What is Charge? - A New Survey
Michael J. Strickland
Obviously, the entire mass of the proton is not required to carry the +1
charge. Is the entire mass of the electron required to carry its charge?
Is the entire mass of a quark required to carry its 1/3 charge?
The electron and the positron have opposite charges of the same
magnitude.
What exactly is charge? How would the electron and the positron differ
in appearance if you could see them up close?
I maintain that if they are different particles or have a different
charge, then at some level they will look different.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland
Quality Services qualitys...@verizon.net
703-560-7380
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Androcles
"Michael J. Strickland" <qualitys...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:SO_uj.6248$0%3.674@trnddc06...
| Both the positron and the proton have the same charge.
|
| Obviously, the entire mass of the proton is not required to carry the +1
| charge. Is the entire mass of the electron required to carry its charge?
|
| Is the entire mass of a quark required to carry its 1/3 charge?
|
| The electron and the positron have opposite charges of the same
| magnitude.
|
| What exactly is charge? How would the electron and the positron differ
| in appearance if you could see them up close?
|
| I maintain that if they are different particles or have a different
| charge, then at some level they will look different.
What exactly is mass? How can I tell mass from charge?
Is the entire charge of a quark required to carry its 1/3 mass?
How would the proton and the positron differ in appearance if you
could see them up close?
I could maintain that if they are different particles or have a different
mass, then at some level they will look different, but nobody has
ever seen a particle so I won't.
Puppet_Sock
Ok.
> Obviously, the entire mass of the proton is not required to carry the +1
> charge. Is the entire mass of the electron required to carry its charge?
In what sense are you using the word "required?"
Or, to put it another way, I can answer your question if you
can answer it for a mundane object such as a brick. Is the
entire mass of a brick required for the brick to be itself?
> Is the entire mass of a quark required to carry its 1/3 charge?
Second verse, same as the first.
A little bit louder and a little bit worse.
> The electron and the positron have opposite charges of the same
> magnitude.
Ok.
> What exactly is charge?
A quantum number.
> How would the electron and the positron differ
> in appearance if you could see them up close?
Then they'd be visible up close. How would a brick be
different if you could *not* see it up close?
> I maintain that if they are different particles or have a different
> charge, then at some level they will look different.
Um. You probably think that makes sense. You'd be wrong.
Particles such as electrons have properties, but "look"
is not one of them.
Socks
Uncle Al
>
> Both the positron and the proton have the same charge.
Wow - an entire valid sentence!
> Obviously, the entire mass of the proton is not required to carry the +1
> charge. Is the entire mass of the electron required to carry its charge?
[snip]
Name a charged particle with zero rest mass.
We'll stop here before you crap your pants in public.
> I maintain that if they are different particles or have a different
> charge, then at some level they will look different.
"Look"? What does "look" mean when the relevant dimensions are below
400 nm, the human visible cutoff? Below 1 fm? Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Timo A. Nieminen
> Both the positron and the proton have the same charge.
>
> Obviously, the entire mass of the proton is not required to carry the +1
> charge. Is the entire mass of the electron required to carry its charge?
Worse, the electron is too small in radius for the mass to be due to it's
field energy (compare experimental measurements of electron radius via
scattering experiments - zero within error bars - with the "classical
electron radius", which is much larger). Solution: renormalization, in
either the quantum theory or the classical, however unsatisfactory it
might be.
> Is the entire mass of a quark required to carry its 1/3 charge?
>
> The electron and the positron have opposite charges of the same magnitude.
>
> What exactly is charge?
Who knows? We know how charge behaves (except for difficulties requiring
renormalization), we know how charges of particles compare with each other
quantitatively, but that isn't an answer to "what exactly is charge?" In
general, physicists don't know what charge _is_. But I'm sure you can find
people who KNOW (often along the lines of "charge is a vortex in the
aether").
> How would the electron and the positron differ in
> appearance if you could see them up close?
>
> I maintain that if they are different particles or have a different charge,
> then at some level they will look different.
"Look" usually refers to interaction of said object with light. By this
standard, a lone electron and positron will "look" the same. Extend "look"
to include interaction with other things, and they can "look" different.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
Sue...
<qualityservic...@verizon.net> wrote:
> What exactly is charge?
It is magic. If someone told you the secret you would
would loose your interest in physics. :o)
Coulomb's law
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node28.html
Pictures of them never look the same.
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/electrostatics/index.htm
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/index.html
Sue...
