Could an electron just be a particles conservation of charge ?

[splodge]

In the present atomic model the atom consists of components but could the electron  just be an elementary particles conservation of charge ? 

[exchemist]

23 minutes ago, splodge said:

In the present atomic model the atom consists of components but could the electron  just be an elementary particles conservation of charge ? 

Can you try to rephrase this? It appears meaningless. 

[splodge]

18 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Can you try to rephrase this? It appears meaningless. 

This is my last post of the day being a first time user of this forum unless the mods wants to hit the unlock button ! 

Imagine we have a single Proton and this Proton is without an electron . This Proton neither has an electrical charge . 

Now imagine this Proton has the ability by conductance to conserve an amount of electrical charge equal and proportional to its own dimensions . 

The conserved electrical charge would become electrically neutral , neutralised by the Proton . 

This elementary charge could be viewed as an Electron ? 

Different dimensions of Protons would have more or less Electrons creating different elements of the periodic table . (Dialectric particles perhaps) . 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 23, 2023 by splodge

[exchemist]

35 minutes ago, splodge said:

This is my last post of the day being a first time user of this forum unless the mods wants to hit the unlock button ! 

Imagine we have a single Proton and this Proton is without an electron . This Proton neither has an electrical charge . 

Now imagine this Proton has the ability by conductance to conserve an amount of electrical charge equal and proportional to its own dimensions . 

The conserved electrical charge would become electrically neutral , neutralised by the Proton . 

This elementary charge could be viewed as an Electron ? 

Different dimensions of Protons would have more or less Electrons creating different elements of the periodic table . (Dialectric particles perhaps) . 

 

 

 

 

Yeah. Bye.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, splodge said:

Now imagine this Proton has the ability by conductance to conserve an amount of electrical charge equal and proportional to its own dimensions .

Still meaningless.

[joigus]

On 3/23/2023 at 5:18 PM, splodge said:

In the present atomic model the atom consists of components but could the electron  just be an elementary particles conservation of charge ? 

Conservation of charge bears out an elementary symmetry. The electron is a carrier of that symmetry.

How could bilateral symmetry (a quality of a thing) be the thing itself?

Flies have bilateral symmetry. Is bilateral symmetry of a fly the fly itself?

Please, come to your senses.

[MigL]

I get the impression that you're saying electrons  are required simply because protons acquire a certain positive charge that needs to be 'balanced out' due to charge conservation.

Alas, electrons do exist, and have been measured/observed on their own, without a 'balancing' proton.
And electrons are not charge, rather, they have the property of charge.

[joigus]

Ah, so OP maybe is trying to say, 'could the electron be there just because charges need to balance out?'

If that's the case, I know of a class of theorems called 'soft boson theorems' in QFT that say that something very weird would happen if charges didn't balance out at distances long enough, and that would make QFT inconsistent.

That alone wouldn't explain why the universe is not just a soup of photons from all the particle-antiparticle pairs having annihilated each other long in the past...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, joigus said:

Conservation of charge bears out an elementary symmetry. The electron is a carrier of that symmetry.

How could bilateral symmetry (a quality of a thing) be the thing itself?

Flies have bilateral symmetry. Is bilateral symmetry of a fly the fly itself?

Please, come to your senses.

Impossible. This was Theorist again. 🤪 

[joigus]

9 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Impossible. This was Theorist again. 🤪 

Ah, so there's a history of the theorist...

[exchemist]

10 minutes ago, joigus said:

Ah, so there's a history of the theorist...

On many forums.

[KJW]

7 hours ago, joigus said:

Conservation of charge bears out an elementary symmetry. The electron is a carrier of that symmetry.

How could bilateral symmetry (a quality of a thing) be the thing itself?

Flies have bilateral symmetry. Is bilateral symmetry of a fly the fly itself?

Please, come to your senses.

[My bold]

To be fair, relatively few people are aware that charge is the result of a symmetry. Perhaps you could explain what that symmetry is.

 

 

[joigus]

4 minutes ago, KJW said:

To be fair, relatively few people are aware that charge is the result of a symmetry. Perhaps you could explain what that symmetry is.

I can do better than that:

 

https://people.math.harvard.edu/~knill/teaching/mathe320_2017/blog17/Hermann_Weyl_Symmetry.pdf

According to Hermann Weyl, something is symmetric when it looks the same after you change a condition.

