[jeffreyH (OP)]

It is stated that the Higgs mechanism gives particles a mass term. So what gives particles their charge? If charge plays the part in the electromagnetic field that mass does for the gravitational field then shouldn't there be some sort of relationship?

[Bogie_smiles]

It is stated that the Higgs mechanism gives particles a mass term. So what gives particles their charge? If charge plays the part in the electromagnetic field that mass does for the gravitational field then shouldn't there be some sort of relationship?

Yes, there should. I’m a layman science enthusiast, and as such, my thoughts are more speculations that reliable science. I’ve read the guidelines and feel better talking on this topic in “New Theories”. However, I also don’t like to see great question like this get zero replies.

In that regard, this link:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field

Key points:

1. The field can be viewed as the combination of an electric field and a magnetic field. The electric field is produced by stationary charges, and the magnetic field by moving charges (currents); these two are often described as the sources of the field.


2. Classically, electric and magnetic fields are thought of as being produced by smooth motions of charged objects. For example, oscillating charges produce electric and magnetic fields that may be viewed in a 'smooth', continuous, wavelike fashion. In this case, energy is viewed as being transferred continuously through the electromagnetic field between any two locations.

3. The electromagnetic field may be thought of in a more 'coarse' way. Experiments reveal that in some circumstances electromagnetic energy transfer is better described as being carried in the form of packets called quanta (in this case, photons) with a fixed frequency.

4. Planck’s constant
E=hv

5. Note: The photon is the force carrier of the EM force, and the still sought graviton is supposed to carry the gravitational force. That would be the relationship, each a force carrier. Maybe the relatively recent discoveries of the Higgs mechanism, and the discovery of gravitational waves has breathed new life in this discussion/

Is there any life in this thread? Should it be in “New Theories” if there are unknowns that are worth discussing? No response necessary at this late date, just wanted to take this off the “lonely topics” list.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

This is a question that is likely to never have a definitive answer. Mass has a distinct difference to charge. A particle with zero rest mass travels at the speed of light. A particle with neutral charge has no such distinction. So there is one big difference. Can we even say that any particles are without charge? Neutral doesn't necessarily mean the same thing.

[Bogie_smiles]

This is a question that is likely to never have a definitive answer.

I don’t hear you saying that there is no answer; you are saying that the question, “what gives particles their charge”, possibly will never be answered. Is it fair to state you position that way?

My logic tells me that the path to that answer starts with posing a question, which you have done (though in a hard science sub-forum where the brainstorming with speculative ideas is not approved under the guidelines, I don’t think).

If a question doesn’t have a definitive answer, brainstorming is the first tool in the process. In that process, some ideas are crossed off as a result of discussion, narrowing the possibilities, and the narrowing process can make other ideas gain favor among the participants, as the process plays out. The process tends to lead to consensus forming among the participants.

Mass has a distinct difference to charge. A particle with zero rest mass travels at the speed of light.

Isn’t that because there is a body of knowledge and theoretical physics behind the fact that a particle with zero rest mass travels at the speed of light. In problem solving, even the accepted facts are on the table, in my humble experience. Does discussion in this sub-forum accept the process of problem solving, or is that process best left to discussions out in the “New Theories” sub-forum?

Mass has a distinct difference to charge. A particle with zero rest mass travels at the speed of light. A particle with neutral charge has no such distinction. So there is one big difference. Can we even say that any particles are without charge? Neutral doesn't necessarily mean the same thing.

But that can be connected. There is no charge that isn’t associated with mass, and the charge is associated with the Coulomb force that exists between point charges, i.e., charged particles. Particle charge is about fields and there is an electric field, and a magnetic field that are detectible. If a particle is neutral, there is no detected affect when it moves through an electric or magnetic field, so it is said to have no charge. But move a wire through a magnetic field and an electric current flows. Conversely, send an electric current through a wire, and a magnetic field forums perpendicular to the current flow. And combine those effects by running an electric current through a wire sitting in a magnetic field, and the wire moves (as in the idea behind the electric motor).

There are many “as yet” unknowns, but science is about investigating, testing, discussion, peer review, … the scientific method. In this sub-forum, my interpretation is that such work is left to the professionals, but I may be self-imposing a misconception about the guidelines here. Can you, as a moderator, clear that up for me?

However, in “New Theories”, I have noticed that wide ranging discussions are allowed, though ignored except for the occasional contributions from a few members who like to contemplate the “as yet” unknown, while waiting for the scientific community to reach a professional consensus

[Colin2B]

in a hard science sub-forum where the brainstorming with speculative ideas is not approved under the guidelines, I don’t think.

