What is Charge and Why Do Ions Have Positive or Negative Potential?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AudioFlux
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Charge
Click For Summary
Charge is a fundamental property of matter that causes it to experience forces when near other charged matter, existing in two types: positive and negative. A positively charged ion has a higher potential difference than a negatively charged ion due to the nature of electric fields and the work required to move charges against repulsive forces. The concept of charge is not fully understood; it is described through its effects rather than a definitive explanation of its essence. Coulombs are the standard unit of charge, defined by the flow of electric current, but the nature of charge remains an abstract concept. Overall, charge is a key element in understanding electromagnetic interactions, despite the lack of a clear definition of what it fundamentally is.
  • #31


vanesch said:
It's about the transition of a pre-scientific apprehension of things, with or without some mystical flavor to it, and the (erroneous) conception of science (as a kind of Revelation) that goes with it, and the bare bones actual science that you learn afterwards (if you decide to do so).

To "unlearn" or to "brainwash" yourself so that you can accept that physical concepts are nothing else but a cloud of properties and some persistent concepts in "nested" theories, or at least, that you won't know more than that about it, is an important conceptual step in becoming a physicist I'd say.

I think that is correct. The ancient Greeks were aware of charge, they had various ways of inducing it, including rubbing fur against an insulator of some source. They also used lodestones. They obviously observed static electricity and probably noticed the similarity to lightning bolts.

They accepted them as real (probably magical) things without trying much to figure out what caused them. They were probably considered strange and mysterious substances. My HS Biology teacher used to say, "Never ask why, no one knows why," but that was over 40 years ago. Since then I think we are starting to answer why.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32


neandethal100. Well There are people that don.t like idea of particles of matter as the only reality in the structure of everything that exist in the universe. Like you , share the concept of charges as the ability of particle of mater to atract or repel the same kind of partner, and together with gravity( another ability of particle of mater) are in the structuire of particles
elementare (mass or massles) and in all complex particles.The fields nd the electromagnetic waves are extention of this ability in space, allways toward a center that is the particle of mater.A crackpot idea? Maybe! We are in a status that nothing is worth for trust.
Sorry about the confusion ofn olld layman.
 
  • #33


Zentrails said:
I think that is correct. The ancient Greeks were aware of charge, they had various ways of inducing it, including rubbing fur against an insulator of some source. They also used lodestones. They obviously observed static electricity and probably noticed the similarity to lightning bolts.

They accepted them as real (probably magical) things without trying much to figure out what caused them. They were probably considered strange and mysterious substances. My HS Biology teacher used to say, "Never ask why, no one knows why," but that was over 40 years ago. Since then I think we are starting to answer why.

I'd say, that's because we're forgetting again the important lessons of physics versus theology, and indeed, sometimes I have the impression that people are going back to this "theological" status of affairs in theoretical physics (my own opinion, not worth 2 cents here :wink: ).

I still think that what we call a concept in physics of which we think/have the impression/are convinced/... that we know WHAT it is (and worse, why it is so), is nothing else but a cloud of properties, mathematical definitions in the frame of theories, and links with other concepts. If that cloud is "thick" enough, we feel that we know what it is, and that we are in a way familiar with it. But in fact we don't know really what it is and certainly not why it is so, except in the frame of this cloud of properties and links.

And there's nothing wrong with it, except that this is not usually what we think we mean by "what" and "why" in a more absolute sense.

Feynman said once that a good physicist knows something when he can describe it at least in 7 different ways. I think there's a lot of truth in that statement (I'm playing on the safe side with Feynman here :smile: ).