The 'thing' is thus symmetrical under the change of such 'condition'.

A sphere is symmetrical under rotations around its centre.

A fly is symmetrical under reflection through a mirror.

The laws of physics are symmetrical under changing particles for antiparticles.

...

And so on

The usefulness of Weyl's definition stems from the fact that certain transformations can be expressed in very simple terms as functions of few parameters.

 

[KJW]

5 minutes ago, joigus said:

I can do better than that:

 

https://people.math.harvard.edu/~knill/teaching/mathe320_2017/blog17/Hermann_Weyl_Symmetry.pdf

According to Hermann Weyl, something is symmetric when it looks the same after you change a condition.

The 'thing' is thus symmetrical under the change of such 'condition'.

A sphere is symmetrical under rotations around its centre.

A fly is symmetrical under reflection through a mirror.

The laws of physics are symmetrical under changing particles for antiparticles.

...

And so on

The usefulness of Weyl's definition stems from the fact that certain transformations can be expressed in very simple terms as functions of few parameters.

 

What I meant was: to what symmetry does charge conservation correspond?

 

 

[joigus]

1 minute ago, KJW said:

What I meant was: to what symmetry does charge conservation correspond?

 

 

Global phase invariance. IOW,

\[ \psi\rightarrow e^{i\alpha}\psi \]

where \( \alpha \) is a constant phase shift in the wave function. You can easily prove charge is conserved via Noether's theorem if you have a Lagrangian that produces the equations of motion. 

It's the global version of gauge invariance. When you have local gauge invariance, not only gauge charge is conserved, but a field has to step in to guarantee it is preserved. And god says,

Let there be light,

Let there be gluons,

Let there be Z and W bosons,

and (hopefully),

Let there be gravitons, even if nobody can calculate anything with them.

[Genady]

Quote

The symmetry that is associated with charge conservation is the global gauge invariance of the electromagnetic field.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_conservation

[joigus]

Also:

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Gauge_invariance

[KJW]

Thank you for your effort, but I was hoping for something I didn't already know (although a clarification of the distinction between global and local symmetries pertaining to Noether's theorem would be helpful). My particular difficulty is about the connection between a wavefunction, which describes probability of general objects, and electromagnetism, which is a more specific notion than the objects to which wavefunctions apply. And of course, there are the weak and strong forces, with their own symmetries. The symmetries of the electromagnetic, weak, and strong forces are often described as "internal symmetries", but I find this term unsatisfying.

 

 

Another thing:

How does

[math]A'_{\mu} = A_{\mu} + \partial_{\mu} \phi[/math]

from classical electrodynamics relate to

[math]\psi\, ' = e^{i \phi} \psi[/math]

from quantum mechanics?

 

Edited February 11 by KJW

[abuislam]

The idea that an electron could be simply a particle's conservation of charge is an interesting concept but doesn't fully capture the nature of the electron in the context of modern physics. Let’s break down the concepts involved:

1. Electron as a Fundamental Particle:

   • In the Standard Model of particle physics, an electron is considered a fundamental particle, meaning it is not composed of smaller particles. It has intrinsic properties such as mass, charge, and spin.
   • The electron carries a negative elementary charge of approximately −1.602×10−19−1.602×10−19 coulombs.

2. Conservation of Charge:

   • The law of conservation of charge states that the total electric charge in an isolated system remains constant over time.
   • This principle applies to all processes involving particles, such as chemical reactions and particle interactions, ensuring that the net charge before and after any interaction remains the same.

3. Charge Carriers:

   • In various physical processes, electrons act as charge carriers. For example, in electric circuits, the flow of electrons constitutes electric current.
   • The electron's charge plays a crucial role in electromagnetic interactions, as described by quantum electrodynamics (QED).

4. Electron and Conservation Laws:

   • While the electron itself is not merely a manifestation of the conservation of charge, its existence and behavior are governed by this fundamental conservation law.
   • In particle interactions, electrons are produced and annihilated in pairs with their antiparticles, positrons, to preserve charge neutrality. For instance, when an electron and a positron annihilate, the result is the production of photons, which are neutral particles, thus conserving the net charge.