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Michael J. Strickland
> Quality Services qualityservic...@verizon.net
> 703-560-7380
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Wormley
> Both the positron and the proton have the same charge.
>
http://pdg.lbl.gov/index.html
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/listings/contents_listings.html
http://particleadventure.org/frameless/chart_cutouts/particle_chart.jpg
hhc...@yahoo.com
> On Feb 20, 2:02 pm, "Michael J. Strickland"
>
> <qualityservic...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > What exactly is charge?
>
> It is magic. If someone told you the secret you would
> would loose your interest in physics. :o)
Worse still Sue, when you major in physics you will likely be required
to repeat the "Millikan's Oil Drop Experierment" and actually measure
the charge on an electron. Perhaps you've already done it so you know
why it frustrates students who would prefer to be out cramming for a T-
mech exam or getting drunk or laid.
For those who have not suffered through this rather simple experiment,
here is the way that it works. You spray an atomize full of light oil
into a chamber with electrodes on each side, and observe the droplets
though a microscope. You pick one particular droplet, and then vary
the voltage on the electrodes until in remains stationary. (Sue, do I
remember this correctly from 50 years back?) You record the voltage
on the plates that is required to hold the oil drop motionless. Next,
you move on to another drop. OK, after collecting voltage data on
usually 100 drops, you then analyze the recorded data. Typically the
charge on an individual drop of oil is that of more than one electron,
so you have to search for the discrete step that exist between
samples. (Trivially done today if you use a computer, but the
requirement is generally to do it by hand.) Your first have to
discard all of the obviously erroneous observatons, perhaps 50%
because of noise or some other source of error). Then you have to
find the common denominator among the remaining 50 samples, some of
which hold charges of 1, 2, 5, or 7 electrons. What you want to
determine is the charge on one electron.
When you chart your measurements on paper, the resulting charge on an
electron is relatively easy to determine, once you eliminate the
noise.
The Oil Drop Experiment is relatively easy to conduct, and you can do
it in your basement.
For those not wishing to go through all this work, the charge on an
electron is nominally 1.601864 X 10^ -19 coulomb, but please don't
quote me on that.
OK Sue, I let out the secret (me bad), and I truly hope that because
of me doing this, the OP does not loose his interest in physics.
Harry C.
G=EMC^2 Glazier
speed is slower than 'c',but its charge can go at 'c'. That begs the
question when they separate does that leave an electron with no charge?
Do free electrons have no charge until they get in range of a proton? Do
they have no charge inside a neutron? Is their charge created when the
neutron decays? Lots more questions Uncle-A keep jumping in. That is
my big brain problem."The more I think about tricky stuff the more and
more questions come to mind" I'm rather clever,but I know you are very
smart(high IQ). Your answers would be very much appreciated Bert
Igor
Will that be thousand island or french dressing?
Paul Cardinale
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
> Uncle Al (of Irvine) I find it tricky thinking when I read an electron
> speed is slower than 'c',but its charge can go at 'c'.
Idiot.
willo...@earthlink.net
<qualityservic...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Both the positron and the proton have the same charge.
>
> Obviously, the entire mass of the proton is not required to carry the +1
> charge. Is the entire mass of the electron required to carry its charge?
>
> Is the entire mass of a quark required to carry its 1/3 charge?
>
> The electron and the positron have opposite charges of the same
> magnitude.
>
> What exactly is charge? How would the electron and the positron differ
> in appearance if you could see them up close?
>
> I maintain that if they are different particles or have a different
> charge, then at some level they will look different.
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Michael J. Strickland
> 703-560-7380
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charge is what we imagine exists when we see an E field emanating from
a small volume. But as Dirac said elementary particles are no more
than electro-magnetic (EM) energy localized in space. So wht exists
is the field, there in such thing as charge. Imagine an EM wave
propagating around a torus spiralling as it goes, with the 'boundary'
of the torus being closed loops of a magnetic field and the E field
everywhere orthogonal to the boundary, i.e. to the magnetic field.
From a distance the object would look like a piece of charge
generating a magnetic dipole, and would be indistinguishable from an
electron. I think this is what an electron is and the proton is very
similar.
The E field flux density would be uniform over all of the particle
boundary, but a very nearby observer would see an apparent (virtual)
charge of value depending on the local boundary curvature, i.e. a flat
boundary = no charge, low curvature = low charge and high curvarture =
high charge. And a reverse curvature = opposite charge. Imagine a
torus where the EM wave is of wavelength 2pi.r and on localization its
volume increases by alpha (i.e. 1/137 the fine structure constant).
