Is the electrical charge of atomic particles correlated with mass?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the relationship between the mass and electrical charge of atomic particles, noting that electrons have a negative charge and lighter mass, while protons are positively charged and heavier. The question raised is whether mass influences charge, suggesting a conceptual link between mass and electromagnetic force. Additionally, the user inquires about the binding of neutrons and protons, questioning why protons and electrons do not bond despite their opposite charges. The response emphasizes the importance of studying energy, mass interactions, and sub-atomic physics to gain a clearer understanding of these concepts. Overall, a deeper exploration of atomic and sub-atomic physics is recommended for comprehensive answers.
cooksta
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hello world.

I've been studying up on the fundamentals of electronics and have started with an abstract on atomic particles.

My understanding is Electrons have a lighter mass and have a negative charge, Protons have a heavier mass and have a positive charge. Neutrons have a mass greater than both and is neutrally charged.

My question then is does the mass of each particle have an effect on the charge of the particles? Lighter particles holding a negative charge and heavier particles holding a positive charge?

Im conceptualising it as almost a kind of a band of electromagnetic force (? some kind of force), where the electrical charge is defined within the band by the mass of the particle.

Also how exactly are Neutrons and Protons bound? I understand the concept of orbiting electrons because of a lighter mass, but why doesn't the Proton and Electron bond?

Despite the fact that they may have different masses they have opposite charges which would attract them.

Wouldn't it make more sense for say, a theoretical Proton/Electron bonded nucleus to have orbiting neutrons? That the only force (Gravity?) dictating the Neutron to orbit would be the mass of the object, which is what we see in solar systems and celestial bodies.

I get the feeling this answer is going to involve a ton of theory on sub-atomic physics, so go easy on me! I did calculus and physics in high school almost a decade ago!

I know these questions seem basic and abstract, any help would be greatly appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hey cooksta and welcome to the forums.

You might want to look at the connection between energy and mass and study the interaction mechanisms between collisions, decay mechanisms, and other similar scenarios (like other interactions).

When you consider how the interaction takes place, what things are conserved, and what properties of the physical decomposition (and re-composition) take place (i.e. a decay, transition to new particle, decomposition into different particles, etc) then you will have a much better idea to try and answer your question.

I can't give you a straight answer to your question, but you will need to study a lot of atomic and sub-atomic physics to get real specific answers.
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
Back
Top