Yes that great deal!!

Your question comes with a hypothetical point of view , the charge is the amount of a particles existence in terms of a physical quantity and it doesn't say that charge can be zero at No mass condition, Energy dissipation of any atomic particles happens with the excitation of the Elementary particles as flow of charge which includes mass as the physical quantity having a flow property..

What i want to reach is that if there is no massless particle this will lead to the conclusion that the mass creates the charge somehow and carry it. And this leads to is the matter at the big bank time is charged or the charge appears later

Hi,

I point out a result of historical interest:

The first Einstein - Rosen article on Einstein'-Rosen bridges suggests the existence of massless particles with electric charge,

A. Einstein & N. Rosen, " the particle problem in the general theory of relativity " Physical Review , year 1935, vol. 48, p. 73 - 77, see section 4 ("summary and general remarks). Paper freely available on the WEB.

However I have very strong doubts on the existence of massless - charged particles.

bye.

-------------------

Massa. Thank you for your note , I will read the article to see how do A. Einstein & N. Rosen reach the suggestion, because this is important for me

For a long time, it was conjectured that mass should arise through self-interaction of the elementary particles, including the electromagnetic one but not only. That ran into many difficulties, with one succes though, adding a non linear term to the Dirac equation (Found. Phys. 10(1980)137.) But it hasn't be included in the more general theory. Now it is thought that the mass is due to interaction with the Higgs field. Yet, given that the recently observed Higgs particle has an unexpected behavior, and the consideration that an ad hoc potential has been introduced, perhaps some self-interaction will be necessary in a more detailed theory, explaning for example the particular form of this potential.

@Claude

Higgs could be a collective excitation of the vacuum state, a neutral Goldstone boson. However, it would have to exist in several versions to couple to hadrons and leptons. I wonder where the discussion about this mechanism is.

@Muayyad

The idea is not new that the e.m. charge generates mass by some particle-vacuum interactions. However, since the neutrino has been found to have mass, this excludes this mechanism unless the neutrino is a composite particle made of charged “subquarks” with a combined charge 0, or its weak charge (isospin) is contributing to it.

In a paper written in Arabic I found that the variation of (m/r) of the particle with respect to time generate its charge density and the sign of generated charge depend on the direction of the time variation.

yhe abstrac of the paperisIn a paper written in Arabic I found that the variation of (m/r) of the particle with respect to time generate its charge density and the sign of generated charge depend on the direction of the time variation.

By using the gravitational electromagnetic tensor in the continuity equation and that there are no mass less charged particles, we find the relation which connects the charge density with the time variation of the mass and the radius of the particle .We discuss all the possible solutions .And conclude that the charge results from the time variation of the mass for constant radius , from the radius variation for constant mass, and from the time variation of (m/r).and show that the sign of the charge depends on the arrow of the time .

Very interesting question! I believe there is no massless-charged particles, because we can not detect the "force" on a massless particles, so we can not know its charge! contradictory

Hi,

Massless particles travel at the speed c, and in special relativity the electric field of a charged particle with speed c is infinite, viz. non physical, in the direction ortogonal to the particle velocity (see the field of a uniformly moving point charge in any textbook of special relativity and take the limit v --> c ). This fact might explain why massless particles have zero charge. Another argument, that might interest you, is in my recent note in ResearchGate, title: " An argument against the existence of massless electric charges " .

bye

-------------------------------------------------------

Zhang Mass

the question now ,dose mass generate the charge or the charge generate the mass or no one of them generate the othera

I've constructed the electron as a repetitive causal set propagation, and the charge quanta are identified by their symmetry-breaking orientation in the composite structure. Each quantum, including any charge quanta, contribute to the mass-energy of the particle sequence. Thus the causal set reconstruction of physics has an unambiguous answer to your question. See the whole reconstruction at the link below.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1006.0070v1.pdf

To the original question:

Wrong, gluons are charged particles in the standard model, but they are massless. And this masslessness is fundamental and closely connected with the SU(3) color symmetry of QCD.

There is another point which suggests that there is not much connection betwenn masses and charges in the standard model: There are three generations of fermions, and the charges in each generation are identical - but the masses are very different.

There is only a weak point: Neutrinos have zero color and EM charges - and have a very small mass, much lower than all the other fermions. similar, the colored quarks have larger masses than the uncolored leptons. So there is some connection. But a quite complex and nontrivial one.

Hi, I am interested in your M/R and charge relation theory. Would you please post the article to researchgate? Would you also please translate it into English? I think the idea is great as well as interesting!

A question is that you cay the sign of charge depends on arrow of time. But, is time arrow pointing out the same direction? Would you explain?

Charged particles interact with the vacuum via virtual excitations (radiation corrections) that generate an effective mass. That does not mean though that charge is the fundamental mechanism for mass generation. (It is Higgs, or could be the colour charge though.) Obviously, a charged particle is unlikely to be massless. In that context the interesting question is why neutrinos are not massless. Are they composite, made up of "preons"?

Wan-Jiung Hu

The charge density ρ is produced from the differentiation of m/r with respect to time t , so changing the time from t to –t will change the sign of the charge density.

Just a remark: a different but a similar question concerning its nature is why the Gell-Mann-Nishijima relation holds! It is in the heart of the Weinberg-Salam-Glashow model and has no theoretical explanation as far as I know. It relates the electric charge with internal degrees of freedom.

Ilja Schmelzer:

The gluons have not electrical charge. This is important simply because the chromodynamics is highly non-linear theory, in contrast to electromagnetic fields which satisfy linear set of equations. Besides, there are no free gluons as there are free electrons and other leptons, and quarks. There are no radiation gluon chromo-fields. Correct me if I'm wrong

Correction--there are no free quarks.

Vladimir, I have used "charged" in a more general sense than EM charge. A color or weak charge is also a charge.

Ilja:

I've explained why I think it is reasonable to single out electrical charges of all other charges.

Yes, but I don't follow, I have my own explanation. Gluons and the photon appear massless in my theory because they are associated with an exact gauge symmetry in my lattice model, while weak force corresponds to something different without an exact gauge symmetry on the fundamental level.

The small masses of the neutrino obtain a different explanation, but also connected with symmetry, in this case translational symmetry. Their small mass appears as similar to the masslessness of acoustic phonons, in comparison with optical phonons. For details see http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3892

Mass and charge can be related as m ~ q^2 since mass is always positive. The equality can be hold with some appropriate constant.

@Arbab I. Arbab - The appropriate constant might be 1 / (G h c )^(1/2) where G is the gravitational constant [dimensions cm^3 g^(-1) s^(-2)] . With q = the elementary electric charge = about 10^(-10) ues and with m = a typical particle mass = from about 10^(-27) to 10^(-24) g the gravitational constant has a huge value which can be justified by the strong gravity approach to particles, see the paper by C. Sivaram and K.P. Shina on Physics Reports 1979, vol 51, pages 111- 187 and the great amount of references therein. Article Strong spin-two interaction and general relativity