With natural photons from stars and artificial photons from light sources such as bulbs, fire, some photons interact in way that appears to have slight charge.
If charge polarity gradients exist on photons emitted from light sources, charge state could be from quanta spin angular momentum, excited atoms, Electromagntism, and other factors.
Artificial Photons. With photons from light bulbs, RF, and chemical reactions, the most common types of light bulbs are incandescent bulbs, halogen bulbs, CFL bulbs, and light-emitting diode (LED), bulbs. Heating the atoms of filament, millions and billions of electrons are excited to higher energy shell levels and then simultaneously descend to lower levels, which releases photons with Energy (E=hf) that could also be electrons. Photoelectric effect is also the emission of electrons when electromagnetic radiation, such as light, hits a material.
Some found that RF photon energy is vastly smaller than an optical photon energy, which would suggest two separate particles of different size, spin state, charge, etc. Negative photons are fragments derived from electrons that are negatively charged. X-ray is a positive photon;Photons of different sizes have different masses and spin magnetic moments. negative photon speed was found to be in excellent agreement with the existing light speed constant.(Yuan, et al, 2021) Further research may help quantify polar dynamics of photonic interactions.
Photons don't carry electric charge. This isn't anything new or controversial.
This article might help... to understand photon and how we use it..
Article Title: Science is wrong on…Light & Photon
This: https://www.lkb.upmc.fr/cqed/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2016/06/Nobel.Lecture.3C.pdf might shed some light... Along with these: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2012/summary/
The equations for the electromagnetic field, in the absence of sources describe free fields that create single particle states of zero internal charges, of mass zero and spin 1. It's matter that carries electric charge and interacts with the electromagnetic field (i.e. with photons), in a way that's uniquely prescribed by global Lorentz invariance, gauge invariance and the requirement that the equations of motion don't contain derivatives of degree greater than 2. All this is the subject of any and all courses in electrodynamics-the classical part is, usually, taught in the third year and the quantum part in the fifth year of a degree in physics.
A summary may be found here: http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8
A corpuscle have two existences: an existence in time and an existence in space. Photons have only existence in time and when they interact with matter such as photo-electric effect the wave function collapse totally in space and the photons is absorbed by matter. Only massive particles can have electric charge.
The identity of a corpuscle is as follows:
The 4-vector identity which I introduce in the first time in Minkowski space-time is as follows: 4-vector momentum= universal constant times 4-vector identity 4-vector identity=(speed of light times inertial time of the corpuscle, speed of the corpuscle times inertial time of the copuscle) Inertial time of the corpuscle =universal constant times the energy of the corpuscle It is evident now that: 4-vector wave-vector= universal constant times 4-vector identity
To answer the question
“Do photons have positive, negative, or neutral charge ?”
- it is necessary before to understand – what are “photons” and what is “charge”.
Mainstream physics fundamentally cannot answer the questions above, and so in the mainstream there exist really purely phenomenological theories, that are fundamentally based on only experimental data about some observed “EM interactions” in Matter;
- and so only describe and analyze what exists and happens in coupled by fundamental Nature EM force systems of particles and material structures that have “electric charges”,
- hawing at that no any scientifically rational explanations – why the theories [in the mainstream classical and quantum electrodynamicses] are as they are?
Correspondingly both – CED and QED have fundamental flaws, first of all in both theories “EM fields” in CED and EM Force mediators “virtual photons” in QED are constantly and always radiated by “charges”; at that the fields and virtual photons flows contain/carry energy/momentums – what evidently violates the energy conservation law; QED [and all QFTs, though], correspondingly is applicable not only by introduction of some strange “virtual” mediators, particles, fields, etc.; and using also rather strange mathematical tricks, etc.
The really rigorously scientifically rational answers to the questions – what really are “Electric Force”, “electric and magnetic fields”, “electric charge”, etc., can be, and are, given only in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 Planck scale initial model of [Gravity and] Electric Forces, more see in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces
To read before a couple of SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_a_particle_be_its_own_antiparticleit is useful as well.
Returning to the thread question concretely, the answer is: particles are specific cyclic algorithms that run on Planck scale “hardware” of binary reversible fundamental logical elements “FLE” that are ultimate base of Matter,
-while the charge of a fundamental [Gravity, Weak, Electric, Strong/Nuclear] Force is written in corresponding particles-algorithms FLE sequences in some the Forces’ sections of the sequences, where a Force section’s FLEs have the Force’s mark.
These FLEs at particles-algorithms running cause in the dense FLE lattice that is placed in Matter’s absolute space [and so in the pace] specific fundamentally real – and by no means “virtual”, disturbances – the Force’s mediators that are marked by the Force, which, if hit into other particle-algorithm that has the same charge section, cause in the irradiated particle release of its own energy/momentum – just that is “the Force’s interaction”.
Photons don’t radiate Electric Force mediators, and so haven’t electric charge, however the FLEs in the particle-algorithm “photon” are E-marked, and so if hit into particle that has electric charge, some Electric Force interaction [photons scattering, absorption, etc.] happens.
Etc., more see the links above, to read 2023 SS&VT initial model of Nuclear Force in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force , and so to know that all at least Gravity, Electric, and Nuclear, Forces on Planck scale act by one scheme, it is useful as well.
Cheers
Kolemann Lutz
There is a concensus that the photon has zero charge, which is also supported by experiments that show that charge is conserved, even when there are photon interactions. If photons had even a slight charge, there would be chaos in the elementary domain. E.g. imagine an electron ejecting a photon with (-) charge; that would mean the electron is now (0) charge. Fatal!
Your question is not a light one though and deserves deep thinking.
Reason: When an (- charge) electron and a (+ charge) positron annihilate, the result is 2 x (0 charge) photons. It's easy to say mathematically that
+1-1=0
but more fundamentally - where did the charges go? And even more fundamentally, if they can 'disappear' into a photon, what exactly is 'charge'?
Yes, charge could be viewed as a gradient of spin angular momentum of local e- quanta.Photon energy is kinetic energy and is derived from the potential energy of electrons, positrons, and protons. Negative photons are fragments derived from electrons that are negatively charged. Photons of different sizes have different masses and spin magnetic moments. (Yuan, et al, 2021)
Article Photon energy and photon behavior discussions