5. Quantum Field Theory:

   • In quantum field theory, particles like electrons are excitations of underlying fields. The electron field is responsible for the presence of electrons and governs their interactions.
   • Charge conservation in this framework is related to the invariance of the system under certain symmetries (Noether's theorem).

In conclusion, while the electron is integral to the principle of charge conservation in physical processes, it is more than just a representation of this conservation law. It is a fundamental particle with distinct properties, whose behavior conforms to and exemplifies the conservation of charge. The existence of the electron allows for a wide range of physical phenomena and interactions that are consistent with the principles of modern physics.

[Mordred]

Why do I feel this has been copied and pasted ?

1 hour ago, abuislam said:

The idea that an electron could be simply a particle's conservation of charge is an interesting concept but doesn't fully capture the nature of the electron in the context of modern physics. Let’s break down the concepts involved:

1. Electron as a Fundamental Particle:

   • In the Standard Model of particle physics, an electron is considered a fundamental particle, meaning it is not composed of smaller particles. It has intrinsic properties such as mass, charge, and spin.
   • The electron carries a negative elementary charge of approximately −1.602×10−19−1.602×10−19 coulombs.

2. Conservation of Charge:

   • The law of conservation of charge states that the total electric charge in an isolated system remains constant over time.
   • This principle applies to all processes involving particles, such as chemical reactions and particle interactions, ensuring that the net charge before and after any interaction remains the same.

3. Charge Carriers:

   • In various physical processes, electrons act as charge carriers. For example, in electric circuits, the flow of electrons constitutes electric current.
   • The electron's charge plays a crucial role in electromagnetic interactions, as described by quantum electrodynamics (QED).

4. Electron and Conservation Laws:

   • While the electron itself is not merely a manifestation of the conservation of charge, its existence and behavior are governed by this fundamental conservation law.
   • In particle interactions, electrons are produced and annihilated in pairs with their antiparticles, positrons, to preserve charge neutrality. For instance, when an electron and a positron annihilate, the result is the production of photons, which are neutral particles, thus conserving the net charge.

5. Quantum Field Theory:

   • In quantum field theory, particles like electrons are excitations of underlying fields. The electron field is responsible for the presence of electrons and governs their interactions.
   • Charge conservation in this framework is related to the invariance of the system under certain symmetries (Noether's theorem).

In conclusion, while the electron is integral to the principle of charge conservation in physical processes, it is more than just a representation of this conservation law. It is a fundamental particle with distinct properties, whose behavior conforms to and exemplifies the conservation of charge. The existence of the electron allows for a wide range of physical phenomena and interactions that are consistent with the principles of modern physics.

 

If so then you need to include the reference source.

Not that the OP has ever responded.

On 2/10/2024 at 6:11 PM, KJW said:

Thank you for your effort, but I was hoping for something I didn't already know (although a clarification of the distinction between global and local symmetries pertaining to Noether's theorem would be helpful). My particular difficulty is about the connection between a wavefunction, which describes probability of general objects, and electromagnetism, which is a more specific notion than the objects to which wavefunctions apply. And of course, there are the weak and strong forces, with their own symmetries. The symmetries of the electromagnetic, weak, and strong forces are often described as "internal symmetries", but I find this term unsatisfying.

 

 

Another thing:

How does

A′μ=Aμ+∂μϕ

from classical electrodynamics relate to

ψ′=eiϕψ

from quantum mechanics?

 

I don't know if your still seeking answer to these excellent questions but this article describes local vs global symmetries as well as the connections specifically the gauge connections which you have above for \(A_\mu \)

https://www.physics.rutgers.edu/grad/618/lects/localsym_2.pdf

@KJW Your math savvy enough that the article should answer your questions but if not let me know and I should be able to help if not then this article will also help. Particularly since it includes how local, global, global internal and gauge symmetries are defined mathematically and includes the localized constraint.

Edited May 20 by Mordred

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Why do I feel this has been copied and pasted ?

Not copied and pasted, but rather generated by AI in the first place. Against our rules of arguing in good faith.

[Mordred]

That would explain the essay style.

[KJW]

On 5/20/2024 at 10:22 PM, Mordred said:

https://www.physics.rutgers.edu/grad/618/lects/localsym_2.pdf

Thanks.