How can a basic particle have a charge?

[snackster17]

I have little knowledge of particle physics in general and have been taught that atoms have positive and negative charges because of electrons. But how can an electron have a negative charge only? Are there spectrum's of the electromagnetic field which have different charges?
Help would be appreciated

 

[Kevin_Axion]

Actually every particle has an anti-particle which has the same properties but an opposite charge. For instance an electron ($$e$$) has an anti-particle called a positron ($$\overline{e}$$): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle. The development of Quantum Field Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory) predicted the existence of anti-particles.

 

[mathman]

I have little knowledge of particle physics in general and have been taught that atoms have positive and negative charges because of electrons. But how can an electron have a negative charge only? Are there spectrum's of the electromagnetic field which have different charges?
Help would be appreciated

Electrons have negative charge. These are balanced by protons in the nucleus which have positive charge.

 

[snackster17]

ok thank you for the replies. But how about when two electrons interact does that not create a photon?

 

[Kevin_Axion]

The Electromagnetic interaction is mediated by virtual photons:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_photon.

 

[snackster17]

so these virtual particles are energy carriers? why arent they on the standard model?

 

[cjameshuff]

I have little knowledge of particle physics in general and have been taught that atoms have positive and negative charges because of electrons. But how can an electron have a negative charge only? Are there spectrum's of the electromagnetic field which have different charges?

It has nothing to do with portions of the spectrum. Electromagnetic radiation (photons) is neutral, regardless of wavelength. Normal matter is composed of electrons, protons, and neutrons, these all have antimatter counterparts...so to answer your question, electrons are always negative because positive ones are called positrons. Protons and neutrons don't get special names, they have to settle for having anti- stuck in front of their names. (And anti-neutrons are still neutral, though neutrons do have other characteristics that are reversed in anti-neutrons, and the two will still annihilate with each other if brought together.)

The reason for the "normal" particles being so much more common than their antimatter counterparts is not completely understood. It's an unusual asymmetry of the universe that's still an area of research.

ok thank you for the replies. But how about when two electrons interact does that not create a photon?

While not exactly wrong, that statement's not particularly meaningful. Classically speaking, electromagnetic radiation is emitted by accelerating charges. Electrons can certainly radiate due to their interactions.

I also wonder if you're confusing protons and photons. The two are completely different particles.

so these virtual particles are energy carriers? why arent they on the standard model?

They are force carriers. It's important to be precise about things like this...force is a different kind of quantity than energy.
As for them being in the standard model...why do you think they aren't? Photons for one are certainly part of the standard model...one of only four gauge bosons. What's special about virtual particles is that they are "off shell", not having the usual relationships between mass, energy, momentum, and velocity, which limits them to a temporary sort of half-existence.

 

[K^2]

so these virtual particles are energy carriers? why arent they on the standard model?

They are part of the standard model.

cjameshuff, virtual particles carry both energy and momentum, in general.

 

[cjameshuff]

cjameshuff, virtual particles carry both energy and momentum, in general.

These "force mediating" virtual particles do indeed transfer energy and momentum, it'd be hard for them to mediate any forces otherwise. I didn't intend to deny that, only to point out that they are thought of as force carriers, and that force and energy are distinct concepts. I suspect that snackster17 was making the very common mistake among people unfamiliar with physics of mixing up quantities like force and energy.

 

[snackster17]

yes i didnt have a clear distinction of the two. thanks i get it better now