Is charge a thing or a property

[Dovada]

!

Moderator Note

Split from http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/60170-are-protons-and-electrons-electrical-charges-or-do-protons-and-electrons-have-an-electrical-charge/

All real particles like electrons, protons and neutrons are composed of mass which contains electric charge or combinations of electric charge.

The term neutral is only applied to particles that have equal amounts of positive and negative charge. It does not mean they have no charge mass.

Particles do not have the ability to remain in existence without any charge, but do have the ability combine and share their charge with other particles. When this happens the properties of the particles are changed, for example the neutron decays into a separate positive proton and negative electron with some additional mass energy released into the environment in the form of an electron neutrino.

Without the properties associated with electric charge some particles could never be formed or even exist.

hope this helps. Edited October 8, 2011 by swansont
add modnote

[swansont]

All real particles like electrons, protons and neutrons are composed of mass which contains electric charge or combinations of electric charge.

 

The term neutral is only applied to particles that have equal amounts of positive and negative charge. It does not mean they have no charge mass.

 

Particles do not have the ability to remain in existence without any charge, but do have the ability combine and share their charge with other particles. When this happens the properties of the particles are changed, for example the neutron decays into a separate positive proton and negative electron with some additional mass energy released into the environment in the form of an electron neutrino.

 

Without the properties associated with electric charge some particles could never be formed or even exist.

 

hope this helps.

 

There are neutral particle which are not composites, e.g. the neutrino and the photon.

[Dovada]

There are neutral particle which are not composites, e.g. the neutrino and the photon.

 

The photon is a concept particle needed to assist in the description of theoretical quantum reactions. It also decays into what? It is fundamentally not a real particle it even has no mass. I read that it is a short burst of wave modulation of a particular frequency. If this is true then it must have electromagnetic properties. if it has electrical and magnetic properties it must contain oscillating charge! So it is with all so called neutral mass born out of decaying matter.

 

Some so called particles are only neutral by observation from an external point of view.

 

For this reason I referred to real particles.

 

Hope this helps to clarify my point.

[granpa]

in some languages a things IS what it does.

[DrRocket]

The photon is a concept particle needed to assist in the description of theoretical quantum reactions. It also decays into what? It is fundamentally not a real particle it even has no mass. I read that it is a short burst of wave modulation of a particular frequency. If this is true then it must have electromagnetic properties. if it has electrical and magnetic properties it must contain oscillating charge! So it is with all so called neutral mass born out of decaying matter.

 

Some so called particles are only neutral by observation from an external point of view.

 

For this reason I referred to real particles.

 

Hope this helps to clarify my point.

 

This flat wrong.

 

You don't have a point.

[Dovada]

This flat wrong.

 

You don't have a point.

 

Is a photon not the carrier of the electromagnetic force?

If it is, it must carry electric and magnetic forces. Namely electric charge.

 

(This flat wrong) is not very informative, please explain why?

[granpa]

the field lines in a photon form loops.

 

divergence is zero (there is no charge)

curl is nonzero

Edited October 8, 2011 by granpa

[Dovada]

the field lines in a photon form loops.

 

divergence is zero (there is no charge)

curl is nonzero

 

You do not make any real sense. Any activity within the photon requires energy no matter how small. Energy suggests charge and/or mass is involved E=mc^2 yet the photon has the miraculous property of being mass-less. I do not want to continue down this mostly speculative road.

 

I think we are getting away from the point that was first raised in this thread namely:

 

are protons and electrons electrical charges? or do protons and electrons HAVE an electrical charge?

Post

[granpa]

teh energy is in the field

 

the field line form loops and therefore dont end at charges.

 

its not that complicated.

 

and I've already answered the op

Edited October 8, 2011 by granpa

[Dovada]

teh energy is in the field

 

the field line form loops and therefore dont end at charges.

 

its not that complicated.

 

and I've already answered the op

 

Electrical energy charge does not need to be contained within electrical particles but can be contained within electrical hypothetical field lines that extend out from those particle sources.

 

For this reason propagation has been and still is, much of a mystery to physicists. It is better to leave this subject alone in this thread as it is going off subject.

 

I also feel you are becoming a little pedantic.

[granpa]

Electrical energy charge does not need to be contained within electrical particles but can be contained within electrical hypothetical field lines

 

Thats what I said.

