Elementary particles have their own mass and charge. Mass is known to be acquired by the Higgs field. How charge is acquired by a particle?. Is both the phenomena are dependent?.
The electric charge is, indeed, defined when the electroweak symmetry is broken. The relation is quite subtle, however. It would be useful to read technical lectures on the subject, e.g. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00827554/document
How does a horse aquire its head?
That is the kind of question science takes for granted, not question.
One can add maybe some more information about, as Stam, but not really answer.
I think Higgs stuff is almost irrelevant, and dubious as well.
Charged particles have mass, but there are massive neutral particles as well.
If a particle has no mass and charge, it won't acquire any, because energy and charge are conserved. We must suppose that charged particles were always so.
It's fruitful to be curious and explore fundamental physics. That's why we all don't take charge (among other phenomena) for granted. We have some antipodal hints to find out how spacetime present charges...
“…How elementary particles acquire mass and charge?… How does a horse aquire its head?
That is the kind of question science takes for granted, not question...”
The fundamental phenomena/notions “mass” and “charge” in the mainstream physic are indeed ad hoc physical parameters of material objects, that are taken for granted.
However in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, and the physical model https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494, which is based on the conception, these phenomena are essentially clarified.
What is the inertial mass? – that is clear at all, see the SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Which_is_the_most_convincing_physical_experiment_Not_Thought_Experiment_that_conclusively_validates_Einsteins_Special_Theory_of_Relativity#view=5d018715f0fb62bd39691a6d and
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_energy_have_mass#view=5cdc351ac7d8ab70605801f6
What are “charge” seems as more that in the mainstream understandable also: Matter is rather simple logical system, which is based on a not large set of fundamental laws/links/constants, where, including, to build unbelievable diversity of the material objects – particles, atoms, molecules, stars…. it becomes be enough to have seems only 4 “fundamental Nature forces”; i.e. “Strong”, “EM”, “Weak”, and “Gravity” Forces; which have different “strengths” and dependences of the strengths on distances between interacting objects.
Every particle are some constantly running close-loop algorithms that are composed from constantly sequentially “flipping” fundamental logical elements (FLE), which have at least 4 independent degrees of freedom at the flipping, which relate to constant moving [with the 4D spped of light] of every material object in the 4D sub-spacetime of Matter’s absolute [5]4D Euclidian spacetime.
However at least two Forces act by using “fields”, which are created by some “charges”, when the charges are specific, additional to the 4 degrees of freedom above, FLE’s degrees of freedom, that “radiate” specific flipping of the ether’s FLEs carrying/obtaining by other particle corresponding momentums.
The two charges above are “electric charge”, when only some particle have such “electrically marked” FLEs, and “gravitational mass”; the last charge every particle has, and so the inertial and gravitational masses are, at least at statics, equivalent.
What are charges and fields of other Forces isn’t so clear.
More see the links above,
Cheers
We have understood what is mass, what is charge, what is a horse head…
How comes nobody knows?
On the blackboard we "switch off" the coupling contant then, fiat lux, we switch it on and the electron acquires a mass. How can we do this for the charge? Er… just switch off and switch on the constant e…
Its a pity that the theorists haven't understood they study Nature, and not models.
Maybe we do not have elements to study the why of nature, only the what or how.
If your in Physics for a while, then you can tell the difference.
One of the original definitions of Physics, that of Lord Kelvin, is science of measurement...It is not only reduced to measurement , but almost.
As for what is mass, what is charge, you can build up these conceps, through various effects, weight, electric force and so on.
Four major Nobel laureates have ask that question -- regarding mass. The answer is that the mass ratios of the major particles, Proton to electron, Higgs to proton, etc., follow volume ratios (Big equal spheres surrounding & touching a small one) in major Platonic laid-out patterns, etc See Website: www.causeeffect.org
“The Spin of the electron is the Orbital angular momentum of the photon within the electron”
Adrian Ferent
“The circumference of the electron is λ / 2, half of photon wavelength”
Adrian Ferent
“The angular momentum of Dark Matter inside the electron is very small, because the volume of the Dark Matter is very small and the mass of the Dark Matter is very small”
Adrian Ferent
“The electron is a photon around Dark Matter”
Adrian Ferent
What is Spin?
Spin in quantum mechanics is an intrinsic form of angular momentum carried by elementary particles.
Spin is an intrinsic property of a particle because nobody was able to explain it.
Electrons always have "spin 1/2", this actually means "spin ħ/2".
ħ = h/(2π)
Spin is an intrinsic property, because all Nobel Laureates, the greatest scientists, your professors…were not able to explain the "spin ħ/2" of the electron.
Orbital angular momentum:
L = r × p
An electric field surrounds an electric charge; the same thing inside the electron, the electric field of the photon surrounds the center of the electron.
The radius of the electron is a challenging problem of the modern theoretical physics because a finite radius of the electron is incompatible to the premises of the theory of relativity and a point-like electron generates serious mathematical difficulties due to the self-energy of the electron tending to infinity.
