Josjo> "...what exactly made the charge of sub atomic particles"

Assume that someone comes up with an answer, pointing to "something" which makes up charges. Would that not only lead to a new question of what that "something" is made of? When should one stop asking?

One may just as well say that The Buck Stops Here, and instead figure out some new useful things to do with charges.

Actually, someone did come up with a tentative answer: In Kaluza-Klein type theories, charges is related to constants of motion, for motion in some extra spatial dimension(s), beyond the three we normally experience. Like a quantised angular momentum corresponding to circulation around a tiny cylinder making up a 5th (space-time) dimension. But there are, so far, no indications that this answer is the correct one.

Perhaps there are more simple questions to have (related with this one) than its origin. Why all the charges, independently of the other properties of the particles, have the same value of electric charge and only change the sign for interacting through a long range an electromagnetic field? If we had found a magnetic monopole we could respond it but it seems that no magnetic monopole exist. Why?

One argument for grand unified models based on simple groups, like SU(5) or SO(10), is that this explains why electric charge only occurs in integer multiples of e/3, with e the positron (or electron) charge.

SU(5) unified theory decouples leptons from quarks depending of the energy scale. Above 10^ 16 GeV there is only one gauge coupling and below it has the symmetries of the Standard Model. In any case when you have the leptons they always are with integer electric charge and, by the way, this model predicts also a magnetic monopole which would justify this integer quantization of the electric charge for them.

In any case this is pure speculation for the moment.

Usually you just have to accept, or swallow this information.(the experts also). Charges +e or -e.

The antiparticle of the electron +e very rare to find in comparison. Big why also.(no symmetry)

Quarks are theorized to have charges of 1/3 and 2/3 of e., but now free quark found yet. Big news if this ever turned up.

Fractional Charges show up also in the fractional quantum hall effect.(In some indirect way)

Magnetic charge or monopole never found yet.(There was a claim once, but not repeated)

Another area of speculation , axions, intermediate statistics between Fermions and Bosons, might lead to funny

values of spin between 0 and 1/2., but this linked to h, or also with e from magnetic moment.

Particles have charge effects when moving. This suggest the movement thru the aether induces vortices (waves) which interact as charges interact. This becomes a structural issue which then must explain the positron low probability of existence, spin 1/2, two different kinds of vortices and how they are formed.

Article STOE electric charge

Article STOE model of the electron spin 1/2 observation

Article Structure and spin of the neutrino, electron, and positron

A moving charge generates a magnetic field may be a more specific statement.

No one has seen an ether wave, this is speculation. (like a lot of other stuff)

Ether has no matter, it directs matter. Is gravity a speculation? Detection occurs when matter interacts with matter such as eyes. So, many experiments remove ether from speculation to component of the universe - quantum eraser, entanglement, speed of coulomb field, double-slit experiment, etc.

Josjo, there are two parts to your question. I am not sure which one you are asking about.

First, quantum field theory says that the attraction and repulsion that arises between electrically charged particles, such as electrons, arises from the exchange of "virtual photons" at the quantum level.

Virtual photons can also be thought of a wave functions. They cannot be detected directly, but the equations show that this invisible exchange is the cause of the attraction and repulsion between charged particles.

This attraction and repulsion, however, represents potential energy only. When particles actually start accelerating towards or away from each other, then that requires those virtual photons to cross over and become real photons. Here is a quote from physicist Ruth Kastner that describes this:

"This number, 1/137, is a very well-known number in physics. It is called the 'fine structure constant.' The fine structure constant is important because it characterizes the strength of the electromagnetic interaction between charged particles... [I]n this book, the fine structure constant gains an interesting new physical meaning: it expresses the likelihood that a photon will advance from being merely 'virtual' to being...actualized."

You can find this quote on page 93 of my paper, below, if you want to read more about this:

Article The Lenses of Perception Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

The second part of the question that you might be asking is what establishes the amount of electric charge a particle has. For example, an electron has a charge of -1, while quarks have electric charges of -1/3 or +2/3. According to quantum field theory, the amount of charge is established by a particle field. For example, there is an electron particle field that establishes the key traits of what defines an electron, such as electric charge, mass, and spin. This is why all electrons have the same properties.