I suppose he meant, that if someone asks a good physicist "what is charge ?" that the good physicist can think of several ways of answering that question (and then getting into arguments with people who think there's one unique, absolute answer to that question and gets in a row over at least 6 of his 7 answers). I suppose that what Feynman was saying was, that a good physicist has a "cloud of properties and links" in his mental construct of what he understands charge to be, and that he can explore that at will:

- it is a property of matter
- it is something that repells other charges
- it is a quantum number of elementary particles
- it is a source of the electrical field
- the thing that, when it flows, gives you electrical current
- a conserved number
- a generator of an abelian gauge field
...

and then you can enter a theological discussion of which of these things is "really" what charge is. In fact, these are all part of that conceptual cloud, with its theoretical definitions in the frame of certain theories, and with links to other concepts, and if that cloud is sufficiently "rich" we feel comfortable with knowing what we're talking about when we use the concept of charge.

In a certain context, certain elements of that cloud are of course more relevant than others, and a good physicist knows what is relevant to a certain context and what is not going to help her.

Of course, the answer to the "why" question is somewhat similar. Why does this piece of matter attract that piece ? - well, because there is electrical charge on it !
Why does a proton attract an electron ? - because they are charged ?
Why is an electron charged ? - Because it fills in a place in the standard model where there is a coupling to the electromagnetic potential...

But all these answers really simply follow links between conceptual clouds, they are not a real, theological answer to the why question: Why did this happen ? Because your favorite god wanted it to be so.

When people in science try to answer fundamental "why" and "what" questions, I think they are falling back on the pre-scientific, mystical way of looking at the world. You can of course gain "deeper understanding", by having a new, underlying, more general theoretical framework that helps you moreover to establish more links between previously unconnected concepts (also called "unification" :smile:), but it only shifts the "why" and "what" questions to a deeper level.

In the mean time, we're happy as scientists, because we've enriched our "conceptual clouds" of known things, and added a few new ones (and maybe realized that a few others became "superfluous" except maybe on a practical level - such as in continuum mechanics).
 
Last edited:
  • #34


You can watch a lecture on youtube. In there is a simple and good description about fields and charges.

walter lewin
Lec 1 | MIT 8.02 Electricity and Magnetism, Spring 2002
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35


vanesch said:
I'd say, that's because we're forgetting again the important lessons of physics versus theology, and indeed, sometimes I have the impression that people are going back to this "theological" status of affairs in theoretical physics (my own opinion, not worth 2 cents here :wink: ).

I agree with that. Religion answered those questions for years. "The earthquake happened because we've displeased <insert favorite diety here/>" A world were bad things happened suddenly, without warning, and for no apparent reason would be a very scary world to live in.

We don't want to go there with science. My HS biology teacher was rarely wrong, so he is probably still right to say, "Don't ask why."

I also tend towards Buddhism (my wife is Korean and a Buddhist of sorts) a little but find people who claim that Quantum Mechanics proves Buddhist principles somehow to be really annoying. Mixing religion and science is a good way to start a fist fight. LOL
 
Last edited:
  • #36


AudioFlux said:
hi,
what exactly is a charge? how do you define it? why is a positively charged ion at a higher potential difference than a negatively charged ion? why is work needed to be done on a positively charged ion to move it out of an electric field of another positively charged ion?

i'm very confused with electricity, and i hope i can understand it better if these doubts get cleared :)

thanks in advance

Think of it this way.

Why do we fall? Because of gravity. What is gravity? Gravity is a force. What causes this force? A gravitational field that permeates through space. What causes the presence of this gravitational field? The Earth itself (its mass).

Now apply it to electricity.

Why do charges particles accelerate? Because of electricity. What is electricity? Electricity is a force. What causes this force? An electric field that permeates through space. What causes the presence of this electric field? Charge itself.

Just like the mass of the Earth is the source of a gravitational field, the charge of a particle is the source of an electric field. Simple as that.

Charge is a fundamental property of matter than cannot be described in simpler terms, and that's what makes it tough to know what it is.

