What's the precise relationship between Mass and Charge

sheshank

Sorry, If I couldn't reach out for the actual meaning of my question. Its my bad english.

Q : What's the exact relationship between charge and the mass? I found that charge never exists without mass. It should have any amount of tiny mass associated with it to exist. So, why is it so? If there is any experimental proof to state me wrong about this, please mention it, because I didn't hear of it anywhere.

There is a relationship between matter and energy, right? So, similarly, there must be some relationship between mass and charge. We can find mass without charge, but not charge without mass. Not even in the Hawking radiation above black hole that we find some charge without mass. Why is it So? Why aren't we able to propose a theory for that? If already proposed please let me know it.

zhermes

This is a basic element of the standard model of particle physics. Charge comes from charged particles, which have mass.

The lowest mass, highest charged particle is the electron---thus setting a minimum mass-to-charge ratio.

sheshank

a Stupid version probably but I feel that charge also has something to associate with, which is yet to be discovered. A field is associated with a vibration ( variations) and a particle is associated with mass. Then also there must be something also associated with charge following the two mentioned. Just like, the matter association with waves following dual nature after light making dual nature. :) After all the whole Universe is made up of matter and radiation (fields)

I may seem stupid, but I think there is a scope for this.

Drakkith

I like to say that matter has potential energy. Given the right circumstances various reactions can occur that will result in work being done, hence releasing energy. But this doesn't necessarily mean there is a relationship between mass and charge. Charge is simply a property of certain particles that causes them to feel a force from the electromagnetic force. Since all particles other than the photon have mass, all charge is associated with mass.

I'm not sure what you mean by all this. How are fields associated with vibrations? Also, particles are associated with mass but so are other things, like electromagnetic waves and heat.

sheshank

Why so? Potential energy is something which is possessed because of its position. So, is it the greatness of the position or the presence of the particle that is giving its energy? If its the position, then how is the energy induced into something because of its position? More precisely, what is the body taking or giving with the space that's providing it with something called energy to move over the space.

Various reactions cause the release of energy. Its releasing its energy, which means transferring it to something or back to the space while reacting. But, how is this process going on? Does this imply that matter is just a mere, useless player on the stage (space) where everything is done by its position rather than its content?

I guess you don't know answer for the reason for this. I think no one knows, but I'd like to state it here. How is this feeling taking place. I know it may seem stupid. But, we can say how we feel something. we can say how we interact with feelings relating to the external world. We see it, analyze it, compare it and enjoy it (I don't know about this part). So, there must be something which causes or atleast explains this function of "feeling the force" part of the matter. I think the Experiments at CERN and LHC may be used to determine this.

I'd like to state my belief here. Only certain particles have charge associated with them. I think almost every particle has a charge associated with them. So, there must have been something special or something different in content of the matter which is giving the property of charge to the particle. I'd be pleased to hear, if any (how and what way), a string theory or something similar, deal with this and clear this doubt.


I am stating here: after all we discovered atoms so that we could account everything we see with the most fundamental reactions between few particles and explain every phenomena around us with it. When we find still more properties inside the atom, then we explain it using further more basic particles like quarks or leptons. But, the charge exists even with the quarks and leptons. So, there must be something inside these quarks and leptons, probably a pattern or position or something similar, which will explain this property of 'charge carry' confined to that particular particle. There should be some theory and very much necessary to explain this phenomena. We are trying to relate something called Higgs boson, so that we could account for the mass of something, or address why a particle has a mass/ what makes it heavy? ( Justify, if this is wrong) I feel that, when there is a set of multiple properties associated with one single body, then it needs to break down into smaller ones to deal the fundamental of each property and claim it to be their responsibility inside the body. Its analogous to explaining the property of color, taste, viscosity etc using all the different interactions between matter particles. Are we stating something like, its the fundamental property of the liquid that it possesses those property or the same atomic composition explanation we give for both color and taste of the liquid ? Its pretty obvious, isn't it?

I guess I am going in an un-orthodox and very strange way.

I told you it was stupid. But, anyways I'll try to explain what I meant by that. I think reading the above paragraph you might have got some idea about what I was speaking. If not, then my english is too bad and I am bad at explaining something.

Vibrations, I mean to say as variations. Isn't field a variation? If it isn't the variation of something- in almost every case its the displacement of particle and anti-particle pair that transmits the fields (Quantum field theory)- then the field doesn't spread. [Correct me if I am wrong] I assumed these to be like vibrations- displacement from their mean positions. Heat is always a big question to me similar to the one I mentioned- about the virtue of positions. Electromagnetic interaction, well, that's the point of the principal question I posed here and hoped to find some answers, or atleast some suggestions.

Let me know If I assumed something wrong or interpreted the concept wrongly into me.

Steely Dan

That's not really an answer, is it? The question seems to be why it is the case that certain particles have charge and certain ones don't. Saying that "a proton has charge because the Standard Model says it is made of quarks, which themselves are charged" doesn't answer the question, it just shifts the goalposts. In other words, what is fundamentally unique about particles that interact with the electromagnetic field compared to particles that don't? In fact, the Standard Model has no answer for this, which is one reason why it may be deficient. String theory may indeed answer this question. That remains to be seen.

Drakkith

It doesn't have to be just position. For example, consider that antimatter annihilates with normal matter, releasing great amounts of energy. Both antimatter and normal matter have the potential to release their entire mass as energy, given the right circumstances.
I would say both. The existence of the particle gives it some potential energy, while it's position relative to another object gives it more or less potential energy.

I'm not sure what you are asking.

Again, not too sure what you are asking/saying. Particles "feel" a force only in the sense that they interact via different forces which cause them to move around.

No, this only means that the quarks themselves have charge, not that there is another fundamental particle or something similar. Charge is simply a property of matter, like spin and the other properties they possess.


That is beyond my ability to answer.

sheshank

One thing is for sure I get from this. My English is too Bad to continue in here. First, I'll try to learn as much English as I can and then return back to this forum to post something. Until then, I think I have to keep quiet not answering or speaking about something. Anyway thank you very much.

Finally, a correction of your statement. Perhaps, it was a typing or grammatical mistake.

Anti-matter is something opposite to matter. Right? So does it have mass! I may agree with the concept of it having volume, but not mass. I may be wrong, but check it out.


It seems so logical, infact a little paradoxical to me. I think its beyond my scope too, to understand this concept for now.


This was what I was asking about. The precise word "interact". The process and phenomena underlying it.
Anyway, thank you very much :)

Drakkith

Anti-matter has mass. This can be observed when a positron (anti-electron) and electron annihilate and release two gamma rays equal in energy to the rest mass of the two particles via e=mc^2.

I cannot explain any more on this either, as I don't know enough.

Vanadium 50

Let me remind everyone to reread the PF Rules on Overly Speculative Posts.