What actually is 'charge'?

[peter2100]

Electrons have a negative charge. Protons have a positive charged. Usually substances have equal numbers of both, so that the overall charge cancels, and a substance has no net charge.

But if we rub some substances, such as a balloon against a nylon sweater, we are able to remove some of the electrons, resulting the balloon acquiring a net positive charge, and the balloon is said to be charged. Of course the removed electrons are transferred to the sweater, and it becomes negatively charged.

I can also recommend Bill Beaty's webpage What is Charge, on his excellent websiter about electicity.

Thank you for your reply but you see this is my problem. This here is a description of the phenomena known as charge but it doesn't tell me what charge actually is. It starts by simply defining an electron as negatively charged. I knew that but why is it negatively charged and what does that mean? What is it actually. How does it differ from the proton with its positive charge?

Thank you all for your replies.

[Michael V]

peter2100,

The "charge" particles emitted by the electron and proton that enable them to present the appearance of an action at a distance are NOT positive and negative. The charge particles are simply kinetic - mass in motion - when they collide with something a force may be produced.

The effects of positive and negative, so beloved by those so near and dear to us, are a reactive property of the particles themselves. So:

- an electron "acts" negatively (i.e. it goes one way), but it does not convey any negative-ness to other objects - its charge is not negative, its charge is simply a kinetic emission.

- a proton "acts" positively (i.e. it goes the other way), but it does not convey any positive-ness to other objects - its charge is not positive, its charge is simply a kinetic emission.

"Charge" cannot be separated. Charge emitters, i.e. electrons and protons, can be separated from each other, but they cannot be segregated - you cannot have a big cloud of electrons over here and a big cloud of protons over there. How would you achieve such a feat? - the electrons will repel each other and the protons will repel each other. If you did succeed in building diffuse electron cloud and diffuse proton clouds, held loosely together by gravity, it would still be incorrect to attribute them to be negative and positive.

Protons have a significant gravitational effect and so they attract, but only to the point of proximity that repulsive charge emission will allow. In this respect they may be considered positive.

Electrons are less massive and so, produce a much smaller gravitational effect, but their charge is still significantly repulsive. In this respect they may be considered negative.

This is not quite the full explanation, but you should try to maintain a scientific attitude and do not be taken-in by the purveyors of "electric magic". There is simply objects in motion and collision, following the laws of motion. Pushed together "attractively" by gravity and pushed apart "repulsively" by charge.

Michael

[peter2100]

peter2100,

The "charge" particles emitted by the electron and proton that enable them to present the appearance of an action at a distance are NOT positive and negative. The charge particles are simply kinetic - mass in motion - when they collide with something a force may be produced.

The effects of positive and negative, so beloved by those so near and dear to us, are a reactive property of the particles themselves. So:

- an electron "acts" negatively (i.e. it goes one way), but it does not convey any negative-ness to other objects - its charge is not negative, its charge is simply a kinetic emission.

- a proton "acts" positively (i.e. it goes the other way), but it does not convey any positive-ness to other objects - its charge is not positive, its charge is simply a kinetic emission.

"Charge" cannot be separated. Charge emitters, i.e. electrons and protons, can be separated from each other, but they cannot be segregated - you cannot have a big cloud of electrons over here and a big cloud of protons over there. How would you achieve such a feat? - the electrons will repel each other and the protons will repel each other. If you did succeed in building diffuse electron cloud and diffuse proton clouds, held loosely together by gravity, it would still be incorrect to attribute them to be negative and positive.

Protons have a significant gravitational effect and so they attract, but only to the point of proximity that repulsive charge emission will allow. In this respect they may be considered positive.

Electrons are less massive and so, produce a much smaller gravitational effect, but their charge is still significantly repulsive. In this respect they may be considered negative.

This is not quite the full explanation, but you should try to maintain a scientific attitude and do not be taken-in by the purveyors of "electric magic". There is simply objects in motion and collision, following the laws of motion. Pushed together "attractively" by gravity and pushed apart "repulsively" by charge.