Charge as such is an experimental fact which theories attempt to accommodate. Full stop.

"Charge" is a concept to describe experiment observations. At this level (1800s), the number of assumptions (charge is a assumption) is high. The problem is to reduce the number of assumptions to more basic entities.

So, how can the experiments that require a "charge" be described with fewer entities. I suggest (the STOE) only 2 entities to emerge to form all structures of the universe. So, charge observations are vortices of one of the entities.

What Josjo asks is:

How does a charge is formed in an electron or in any other sub atomic particles?

This is impossible to answer and in fact is taking as a granted physical magnitude as can be energy. What we know about charge is that is quantized and with two kinds: positive and negative. None of the above features are yet proven its origen: the quantization could be explained with the existance ofmagnetic monopoles and the sign is also taken as granted. It is true and a good question if we compare it with the mass and we think that the mass of the particles is due to a Higgs field. But nothing of these kind of theories exist for the moment. The electric charge appears as a pure phenomenological concept with some physical features: nothing more. It works in Classical Electrodynamics or in Quantum Electrodynamics in a perfect form without needing to go further conceptually because there are no physical problems to explain in this issue.

We have a theory how the mass is given to particles (Higgs boson) but have no theory how charge is given to particles. To put the things more clearly, we have no theory of an internal structure of the electron or of the quark. QFT does not consider that the electron has an internal structure, and, as far as I know, neither the quark is considered as having internal structure. Neither do we have a theory of a particle a la Higgs, which gives charge to other particles.

Dear Sofia,

Modern scattering experiments have shown, however, that the size of the electron, if it differs at all from zero, must be smaller than 10−18 m. It has also turned out to be impossible to construct a classical model with a mass and charge distribution that reproduces the spin and the magnetic moment of the electron even if we try it within the Standard Model. Thus it seems rasonable don't spend too much energy looking for smaller structures for the leptons (electron, muon and tau).

Dear Daniel,

Can you please share the scattering experimented paper in pdf format ?

Thanks in advance

It is easy to form a picture of the charge possessed by an electron to be something that always repels other negative charges and always attracts positively charged particles. This comes from classical physics where an electrically charged object is usually made up of millions of charged particles.

However, this isn't the right picture to adopt at the quantum level because every electron does not repel every other electron, and every electron is not attracted to every proton. In fact, repulsion and attraction are rare events, about 1 out of 137 interactions between charged particles, as I mentioned previously.

This is why it doesn't make sense to picture the charge of an electron as something that is added to it, as if the charge was a kind of sub-component. It is probably closer to the truth to simply picture charge as nothing more than the ability to attract or repulse other charged particles.

It might also make more sense to see this ability to attract or repel as something that emerges from the differences or similarities between the wave-functions of charged particles because the property only seems to display itself this way.

Dear Gokaran,

You can see the linsk and its references

https://cerncourier.com/precision-pins-down-the-electrons-magnetism/

http://gabrielse.physics.harvard.edu/gabrielse/overviews/ElectronSubstructure/ElectronSubstructure.html

Doug

At least down to the mesoworld there is plenty evidence that a local concentration say of negative charge, will diffuse out

till it is neutral in a solid. But I would not go so far as to say it is unbroken when you get down to actual quantum states.

Today there are things like the single electron transistor and you can see one electron at a time going through a nanostructure.

Soon this should be much clearer. Also there are quantum dots that can hold one or two electrons. In the quantum you cannot distinguish between two identical electrons, as you could between two tenis balls say. This gives an antisymmetric two electron wave function, the only thing you know for sure is that they cannot be both right on top of each other, if they have the same spin.

Regards, Juan

Juan,

I agree that if you have an accumulation of charges, the field effect will lead to equilibrium over time. And that dispersion of charge does represent changes at the quantum level, but only changes in general. Individual exchanges can never be predicted, except statistically. In other words, charge dispersion is hit or miss at the quantum level, as you suggested.

