Question about the comparative masses of Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the comparative masses of protons, neutrons, and electrons, focusing on the relationship between mass and charge. It encompasses conceptual inquiries and technical clarifications regarding fundamental particles in physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about why the electron's mass is significantly smaller than that of protons and neutrons, while its charge is similar to that of protons but opposite in sign.
  • Another participant states that the question of why the electron's mass is smaller is impossible to answer, highlighting the fundamental differences between nucleons and electrons.
  • A participant questions the relationship between charge and mass, suggesting that they had assumed a connection and is curious about the criteria influencing charge.
  • One participant mentions that there is no accepted connection between mass and charge, suggesting that they can "fractionalize" independently.
  • Another participant proposes that while there is no official relationship between charge and mass, there is a connection between charge and magnetic fields, which are related to energy and mass.
  • A later reply clarifies that if charge is not moving, it does not generate a magnetic field, challenging the assumption of an automatic relationship between charge and magnetic properties.
  • Another participant introduces the concept of fractionalization of charge and spin, questioning the intrinsic nature of charge in relation to magnetic spin.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the relationship between mass and charge, with multiple competing views presented regarding their connection and the nature of charge itself.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the criteria influencing charge and the implications of magnetic fields in relation to charge and mass. The discussion reflects a lack of established principles connecting these concepts.

minimal
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Sorry if this is a really easy question, but in biology I don't normally deal with these matters, just confused about this.
Why is it that the mass of the electron is so much smaller than that of the proton or neutron, but the charge is similar to the proton (but opposite)? I'm assuming it has something to do with its rotation about the nucleus. Anyone care to shed a bit more light (and equations) on this?
Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Charge of electron is exactly -1, charge of proton is exactly +1. "Why is it that the mass of the electron is so much smaller than that of the proton or neutron" is impossible to answer. However, the nucleons (made up of quarks and gluons) are completely different things from electrons, which are "elementary".
 
Thanks for the response, but perhaps I should have rephrased. What I meant to imply with my question, is that I do not understand how a charge can be essentially equal, if masses are different? I always thought charge was related to mass. If that has nothing to do with it, then the assumption can be that it is just chance, and it would be weirder if they were the same mass.
What are the kind of criteria that influence charge, or is it only empirically determined, and as of now, the only criteria is the charge itself, and we have no way of further reducing it to some sort of principle?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are no accepted connection between "mass" and "charge". For all we know, these can "fractionalize" the way we have seen occurring with charge and spin. So as of now, there's no answer to your question.

Zz.
 
Great, thanks for the reply. I'm assuming I'm in error about what I'm about to say but I'd like some clarification on it please...
So there is no official relationship between charge and mass. However, there is a relationship between charge and magnetic field. And magnetic fields contain energy, which is related to mass. Does it not follow that there is some (albeit complicated) relationship between mass and charge?
 
If the charge isn't moving, there's no magnetic field. So already it isn't automatic that the presence of charge implies magnetic field.

Secondly, if spin and charge can be fractionalized (see Luttinger Liquid), then charge isn't an intrinsic property of magnetic spin.

Zz.
 
Excellent, thanks.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Can proton/neutron decay be avoided in some conditions?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Undergrad Nuclear knockout reactions - why does a proton knockout a neutron?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Can Neutron-X Fusion Reactions Overcome the Repulsion Problem in Fusion Energy?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
High School Could you help me understand this paper on the "European Muon Collaboration" effect?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Graduate Questions about photon/electron interaction
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Graduate Kerma from neutron irradiation
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad Experiment finds gluon mass in the proton (?)
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
Graduate How do we know the mass of an electron?
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
5K
Undergrad Understanding dissipation of energy in a resistor through the Drude model
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
"Protons+electrons" model vs "protons+neutrons" model
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K