Michael

Thanks for this response. This is something more like I was looking for. I'm far too out of my league here though.

[The Great Dog]

Once again, it is a journey into metaphor.

TGD

[querious]

When examining circuits from a energy equation perspective, there are 2 mathematically equivalent analogies:

The Force as Current, and velocity as voltage; or it's topological inverse: Force as voltage, and velocity as current.

There are no other possibilities which make sense, mathematically.

However, the Force-current, velocity-voltage analogy is the one which preserves the topology of the circuit; series resistors as series dampers, etc. See http://www.dartmouth.edu/~sullivan/22files/System_analogy_all.pdf

A little dimensional analysis then reveals charge to be (potential, field) momentum. Remember that charge is just particles constantly exchanging momentum, carried by virtual photons.

Now, divide the elementary charge by c to get a mass of 5.34428542 E-028 kg.

Compare that to the unit value of the lepton masses: 5.59499749 E-028 kg (see http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1429#p16235 For instance, plug the natural electron mass of .040349908219^2=0.001628129753; and 0.0016281298 X 5.59499749 E-028 kg = 9.10938188E-031 kg)

Now 5.34428542 / 5.5949975 = 0.95518995674

Interestingly, we also have (exp(-4*pi*a))^.5 = 0.9551846385 (where 4*pi*a is the standard "rationalized electron charge" squared)

[Sparky]

querious , thanks for the links, especially the older forum thread.

Remember that charge is just particles constantly exchanging momentum, carried by virtual photons.

You begin to explain, using mechanics, then throw in a "virtual".

why can't we use real photons or some other particle, ie., a kinetic Quantum aether particle?

I forgot my algebra lessons decades ago, so your math seems confusing, without reasons for each step and explanations for expressions, ie., 5.59499749 E-028 kg. Is that the same as 5.59499749 x 10^-028 kg??

thanks

[seasmith]

What actually is 'charge'?
by peter2100 » Mon Feb 27, 2012 4:05 pm

I know how the word is used and the description of what happens but what is it actually? When something is positively or negatively charged what is it that makes it so? Does anyone even know? Why do they attract or repel? What is actually going on?
peter2100

Sp,
So back binging de bang bam bell.
s

by querious » Fri Mar 09, 2012 1:23 pm

When examining circuits from a energy equation perspective, there are 2 mathematically equivalent analogies:

The Force as Current, and velocity as voltage; or it's topological inverse: Force as voltage, and velocity as current.

There are no other possibilities which make sense, mathematically.

However, the Force-current, velocity-voltage analogy is the one which preserves the topology of the circuit; series resistors as series dampers, etc. See http://www.dartmouth.edu/~sullivan/22fi ... gy_all.pdf

A little dimensional analysis then reveals charge to be (potential, field) momentum. Remember that charge is just particles constantly exchanging momentum, carried by virtual photons.

Now, divide the elementary charge by c to get a mass of 5.34428542 E-028 kg.

Compare that to the unit value of the lepton masses: 5.59499749 E-028 kg (see viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1429#p16235 For instance, plug the natural electron mass of .040349908219^2=0.001628129753; and 0.0016281298 X 5.59499749 E-028 kg = 9.10938188E-031 kg)

Now 5.34428542 / 5.5949975 = 0.95518995674

Interestingly, we also have (exp(-4*pi*a))^.5 = 0.9551846385 (where 4*pi*a is the standard "rationalized electron charge" squared)
querious

Like the tentative Topologies,

... constantly exchanging momentum...

though one may have safely stopped there;
or perhaps would you even care to define "virtual" ?

Irregardless, when you start delving into the " particles" and "virtual photons", i wonder if you might even perhaps define those ?

And where you have, "also have (exp(-4*pi*a))^.5 = 0.9551846385 (where 4*pi*a is the standard "rationalized electron charge" squared)", that's 'a', as in area ?