In fact, what is mass? Mass is a measure of inertia. But if you ask anyone what causes inertia, no one really knows. There is no real answer to that. So in a sense, mass is just as mysterious as charge. The difference is that we think we know what mass is because we experience its effects on our daily lives. But deep down, both mass and charge are quite interesting properties of matter. They are responsible for the presence of their respective force fields (gravity and electromagnetism). No mass no gravity, no charge no electricity (not entirely true, but for now, just think of it this way).
 
Last edited:
  • #37


Libohove90 said:
Think of it this way.

Why do we fall? Because of gravity. What is gravity? Gravity is a force. What causes this force? A gravitational field that permeates through space. What causes the presence of this gravitational field? The Earth itself (its mass).

I'm not trying to start an argument, but Einstein described gravity not as a force, but as an illusion of an attractive force that was in reality just caused by distortions in space-time that we humans can't see.

His famous "spooky action at a distance" is sometimes attributed to GR (other sources say he was referring to something else), but IIRC even Newton was mystified by the apparent attraction that he saw in the astronomical data of his time and wondered how that force could reach so far out through apparently empty space.
 
  • #38


Zentrails said:
I'm not trying to start an argument, but Einstein described gravity not as a force, but as an illusion of an attractive force that was in reality just caused by distortions in space-time that we humans can't see.

His famous "spooky action at a distance" is sometimes attributed to GR (other sources say he was referring to something else), but IIRC even Newton was mystified by the apparent attraction that he saw in the astronomical data of his time and wondered how that force could reach so far out through apparently empty space.

Do I really need to use General Relativity if my goal is to convey the parallelisms between electricity and gravity? I am trying to give him a better sense of understanding what electricity and charge is by showing an analogous example using gravity and mass.

If I started talking about General Relativity and curved spacetime, that would further complicate things, wouldn't it?
 
  • #39


Comparison of charge to mass can be confusing. There is a positive and negative charge, but there is no positive and negative mass. In fact antimatter is composed of subatomic particles with opposite charges(negative protons and positive electrons) compared to conventional matter.
The electron and positron have identical mass and spin but opposite charge. We can't say that a positron has "something" that an electron lacks because the names of the charges are arbitrary. We do know that we need a rest mass to have charge. Photons and gravitons never have charge. We just don't know. Maybe we will know by the end of the century.
 
  • #40


starfish99 said:
We do know that we need a rest mass to have charge. Photons and gravitons never have charge.

I don't mean to derail the thread or anything, but I was struck by your statement quoted above. I have wondered about it myself:

Is it possible to have a massless charged particle, and, if not, is there a general theoretical argument that precludes this?
 
  • #41


Dickfore said:
I don't mean to derail the thread or anything, but I was struck by your statement quoted above. I have wondered about it myself:

Is it possible to have a massless charged particle, and, if not, is there a general theoretical argument that precludes this?
Not yet, as far as I can tell. But there would be an inherent detection problem. Consider a charged massless particle passing through an electric field. What would happen? It would not experience a detectable force, F = ma, since m = 0 and, since it always travels at the same speed, the speed of light, a = dv/dt = 0.

AM
 
  • #42


Dickfore hi. I wonder that even photon has two charges with different sign, which evolve toward each other in the same time that this structure move with C velocity.Electromagnetic wave is, in this concept, the field created by both electric charges in a helicoidal field, that can be decomposed in two sinusoidal fields vertical and horisontal, named by physicants electric and magnetic fields.
As for the fact that charge is linked with mass, i think must be wrong. For my opinion mass is created by particle of matter which is different from particle of mass.
Two particle of mater my create a particle of mass, or a particle massles.And the electric "charge" and "gravity" charge are intrisic ability of particle of mater to atract or repeal the same partner according their signs.
 
  • #43


Libohove90 said:
Do I really need to use General Relativity if my goal is to convey the parallelisms between electricity and gravity? I am trying to give him a better sense of understanding what electricity and charge is by showing an analogous example using gravity and mass.

If I started talking about General Relativity and curved spacetime, that would further complicate things, wouldn't it?

Yes, that's the rub. It is indeed more complicated.
 
