Charging Up Particles: Proton Charge Explained

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
8 replies · 3K views
Delzac
Messages
389
Reaction score
0
Hi,

Given that a " up " quark has charge of 2/3e ; a "down" quark has a charge of - 1/3e, where e is the elementary charge (+1.6 x 10^-19 C).

can is say that a proton contain 3 " up " quark and 1 "down" quark?

the charge in the end seems to add up to +1.

is what is have said correct?

p.s. i just started learning particle physics
 
Physics news on Phys.org
(3 x 2/3) + (1x(-1/3)) = 1?

Incase you meant 3 down quarks, then that doesn't work either - Add the masses of the quarks.
 
Charge values are: u = +2/3; d = -1/3
2 up + 1 down = +1
add the charge values.
 
Last edited:
sry i meant 2 " up" quarks and 1 " down" quark. does it work now?
 
another thing i understand is that quarks isn't actually IN the proton itself isn't? so how can we say that to proton CONTAIN quarks IN it
 
Delzac said:
another thing i understand is that quarks isn't actually IN the proton itself isn't? so how can we say that to proton CONTAIN quarks IN it
The proton is made up of quarks.

There aren't quarks "inside" of a proton because that implies there exists a structure called a proton independently of quarks.

Edit: Well I guess there are also gluons.
 
Last edited:
neutrino said:
(3 x 2/3) + (1x(-1/3)) = 1?

Incase you meant 3 down quarks, then that doesn't work either - Add the masses of the quarks.

Summing the masses wouldn't give you any useful information for finding the number of quarks in a proton or neutron, without a lot of extra information. The sum of the quark masses is only a small percentage of the mass of a proton.

~Lyuokdea
 
Lyuokdea said:
Summing the masses wouldn't give you any useful information for finding the number of quarks in a proton or neutron, without a lot of extra information. The sum of the quark masses is only a small percentage of the mass of a proton.

~Lyuokdea
I had this feeling that my teacher was wrong. I should've checked what he said, though. :redface: I stand corrected...Thanks. :smile: