What gives an electron its charge? [duplicate]How do electrons get a charge?Empirical bound on sum of...

Phrase for the opposite of "foolproof"

Why was Germany not as successful as other Europeans in establishing overseas colonies?

Pulling the rope with one hand is as heavy as with two hands?

Will tsunami waves travel forever if there was no land?

Pressure to defend the relevance of one's area of mathematics

Why is the origin of “threshold” uncertain?

Can fracking help reduce CO2?

Packing rectangles: Does rotation ever help?

Single Colour Mastermind Problem

Find functions f & g such that f(x+y)=g (x.y) for all x & y?

How can I get precisely a certain cubic cm by changing the following factors?

How to create an ad-hoc wireless network in Ubuntu

Reverse the word in a string with the same order in javascript

Asahi Dry Black beer can

When and why did journal article titles become descriptive, rather than creatively allusive?

What does 「再々起」mean?

How to stop co-workers from teasing me because I know Russian?

Is it possible to measure lightning discharges as Nikola Tesla?

Is it possible to Ready a spell to be cast just before the start of your next turn by having the trigger be an ally's attack?

Historically, were women trained for obligatory wars? Or did they serve some other military function?

How to set printing options as reverse order as default on 18.04

Binary Numbers Magic Trick

Why is current rating for multicore cable lower than single core with the same cross section?

How to creep the reader out with what seems like a normal person?



What gives an electron its charge? [duplicate]


How do electrons get a charge?Empirical bound on sum of electron and proton chargeWhat is an Electron?What is charge?Why is an electron negatively charged, and what is the difference between negative and positive charges?How do electrons get a charge?Electrons and MagnetismWhy is the charge of a proton positive?Why are electrons negetively charged?What is the difference between poisitive and negative charge?Explanation of charge for a student just entering physics













3












$begingroup$



This question already has an answer here:




  • How do electrons get a charge?

    2 answers




What exactly gives electrons a charge? I understand how in molecules, an imbalance between electrons and protons give ions charges and I also understand that there is really no positive or negative charge, they are just names assigned to opposite charges, but I am just very unsatisfied with not actually knowing what an electron is and why it has a charge.










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Loki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$



marked as duplicate by Rishi, John Rennie, David Z 1 min ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.























    3












    $begingroup$



    This question already has an answer here:




    • How do electrons get a charge?

      2 answers




    What exactly gives electrons a charge? I understand how in molecules, an imbalance between electrons and protons give ions charges and I also understand that there is really no positive or negative charge, they are just names assigned to opposite charges, but I am just very unsatisfied with not actually knowing what an electron is and why it has a charge.










    share|cite|improve this question









    New contributor




    Loki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.







    $endgroup$



    marked as duplicate by Rishi, John Rennie, David Z 1 min ago


    This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.





















      3












      3








      3





      $begingroup$



      This question already has an answer here:




      • How do electrons get a charge?

        2 answers




      What exactly gives electrons a charge? I understand how in molecules, an imbalance between electrons and protons give ions charges and I also understand that there is really no positive or negative charge, they are just names assigned to opposite charges, but I am just very unsatisfied with not actually knowing what an electron is and why it has a charge.










      share|cite|improve this question









      New contributor




      Loki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.







      $endgroup$





      This question already has an answer here:




      • How do electrons get a charge?

        2 answers




      What exactly gives electrons a charge? I understand how in molecules, an imbalance between electrons and protons give ions charges and I also understand that there is really no positive or negative charge, they are just names assigned to opposite charges, but I am just very unsatisfied with not actually knowing what an electron is and why it has a charge.





      This question already has an answer here:




      • How do electrons get a charge?

        2 answers








      particle-physics electrons charge standard-model elementary-particles






      share|cite|improve this question









      New contributor




      Loki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|cite|improve this question









      New contributor




      Loki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 36 mins ago









      Qmechanic

      108k122021255




      108k122021255






      New contributor




      Loki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked 3 hours ago









      LokiLoki

      214




      214




      New contributor




      Loki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Loki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Loki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.




      marked as duplicate by Rishi, John Rennie, David Z 1 min ago


      This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.









      marked as duplicate by Rishi, John Rennie, David Z 1 min ago


      This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          7












          $begingroup$


          I know electrons have a negative charge and that they are subatomic
          particles made up of even smaller particles,




          This is incorrect. Electrons are, so far as we know, fundamental particles which just happen to have a negative charge of -1 in elementary charge units as one of their properties.



          They are not, so far as we know, made up of even smaller particles. It behaves like a particle that is not composite and is basically a zero radius point in space called a point particle, to the fullest extent that it is possible to test this experimentally. As explained in the point particle link:




          [T]here is good reason that an elementary particle is often called a
          point particle. Even if an elementary particle has a delocalized
          wavepacket, the wavepacket can be represented as a quantum
          superposition of quantum states wherein the particle is exactly
          localized. Moreover, the interactions of the particle can be
          represented as a superposition of interactions of individual states
          which are localized. This is not true for a composite particle, which
          can never be represented as a superposition of exactly-localized
          quantum states. It is in this sense that physicists can discuss the
          intrinsic "size" of a particle: The size of its internal structure,
          not the size of its wavepacket. The "size" of an elementary particle,
          in this sense, is exactly zero.



          For example, for the electron, experimental evidence shows that the
          size of an electron is less than 10^−18 m. This is consistent with the
          expected value of exactly zero.




          Fundamental particles (a.k.a. elementary particles), in general, are each one of a finite number of ways that quantum fields can have a local excited state that each behaves in a well defined way.



          So far, the fundamental particles we know about are six kinds of quarks, three kinds of charged leptons (including the electron), three kinds of neutrinos, the W+ boson, the antiparticles of all of these particles, the Z boson, the photon, eight kinds of gluons, and the Higgs boson (each kind of quark comes in three colors and each of those can have left or right parity, each kind of charged lepton can have left or right parity, all neutrinos in the Standard Model are left parity and all anti-neutrinos in the Standard Model are right parity). There is also one hypothetical particle, the graviton, which a great many scientists (but not all) believe is an additional fundamental particle.



          This is reality as we observe it, and the Standard Model does not provide any deeper explanation for it. Many extensions of the Standard Model, such as supersymmetry, propose that even more fundamental particles exist. But, science has not pierced successfully yet to a layer more fundamental than the Standard Model.




          I am just very unsatisfied with not actually knowing what an electron
          is and why it has a charge.




          So are lots of scientists. But, they haven't come up with any better explanations. At best, many theoretical physicists would suggest that it might be related to M-theory (i.e. string theory) somehow or other. But, there is no realized, specific model implementing string theory that answers these questions in any meaningful way.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$




















            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            7












            $begingroup$


            I know electrons have a negative charge and that they are subatomic
            particles made up of even smaller particles,




            This is incorrect. Electrons are, so far as we know, fundamental particles which just happen to have a negative charge of -1 in elementary charge units as one of their properties.



            They are not, so far as we know, made up of even smaller particles. It behaves like a particle that is not composite and is basically a zero radius point in space called a point particle, to the fullest extent that it is possible to test this experimentally. As explained in the point particle link:




            [T]here is good reason that an elementary particle is often called a
            point particle. Even if an elementary particle has a delocalized
            wavepacket, the wavepacket can be represented as a quantum
            superposition of quantum states wherein the particle is exactly
            localized. Moreover, the interactions of the particle can be
            represented as a superposition of interactions of individual states
            which are localized. This is not true for a composite particle, which
            can never be represented as a superposition of exactly-localized
            quantum states. It is in this sense that physicists can discuss the
            intrinsic "size" of a particle: The size of its internal structure,
            not the size of its wavepacket. The "size" of an elementary particle,
            in this sense, is exactly zero.



            For example, for the electron, experimental evidence shows that the
            size of an electron is less than 10^−18 m. This is consistent with the
            expected value of exactly zero.




            Fundamental particles (a.k.a. elementary particles), in general, are each one of a finite number of ways that quantum fields can have a local excited state that each behaves in a well defined way.



            So far, the fundamental particles we know about are six kinds of quarks, three kinds of charged leptons (including the electron), three kinds of neutrinos, the W+ boson, the antiparticles of all of these particles, the Z boson, the photon, eight kinds of gluons, and the Higgs boson (each kind of quark comes in three colors and each of those can have left or right parity, each kind of charged lepton can have left or right parity, all neutrinos in the Standard Model are left parity and all anti-neutrinos in the Standard Model are right parity). There is also one hypothetical particle, the graviton, which a great many scientists (but not all) believe is an additional fundamental particle.



            This is reality as we observe it, and the Standard Model does not provide any deeper explanation for it. Many extensions of the Standard Model, such as supersymmetry, propose that even more fundamental particles exist. But, science has not pierced successfully yet to a layer more fundamental than the Standard Model.




            I am just very unsatisfied with not actually knowing what an electron
            is and why it has a charge.




            So are lots of scientists. But, they haven't come up with any better explanations. At best, many theoretical physicists would suggest that it might be related to M-theory (i.e. string theory) somehow or other. But, there is no realized, specific model implementing string theory that answers these questions in any meaningful way.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$


















              7












              $begingroup$


              I know electrons have a negative charge and that they are subatomic
              particles made up of even smaller particles,




              This is incorrect. Electrons are, so far as we know, fundamental particles which just happen to have a negative charge of -1 in elementary charge units as one of their properties.



              They are not, so far as we know, made up of even smaller particles. It behaves like a particle that is not composite and is basically a zero radius point in space called a point particle, to the fullest extent that it is possible to test this experimentally. As explained in the point particle link:




              [T]here is good reason that an elementary particle is often called a
              point particle. Even if an elementary particle has a delocalized
              wavepacket, the wavepacket can be represented as a quantum
              superposition of quantum states wherein the particle is exactly
              localized. Moreover, the interactions of the particle can be
              represented as a superposition of interactions of individual states
              which are localized. This is not true for a composite particle, which
              can never be represented as a superposition of exactly-localized
              quantum states. It is in this sense that physicists can discuss the
              intrinsic "size" of a particle: The size of its internal structure,
              not the size of its wavepacket. The "size" of an elementary particle,
              in this sense, is exactly zero.



              For example, for the electron, experimental evidence shows that the
              size of an electron is less than 10^−18 m. This is consistent with the
              expected value of exactly zero.




              Fundamental particles (a.k.a. elementary particles), in general, are each one of a finite number of ways that quantum fields can have a local excited state that each behaves in a well defined way.



              So far, the fundamental particles we know about are six kinds of quarks, three kinds of charged leptons (including the electron), three kinds of neutrinos, the W+ boson, the antiparticles of all of these particles, the Z boson, the photon, eight kinds of gluons, and the Higgs boson (each kind of quark comes in three colors and each of those can have left or right parity, each kind of charged lepton can have left or right parity, all neutrinos in the Standard Model are left parity and all anti-neutrinos in the Standard Model are right parity). There is also one hypothetical particle, the graviton, which a great many scientists (but not all) believe is an additional fundamental particle.



              This is reality as we observe it, and the Standard Model does not provide any deeper explanation for it. Many extensions of the Standard Model, such as supersymmetry, propose that even more fundamental particles exist. But, science has not pierced successfully yet to a layer more fundamental than the Standard Model.




              I am just very unsatisfied with not actually knowing what an electron
              is and why it has a charge.




              So are lots of scientists. But, they haven't come up with any better explanations. At best, many theoretical physicists would suggest that it might be related to M-theory (i.e. string theory) somehow or other. But, there is no realized, specific model implementing string theory that answers these questions in any meaningful way.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$
















                7












                7








                7





                $begingroup$


                I know electrons have a negative charge and that they are subatomic
                particles made up of even smaller particles,




                This is incorrect. Electrons are, so far as we know, fundamental particles which just happen to have a negative charge of -1 in elementary charge units as one of their properties.



                They are not, so far as we know, made up of even smaller particles. It behaves like a particle that is not composite and is basically a zero radius point in space called a point particle, to the fullest extent that it is possible to test this experimentally. As explained in the point particle link:




                [T]here is good reason that an elementary particle is often called a
                point particle. Even if an elementary particle has a delocalized
                wavepacket, the wavepacket can be represented as a quantum
                superposition of quantum states wherein the particle is exactly
                localized. Moreover, the interactions of the particle can be
                represented as a superposition of interactions of individual states
                which are localized. This is not true for a composite particle, which
                can never be represented as a superposition of exactly-localized
                quantum states. It is in this sense that physicists can discuss the
                intrinsic "size" of a particle: The size of its internal structure,
                not the size of its wavepacket. The "size" of an elementary particle,
                in this sense, is exactly zero.