  • #44


Andrew Mason said:
Not yet, as far as I can tell. But there would be an inherent detection problem. Consider a charged massless particle passing through an electric field. What would happen? It would not experience a detectable force, F = ma, since m = 0 and, since it always travels at the same speed, the speed of light, a = dv/dt = 0.

AM

Having constant speed v = |\mathbf{v}| does not imply zero acceleration \mathbf{a} = d \mathbf{v}/d t. All you can say with certainty is that the dot product:

<br /> v^{2} = \mathbf{v} \cdot \mathbf{v}<br />
<br /> 2 \, v \dot{v} = 2 (\mathbf{v} \cdot \dot{\mathbf{v}})<br />
<br /> (\mathbf{v} \cdot \mathbf{a}) = 0<br />
is zero.

Furthermore, 2nd Newton's Law has to be modified in relativistic limit:
<br /> \mathbf{F} = d \mathbf{p}/ d t, \; \mathbf{p} = m \, \gamma \, \mathbf{v}, \gamma = (1 - \beta^{2})^{-\frac{1}{2}}, \beta = v / c<br />
Using the chain rule:
<br /> \dot{\mathbf{p}} = m \, \left(\gamma \, \dot{\mathbf{v}} + \dot{\gamma} \, \mathbf{v}\right)<br />
<br /> \dot{\gamma} = \frac{d \gamma}{d v} \, \dot{v} = \left(-\frac{1}{2}\right) \, \gamma^{3} \, \left(-\frac{2 \, v \, \dot{v}}{c^{2}}\right) = \frac{\beta \, \gamma^{3} \, \dot{v}}{c}<br />
Unfortunately, when m = 0, we have an indeterminate expression 0 \cdot \infty. That is why we eliminate \mathbf{v} in terms of momentum \mathbf{p}:
<br /> p = m \, c \, \gamma \, \beta \Rightarrow \gamma^{-2} = \left(\frac{p}{m \, c \, \beta}\right)^{-2}<br />
<br /> 1 - \beta^{2} = \left(\frac{m \, c}{p}\right)^{2} \, \beta^{2} \Rightarrow \beta^{2} = \frac{p^{2}}{p^{2} + (m \, c)^{2}}, \; 1 - \beta^{2} = \frac{(m \, c)^{2}}{p^{2} + (m \, c)^{2}} \Rightarrow \gamma = \frac{\sqrt{p^{2} + (m \, c)^{2}}}{m \, c}<br />
Substituting everything and simplifying, we get:
<br /> \mathbf{F} = m \, \frac{\sqrt{p^{2} + (m \, c)^{2}}}{m \, c} \, \left( \mathbf{a} + \dot{v} \, \frac{p \, \mathbf{p}}{m \, c} \right)<br />
Taking m \rightarrow 0, \dot{v} \rightarrow 0 and we still have an indeterminate form 0/0. Let us evaluate \dot{v} in terms of \dot{\mathbf{p}}:
<br /> \dot{v} = \frac{d v}{d p} \, \dot{p}<br />
<br /> \frac{d v}{d p} = c \, \frac{d \beta}{d p} = c \, \frac{1 \cdot \sqrt{p^{2} + (m \, c)^{2}} - p \frac{p}{\sqrt{p^{2} + (m \, c)^{2}}}}{p^{2} + (m \, c)^{2}} = \frac{m^{2} \, c^{3}}{\left(p^{2} + (m \, c)^{2}\right)^{3/2}}<br />

So,
<br /> \frac{\dot{v}}{m} = \frac{m \, c^{3} \, \dot{p}}{\left(p^{2} + (m \, c)^{2}\right)^{3/2}} \rightarrow 0, \; m \rightarrow 0<br />
the second term in the parentheses in the expression for the relativistic force becomes zero in the massless limit and we have:
<br /> \mathbf{F} = \frac{p \, \mathbf{a}}{c}, \; m = 0<br />
Thus, a finite force can give rise to a finite acceleration of a massless particle in the same direction as the force. But, a non-zero acceleration must be perpendicular to the velocity. Thus, the force must be perpendicular to the velocity of the particle. Lorentz force always fulfills this condition, but an electrostatic field might not.
 
Last edited:
  • #45


mquirce said:
Dickfore hi. I wonder that even photon has two charges with different sign, which evolve toward each other in the same time that this structure move with C velocity.Electromagnetic wave is, in this concept, the field created by both electric charges in a helicoidal field, that can be decomposed in two sinusoidal fields vertical and horisontal, named by physicants electric and magnetic fields.
As for the fact that charge is linked with mass, i think must be wrong. For my opinion mass is created by particle of matter which is different from particle of mass.
Two particle of mater my create a particle of mass, or a particle massles.And the electric "charge" and "gravity" charge are intrisic ability of particle of mater to atract or repeal the same partner according their signs.

(I'm not sure I understood what you said correctly, so I apologize if this doesn't fit your post)
There is no "particle of mass". ALL matter has mass and is composed of particles. In addition, we have a particle with zero Rest Mass, the photon. Various types of mass can be used to describe the energy of matter and light, however using anything but Rest Mass causes ALOT of confusion, as I have been told AND seen here on PF. As such a Photon has 0 mass, but it does have momentum and energy.

Like mass, charge is a property of matter that we have defined as such.

Yes, that's the rub. It is indeed more complicated.

The basic effects of gravity and electromagnetism are indeed similar enough to compare in his example. It's just an example and isn't trying to say both are the same thing or exactly alike. There is no need to bring in the complexities of GR into it.
 
  • #46


Correction, the formula for the force is:
<br /> \mathbf{F} = \frac{\sqrt{p^{2} + (m \, c)^{2}}}{c} \, \left( \mathbf{a} + \dot{v} \, \frac{p \, \mathbf{p}}{(m \, c)^{2}} \right)<br />
and
<br /> \dot{v} = \frac{m^{2} \, c^{3} \, \dot{p}}{\left(p^{2} + (m \, c)^{2}\right)^{3/2}}<br />
<br /> \dot{p} = \frac{\mathbf{p} \, \cdot \dot{\mathbf{p}}}{p}<br />

We get an expression:

<br /> \mathbf{F} = \frac{\sqrt{p^{2} + (m \, c)^{2}}}{c} \, \mathbf{a} + \frac{\mathbf{p} \, (\mathbf{p} \cdot \mathbf{F})}{p^{2} + (m \, c)^{2}}<br />

which, in the massless limit reduces to:

<br /> \mathbf{F}_{\bot} = \mathbf{F} - \hat{\mathbf{p}} \, (\hat{\mathbf{p}} \cdot \mathbf{F}) = \frac{p}{c} \, \mathbf{a}<br />

just as before, but without any contradiction, because the parallel force cancels out exactly!
 
  • #47


Dickforce, i don't think your posts are being converted correctly.
 
  • #48


For me they are.
 
  • #49


Dickfore said:
For me they are.

Hrmm. Maybe it's my browser. I'm using Firefox, the newest version. Oh well.
 
  • #50


Ahah! Found the problem! My addon for firefox, NoScript was blocking it for some reason. Fixed now!
 
  • #51


Drakkith said:
(I'm not sure I understood what you said correctly, so I apologize if this doesn't fit your post)
There is no "particle of mass". ALL matter has mass and is composed of particles. In addition, we have a particle with zero Rest Mass, the photon. Various types of mass can be used to describe the energy of matter and light, however using anything but Rest Mass causes ALOT of confusion, as I have been told AND seen here on PF. As such a Photon has 0 mass, but it does have momentum and energy.

Like mass, charge is a property of matter that we have defined as such.



The basic effects of gravity and electromagnetism are indeed similar enough to compare in his example. It's just an example and isn't trying to say both are the same thing or exactly alike. There is no need to bring in the complexities of GR into it.

