Atoms are neutral while electrons and protons are charged particles. Where do they get their charge from?
Nobody has answer to this question.
See similar questions at:
http://askascientist.co.uk/physics/gives-electrons-protons-charge/
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/255578/how-do-particles-get-their-charge
https://www.quora.com/What-gives-electrons-and-protons-their-charge-Can-it-be-produced-in-the-lab-to-make-batteries
https://www.quora.com/What-causes-a-charge-And-if-there-is-something-that-does-shouldnt-it-be-more-of-that-in-a-proton-than-electron-since-the-size-of-a-proton-is-larger
It's a good fundamental, challenging, unanswerable question
Electric charge could be considered a measure of the strength of a particle's interaction with the electromagnetic field Particles don't obtain a charge from the the field, for electron's charge please read about Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism and spin property.
for proton it's much more simpler Protons consists of 2 quarks types - up and down quarks where the Up quark have a charge of +2/3 while the Down quarks have a charge of -1/3.
Electric charge is a quantum number by which we can label elementary particle states. A good quantum number is the one for which the generator commutes with the Hamiltonian. That is, it has to be a symmetry generator of your theory. This relation of a symmetry and a conserved quantum number is also stated in Noether's theorem.
According to Noether's theorem, electric charge is conserved because there is a U(1)em local gauge invariance of the standard model Lagrangian density. In early universe however, U(1)em was not a good symmetry. In that epoch, the correct symmetry was SU(2)L x U(1)Y, which gets broken by the Higgs mechanism. The diagonal generator of SU(2)L and the generator of U(1)Y mixes to form electric charge at low energy obeying Q=T3L + Y.
In the work “Quantum state and periodicity”, I discuss of the building process of the atoms that is of electrical interactions. Historically they are describe with polarity. Experimentally in the domain that I know there are particles with larger mass than the other let say protons or nucleus and electrons. If the hypothesis of exchanges of small grains of mass to describe the interaction is correct (The Wave and the Quantum State) it seems possible to avoid the notion of positive and negative charges. On this angle you can think about the gravitation, but I am not a specialist of this field. As a result I limit my reflection to the atoms.
Now consider the electron moving toward the proton that is a motion of translation. I suppose that the motion leads to a frontal absorption of grains, simultaneously it begins to rotate around the proton and around itself leading to a rejection of grains. This leads to a quantum state with an emission of a photon. With the He the second electron will travel in a similar manner but with opposite rotation. The two electrons are moving in a flux of grains coming of the nucleus and of the other electron, and so on for the next elements.
I have already discuss this question with that “Is quantum mechanics subordinate to classical mechanics?” Posted by Demetris Christopoulos, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
Electron charge explained
“The photon inside the electron is the charge, is the electric field inside a volume equivalent with the electric field created by an electric charge.
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.
Electric charge doesn't exist, was invented by scientists because they were not capable to explain the electric charge and what is inside the electron!”
Adrian Ferent
“The photon inside the electron, inside the volume, gives the electric charge to electron”
Adrian Ferent
“Virtual photons do not exist, that is why Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is wrong and Ferent Quantum Gravity (FQG) is right”
Adrian Ferent
“If an electron emits a photon, does not loose the electric charge because the energy of the emitted photon is much smaller than gamma ray energy”
Adrian Ferent
“The electron has an electric field due to the photon inside the electron”
Adrian Ferent
“Due to the photon inside the electron, the electron interacts with the electromagnetic field”
Adrian Ferent
“I discovered Dark Matter in electron and positron collision”
Adrian Ferent
The last SS post in the thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_elementary_particles_acquire_mass_and_charge
seems as is relevant to this thread
Cheers
To answer this question, we first need to give an answer as what is the electric charge. Really, nobody knows. All we know is that the electric charge comes in two types (what we call positive and negative), is quantized, etc. But as regard to the nature of the charge, there is no answer....
“…To answer this question, we first need to give an answer as what is the electric charge. Really, nobody knows….”
- that isn’t so. On Metaphysical level the explanation exists – in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494, which is based on the SS&VT “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904,
where [in the conception] it is rigorously proven that there exist nothing else than some informational pattern/systems of the patterns, which are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set.
Including Matter is only some informational system, which – and every material object, of course – exists and constantly always change their states because of the energy conservation law, basing on rather small set of binary logical laws/links/constants; when, say, the energy conservation law exists and acts because of the logics is also reversible.
The set is organized very smartly, and, in spite of that it is rather small it turned out to be possible, acting in accordance with the set, to make the unbelievable diversity of .existent material bodies – particles, atoms, molecules, stars, etc.
The Matter’s logics works, with very non-zero probability basing on the “hardware” of 4D fundamental logical elements (FLE), which compose 4D dense lattice – ether; whicht fills Matter’s absolute 4D sub-spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z) [of Matter’s absolute Euclidian spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct)], and particles are cyclic close-loop algorithms that are cyclic disturbances of the lattice.