Two radii expand by alpha^2/3 and one shrinks by alpha^1/3. In other
words the volume changes by alpha^2/3xalpha^2/3x alpha^-1/3, for a
total change of alpha. From a distance the EM wave potential of
hbar.c will appear as a unit charge intensity of alpha hbar.c as in
Sommerfeld's relation. But from close up the particle will appear as
though composed of three parial charges e^2/3,in two axes and e^-1/3
in the other. Say hello to the quarks! This is why quarks cannot be
separated from the particles.
Oh, and the toridal particle boundary is a curved metric in which the
EM wave is propagating. The curved metric is the source of gravity,
which we describe as due to mass. But mass does not exist, only the
curved metric. Say goodby to the Higgs particle!
Turns out the elctrons expand on formation and protons contract, both
changing volume by alpha. The electron expansion causes an outward
radial metric strain, the proton contraction an inward radial metric
strain. This is why the particles have equal and oppposite charges.
If this interests you more details are on the web page:
RethinkingPhysics-V3.net
Androcles
"Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:c1cad3d9-2b90-4db4...@o77g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Ignorant cunt.
Edward Green
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> > What exactly is charge?
>
> Who knows? We know how charge behaves (except for difficulties requiring
> renormalization), we know how charges of particles compare with each other
> quantitatively, but that isn't an answer to "what exactly is charge?" In
> general, physicists don't know what charge _is_. But I'm sure you can find
> people who KNOW (often along the lines of "charge is a vortex in the
> aether").
Charge is a quantized defect in the aether. :-)
john
What makes this whole discussion so funny
is if someone says 'what is a particle made of?', then the
answer is 'up and down quarks, depending', and if someone
says 'what is a quark made of?', I forget what the answer is.
But the point is; you-all *still* haven't nailed down what a particle
is, and you're striking out to understand charge.
And you think charge is something a particle *has* or *doesn't have*.
An attribute of a particle- that it stores in its
many pockets? That it hides in its buckyball planks?
The magical doppleganger of the particle, riding in its
every part, somehow?
Well, why not? Why could the charge not be actually *creating*
the particle by its movement?
Let's get rid of the whole problem by *making* the particle out of
a spherical standing wave of charge moving at c. This would
be the proton- or the black hole. The positive charge. (When in
fact it is quite negative- it is a void; a hole in every sense.)
The proton standing wave vortex black hole spins all the virtual pairs
within it
and shoots them out the jets to form mini-standing wave vortex black
holes
of exactly opposite spin- the electron.
John
Galaxy Model for the Atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john
Douglas Eagleson
<qualityservic...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Both the positron and the proton have the same charge.
>
> Obviously, the entire mass of the proton is not required to carry the +1
> charge. Is the entire mass of the electron required to carry its charge?
>
> Is the entire mass of a quark required to carry its 1/3 charge?
>
> The electron and the positron have opposite charges of the same
> magnitude.
>
> What exactly is charge? How would the electron and the positron differ
> in appearance if you could see them up close?
>
> I maintain that if they are different particles or have a different
> charge, then at some level they will look different.
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Michael J. Strickland
> 703-560-7380
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
A charge was to be determined as a capacity for force. First
beginning with the oil drop experiments. It is no more. All force as
capacity would be definable as long as the first drop as a quanta was
observable.
Meaning the electron was a quanta as cause to its existence. Once the
oil drop was found to have electron charge all force was allowed to
obey this principle.
Conflicts with strong and weak force cause exist and close examination
of the record reveals the neutron source as the quandrey. How can
quanta cause, because of the relation of force as defined by nuclear
examination reveal alternative force causation. A mere binding energy
was found without the cause as a mere quanta addition. A logical
dislocation was detrmined at the root cause to all force as simliar to
an electron's.
Magnetic centers exist as quanta. Ferro-center form. And force was
revealed. Nuclear was opposite in quanta additive nature. A force
removed as opposed to added with masses addition to the assemblage of
matter.
So charge was a force, only.
And it was left ot alternative, non nuclear security science to
resolve as a single theory of quantum forces. A neutron standard
obeys the law of man. An artifical cause to binding energy was the
mere adjustment of quanta per unit force observed.
NBS-1 the world standard is under review and recalibration right now.
Now we get to see the new relative force of any quanta as related to
nuclear assemblages of matter.
Douglas Eagleson
Gaithersburg, mD USA