Then why talk about photons as particles?

Once you do that then you must realize that both the apparent magnetism and electrostatic repulsions/attractions are nothing more than transfer of momentum between two objects via photon exchange between the two objects.

I think that is actually an easier and simpler way to understand "charge" and it neatly eliminates the "spooky action at a distance" complaint.

I would dispute your claim that "all matter is composed of particles." Matter, just like photons, has wave-like AND particle-like properties, which is dependent on the experiment you use to observe them, but are actually something different than either.

It's just a convenient, dangerously intuitive way of describing something that goes against common sense.
 
  • #52


Let me "rederive" the equation that determines the acceleration \mathbf{a} = \dot{\mathbf{v}} in terms of the force \mathbf{F}, but eliminating the velocity \mathbf{v} from all intermediate calculations. Assuming that the relativistic version of 2nd Newton's Law is:
<br /> \dot{\mathbf{p}} = \mathbf{F}<br />
and the relation between momentum and velocity is:
<br /> \mathbf{p} = m \, \gamma \, \mathbf{v}<br />
we can eliminate the velocity in favor of momentum:
<br /> p = m \, c \, \gamma \, \beta<br />
<br /> \gamma^{-2} = 1 - \beta^{2} = \left(\frac{p}{m \, c \, \beta}\right)^{-2} = \left(\frac{m \, c}{p}\right)^{2} \, \beta^{2}<br />
<br /> \beta^{2} = \frac{p^{2}}{p^{2} + (m \, c)^{2}}, \; 1 - \beta^{2} = \frac{(m \, c)^{2}}{p^{2} + (m \, c)^{2}}, \gamma = \frac{\sqrt{p^{2} + (m \, c)^{2}}}{m \, c} <br />
<br /> \mathbf{v} = \frac{c \, \mathbf{p}}{\sqrt{p^{2} + (m \, c)^{2}}}<br />
Taking the derivative:
<br /> \dot{\mathbf{v}} = c \, \left((p^{2} + (m \, c)^{2})^{-\frac{1}{2}} \, \dot{\mathbf{p}} + (-\frac{1}{2}) (p^{2} + (m \, c)^{2})^{-\frac{3}{2}} 2 \, p \, \dot{p} \right)<br />
Also:
<br /> p^{2} = (\mathbf{p} \cdot \mathbf{p}) \Rightarrow 2 p \, \dot{p} = 2 \, (\mathbf{p} \cdot \dot{\mathbf{p}})<br />
so, we can write:
<br /> \dot{\mathbf{v}} = \frac{c}{\sqrt{p^{2} + (m \, c)^{2}}} \, \left( \dot{\mathbf{p}} + \frac{\mathbf{p} \, (\mathbf{p} \cdot \dot{\mathbf{p}})}{p^{2} + (m \, c)^{2}}\right)<br />
Writing \mathbf{p} = p \, \hat{\mathbf{v}} (we have used the fact that momentum and velocity are collinear vectors so that \hat{\mathbf{p}} = \hat{\mathbf{v}}) and the energy-momentum relation:
<br /> \frac{\mathcal{E}}{c} = \sqrt{p^{2} + (m \, c)^{2}} \Rightarrow \frac{p^{2}}{p^{2} + (m \, c)^{2}} = \frac{\left(\frac{\mathcal{E}}{c}\right)^{2} - (m \, c)^{2}}{\left(\frac{\mathcal{E}}{c}\right)^{2}} = 1 - \left(\frac{m \, c^{2}}{\mathcal{E}}\right)^{2}<br />
we have:
<br /> \mathbf{a} = \frac{c^{2}}{\mathcal{E}} \, \left[\mathbf{F} + \left(1 - \left(\frac{m \, c^{2}}{\mathcal{E}}\right)^{2}\right) \, \hat{\mathbf{v}} (\hat{\mathbf{v}} \cdot \mathbf{F})\right]<br />
We denote:
<br /> \mathbf{F}_{||} = \hat{v} \, (\hat{v} \cdot \mathbf{F})<br />
as the component of the force parallel to the velocity vector and \mathbf{F}_{\bot} as the perpendicular component (\mathbf{F} = \mathbf{F}_{||} + \mathbf{F}_{\bot}). Then, the relation between acceleration and force for a relativistic particle can be written most transparently as:
<br /> \boxed{<br /> \mathbf{a} = \frac{c^{2}}{\mathcal{E}} \, \left[ \left(\frac{m \, c^{2}}{\mathcal{E}}\right)^{2} \, \mathbf{F}_{||} + \mathbf{F}_{\bot}\right]<br /> }<br />

