What creates the charge of an electron?

[rhertz]

It seems that such question shows much more ignorance in the physics
community than questioning what composes the electron's mass.

At least, modern theories about electron's mass constitution are based
on the proposed existence of preons, which also form quarks.

Any standard search in Google and alike shows this definition:

"Charge is just a physical property of matter that causes it to
experience a specific force (aka interact with a specific field). That’s
all."

So, the definition of charge at quantum level is axiomatic: It exists.

Fractional charges that (allegedly), quarks have, are impossible to
detect and measure, because quarks don't exist freely, because they are
tightly coupled to the gluon soup. Big difference with electrons, which
can travel freely in space (i.e.: cosmic radiation).

Another explanation is that, at atomic and quantum level, charge exist
BECAUSE it manifests when suffer forces due to electromagnetic
radiation, and then moves in rectilinear or spiral pathways. But this
definition opens the door to explanations about that charges MIGHT NOT
EXIST if the carrier of the charge is left alone and undisturbed.

As with mass, what is charge at elementary level (electrons) IS UNKNOWN,
ABSOLUTELY UNKNOWN.

There are no answers coming from Quantum Field Theory or others, except
what was proposed within the String Theory, which was abandoned.

So, summarizing the state of physics in 2024:

- Mass? We don't know what it is. It seems a property of matter.

- Charge? We don't know what it is. It seems a property of matter.

- Magnetism? We don't know what it is. It seems related to charges.

- Energy? We don't know what it is. We stick with classic definitions.

- Size of electrons and quarks? WE DON'T KNOW. It could be ZERO.

- Gravity? We don't know what it is, but it seems that violates the
Noether Teorem for symmetry, as antigravity hasn't been observed.

- Origin and size of the universe: WE DON'T KNOW. The BBT is fatally
flawed, but Fred Hoyle's pseudo-static universe was abandoned decades
ago.

- Astrophysics/Astronomy? The more is being found or proposed, the less
is known.

- Relativity? It's a mathematically beautiful theory, but worthless.


WHAT REMAINS? Only what Engineering, Technology, Chemistry and Medical
Sciences can provide, being the driving forces for the last 140 years of
advancement in civilization.

We should CANCEL PHYSICS as a career. It doesn't worth it.

We can't measure things under 1 picometer or above 30 AU (solar system).

Why pretend to propose waste money analyzing things beyond our
capabilities, which provide not a single practical value to mankind?

For instance, and in other level of reasoning: We WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO
LIVE IN MARS, BECAUSE WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO RETURN TO EARTH AFTER A
LONG STAY. OUR BODY WOULD BE DESTROYED.

And so many other issues, like long space travels, living at the bottom
of the seas, or in caves 1 Km deep. If the Sun farts an X.50 flare in
our direction, most of the species are done.

Fuck unregulated science research. We have to put limits on everything,
LIKE RESEARCH AND OPERATIONS ON HUMAN GENDER CHANGES.

AS I ALWAYS SAY: THEY KNOW NOTHING, BUT THESE PARASITES PROFIT FROM OUR
IGNORANCE.