Like the 4pi and ^.5 however, exactly what topology is this meant to be the area of ??

s

[seasmith]

querious,

I take it you are using w for angular momentum, not a.
If not, the suggested topology is even more abstract.

s

[seasmith]

~
as in your linked table:
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~sullivan/22fi ... gy_all.pdf

[tharkun]

Shrike,

...if i'm not mistaken is that almost every where gravity is expressed as an acceleration.

You are mistaken. For example, g is "the acceleration due to gravity". Gravity is the force, the acceleration is due to the force. Miles' attempt to apply the acceleration as the gravity is a mathematical fudge.

Michael

The language may be used as "gravity is the force that causes the acceleration"; but that's not how the math is used.

F = mg is equivalent to F = ma. You can't say that F and g are the same and F and a are different. Gravity is an acceleration it only results in a measurable force when mass is involved as well; therefore the statement "gravity is a force" is false mathematically and physically. All Mathis does is turn the vector around to change the curved field into a linear one. This is not a mathematical 'cheat'.

tharkun

[tharkun]

Daniel,

Einstein equivalence principle is also incorrect.

Gravity is then only a function of radius and an acceleration out

No it is not. Physically this is utterly untrue. It may suffice as a mathematical convenience, but surely that is not the object of the endeavour. A method that puts the maths before the physics will also avoid both the process and any understanding of that physical process - I would argue that this a conceptual error.

Michael

Why is Equivalence Principle incorrect? You state it, but do nothing to support or explain this statement. Are you saying someone in Einstein's theoretical spaceship WOULD be able to tell the difference between a 1g acceleration up due to an engine and a 1g acceleration down due to gravity? How and why? Mathis would likely guffaw at your statment that he is putting math BEFORE physics; if anything, he is MORE mechanical than anything else out there (including the EU guys).


tharkun

[querious]

And where you have, "also have (exp(-4*pi*a))^.5 = 0.9551846385 (where 4*pi*a is the standard "rationalized electron charge" squared)", that's 'a', as in area ?

"a", as in the fine structure constant.

[querious]

You begin to explain, using mechanics, then throw in a "virtual".
why can't we use real photons or some other particle, ie., a kinetic Quantum aether particle?

If it weren't for virtual particles like the W boson (the heavy cousin of the massless photon), the sun wouldn't shine.

[seasmith]

or perhaps would you even care to define "virtual" ?

Irregardless, when you start delving into the " particles" and "virtual photons", i wonder if you might even perhaps define those ?
-seasmith

querious,

Again, i like the table of "System Analogies" (are you an/the author ?).

One naturally wonders how and why though, on the fundamental quantum level referenced by your formula:

"a", as in the fine structure constant. -querious

voltage-current/velocity-force and current-voltage/velocity-force equivalencies may both be valid ?

Hence the foundational questions repeated here.

seasmith

(Perhaps the clarity of the table could be enhanced with a consistent use of Caps and a brief legend ?)

[Michael V]

tharkun,

The language may be used as "gravity is the force that causes the acceleration"; but that's not how the math is used.

Nonsense. F=GMM/r2, where F is gravity. Gravity is the force

You can't say that F and g are the same and F and a are different.

F is not the same as g, what are you talking about? g is an acceleration, g is the same as a.

Are you getting confused with g=GM/r2. This is the reduced mass calc, gravity ONLY EVER exists between two (or more) masses. Compare the mass of the Earth to the mass of a ball or a human or a plane or a rocket, with a reduced mass calc, is an approximation that you can get away with because the difference in mass is so huge. A gravitational force effect that causes an acceleration only occurs between two or more masses.

Gravity is an acceleration it only results in a measurable force when mass is involved as well;

So absolutely always then. Gravity acts on mass and only acts on mass, without mass, there is no gravitational effect.

...therefore the statement "gravity is a force" is false mathematically and physically. All Mathis does is turn the vector around to change the curved field into a linear one. This is not a mathematical 'cheat'.

So its a mathematical fudge of convenience that is entirely the opposite of the physical process.

Michael