And yes, there are single electron transistors, and there are two-slit experiments where one electron passes through at a time. In those cases, when there is a detection or measurement of the electron, then the wave-function collapses, and in those cases real photons are exchanged. Those are the cases of 1 out of about 137.

But that's the very end of the process. Before then, the electron's exact location and momentum through the microstructure is not known. We only catch glimpses during measurements. The electron appears to leap around in between measurements. There is no clear trajectory. Those times between measurements are generally when there is no actualized attraction or repulsion. In other words, most of the time.

I also agree with you that it is interesting that we cannot distinguish two electrons from each other when they share a state, for example in an orbital shell in an atom. However, what I find just as interesting is that the electrons appear to distinguish themselves from each other quite well because they continually maintain opposed spins, or opposed magnetic moments, or distinctly different momentum.

I've heard physicists say that when two electrons are entangled, they occupy one quantum state, so we might as well consider them one thing. But this forgets the math of entanglement that requires distinctions between the particles before entanglement is possible.

We tend to focus on what we can actually measure, but it is quite clear that a lot is happening between measurements, and those are the times when entanglement and superpositions rule.

I agree that much of this should become clearer over time. New experiments and new papers continue to shed new light. Here is a recent one that I find quite interesting. It says that when happens between measurements takes place outside of space-time:

Article How to Teach Quantum Mechanics

Thanks for the dialogue.

If you had electric charges of only one sign you would never reach an equilibrium among them classically. And if you had them of both signs but with a certain temperature you didn't get also such equilibrium. The luck is that there exists Quantum Mechanics which allow to have them without occupying the same state thanks to the exclusion principle of Pauli's (being fermions). Thus it is a great luck that the charges are localized with one spin associated. On the other hand QED shows that one charge can be stable to form a point like (fundamental particle as the electron) thanks to the vacuum polarization and the renormalization mechanism. Therefore we don't know what charge is but we know quite well how it must behaves in Nature.

We've gone around the barn (figuratively). So, how should charge be modeled in terms of more fundamental entities that emerge into charge and other entities?

(There is a similar reductionist question.)

Charge (whether electric or weak) isn't formed in an electron-it's a defining property of the electron. From that insight, consequences can be and are drawn.

It only makes sense to ask, whether the electron is a bound state of other particles (like the proton is made up of quarks). Up to the currently available energies, at the LHC, the answer is No-the electron doesn't seem to be a bound state of other objects, that can be described as points.

Satish,

As soon as you join both ends of just a rod, you have no potential difference and nothing happens.

However before joining both ends you have a short between opposite charges, with a surge in current.

Charge exerts forces on other charges (ie, static electricity) and magnetic fields exert forces on wires which carry currents,

or orient magnets or compases.

Regards, juan

Stam Nicolis,

I agree 100% with your answer, except I would avoid the word "points". It smells too strongly of classical mechanics. IMHO, the whole end of the sentence (that can be described as points) should rather be dropped.

Points don't have anything to do with classical mechanics in the present context. They mean precisely that the particles don't have any substructure-they're not bound states of other particles. Physics isn't textual analysis-the meaning matters, not the words.

What is fundamental for the electric charge is that :

1. It is conserved as a Noether current associated to the Abelian symmetry U(1). Thus you cannot create electric charge on a particle.

2. It is quatized for the electromagnetic in in q=1.6x10-19C (+and-) and for the quarks in 1/3q or 2/3q (+and-)

3. It has always associated photons which are not quantized or conserved.

Stam Nicolis

Words do matter.

I was once sitting watching Discovery channel. All of a sudden, here is John Rarity explaining a lovely experiment on "quantum nonlocality". Two light beams emerging from optical-bench mess, that switch from going both upwards to going both downwards. My professional mind immediately adds polarisations, and notices that beam switching happens with a small random delay, a sign that it's a real experiment, not an imitation. John explains that simultaneous switching is only possible in quantum world, and in a classical world beams would switch up and down independently. So far so good. Then the picture changes, and some ignorant suggests that the quantum effect we have just seen may be an explanation for telepathy, telekinesis and other bullshit. He () has obviously heard the term "nonlocality", but never bothered to read footprints explaining that "quantum nonlocality" cannot transmit information, save energy. So please don't tell me correct terminology does not matter.

