Is Modern Physics Lacking a Deep Explanation of Charge in Electrons and Protons?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the question of whether modern physics provides a deep explanation of the nature of charge in electrons and protons. Participants explore various perspectives on what constitutes a "deep" explanation and the implications of current theories, including the Standard Model and Noether's theorem.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether modern physics lacks a deep explanation of charge, suggesting that this depends on definitions of "deep" and "nature."
  • One participant describes the Standard Model's treatment of electrons as elementary particles with a symbolic charge of -1 and protons as composite particles made of quarks with specific fractional charges, indicating a limit to the depth of explanation.
  • Another participant notes that the existence of electric charge and Maxwell's equations can be derived from the assumption of local U(1) gauge symmetry in quantum-mechanical fields, which they consider a fundamental aspect of the explanation.
  • A participant references Noether's theorem, stating that a symmetry in the Lagrangian leads to a conserved quantity, specifically charge, which they argue provides a deeper understanding of charge.
  • There is acknowledgment of the complexity of charge in the context of String Theory, which introduces different foundational elements compared to traditional particle physics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether modern physics offers a deep explanation of charge, with some arguing that it does not and others suggesting that it does, depending on the definitions used. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the dependence on definitions of "deep" and "nature," and the discussion includes references to advanced concepts that may not be familiar to all readers, indicating a potential gap in understanding among participants.

Behrouz
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Is it right to say that 'modern physics has no deep explanation of the nature of charge' in electrons and protons?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How would you distinguish between a "deep" and a "non-deep" explanation?
 
jtbell said:
How would you distinguish between a "deep" and a "non-deep" explanation?
:)
You're right.
So may I ask for any explanation exists, deep or non-deep.
 
According to standard model, electron is one of the elementary particles (electron is a lepton) and just has the charge it has symbolically -1. (cant go deeper than that).
Proton (again according to standard model) is a composite particle, consisting of 3 different kind of quarks,2 of the quarks (I think the up quark each one with different "color" ) have +2/3 charge each, while the down quark has -1/3. So total charge of proton is 2/3+2/3-1/3=+1. No deeper than that as far as I know.(the quarks are also elementary particles and just have the charge they have).

However I don't know how the charge of particles comes into play in String Theory, cause there the elementary elements are called strings and not exactly the same as particles.
 
Last edited:
One can derive the existence of electric charge and the equations of electromagnetism (Maxwell's equations) by assuming that quantum-mechanical fields have the property of local U(1) gauge symmetry. This is the simplest description that I can find:

http://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node296.html

Most students don't study this until graduate school or maybe late undergraduate.

The weak and strong interactions can be generated from other local gauge symmetries, and are associated with their own kinds of "charge."
 
Behrouz said:
Is it right to say that 'modern physics has no deep explanation of the nature of charge' in electrons and protons?
As jtbell mentioned it depends largely on your definitions of "deep" and "nature". However, I would disagree with the statement and with my personal meanings for "deep" and "nature" I would point towards Noether's theorem.

One of the fundamental symmetries of the Lagrangian is the U(1) gauge symmetry. Per Noether's theorem a symmetry in the Lagrangian implies a corresponding conserved quantity. In this case the conserved quantity is a scalar field which we call charge.

Edit: I see jtbell was faster! And provided a reference.
 
Hello Dale, jtbell, and Delta2,
Thank you all for your kind replies. That will definitely help and I obviously have to read more about it since my initial understanding of charge was wrong.
Thanks again.
Regards,
Behrouz
 

Similar threads

High School Thought Experiment on Charge Carriers and Electrical Conduction
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
High School In electrostatics, what is meant by positive charges?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Undergrad Explaining the magnetic (cable) paradox
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Graduate Creating stationary neutrons by colliding protons and electrons
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad Elementary Charge: Explaining the Integer Multiple of e
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K
High School How is surface charge accumulated?
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
7K
High School How do electrons move in a conductor?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
High School Difference between charge of electron and proton?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
High School Where Do Electrons Go When a Battery Loses Charge?
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
8K
Undergrad Calculating the force on an electron from two positive point charges
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K