LONG LIFE TO INVENTORS, THE REAL SUPPORT OF CIVILIZATION SINCE DAY ZERO.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by rhertz
It seems that such question shows much more ignorance in the physics
community than questioning what composes the electron's mass.
At least, modern theories about electron's mass constitution are based
on the proposed existence of preons, which also form quarks.
"Charge is just a physical property of matter that causes it to
experience a specific force (aka interact with a specific field). That’s
all."
So, the definition of charge at quantum level is axiomatic: It exists.
Fractional charges that (allegedly), quarks have, are impossible to
detect and measure, because quarks don't exist freely, because they are
tightly coupled to the gluon soup. Big difference with electrons, which
can travel freely in space (i.e.: cosmic radiation).
Another explanation is that, at atomic and quantum level, charge exist
BECAUSE it manifests when suffer forces due to electromagnetic
radiation, and then moves in rectilinear or spiral pathways. But this
definition opens the door to explanations about that charges MIGHT NOT
EXIST if the carrier of the charge is left alone and undisturbed.
As with mass, what is charge at elementary level (electrons) IS UNKNOWN,
ABSOLUTELY UNKNOWN.
There are no answers coming from Quantum Field Theory or others, except
what was proposed within the String Theory, which was abandoned.
- Mass? We don't know what it is. It seems a property of matter.
- Charge? We don't know what it is. It seems a property of matter.
- Magnetism? We don't know what it is. It seems related to charges.
- Energy? We don't know what it is. We stick with classic definitions.
- Size of electrons and quarks? WE DON'T KNOW. It could be ZERO.
- Gravity? We don't know what it is, but it seems that violates the
Noether Teorem for symmetry, as antigravity hasn't been observed.
- Origin and size of the universe: WE DON'T KNOW. The BBT is fatally
flawed, but Fred Hoyle's pseudo-static universe was abandoned decades
ago.
- Astrophysics/Astronomy? The more is being found or proposed, the less
is known.
- Relativity? It's a mathematically beautiful theory, but worthless.
WHAT REMAINS? Only what Engineering, Technology, Chemistry and Medical
Sciences can provide, being the driving forces for the last 140 years of
advancement in civilization.
We should CANCEL PHYSICS as a career. It doesn't worth it.
We can't measure things under 1 picometer or above 30 AU (solar system).
Why pretend to propose waste money analyzing things beyond our
capabilities, which provide not a single practical value to mankind?
For instance, and in other level of reasoning: We WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO
LIVE IN MARS, BECAUSE WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO RETURN TO EARTH AFTER A
LONG STAY. OUR BODY WOULD BE DESTROYED.
And so many other issues, like long space travels, living at the bottom
of the seas, or in caves 1 Km deep. If the Sun farts an X.50 flare in
our direction, most of the species are done.
Fuck unregulated science research. We have to put limits on everything,
LIKE RESEARCH AND OPERATIONS ON HUMAN GENDER CHANGES.
AS I ALWAYS SAY: THEY KNOW NOTHING, BUT THESE PARASITES PROFIT FROM OUR
IGNORANCE.
LONG LIFE TO INVENTORS, THE REAL SUPPORT OF CIVILIZATION SINCE DAY ZERO.

If the lesser gravity of Mars is what you're thinking about,
imagine a simple sort of a centrifuge as a (six-week)
decompression chamber.


You don't have to buy Higgs on matter, that's only one of
the super-symmetric extremes up at "unification energy",
and your classical mechanics largely work just fine as
with regards to the atomic model of matter and mass.


Charge of course is largely potential, it's merely
the "un-fulfilled" as it were, of course there's
static charge and current both, and, the fluid model
of electricity of course has skin effect not core effect.


When you mention magnetism it is as with regards to
it's really related to the kinetic, and quite formulaically
according to potential, again, potential difference,
also known as "electro-motive force".


Particles, are a conceit. When asked, Einstein was like,
"Are particles real? Yeah, ...." Yet, waves model them,
and, resonance model those.


Gravity as a fall gravity seems sensible. It's all the
real potential fields, versus the drowse-beneath-the-apple-tree
and profoundly-acknowledge-what-goes-up-comes-down when
there's-a-head-bump-because-you-fell-asleep. That is
to say, a fall-gravity requires infinite-distance space
potentials, which is simpler in a sense, than pull-gravity
constantly violating conservation (or, for the lifetime
of nucleons).


The trans-Planckian nucleonic particles the quarks and
quarks and quarks again - that just goes all the way
down to superstrings/supercordes, that's what superstring
theory is, a smooth to-be-continuous background down
past the grain of "the un-cuttable: atoms".

They say superstring theory makes no predictions -
yet actually it's whatever mathematics can actually say.



That said, it seems you're excluding all the other theories
for one that isn't really any of them (for they'd get broken).


Of course neither of Big-Bang nor Steady-State are falsifiable, ....

[Bertietaylor]

An electron is charge and is attracted to another charge we call proton.
When this line of attraction is aligned with its velocity towards the
proton they collide to form a neutron. Otherwise it will spin around the
proton if it cannot get away.

[rhertz]

According to the BBT:

About 6.75E+79 H atoms and 2.255E+79 He atoms exist in the visible and
neutrally charged universe (75% and 25% of the total mass M, dismissing
2% from other elements). They were formed from 8.1E+79 original
neutrons, 20' after the Big Bang.

That is:

81,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
neutrons

existing in the first 20 minutes after the BB. Only a 20% remained as
neutrons, to form He.

These neutrons rotate at an extraordinarily high speed, maybe FTL, which
create internal forces that led to the neutron fission: a proton plus an
electron. But it was a force (gauge force - gluons) that held 80% of
neutrons stable for a while (20'), while temperature fell. According to
the current theory, the gluon soup held confined quarks with fractional
charges of +1/3 e and -1/3 e, which later formed protons and electrons
by most neutrons decaying, H and He atoms were formed in the first
hours.


Neutrons: 3 udd quarks (2/3 e - 1/3 e - 1/3 e = 0 e)

Protons: 3 uud quarks (2/3 e + 2/3 e - 1/3 e = + 1 e)

Electrons: 3 ddd quarks (- 1/3 e - 1/3 e - 1/3 e = - 1 e), free of
gluons gauge.

And what is inside quarks, to create charge? A couple of wavelengths of
light, at such high frequency that can't be measured. Beyond gamma rays.


It's a theory, after all. But it supports that mass is of
electromagnetic nature, as was thought by 1900.


Genesis 1:3-5 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by rhertz
About 6.75E+79 H atoms and 2.255E+79 He atoms exist in the visible and
neutrally charged universe (75% and 25% of the total mass M, dismissing
2% from other elements). They were formed from 8.1E+79 original
neutrons, 20' after the Big Bang.
81,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
neutrons
existing in the first 20 minutes after the BB. Only a 20% remained as
neutrons, to form He.
These neutrons rotate at an extraordinarily high speed, maybe FTL, which
create internal forces that led to the neutron fission: a proton plus an
electron. But it was a force (gauge force - gluons) that held 80% of
neutrons stable for a while (20'), while temperature fell. According to
the current theory, the gluon soup held confined quarks with fractional
charges of +1/3 e and -1/3 e, which later formed protons and electrons
by most neutrons decaying, H and He atoms were formed in the first
hours.
Neutrons: 3 udd quarks (2/3 e - 1/3 e - 1/3 e = 0 e)
Protons: 3 uud quarks (2/3 e + 2/3 e - 1/3 e = + 1 e)
Electrons: 3 ddd quarks (- 1/3 e - 1/3 e - 1/3 e = - 1 e), free of
gluons gauge.
And what is inside quarks, to create charge? A couple of wavelengths of
light, at such high frequency that can't be measured. Beyond gamma rays.
It's a theory, after all. But it supports that mass is of
electromagnetic nature, as was thought by 1900.
Genesis 1:3-5 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

There are various theories what's "primary" in the theory,
with regards to mass or energy or "fire" or nucleon lifetime
or photon velocity. It's sort of arrive at either, mass and
charge, as two fields having each field exactly one force field,
then the third is variously called two more weak and electroweak,
as with regards to those also being the milieu of other rays like light.

So, there's usually arrived at a sort of tetrad, a four-some,
of quantities, like "proton electron neutron photon", or
"strong-nuclear electrical weak-nuclear electro-weak",
or the old-fashioned "earth air fire water", where
supposedly you've already heard of ancient classical
theories of the elements before you even heard of
the periodic table of atomic elements.

So, it's sort of a tetrad of quantities, or a tetrad of
fields, those a tetrad of forces, then those the same
laws everywhere, that how Einstein puts it is that
there's space and a ray of time called "space-time"
and how Quantum Mechanics puts it is there's the
fields in a field a continous manifold then on that
a field number formalism, according to the quantities
their locations in space, and field occupation numbers,
how many, as with regards to classical and quantum properties,
that then get integrated as with regards to computing them.


Then usual philosophical accounts like the major religions',
for example, include starting with a deductive or declarative
account or how there was "space" and then that being geometric,
then something like "the word" and that being algebraic.


There were electrical batteries like Leyden jars
like 4000 years ago.

"Fire" as the the element of change has
a usual association with the caveman.


People stick light together with electrical field radio
waves because they're both plainly according to frequency
and amplitude how a broadcasting or receiving antenna
results as according to waves, omni- or uni-directional
radio waves, while, light has no interaction with the
electrical field itself and just happens to also be
considerable as accords to "wave-packets", yet light
also has the optical character of light or "lensing",
with why optical light is special, and not electromagnetic.
Most people were told different.

Then nuclear radiation is usually enough rays and light-like,
if so strong that it often ionizes the media.


There are hundreds if not thousands of kinds of "particles",
often called "exotic" or "the zoo".

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by rhertz
About 6.75E+79 H atoms and 2.255E+79 He atoms exist in the visible and
neutrally charged universe (75% and 25% of the total mass M, dismissing
2% from other elements). They were formed from 8.1E+79 original
neutrons, 20' after the Big Bang.
81,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
neutrons
existing in the first 20 minutes after the BB. Only a 20% remained as
neutrons, to form He.
These neutrons rotate at an extraordinarily high speed, maybe FTL, which
create internal forces that led to the neutron fission: a proton plus an
electron. But it was a force (gauge force - gluons) that held 80% of
neutrons stable for a while (20'), while temperature fell. According to
the current theory, the gluon soup held confined quarks with fractional
charges of +1/3 e and -1/3 e, which later formed protons and electrons
by most neutrons decaying, H and He atoms were formed in the first
hours.
Neutrons: 3 udd quarks (2/3 e - 1/3 e - 1/3 e = 0 e)
Protons: 3 uud quarks (2/3 e + 2/3 e - 1/3 e = + 1 e)
Electrons: 3 ddd quarks (- 1/3 e - 1/3 e - 1/3 e = - 1 e), free of
gluons gauge.
And what is inside quarks, to create charge? A couple of wavelengths of
light, at such high frequency that can't be measured. Beyond gamma rays.
It's a theory, after all. But it supports that mass is of
electromagnetic nature, as was thought by 1900.
Genesis 1:3-5 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

When you say quarks, and "light" holding them together,
I think that's because it's just "well, a particle
must go here, no mass, no charge, some energy,
we'll call it light", yet, all the quantity-less
virtual-particles in QED and QCD are more properly
_not_ light. "Virtual" photons aren't photons.

(In setups like the Alain Aspect type experiments
there are notions of photinos, and photon partners,
which "virtual" photons are, of photons. These notions
of Bell and Aspect make many SR-ians scratch their heads.)

It's interesting you mention super-classical velocities,
because such notions of instantaneity are of course
along the lines of the "extra-local" and indeed it is
so that the super-classical models make for that most
all the models in physical theories of the day, are
or were in classical quantities quite all throughout,
that it's been building for a long time for physics
to have something really super-classical it all. That
said there's the Fritz London and the super-conductivity
which helps show that the parameters of a fluid model,
have the exact opposites of some of the classical concerns
of liquids.


The WMAP and then 2MASS and then JWST have roundly paint-canned
expansion theories including various inflationary theories.
Then the "initial conditions" are just sort of reverse-engineered
from high-energy plasma experiments and symmetry-bending.

Then it's sort of _mutual_ conditions for "running constants",
that are to be arrived at instead of it all coming down
from an arbitrary reflection on merely a few particulars,
in the linear accelerators, or linacs, and ring accelerators,
or cyclotrons.

Or, so it may seem.