It doesn't. The problem of the person mentioning telepathy and so on wasn't the words, but that they didn't have any meaning in the context they were used.

Quantum non-locality, incidentally, doesn't transmit energy-the sentence is meaningless.

That electric charge is locally conserved doesn't have anything to do with whether the charged particle is point-like or a bound state.

Photons are most definitely quantum, not classical objects and they aren't ``associated'' with anything.

There's no reason for electric charge to be quantised-the total electric charge of the leptons and of the quarks just has to vanish. In the Standard Model this cancellation occurs within each family.

It is quantized in the sense that the charge has specific values, not a spread of values.

Asking why a particle is charged is like asking why an apple is green.

Dear Juan,

Exactly. For instance, all the electrons have exactly the same electric charge and in the same form as the protons, which means that you can get exactly neutral atoms, molecules or matter in general although it is made by charged particles. That doesn't happen with the mass and the gravitational interaction, for example.

Josjo Kodian

An electron and a positron have the same positive mass. Additionally, it is experimentally confirmed that during a QED low-energy electron-positron collision, both are annihilated resulting in two massless photons. Even though every photon has no mass, it carries energy as radiation. That radiation is, unlike gravitational radiation or particle radiation, electromagnetic and requires that both the electron and the positron must already be locally electrically charged.

Following Feynman and Nambu, a positron moving forward or positively in time is an electron moving backward or negatively in time, meaning a positron is the anti-particle of an electron. While the time reversal transformation keeps electric charges intact with no change in sign, the particle-antiparticle charge conjugation transformation switches the sign of the electric charge from positive to negative or vice versa, thus both the electron and the positron have electric local charges of equal magnitude but opposite sign. The same applies to all particles and antiparticles favoring photon production in low-energy annihilation.

Whoa, that's a lot of educated answers that are really saying "Not a clue!"

Good Question really, but it's definitions not substantial what makes it, accumulated simply means something smaller, is a non-answer. I like to think of it as two different sorts of spin vortexes, likened to a magnetic flux, but not, being electric which attract each other, add to that field image the idea of mono-poles, all points of attraction in the chaos that is the vibration that we interpret as matter from the big bang expanding into the whatever existed before the universe dwelt in by the great ones who decided to have a science fair and our kid God got first price and decides it's worth keeping forever.

Oddly however if you have 'anti-matter' such as a positively charged electron, it's violently opposed to existing in our universe. The Brits have started a rumor about being able to create such matter from colliding two photons, but that 's a highly challenged claimed as experiments meant to reproduce such a fluke have been elusive to the point of the claim being a quantum anomaly of their equipment.

The question is hard, even we physicists are equivalently banging two rocks together saying it makes a sound and believe in 4 elements Earth, Water, Wind and Fire without further categorization of anything of someone completely naive, and you ask for content analysis.

I think it's simply some point of attraction where some unimaginable flux passes through giving it charge, but perhaps I'm confusing that with the flow of those same electrons created another flux of the magnetic, flux creating flux. Why or how localized to that point of matter that can be manipulated would be my question.

Why the attraction to each other I think of that flow of flux of say some 'ethereal' content and something like the Bernoulli effect as they both speed the ether if oppositely charged or push if similarly charged. This is entirely my own theory, thus attraction of oppositely charged points of attraction.

Josjo Kodian

Shane Bruce

Dear Shane,

I hope, you understand my picture (from the book "Electromagnetic Gravity. Part 1" in my profile). An electron consists of two neutrinos (Louis de Broglie). They rotate in an electromagnetic field at the speed of light. During rotation, a "gear pump" is formed. Neutrinos push a stream of gravitons of the field mass me in one revolution. For 1.76x10^11 revolutions, the mass of the jet e=mex1.76x10^11. The charge e is the mass of the pushed field in 1 s.