The radius of the electron is a challenging problem of the modern theoretical physics because nobody was capable to explain what is the electron, what is the electric charge, what is the “spin ħ/2" of the electron.
“The photon inside the electron, inside the volume, gives the electric charge”
Adrian Ferent
“The electron has an electric field due to the photon inside the electron”
Adrian Ferent
Half wavelength, λ / 2, of the photon the electric field, E, is positive. Have the same sign.
This means:
“The circumference of the electron is λ / 2, half of photon wavelength”
Adrian Ferent
“The angular momentum of Dark Matter inside the electron is very small, because the volume of the Dark Matter is very small and the mass of the Dark Matter is very small”
Adrian Ferent
How to calculate the Spin of the electron?
The Orbital angular momentum of the photon in an electron:
L = r × p
Where: r = (λ / 2) / 2π
p = h / λ
This means:
L = (λ / 4π) × (h / λ)
L = ħ / 2
This means:
“The Spin of the electron is the Orbital angular momentum of the photon within the electron”
Adrian Ferent
230. I am the first who discovered that the Spin of the electron is the Orbital angular momentum of the photon within the electron
231. I am the first who discovered that the circumference of the electron is λ / 2, half of photon wavelength
232. I am the first who discovered that the angular momentum of Dark Matter inside the electron is very small, because the volume of the Dark Matter is very small and the mass of the Dark Matter is very small
Mass and charge are conceptions which have been invented by people to describe nonlinear effects by linear methods. If somebody say how to predict the system behavior without masses and charges, may be we will get better model of the Nature. But now we are wandering inside our own jungle: we say that charge is the result of the gauge symmetry breaking just in the sense that it is in agreement with most of our own statements made before. What new information we have received from here? I mean what is really helpful thing we have from here? Seems that nothing.
So, your question is quite interesting, but just in case if you explain what for you need an answer.
“…Mass and charge are conceptions which have been invented by people to describe nonlinear effects by linear methods. …”
Mass, i.e. the inertial mass, and charges [at least of two fundamental Nature forces, i.e. the EM and Gravity forces – the electric charge and the gravitational mass] are quite objectively real physical phenomena, which indeed in many traits are adequately to the reality introduced and applied in abstract humans’ mental product “physics”.
And so that
“…If somebody say how to predict the system behavior without masses and charges, may be we will get better model of the Nature.…..”
- principally isn’t correct, if some theory will not take into account real physical phenomena and real links/interactions of material objects, that will not be a physical theory.
Besides, so, that
“…But now we are wandering inside our own jungle: we say that charge is the result of the gauge symmetry breaking just in the sense that it is in agreement with most of our own statements made before. ….”
- again isn’t correct, charges have no any real relations to some “gauge symmetry breakings” , which are used mostly in recent mainstream physics as purely ad hoc additional conjectures when some physicists attempt “to unite” all Nature fundamental forces [besides the above the Strong and Weak forces also] in some “Theory of Everything”, and meet a next problem.
When this Theory is simply meaningless, in Matter’s design quite specially these 4 forces are introduced to make rather simple informational system “Matter” so that in Matter practically infinite diversity of material objects appeared; and for that was practically for sure no any necessity of some the forces unification.
More see the SS post above and papers that are linked in the post.
Cheers
The answer one gets depends on how the question is posed. "Acquire a charge" has no meaning whatsoever in any language. It is only a way to speak so as to make believe the speaker has some high level knowledge.
The answer of the correct question is:
Charge is the integral of a conserved Noether current, namely the electric current. The associated symmetry is gauge symmetry, that is, symmetry under the multiplication of the wave function by a complex number of modulus 1, since so the probability density remains the same, while everything else can't be observed. There is no high level knowledge, no secret, no mystery, no acquisition, not even a sophisticated theory like electroweak theory and its dynamical symmetry breaking, it is elementary physics, plain Lagrangian formalism, that is, mechanics.
It was not surprise to see such response here. Because the question was addressed to physicists and physicist protects his field. But things that I have wrote above are, of course, not in paradigm. But who decide what is correct or not? Some contradictions found? I do not agree. For instance,
"Mass ... and charges ... are quite objectively real physical phenomena, which indeed in many traits are adequately to the reality introduced and applied in abstract humans’ mental product “physics”
Humans spend a century (18-th century) to take the concept of physical field into their abstract mental product "physics"...
What is "real physical phenomena"? If you throw a stone, it will fall to the ground. But even in this case it might be incorrect if the initial speed is too high. Mass, of course, can't be such phenomenon because it is just a definition of concept and it does not describe any phenomenon at all. Sure, it is useful, otherwise it wouldn't be used. But the question of Sivaganesh Gopalakrishnan wasn't about it, but it seems to me that it was about how the matter acquires the property to show inertia when it has no before.
So, I am partially agree with Dr. Sergey Shevchenko, but not in main sense.
- Badges
- Science topic