools, useful in our attempt to understand the world. Still they remain, our best guesses and often are based on assumptions that in and of theirselves are unverifiable.

Consider the standard model and quarks. Quarks are by their very nature beyond experimental confirmation. They are in essence a construct of the underlying mathematical model. Please do notntake this as an attack on the standard model. I mean only to emphasize the fact that a fundamental component of one of our best theoretical models cannot be observationally verified. Yet their existence and theoretical interaction is often treated as fact, rather than theory.

When we lable ideas, models and theories as pseudoscience or fringe science solely because they challenge or conflict with generally accepted theory, we also sometimes limit the possibilities available, to advance our understanding.

However this discussion while intriguing and perhaps under some circumstance potentially useful, has become a digression from the initial subject of the thread and moved into philosophy.

To some extent your response quoted above is accurate. My concern is that the sentiment has the potential to limit progress by supressing some avenues of exploration, simpy because of a lable.

 

Another question might be. If the electron can be split what charge or fractional charge do the 'pieces' have?

 

More explanations…

The boundless space of our 3D cosmos is the boundary surface of its own 4D totality‚ a hypercube. Boundless space is the 3D surface of this 4 dimensional construct. This is analogous to a boundless 2D surface of a sphere upon the 3D space within.

The hypercube has a constant, finite, four-dimensional size, and this is the boundary condition for energy quantization, called unit hypervolume, as shown in this reduction of dimensional units for the photon energy…

hc / EnergyDensity = (in dimensional units) =

( Energy*time * distance/time ) / ( Energy/distance^3 ) =

Energy*distance^4 / Energy = distance^4 = unit hypervolume!


Distance^4 externally is (time)(distance^3) internally, spacetime.

Internally, the 4th dimension has polarity, a must for the nullification of existence.

Positive and negative fields of energy are physical deflections of space along the 4th dimension. Time is this difference of spaces, an index to the spaces, as well as serving as charge. Conversely, spaces are the difference of time.


c = distance^4 / (time)(distance^3) = distance/time = the one and only dimensional ratio equivalent of distance and time.

The polar volumes of (+)distance^3 and (-)distance^3 sum to nothing. A polar volume is half of hypervolume.


Ex nihilo. Nothing else to make existence of. QED

 

Fragile Rocker,

The conversation in threads like this would be very different were everyone participating a "scientist" in that particular area of science. That does not appear to be the case...

It is true I am not a very good communicator. At least not within the context involved here.

Reasonable doubt is subjective not objective. Scientists are human and biased by their own experience and perceptions. That is one reason pier review is important.

Quarks have never been independently observed. They exist as a construct of a mathematical model. The model is successful, within limits. Quarks still remain a theoretical component of an otherwise successful theory/model. However, if someone has isolated a quark please give me a reference.

To point out that the existence of quarks and gluons is a construct is not an attack on their theoretical value. It does not even claim they are unreal. It just asserts that when using them as proof of something, more than just invoking their names is required.

If scientists discuss a theory they need not make a distinction between that portion of the theory they (or others) have proven or observed to be true/fact. They generally know which parts have and have not yet been demonstrated as fact.

When the conversation is with interested lay persons, representing unverified components of an otherwise successful theory/model as fact, which have not met the test, can be misleading.

An example of the problem can be made with a true story from the mid 70s:

I was driving with my wife one hot summer day, when we passed a man with an umbrella at the side of the road. (To me it was obvious that he was using the umbrella to shade himself from the sun. It was over 100 F that day.) I quickly exclaimed, "did you see that guy with the smog umbrella?" then proceeded to explain how it worked, generating an ion field between the umbrella and the ground. The ion field protecting the man from the smog. We drove on...

She later told my mother in-law about the smog umbrella, explanation and all. The problem occurred when her mother, who worked a the local steel mill, told co-workers the story during a break and was laughed out of the break room.

I got two scoldings out of that one. At the time it had not occurred to me that it was anything more than a fun joke. I had no idea that she took what I was saying as "real". My background in physics was the problem. My wife and mother in-law did not even question my story, I "knew" those things....

The sad part of the story is that you can buy them on the Internet today and I don't even get royalties. (Personally I am skeptical that it really works, but what the heck.)​

 

Here.

http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/top_status/top.html

 

Thanks AlexG.

I've seen that article. The original quark - standard model example was a poor choice. And requesting citation of isolation was also a bad choice, as the decay rate prohibits isolation.

 

I sent this to a couple of streams. Hope it makes sense. I love science and scientists look like the happiest people in the world. I only added this to your stream because I believe the spin of matter is a huge part of electrons in simple terms.


To whoever,

Thought I would right this down on computer during my break time to explain what I think the mystery of gravity is. The more I write about this the better I understand so here goes.

