What gives an electron its charge?
$begingroup$
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.
electrons charge
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
electrons charge
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The is basically a duplicate of physics.stackexchange.com/questions/154350/…
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
electrons charge
New contributor
$endgroup$
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.
electrons charge
electrons charge
New contributor
New contributor
edited 45 mins ago
Loki
New contributor
asked 2 hours ago
LokiLoki
134
134
New contributor
New contributor
$begingroup$
The is basically a duplicate of physics.stackexchange.com/questions/154350/…
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The is basically a duplicate of physics.stackexchange.com/questions/154350/…
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
The is basically a duplicate of physics.stackexchange.com/questions/154350/…
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
The is basically a duplicate of physics.stackexchange.com/questions/154350/…
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
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 |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Loki is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f476687%2fwhat-gives-an-electron-its-charge%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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 19 mins ago
answered 1 hour ago
ohwillekeohwilleke
2,054924
2,054924
add a comment |
add a comment |
Loki is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Loki is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Loki is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Loki is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f476687%2fwhat-gives-an-electron-its-charge%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
The is basically a duplicate of physics.stackexchange.com/questions/154350/…
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago