[vincentfromyay]

i've read them described as both. what i want to try to understand is, is the proton and electron simply an electrical charge, nothing more?

or, are they things in their own right, which have an electrical charge?

to use ananalogy. peter can have a cardboard sign with a plus sign written on it. he can give the sign away and still continue to exist himself. he is not an electrical charge; he HAS anelectrical charge (well, a sign with a plus sign written on it).



likewise for electrons. if eddie has a sign with a minus sign on it he can give it away and still exist; is this the case for electrons?

[swansont]

I think the consensus view is that charge is a property that some particles possess. There are particles that do not have this property.

[timo]

As Swansont said, charge is a property of particles. However, your understanding of a property seems to be that properties can be taken away from objects. That is not necessarily the case, as can be seen in many non-physical examples: the age of a person, the color of an object, the size of a file, .... I don't have a good example where the property cannot be changed as in the case of the electrical charge of an electron, but maybe someone can find one (the color of "a red car" perhaps ).

[Schrödinger's hat]

timo, on 28 September 2011 - 10:05 AM, said:

As Swansont said, charge is a property of particles. However, your understanding of a property seems to be that properties can be taken away from objects. That is not necessarily the case, as can be seen in many non-physical examples: the age of a person, the color of an object, the size of a file, .... I don't have a good example where the property cannot be changed as in the case of the electrical charge of an electron, but maybe someone can find one (the color of "a red car" perhaps ).

I'll see if I can find another analogy and stretch it as far as it will go:

A warm-blooded mammal.
If you made it not warm-blooded it wouldn't be a mammal anymore, as that is one of the properties of a mammal
It is possible that we could get a mouse, and modify it so it was cold-blooded, but it wouldn't be a mammal (or a mouse) anymore. It'd be a different thing. We'd also have to change other things to make it so our modified creature was still alive.
We could also find an existing cold-blooded animal a bit like a mouse, maybe a lizard of some kind. It could share other properties (propensity to forage, size....the analogy is starting to wear thin about here). It would also have some other properties that differed (egg-laying, scales etc)

The same way an electron without charge isn't an electron anymore. There's something vaguely similar (it has the same spin, and the same flavour) an electron-neutrino, but it has other properties that must be different (mass, isospin etc). Otherwise it wouldn't be a valid particle ("stay alive" so to speak).

This post has been edited by Schrödinger's hat: 28 September 2011 - 12:07 PM

[imatfaal]

Schrödinger, on 28 September 2011 - 10:36 AM, said:

I'll see if I can find another analogy and stretch it as far as it will go:

A warm-blooded mammal.
If you made it not warm-blooded it wouldn't be a mammal anymore, as that is one of the properties of a mammal
It is possible that we could get a mouse, and modify it so it was cold-blooded, but it wouldn't be a mammal (or a mouse) anymore. It'd be a different thing. We'd also have to change other things to make it so our modified creature was still alive.
We could also find an existing cold-blooded animal a bit like a mouse, maybe a lizard of some kind. It could share other properties (propensity to forage, size....the analogy is starting to wear thin about here).

The same way an electron without charge isn't an electron anymore. There's something vaguely similar, an electron-neutrino, but it has other properties that are different (mass, isospin etc), otherwise it wouldn't be a valid particle ("stay alive" so to speak).

Really nice analogy. The Naked Mole Rat is considered to be both a mammal and an operational poikilotherm; but frankly they are as ugly as hell and shouldn't be allowed to destroy a good parallel

[Schrödinger's hat]

imatfaal, on 28 September 2011 - 11:34 AM, said:

Really nice analogy. The Naked Mole Rat is considered to be both a mammal and an operational poikilotherm; but frankly they are as ugly as hell and shouldn't be allowed to destroy a good parallel

The key to getting good coverage from your analogies is to steam them properly first. Then apply a nice, even pressure. You'll find that you'll be able to stretch them much thinner that way.

This post has been edited by Schrödinger's hat: 28 September 2011 - 12:02 PM

[imatfaal]

Schrödinger, on 28 September 2011 - 12:02 PM, said:

The key to getting good coverage from your analogies is to steam them properly first. Then apply a nice, even pressure. You'll find that you'll be able to stretch them much thinner that way.

a recursive analogy joke!

[LawfulBlade]

Protons and electrons have discernible mass, and occupy space; they also have associated electrical charges. "Charged particles" is an appropriate term. In terms of visualizing or comprehending chemical reactions, the mass is sometimes neglected in favor of treating the proton or electrons simply as free charges, but that's only for convenience, and not to be taken literally.

[Greg Boyles]

vincentfromyay, on 28 September 2011 - 09:51 AM, said:

i've read them described as both. what i want to try to understand is, is the proton and electron simply an electrical charge, nothing more?

or, are they things in their own right, which have an electrical charge?

to use ananalogy. peter can have a cardboard sign with a plus sign written on it. he can give the sign away and still continue to exist himself. he is not an electrical charge; he HAS anelectrical charge (well, a sign with a plus sign written on it).



likewise for electrons. if eddie has a sign with a minus sign on it he can give it away and still exist; is this the case for electrons?

An electron giving away its negative charge would be like me trying to give away the colour of my skin.

If it did then it would no longer be an electron.

vincentfromyay, on 28 September 2011 - 09:51 AM, said:

i've read them described as both. what i want to try to understand is, is the proton and electron simply an electrical charge, nothing more?

or, are they things in their own right, which have an electrical charge?

to use ananalogy. peter can have a cardboard sign with a plus sign written on it. he can give the sign away and still continue to exist himself. he is not an electrical charge; he HAS anelectrical charge (well, a sign with a plus sign written on it).



likewise for electrons. if eddie has a sign with a minus sign on it he can give it away and still exist; is this the case for electrons?

An electron giving away its negative charge would be like me trying to give away the colour of my skin.

If it did then it would no longer be an electron.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Dovada's speculative tangent has been moved http://www.sciencefo...-or-a-property/