[more see SS posts in compact thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_is_the_notion_of_Big_Bang_convenient_appropriate_for_you_question_for_physicists_chemists_and_researchers_working_in_related_sciences#view=5d18d3b2f8ea526b830f8940 ]
That happened/happens just by introducing in the set only 4 [at least known now] logical rules, that are in physics “Fundamental Nature Forces”, which are systems of some “marks”, which are some “FLE’s sides” on some FLEs in particles algorithms, that are observable as “charges of Forces”, including, say, “electric charge” and Gravity charge – “gravitational mass”, and specific disturbances FLE lattice - mediators – which are caused by the charges and transmit corresponding momentums to correspondingly “marked” FLEs in other particles’ algorithms.
These two forces are different, including, in that there are two – ± – electric charges, and so particles can compose compact items, say, atoms, when the EM force outside the items is compensated, when every particle has the Gravity charge, which has only one sign, and so the items can compose material objects with practically arbitrary sizes.
More about Gravity and Electric force see the first link, Sec 3 Some consequences from the model – gravity, electricity, etc.
Cheers
"Charge" is a POSTULATE used to explain some experimental observations. So, the characteristics of "charge" derive from the experiments that went into Maxwell's (and similar) sets of equations.
Some derived characteristics are somewhat problematical such as why a very massive particle proton has the same "charge" value as an electron (of different sign). So, why one proton attracts one electron but has a widely different gravitational mass?
“…"Charge" is a POSTULATE used to explain some experimental observations…”
- that is, of course, so, though that completely relates to
“….. So, the characteristics of "charge" derive from the experiments that went into Maxwell's (and similar) sets of equations….”
also: Maxwell equations are also ad hoc postulates that are derived from experiments of Ampere, Faraday, etc., aimed at to fit the theory with experiment.
As that is in all physics – every theory eventually is fitting of some mathematical constructions with experimental data, in any physical theory the Meta-physical phenomena/notions/objects not only “charge”, but also, say, “a particle”, “mass”, “Energy”, etc. are only ad hoc non-explainable mathematical values.
Again – see the SS post above, these phenomena can be, and are, clarified only in the SS&VT “The Information as Absolute” conception [the link see the post], where it is rigorously proven that everything is some informational patterns/systems of the patterns.
So, including “charge” is nothing else than some informational logical construction that exchange by information with other logical constructions in accordance with the basal set of laws/links/constants on which the whole information system “Matter” is organized, and changes/evolves.
So now there is no Meta-physical problems, the problems are purely technique – how correctly decode/translate onto human’s language some informational constructions that “are written” on some unknown for humans language; i.e. physics principally doesn’t differ from, say, a case when some Egyptologist decode some wording on some antic Egypt sarcophagus.
The next important inference that follows from the conception is in that so there is nothing surprising when some humans correctly decode information in Matter, and, since the Matter’s basal set above provides – and had provided, resulting in a huge diversity of material objects and systems of the objects, which are based on some next levels sets of laws/links/constants, to decode these laws/links/constants having practically no understanding about what the utmost fundamental and universal Matter’s basal set is – just that is the number of the physical theories that are adequate to the objective reality.
Nonetheless the SS&VT informational physical model [the link see the SS post above], where most of Meta-physical problems in physics are solved, allows to make a number of concrete conjectures, which rather rationally solve some concrete existent physical problems also, as, say,
“…..Some derived characteristics are somewhat problematical such as why a very massive particle proton has the same "charge" value as an electron (of different sign). So, why one proton attracts one electron but has a widely different gravitational mass?...”
- the seems rather reasonable answer is in that “electric charge” and “gravitational mass” are different charges of different – EM and Gravity – Fundamental Nature forces, which are implemented in the logical system “Matter” by different ways. At that every particle – and so every body- is a close-loop algorithm on “FLE hardware”, which is always cyclically running with frequency ω, having energy E=ћω, and where the “Gravity charge mark” occupies fixed part of the algorithm length, N [FLEs] , in the model [see the link above “Sec. 3 Some consequences…”] – 1 FLE, when “electric charge marks” are written on fixed relative parts of the algorithm length, seems as α1/2N, α is the fine-structure constant.
So gravitational mass of particle is proportional to the frequency – and so is equivalent to the inertial mass, when the charge is independent on the frequency, so, say, electron and proton have different gravitational masses but equal charges.
More see the SS post above and papers that are kinked in the post
Cheers
Dear Prof. Najmul Hasan, very interesting question.
I will fail an exam in QED if you don't ask it first. I like QED very much, so I did some research in order to understand your thread :
"The charge of a particle is the strength to which electrons coupled to an electromagnetic field/photons, the charge is the quanta of the electromagnetic field."
In the full Lagrangian density expression for the EMF, the third term gives the answer:
L3 = −(qψ¯γμψ)Aμ
You can refer to an external post in Quora where they also talk very nicely about this question:
https://www.quora.com/How-do-electrons-and-protons-acquire-charge
- about what is QED, what is “field”, what is in QED that is “particles are excitations in the fields”, and what are fields and charges really?
- see the series of 3 SS comments to the article “How Mathematical ‘Hocus-Pocus’ Saved Particle Physics” in
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Creative-Particles-of-Higgs-or-CPH-Theory/update/6020c9df79bb61000104d171
Cheers
- Badges
- Science topic