                For example, for the electron, experimental evidence shows that the
                size of an electron is less than 10^−18 m. This is consistent with the
                expected value of exactly zero.




                Fundamental particles (a.k.a. elementary particles), in general, are each one of a finite number of ways that quantum fields can have a local excited state that each behaves in a well defined way.



                So far, the fundamental particles we know about are six kinds of quarks, three kinds of charged leptons (including the electron), three kinds of neutrinos, the W+ boson, the antiparticles of all of these particles, the Z boson, the photon, eight kinds of gluons, and the Higgs boson (each kind of quark comes in three colors and each of those can have left or right parity, each kind of charged lepton can have left or right parity, all neutrinos in the Standard Model are left parity and all anti-neutrinos in the Standard Model are right parity). There is also one hypothetical particle, the graviton, which a great many scientists (but not all) believe is an additional fundamental particle.



                This is reality as we observe it, and the Standard Model does not provide any deeper explanation for it. Many extensions of the Standard Model, such as supersymmetry, propose that even more fundamental particles exist. But, science has not pierced successfully yet to a layer more fundamental than the Standard Model.




                I am just very unsatisfied with not actually knowing what an electron
                is and why it has a charge.




                So are lots of scientists. But, they haven't come up with any better explanations. At best, many theoretical physicists would suggest that it might be related to M-theory (i.e. string theory) somehow or other. But, there is no realized, specific model implementing string theory that answers these questions in any meaningful way.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$




                I know electrons have a negative charge and that they are subatomic
                particles made up of even smaller particles,




                This is incorrect. Electrons are, so far as we know, fundamental particles which just happen to have a negative charge of -1 in elementary charge units as one of their properties.



                They are not, so far as we know, made up of even smaller particles. It behaves like a particle that is not composite and is basically a zero radius point in space called a point particle, to the fullest extent that it is possible to test this experimentally. As explained in the point particle link:




                [T]here is good reason that an elementary particle is often called a
                point particle. Even if an elementary particle has a delocalized
                wavepacket, the wavepacket can be represented as a quantum
                superposition of quantum states wherein the particle is exactly
                localized. Moreover, the interactions of the particle can be
                represented as a superposition of interactions of individual states
                which are localized. This is not true for a composite particle, which
                can never be represented as a superposition of exactly-localized
                quantum states. It is in this sense that physicists can discuss the
                intrinsic "size" of a particle: The size of its internal structure,
                not the size of its wavepacket. The "size" of an elementary particle,
                in this sense, is exactly zero.



                For example, for the electron, experimental evidence shows that the
                size of an electron is less than 10^−18 m. This is consistent with the
                expected value of exactly zero.




                Fundamental particles (a.k.a. elementary particles), in general, are each one of a finite number of ways that quantum fields can have a local excited state that each behaves in a well defined way.



                So far, the fundamental particles we know about are six kinds of quarks, three kinds of charged leptons (including the electron), three kinds of neutrinos, the W+ boson, the antiparticles of all of these particles, the Z boson, the photon, eight kinds of gluons, and the Higgs boson (each kind of quark comes in three colors and each of those can have left or right parity, each kind of charged lepton can have left or right parity, all neutrinos in the Standard Model are left parity and all anti-neutrinos in the Standard Model are right parity). There is also one hypothetical particle, the graviton, which a great many scientists (but not all) believe is an additional fundamental particle.



                This is reality as we observe it, and the Standard Model does not provide any deeper explanation for it. Many extensions of the Standard Model, such as supersymmetry, propose that even more fundamental particles exist. But, science has not pierced successfully yet to a layer more fundamental than the Standard Model.




                I am just very unsatisfied with not actually knowing what an electron
                is and why it has a charge.




                So are lots of scientists. But, they haven't come up with any better explanations. At best, many theoretical physicists would suggest that it might be related to M-theory (i.e. string theory) somehow or other. But, there is no realized, specific model implementing string theory that answers these questions in any meaningful way.







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited 1 hour ago

























                answered 3 hours ago









                ohwillekeohwilleke

                2,094924




                2,094924















                    Popular posts from this blog

                    El tren de la libertad Índice Antecedentes "Porque yo decido" Desarrollo de la...

                    Puerta de Hutt Referencias Enlaces externos Menú de navegación15°58′00″S 5°42′00″O /...

                    Castillo d'Acher Características Menú de navegación