Finally, for a massless particle, the parallel term drops out and we simply have:
<br /> \boxed{<br /> \mathbf{a}_{||} = 0, \ \mathbf{a}_{\bot} = \frac{c^{2}}{\mathcal{E}} \, \mathbf{F}_{\bot}<br /> }<br />
The parallel component of the acceleration is zero, as it should be since the speed of the massless particle must be c. The perpendicular force changes the direction of the velocity vector. Thus, we can visualize the motion of a massless particle with a constant speed c (and energy \mathcal{E}) and the curvature \kappa of the trajectory of the particle is:
<br /> \boxed{<br /> a_{\bot} = \kappa \, c^{2} = \frac{c^{2}}{\mathcal{E}} \, F_{\bot} \Rightarrow \kappa = \frac{F_{\bot}}{\mathcal{E}}<br /> }<br />

It is interesting to use the above formula to determine the trajectory of a massless particle moving in a central force field. But, I will do that in some other post.
 
Last edited:
  • #53


Electric charge is not an exchange of momentum. Its effect results in changes of momentum. However, if one wishes to get to the point about: What is electric charge? It is a given. It exists as a cause for no reason that comes afterwards. It is a part of the beginning before effects. It is not the intermediaries of effects nor the effects themselves. Electric charge has units of coulombs because it is an indefinable property. That means it cannot be defined in terms of pre-existing properties. Its units are not definable in terms of pre-existing units.

James
 
  • #54


I think everyone is getting at that charge is an inherent property to fundamental particles. Charge describes one property of a particle when it is described in its quantum state mathematically, just like spin or mass. As particles have differences, a proton to an electron and so on, the mathematical descriptions of these particles are different and this is where you start to see the interactions of particles like you noted about positive and negative ions having different potentials.

Charge has rules and interactions with the universe attached to it, but its still just an intrinsic property of many particles. There is not much more we can do to describe this property than to define its mathematical and observed characteristics. If you try to go any deeper, I'm afraid you're hitting a physics road block and venturing into philosophical territory, with questions like "why does the universe exist?" that may turn out to be invalid questions to begin with.
 
  • #55


DragonPetter said:
I think everyone is getting at that charge is an inherent property to fundamental particles. Charge describes one property of a particle when it is described in its quantum state mathematically, just like spin or mass.

Charge has rules and interactions with the universe attached to it, but its still just an intrinsic property of many particles. There is not much more we can do to describe this property than to define its mathematical and observed characteristics. If you try to go any deeper, I'm afraid you're hitting a physics road block and venturing into philosophical territory, with questions like "why does the universe exist?" that may turn out to be invalid questions to begin with.

I don't think that asking what electric charge is or attempting to answer it is a philosophical question. it is a physics question. In other words, either we say what it is or we say it is an unknown cause. There is nothing wrong with saying that it is an unknown cause. The fact of the matter is that no one knows what cause is. Empirical physics is the practice of gathering empirical evidence. Empirical evidence consists of patterns in changes of velocity. We learn, from that evidence that there are various patterns that appear to be unconnected. That is where theoretical physics becomes relevent. theoretical physics attaches educated guesses about what cause may be, and, if that entails multiple fundamental causes, then theoretical physics proposes that such multiple causes exist. These possible causes are given names. We do not yet know what causes are real and which ones are not. Finally, there are no invalid questions about the operation of the universe when speaking about causes and effects.

