Define Charge: Mass & Electrons

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter salman_upright
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Charge
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition of charge, its relationship to mass, and the nature of properties in physics, particularly in the context of fundamental particles and their interactions. Participants explore philosophical and technical aspects of charge, including its definition in the metric system and the implications of fractional charges and quasiparticles.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that charge is a property rather than a tangible entity, leading to questions about what constitutes "a charged what."
  • Others argue that mass and electric charge are fundamental properties of nature, as recognized in the Standard Model of particle physics.
  • A participant mentions the metric definition of charge, specifically the relationship between coulombs and the force between wires.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of charge at the molecular level, where charge is associated with the number of electrons present.
  • Some participants highlight that the Standard Model does not define what charge is, only what it does, suggesting a lack of understanding about the fundamental nature of charge.
  • Questions arise regarding the strangeness of fractional charges and the distinction between quasiparticles and real particles, with some participants expressing confusion about why these distinctions are made.
  • One participant draws an analogy comparing the understanding of charge to defining parts of a car without recognizing the whole, questioning the necessity of splitting concepts into different categories.
  • There are references to external resources, including articles and definitions, to support various points made in the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature of charge, with no consensus reached on its definition or the implications of fractional charges. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives presented.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note the philosophical implications of defining charge and the challenges in understanding its fundamental nature. The discussion also touches on the limitations of current models in explaining the properties of charge.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying physics, particularly in areas related to particle physics, charge, and the conceptual foundations of physical properties.

salman_upright
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Can u define charge??

We all know that how the bodies acquire charge that is by gaining and losing of negative charges(electrons). How can we define the charge alone?.Further can we say that there are two fundamental properties of matter which are mass and charge? Thanks for kind response.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Charge is a property. It is not a thing. If you try to ask "what is a charge alone?" you encounter the semantic (wording) paradox "a charged what?"

It looks like you want a philosophical answer, but just in case charge is defined in the metric system as:

"one coulomb is the charge that must pass through each of two long wires per second such that the force between the wires is 4 * 10^-7 N when the wires are 1 meter apart."
 
In vacuum...

To the OP:mass (rest mass) and ELECTRIC charge are indeed two fundamental properties of nature (particles in the Standard Model of Particles and Interactions).

Daniel.
 
I could do with some help here as well...
 
Crosson said:
... charge is defined in the metric system as:

"one coulomb is the charge that must pass through each of two long wires per second such that the force between the wires is 4 * 10^-7 N when the wires are 1 meter apart."

it's [tex]2 \times 10^{-7}[/tex] N.

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/current.html

and a consequence of that definition is that [tex]\mu_0 = 4 \pi 10^{-7}[/tex] in metric units. (what is it? Henrys per meter?)
 
Last edited:
A charge is a property of what though? At the Molecular level things are charged based on how many electrons they have or don't have. Mass is a property of matter yet the question of what mass actually is beginning to be solved as seen here. http://www.calphysics.org/articles/newscientist.html
 
Well, for starters, you ought to read the post I made yesterday on the definition of a force. That will help understand what the effect of charges is, and you'll find out that there is more than just electric charge and mass; there are also particles that have something called weak charge, and other particles that have something called color charge.

Basically, a charge is a property that particles have. The Standard Model of quantum mechanics currently has no definition of what a charge is- just what it does. So the most correct answer is, we don't really know what a charge is. It's just a property that certain kinds of particles have. Forces can act on particles, based on exactly what charge it is, and what value it has. That's about the best you're going to get, unless someone wants to start talking about string theory and how some physicists think there's these extra dimensions that represent degrees of freedom that are the charge, one way and another. But that's a really long conversation; you'd want to go read Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe for all of that stuff.
 


So why do we think 'fractional charges' are so strange if it's just a 'property'?
And split it into quasi particles and 'real particles'?



:)
 


yoron said:
So why do we think 'fractional charges' are so strange if it's just a 'property'?

If you were playing cards and got dealt a blue ace, would you think that is strange?

And split it into quasi particles and 'real particles'?
Huh?
 
  • #10


Well from the little I've read about it it's used in condensed matter physics?
And there they name it 'quasiparticles' if I got it right?

As they seem to define those particles somewhat differently.
==

And it's no game of cards as far as I know?
It may be a game though.

But as far as I know we do not know the rules, so, when we learn new ones I wonder why we split it into two instead of trying to incorporate it into one concept?
 
Last edited:
  • #11


See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle" , especially the introduction. What does that have to do with fractional charges being strange?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12


JDługosz said:
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle" , especially the introduction. What does that have to do with fractional charges being strange?

That one was what made me wonder in fact :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14


Fractional charges are not strange if you consider them a property. 'Properties' are allowed all kind of 'stuff' :) Electrons 'spin' FTL if seen 'classically', photons are mass less and intrinsically time less etc. So what I was wondering was why we considered it necessary to treat it two ways. As quasi particles and as 'real' particles, whatever that last idea then may be?

It's like looking at a car in the darkness and then define the wheels as the 'whole thing' just to find that there are more to it later. and instead of adding to the idea of a 'car' I now start to split it into 'car meeting ground' aka wheels etc. :)

At least from where I stand?
But it might be that there is a perfectly simple explanation that I don't know of?
Does that make my question more understandable?
 
  • #15


Yoron, you are aware this post was dead for five years?
 
  • #16


Does that make the subject wrong?
I had a question?

If you feel that way, lock the thread.
I could argue that good threads may well be immortal :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
7K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K