[Dovada]

Thats what I said.

 

The field lines in this case consist of photons.

 

We seem to be going around in circles.

[granpa]

ah, so thats the misunderstanding.

 

field lines are not 'made of photons'.

[Dovada]

ah, so thats the misunderstanding.

 

field lines are not 'made of photons'.

 

What are they then?

[granpa]

fields are fundamental.

nobody knows what they are 'made of'.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_%28physics%29

 

In physics, a field is a physical quantity associated to each point of spacetime.[1] A field can be classified as a scalar field, a vector field, a spinor field, or a tensor field according to whether the value of the field at each point is a scalar, a vector, a spinor (e.g., a Dirac electron) or, more generally, a tensor, respectively. For example, the Newtonian gravitational field is a vector field: specifying its value at a point in spacetime requires three numbers, the components of the gravitational field vector at that point. Moreover, within each category (scalar, vector, tensor), a field can be either a classical field or a quantum field, depending on whether it is characterized by numbers or quantum operators respectively.

 

A field may be thought of as extending throughout the whole of space. In practice, the strength of every known field has been found to diminish to the point of being undetectable. For instance, in Newton's theory of gravity, the gravitational field strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the gravitating object. Therefore the Earth's gravitational field quickly becomes undetectable (on cosmic scales).

 

Defining the field as "numbers in space" shouldn't detract from the idea that it has physical reality. “It occupies space. It contains energy. Its presence eliminates a true vacuum.”[2] The vacuum is free of matter, but not free of field. The field creates a "condition in space"”[

[Dovada]

Which field are we talking about:

 

A field can be either a classical field or a quantum field, depending on whether it is characterized by numbers or quantum operators respectively.

 

Are we mixing classical theory with quantum theory? Action at a distance may be described either way. From the quantum point of view it occurs using the photon theory.

 

This discussion suggests we are a little off track for this thread, I feel the confusion exists because the two different theories do not mix properly.

[DrRocket]

Is a photon not the carrier of the electromagnetic force?

If it is, it must carry electric and magnetic forces. Namely electric charge.

 

(This flat wrong) is not very informative, please explain why?

 

A photon carries no charge. The photon mediates but does not "feel" the electromagnetic force.

 

Read a physics book. Gordon Kane's book on Modern Elementary Particle Physics would be a good start.

[Dovada]

A photon carries no charge. The photon mediates but does not "feel" the electromagnetic force.

 

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

 

If the photon contains no mass, then only the inertia of its frequency component can impart a reaction on an electron or similar particle.

For this reaction to have any effect it has to have electrical wave characteristics in its oscillatory structure to impose a electrical excitation of another charged particle.

 

I do not believe in magic.

[ajb]

If the photon contains no mass, then only the inertia of its frequency component can impart a reaction on an electron or similar particle.

For this reaction to have any effect it has to have electrical wave characteristics in its oscillatory structure to impose a electrical excitation of another charged particle.

 

The photon carries momentum, [math]p = \frac{E}{c}[/math]. As interaction are really just "exchanges of momentum" I don't see any reason for the photon to be electrically charged. I am not sure what is the easiest way to explain this, so I will just say that one can see that the photon is not electrically charged from Maxwell's equations, or maybe easier from the electromagnetic Lagrangian.

 

Have a look at radiation pressure.

 

Anyway when one is talking about electromagnetic interactions via photons one is inherently in the world of quantum field theory. I suggest, much like DrRocket that you read a little on modern physics.

 

 

 

I do not believe in magic.

 

This is good to hear.

[divinum1]

A charge of a particle must be its rotational motion-spin or torque. Since it produces no frequency or wavelength, but just a charge which constant. This means that its rotational motion-spin or torque is also constant. Therefore the charge of a particle is its rotational kinetic energy;

[Klaynos]

A charge of a particle must be its rotational motion-spin or torque. Since it produces no frequency or wavelength, but just a charge which constant. This means that its rotational motion-spin or torque is also constant. Therefore the charge of a particle is its rotational kinetic energy;

 

!

Moderator Note

This is not mainstream physics nor related to any previous speculation in this thread. If you would like to discus it start a new thread.

 

Please do not reply to this modnote.

[derek w]

A positive proton and negative electron,are attracted towards each other it takes energy to keep them apart,photon provides non charged energy,to push them apart.