Question about the comparative masses of Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the differences in mass and charge between protons, neutrons, and electrons. It highlights that while electrons have a much smaller mass than protons and neutrons, their charges are equal in magnitude but opposite in sign. There is no established relationship between mass and charge, and the properties of charge are considered to be empirically determined rather than derived from mass. The conversation also touches on the connection between charge and magnetic fields, suggesting a complex relationship involving energy and mass. Ultimately, the consensus is that the differences in mass and charge remain largely unexplained within current physics frameworks.
minimal
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Sorry if this is a really easy question, but in biology I don't normally deal with these matters, just confused about this.
Why is it that the mass of the electron is so much smaller than that of the proton or neutron, but the charge is similar to the proton (but opposite)? I'm assuming it has something to do with its rotation about the nucleus. Anyone care to shed a bit more light (and equations) on this?
Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Charge of electron is exactly -1, charge of proton is exactly +1. "Why is it that the mass of the electron is so much smaller than that of the proton or neutron" is impossible to answer. However, the nucleons (made up of quarks and gluons) are completely different things from electrons, which are "elementary".
 
Thanks for the response, but perhaps I should have rephrased. What I meant to imply with my question, is that I do not understand how a charge can be essentially equal, if masses are different? I always thought charge was related to mass. If that has nothing to do with it, then the assumption can be that it is just chance, and it would be weirder if they were the same mass.
What are the kind of criteria that influence charge, or is it only empirically determined, and as of now, the only criteria is the charge itself, and we have no way of further reducing it to some sort of principle?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are no accepted connection between "mass" and "charge". For all we know, these can "fractionalize" the way we have seen occurring with charge and spin. So as of now, there's no answer to your question.

Zz.
 
Great, thanks for the reply. I'm assuming I'm in error about what I'm about to say but I'd like some clarification on it please...
So there is no official relationship between charge and mass. However, there is a relationship between charge and magnetic field. And magnetic fields contain energy, which is related to mass. Does it not follow that there is some (albeit complicated) relationship between mass and charge?
 
If the charge isn't moving, there's no magnetic field. So already it isn't automatic that the presence of charge implies magnetic field.

Secondly, if spin and charge can be fractionalized (see Luttinger Liquid), then charge isn't an intrinsic property of magnetic spin.

Zz.
 
Excellent, thanks.
 

Similar threads

I Can proton/neutron decay be avoided in some conditions?
Replies
3
Views
3K
Photons, Protons, and Electrons
Replies
11
Views
2K
How many strings make up protons, neutrons, and electrons?
Replies
5
Views
6K
I Nuclear knockout reactions - why does a proton knockout a neutron?
Replies
1
Views
2K
B Could you help me understand this paper on the "European Muon Collaboration" effect?
Replies
1
Views
2K
Questions about photon/electron interaction
Replies
6
Views
2K
I Experiment finds gluon mass in the proton (?)
Replies
12
Views
3K
Why is a hydrogen atom lighter than a electron and a proton
Replies
36
Views
32K
How do we know the mass of an electron?
Replies
28
Views
4K
"Protons+electrons" model vs "protons+neutrons" model
Replies
9
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top