The guidelines were developed because we had a number of people hijacking topics to insert their own theories as alternatives to well accepted and proven topics. These are often anti relativity or anti quantum mechanics. As this is an educational site it is inappropriate for people seeking an answer to a science question to be confused by wild and unproven ideas - a brief look at new theories section will give you an idea of the size of the problem, some are so wild eg gravity is due to air pressure, or the Earth is flat, that they are moved to It Can’t be True.

In problem solving, even the accepted facts are on the table, in my humble experience. Does discussion in this sub-forum accept the process of problem solving, or is that process best left to discussions out in the “New Theories” sub-forum?

It depends what you what you mean by ‘accepted facts’. If you wish to speculate that the earth is flat, do it elsewhere. However, with no clear theory then speculation is allowed, but it needs to be on a solid observation based footing or a clear extension of current theory.

There are many “as yet” unknowns, but science is about investigating, testing, discussion, peer review, … the scientific method. In this sub-forum, my interpretation is that such work is left to the professionals, but I may be self-imposing a misconception about the guidelines here. Can you, as a moderator, clear that up for me?

However, in “New Theories”, I have noticed that wide ranging discussions are allowed, though ignored except for the occasional contributions from a few members who like to contemplate the “as yet” unknown, while waiting for the scientific community to reach a professional consensus

In New Theories almost anything goes and you will see there many theories that are clearly false. Most of these are ignored except for attempts by some to explain to the theorist where the error lies - generally futile. Occasionally there is a new Theory that is thought provoking.
In the main section a degree of speculation is allowed, but where it denies current observations it is usually moved.
The problem with brainstorming an idea like the origin of charge is that to generate and evaluate those ideas requires a great deal of intimate knowledge of the results of experiments in some very specialist areas and it is unusual to find that experience on a forum.

By all means speculate, but bear in mind that electrostatics and magnetism are different sides of the same coin and the choice of reference frame determines whether an observation is described by electrostatic or magnetic laws.

[evan_au]

No massless charged particles are known to exist - the lightest known being the electron, with a mass around 1/2000 that of the proton.

A somewhat speculative idea - what if the formation of the electric field around a charged particle requires energy (a deformation of the electric field), and hence the charged particle will always have some mass?

We know of no stable particles with fractional charge, but if you could imagine forming a charged particle from two (or three) fractional charges of the same polarity. It takes energy to bring the pieces together against electrostatic repulsion. I expect that this internal energy would manifest itself as some mass of the particle at rest.

Please feel free to show me where I got this wrong.

[Zer0]

I was expecting someone would " quark " in reference to the OP.   🐧

Maybe Wikipedia has cast a hypnotic spell on me, yet once again.   😵

Am I hallucinating or are Quarks related to Fairytale Physics ?   👼

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark

[Bogie_smiles]

I'd say my motive for responding to this lonely topic was to agree with the OP, but at the same time avoid posting anything akin to the "flat earth" type speculations in a hard science sub-forum. It entered my mind that the thread might belong out there, and maybe there could be some discussion about the nature of particles, charges, and energy. No harm done, I'd say, and I'll keep my ideas out In New Theories.

[Colin2B]

I was expecting someone would " quark " in reference to the OP.   🐧

I know Jeff is fully aware of Quarks so I assume he is looking for a lower level explanation ie why do quarks have charge.
I know Evan also knows about quarks, although in his reply he has avoided naming them directly.

We know of no stable particles with fractional charge, but if you could imagine forming a charged particle from two (or three) fractional charges of the same polarity. It takes energy to bring the pieces together against electrostatic repulsion. I expect that this internal energy would manifest itself as some mass of the particle at rest.

Please feel free to show me where I got this wrong.

I think the main mass of the hadron comes from the gluons which bind the quarks - which might be the energy you are talking about. Perhaps Chiral knows more about this and can enlighten us.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Mass and charge certainly have no direct relationship. Particles with different masses have the same magnitude of charge. So charge is independent of mass. The fact that some charged particles are elementary and others composite is also a reason to infer no relationship. Unless the interactions of the constituent quarks and gluons balance the books. A while back I did look for a pattern in the constituents of stable matter, the proton, neutron and electron. There is an asymmetry that can be plotted between the masses of the up and down quark and the electron. Does it mean anything? I have no idea. Maybe when I get deeper into quantum mechanics I may have more to say.