First off you need to understand that there are no absolutes in the universe. It has no specific size of any sort. Matter is both finite and eternal in its various ways and states of existence. Therefore you could say that matter is forever different and changing. In our sphere of understanding matter does exist in tangible forms, in various configurations but let us break it down into its true nature. If you take a piece of matter, let’s say an atom, and it is cut in half then you would have two parts of an atom that would need new names. The same would be given for the new next halves, then the next, then the next until eternity passes away and eternity does not pass away (or does it since there are no absolutes). Thus is born or always has been the vacuum or area of space. So we could say that the vacuum of space is matter but at a forever shrinking state. This is the vacuum effect. So now we have matter forever shrinking and dividing itself into even smaller particles forever which give us reason for motion. Reason for motion is what we could call energy. With no absolutes in the universe we find that there is no matter that is motionless. Therefore matter must be in motion or matter does not exist (and matter is because we are here). Okay matter is moving and we got that. Matter is forever getting smaller then of course matter is also forever bigger because we are on this eternal divide and course of matter, forever smaller to forever bigger. Watch with your senses how the solar system turns, hurtling large amount of mass, like this earth, into circles. Then see the solar system flip flop along its trail around the galaxy. Gosh I wonder why? The galaxy is also in a spin sending us thousands of our miles every second according to our sense of measurements. Could the galaxy be caught up in another few hundred spins in this universe? Of course it could and does. This is the essence and makeup of what gravity is. I don’t know if my words are plain enough but the “spins we are in” creates what we call gravity. Because we are in so many spins all at once, the matter that makes us up, tends to centralize. Centrifugal forces all around us pushing us (matter) down on other matter. So gravity is not so much a pull but rather a push towards the center of where centrifugal forces meet. We don’t fly off the spinning planet because all these many centrifugal forces counter act each other forcing matter to its center. Imagine millions of different sizes and configurations of matter turning in powerful centrifugal spins effecting even the smallest of matter (if that exists) to destination that go around and around forever. This is what brings together matter. This is what makes matter form into different particles. Like size matter effected by like spins of the universe. I often wonder if black holes are just the very tiniest particles acted apon by the most powerful centrifugal forces. Like matter spinning in the same direction therefore coming together as magnetism. Imagine Tops spinning and hitting each other repelling one another. When weightless and free to realign themselves then Tops could come together if spinning the same direction at the same time and lined up at the right angle. Their spin weeds them out from other particles and they join into one unit or larger particle. Imagine the force of smaller powerful particles joined together shredding apart the larger one. This would explain why matter disappears into black holes because they are made smaller than the black hole particles therefore shot out, joining the vacuum of space. Trying to explain this is hard. Rotation is what makes up all the powers of the universe. The building and destroying of particles creating the various energies and creations of space. In this gravity is explained and we are partakers of its mystery. Hope you like this and hope it helps you in some way.


Kurk Oliver Millward
The Wave Of The "FUTURE" Is Now

 

You don't learn very fast do you?
The majority of your other (nonsensical) posts have been deleted because they are nothing more than duplicates.
The thread you started is still open if you wish to actually discuss the topic.
If all you want to do is spam us then I foresee a very short "career" here on Sci.

 

That's an important part of being a "Tutor", while Scientists might well love to get bogged down with data that is only intelligible to themselves, those that participate in tuition attempt to follow the reasoning that if a potential student can not easily "digest" the material put before them, then they likely will not learn as efficiently.

Generating "simplified" explanations, tends to bridge the problems of a learning curvature that can occur between different students. (Some students are obviously more intelligent than others and quicker to associate with the fundamentals of a given subject, where as others will struggle.) Simplification aids those that would otherwise struggle and makes those that already excel likely to gain accolades.

Further still, if an education is an "Enjoyable experience" a student is less likely to be daydreaming to overcome boredom or devising ingenious ways to either get away with "bunking off" or sleeping during lectures.

In the competitive area of Grants and Funding for Academic institutes, it's obvious they would prefer to prove that their tutor's are more than just qualified to teach those students that attend their institute, as it makes sure their institute prospers.

 

Two problems with your thesis: 1) all these "spins" aren't really concentric to each other. They are in fact off centered. Earth spins, but the center of the solar system's spin is the sun. The center of the galaxy's spin is the black hole in it's center, etc. So all these off center "centripetal?" forces would be counteracting each other not adding up to one sum force.
2) gravity is related to mass not spatial position. If it were all the result of concentric spins then the smaller the object the more gravitational force it'd have. In fact it is just the opposite. From earth to sun to galactic black hole gravity only increases. That is, the large the scale the more gravity there is. This contradicts your idea of concentric spins adding up to gravitational force.

 

Fraggle Rocker: Is the following a sufficient explanation?

The only reason that the "basic unit" of charge is one is that humans defined the "basic unit" a long time ago when we had only broken the universe down into protons, electrons and such, and did not know about bosons, leptons and quarks. There's nothing sacred about that "basic unit." If we had discovered what we now consider to be the true elementary particles, we would have established the basic unit as one-third of what we actually did establish. It has utterly no bearing on anything, just a matter of fourth-grade arithmetic.​

Since the smallest quark charge is 1/3 the charge on an electron, I wonder if the electron (with three units) has structure. I wonder why there are no fundamental particles (other than quarks) with a charge of 1/3 or 2/3. Why is there no proton-like particle with a charge of 4/3 or 2/3 or 1/3? Does the way it is not suggest asking the above questions?

Perhaps the answer is to my speculative questions is: “That is just the way it is: Electrons have no structure & all proton-like particles have 3 Quark charges.” Perhaps my questions are similar to questions like: Why is there gravity?