The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: From where do particles get their charge?  (Read 16343 times)

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
From where do particles get their charge?
« Reply #25 on: 03/12/2010 19:40:53 »
 [O8)]

That's my electron mode.  I call it "afrodude."

What?  Since "mainstream science" doesn't have an answer, we surely have to imagine all possibilities!
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
From where do particles get their charge?
« Reply #26 on: 04/12/2010 03:03:28 »
Once we've figured out the physical structure of the electron, I suppose we'll have to figure out the physical structures of its constituents.

This could take a while.

Seriously, if this leads us to a grand unified theory of everything, I'm all for it, but isn't that what the String Theory folks have been working on for quite a while? There doesn't seem to be a great lack of models, but there does seem to be a great lack of predictions that can be verified empirically.
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
From where do particles get their charge?
« Reply #27 on: 04/12/2010 04:36:54 »
I suggest the "AfroDude" is made of photons... [:0] [:o)] ;D :D ;)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
From where do particles get their charge?
« Reply #28 on: 04/12/2010 06:40:55 »
Suppose you held a straight piece of wire between your thumb and index finger. Now roll the wire with your thumb moving away from your face. Now imagine the wire turning like that at a high rate of speed. Now connect the two ends of the wire together. This is how I imagine the electron but it's made of an electric field not wire. If this were true it would have both a positive and negative field like the Stern-Gerlach experiment suggests.

You misinterpret the identity of what we are dealing with here. This is not the same phenomenon of collecting electrons and placing them into magnetic fields. This process involves the relationship between dual-particle creation, and how a certain symmetry is performed on the charge of the particle, meaning not only is an electron created from some source of energy but also a anti-electron is created which continues to be be quantum mechanically-entangled.



A very nice symmetry, fitting for a universe where nothing go to waste :)
 

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
From where do particles get their charge?
« Reply #29 on: 04/12/2010 16:46:13 »
Obviously there is not much more I can discuss about the idea until I can predict the charge of the electron with an equation based on it's structure. When and if I am successful I will post it. Wish me luck.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
From where do particles get their charge?
« Reply #30 on: 05/12/2010 08:46:01 »
What it makes me wonder reading it is why they don't take each other out. The positron and the electron? Seems like a 50/50 distribution to me?

And now the answer will be. "Ah but they do." :)

And good luck Ron.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
From where do particles get their charge?
« Reply #31 on: 05/12/2010 15:57:00 »
A positron and a electron can be treated two ways, like particles and as waves. If treated as waves they can 'meet' without annihilating each other, instead scattering, if treated as particles of 'rest mass' they can collide and die. When doing so they " annihilate to a virtual particle, either a photon or a Z boson. The virtual particle almost immediately decays into other elementary particles, which are then detected by huge particle detectors." From experiments made in the Large Electron–Positron Collider (LEP) Which then claim that what comes out of a collision of matter with its opposite still will produce positive energy, or 'matter', in the form of particles of 'rest mass'?? What bugs me here is how it does it?

Either I assume that they both are of the same 'energy' as they should be if 'symmetric'? Then they should 'disappear' leaving no energy left, right? But that would violate the principle of conserved energy, would it not? So they refuse :) As I could argue that it must have taken 'energy' creating them, and that energy can't just disappear?

==
"the principle of conserved energy states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time (is said to be conserved  over time). A consequence of this law is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed: it can only be transformed from one state to another. The only thing that can happen to energy in a closed system is that it can change form: for instance chemical energy can become kinetic energy."

How?

Thinking of it I could look at as if they come into existence as a 'nothing' as their values/properties should take out each other. That doesn't violate the conservation of energy as they don't really 'exist' as seen from that principle looked at my way. We have another similar principle called The law of conservation of mass "also known as principle of mass/matter conservation is that the mass of a closed system  (in the sense of a completely isolated system) will remain constant over time. The mass of an isolated system cannot be changed as a result of processes acting inside the system. A similar statement is that mass cannot be created/destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, and changed into different types of particles. This implies that for any chemical process in a closed system, the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products."

But then that one is null at their creation too it seems to me, so what am I missing here?

As if looked at my way it seems to me that the thing violating those laws is the positive 'rest products' created in the annihilation?
==

I could argue that the energy needed for their creation have to be looked too. But against that fact, when creating the pair, if symmetric, they are null as a 'system', not existing at all? So where did the original energy go?

But as neither of those steps seems to invalidate the principles, each one for itself, then it stands to some twisted reason that we need a positive 'rest product', not to invalidate the 'start' in where we first created the particles expending energy. But it's a very weird logic?
« Last Edit: 05/12/2010 16:51:06 by yor_on »
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
From where do particles get their charge?
« Reply #32 on: 06/12/2010 04:26:42 »
If treated as waves they can 'meet' without annihilating each other,

The positronium, as its is called, closely related to Hardy's Paradox (hope I got the name right).
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
From where do particles get their charge?
« Reply #33 on: 06/12/2010 12:07:45 »
Sweet stuff :)
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

From where do particles get their charge?
« Reply #33 on: 06/12/2010 12:07:45 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums