What is charge? i do not want to hear that it is of two kind

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter nouveau_riche
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Charge
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the concept of charge in physics, specifically seeking a fundamental definition akin to mass. Participants explore various theoretical perspectives and definitions, touching on classical and quantum frameworks.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether there is a fundamental definition of charge similar to mass, expressing a desire to avoid the conventional classification of charge as positive or negative.
  • Another participant suggests that charge is a fundamental property but seeks clarification on what is meant by a fundamental definition of mass to provide a more aligned answer.
  • A participant discusses Maxwell's theory, stating that the 'e' in the equations represents a coupling constant rather than charge itself, and elaborates on the definitions of charge density and conservation principles in the context of Noether's theorem.
  • In quantum electrodynamics (QED), charge is described in relation to the electron and positron fields, with operators defined for charge density and total charge, emphasizing the conservation of charge.
  • There is mention of the lack of proof in standard QED that the eigenvalues of charge are always quantized in integer units, raising questions about the nature of physical states and their relationship to charge eigenstates.
  • Another participant references Maxwell's definition of charge as a discontinuity of polarization, linking it to earlier theories by Clausius Mossotti regarding the polarization of a medium.
  • Concerns are raised about the total charge being zero for physical states in non-abelian gauge theories, although this is noted to be not completely rigorous.
  • A participant reiterates the need for a theoretical understanding of charge rather than mathematical formulations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion contains multiple competing views regarding the definition and nature of charge, with no consensus reached on a fundamental definition. Participants express differing interpretations and frameworks, indicating an unresolved debate.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of defining charge, referencing various theoretical frameworks and the implications of quantum mechanics. There are indications of missing assumptions and unresolved mathematical steps in the arguments presented.

nouveau_riche
Messages
253
Reaction score
0
what is charge?
i do not want to hear that it is of two kind :positive and negative
i just want to know if there is a fundamental definition of charge like mass?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Hi nouvea_riche,

Charge is a fundamental property of things. What fundamental definition of mass do you mean? That might make it easier to formulate an answer in the same way.
 


It's a bit complicated.

If you look at Maxwells's theory you see the 'e' in the equation. This is not really a charge but a coupling constant. The charge Q is defined in terms of the charge density ρ and is conserved due to Noether's theorem.

[tex]Q = e\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}d^3x\,\rho(x)[/tex]

[tex]\frac{dQ}{dt} = 0[/tex]

In QED the charge is no longer arbitrary but can be defined in terms of the electron and positron field ψ. There are now operators ρ and Q:

[tex]\rho = j^0 = \psi^\dagger \psi[/tex]

Again Q is defined as an integral and is conserved, i.e.

[tex][H,Q] = 0[/tex]

The proof in QED goes beyond Noether's theorem b/c we have to deal with (renormalized) operators instead of classical fields.

What we observe in nature are states (electrons, positrons, ...) which are eigenstates of Q, i.e.

[tex]Q|\psi\rangle = q|\psi\rangle = ne|\psi\rangle[/tex]

with n=0,±1,±2,...

Afaik there is no proof in standard QED that the eigenvalues q of Q are always quantized in integer units of e, i.e. that q=ne must always hold. In addition afaik there is no proof that physical states are always eigenstates of Q, i.e. that something like

[tex]|\psi\rangle = |n=1\rangle + |n=2\rangle;\;\;Q|n\rangle = n|n\rangle[/tex]

must not exist.
 
Last edited:


James Clerk Maxwell defined charge as a discontinuity of polarization. He apparently drew that idea from Clausius Mossotti who earlier built a theory of electricity based on how a medium can be polarized.
 


there are some reasons (especially in non-abelian gauge theories) that total charge is always zero for physical states, i.e. Q|phys> = 0, but this is not completely rigorous; note: in QCD is color-neutrality is different from color-confinement!
 


conquest said:
Hi nouvea_riche,

Charge is a fundamental property of things. What fundamental definition of mass do you mean? That might make it easier to formulate an answer in the same way.

like resistance to acceleration for mass
 


tom.stoer said:
It's a bit complicated.

If you look at Maxwells's theory you see the 'e' in the equation. This is not really a charge but a coupling constant. The charge Q is defined in terms of the charge density ρ and is conserved due to Noether's theorem.

[tex]Q = e\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}d^3x\,\rho(x)[/tex]

[tex]\frac{dQ}{dt} = 0[/tex]

In QED the charge is no longer arbitrary but can be defined in terms of the electron and positron field ψ. There are now operators ρ and Q:

[tex]\rho = j^0 = \psi^\dagger \psi[/tex]

Again Q is defined as an integral and is conserved, i.e.

[tex][H,Q] = 0[/tex]

The proof in QED goes beyond Noether's theorem b/c we have to deal with (renormalized) operators instead of classical fields.

What we observe in nature are states (electrons, positrons, ...) which are eigenstates of Q, i.e.

[tex]Q|\psi\rangle = q|\psi\rangle = ne|\psi\rangle[/tex]

with n=0,±1,±2,...

Afaik there is no proof in standard QED that the eigenvalues q of Q are always quantized in integer units of e, i.e. that q=ne must always hold. In addition afaik there is no proof that physical states are always eigenstates of Q, i.e. that something like

[tex]|\psi\rangle = |n=1\rangle + |n=2\rangle;\;\;Q|n\rangle = n|n\rangle[/tex]

must not exist.

all maths,i need theoretical
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K