James
 
  • #56


Charge is intimately connected to the \mathrm{U}(1) \times \mathrm{SU}(2) gauge symmetry of the electroweak interactions. It has something to do with hypercharge and isospin, but I do not the exact details of the relation.

Of course, one may ask what is gauge symmetry. For now, it is a fundamental symmetry of the world, just as Lorentz invariance.
 
  • #57


First there is cause. Secondly there are effects. Afterwards there is theory. No cause is the result of theory. No theory explains cause. Theory invents types of cause and uses its concepts to explain effects. Higher level theory can be useful, but, not for explaining cause.

James
 
  • #58


James A. Putnam said:
I don't think that asking what electric charge is or attempting to answer it is a philosophical question. it is a physics question. In other words, either we say what it is or we say it is an unknown cause. There is nothing wrong with saying that it is an unknown cause. The fact of the matter is that no one knows what cause is. Empirical physics is the practice of gathering empirical evidence. Empirical evidence consists of patterns in changes of velocity. We learn, from that evidence that there are various patterns that appear to be unconnected. That is where theoretical physics becomes relevent. theoretical physics attaches educated guesses about what cause may be, and, if that entails multiple fundamental causes, then theoretical physics proposes that such multiple causes exist. These possible causes are given names. We do not yet know what causes are real and which ones are not. Finally, there are no invalid questions about the operation of the universe when speaking about causes and effects.

James

When we say something is fundamental, and then try to describe its cause, are we not admitting doubt that it is truly a fundamental property? When something is fundamental or indivisible, it should have no cause, or else it is no longer fundamental. I'm not stating this as fact, but I think you can't attach a cause to something that is fundamental, or else you're getting into these infinity chick/egg arguments that I was referring to with the philosophical remark.

Of course you can say charge's cause is not known, but I don't think we can assume there is a cause with what we know, and our mathematics thus far shows that it is intrinsic to fundamental particles like electrons and muons as far as I know, but I'm not a theoretical physicist.
 
  • #59


James A. Putnam said:
First there is cause. Secondly there are effects. Afterwards there is theory. No cause is the result of theory. No theory explains cause. Theory invents types of cause and uses its concepts to explain effects. Higher level theory can be useful, but, not for explaining cause.

James

In our theory the postulate is that quarks, electrons, etc. have a charge associated with them. The postulate comes from how our math works out to show this so, and it is confirmed experimentally. Does a postulate have a cause?

edit: Does a fundamental postulate have a cause? If so, we must modify the theory and no longer say it is fundamental.
 
  • #60


DragonPetter said:
In our theory the postulate is that quarks, electrons, etc. have a charge associated with them. The postulate comes from how our math works out to show this so, and it is confirmed experimentally. Does a postulate have a cause?

edit: Does a fundamental postulate have a cause? If so, we must modify the theory and no longer say it is fundamental.

I have to go out on a limb to answer this question. The forum prefers book answers. However, I will risk saying something that I think is important for theorists to know. All guesses have a high potential for leading to misleading theory. Most importantly, the guesses start all the way back at f=ma. The very first one is the choice to make mass an indefinable property. I am not saying that force should have been the indefinable property. I am saying that neither should have been made arbitrarily into an indefinable property. The basis for this objection of mine is that empirical evidence consists of measures involving changes of distance and time. All other properties are inferred from this evidence. Therefore, all properties of theoretical physics should be ultimately expressible in the terms of the evidence from which they were inferred. What this means is that all properties should be expressible in terms of combinations of meters and seconds. That level is the level that I would call fundamental. Since this kind of message is probably unwanted here, I will let it stand by itself without further comment. It was simply meant to be helpful.

James
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K