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
$begingroup$
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.
particle-physics electrons charge standard-model elementary-particles
New contributor
$endgroup$
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.
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
particle-physics electrons charge standard-model elementary-particles
New contributor
$endgroup$
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.
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
particle-physics electrons charge standard-model elementary-particles
New contributor
$endgroup$
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
particle-physics electrons charge standard-model elementary-particles
New contributor
New contributor
edited 36 mins ago
Qmechanic♦
108k122021255
108k122021255
New contributor
asked 3 hours ago
LokiLoki
214
214
New contributor
New contributor
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.
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
edited 1 hour ago
answered 3 hours ago
ohwillekeohwilleke
2,094924
2,094924
add a comment |
add a comment |