splodge Posted March 23, 2023 Share Posted March 23, 2023 In the present atomic model the atom consists of components but could the electron just be an elementary particles conservation of charge ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted March 23, 2023 Share Posted March 23, 2023 23 minutes ago, splodge said: In the present atomic model the atom consists of components but could the electron just be an elementary particles conservation of charge ? Can you try to rephrase this? It appears meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splodge Posted March 23, 2023 Author Share Posted March 23, 2023 (edited) 18 minutes ago, exchemist said: Can you try to rephrase this? It appears meaningless. This is my last post of the day being a first time user of this forum unless the mods wants to hit the unlock button ! Imagine we have a single Proton and this Proton is without an electron . This Proton neither has an electrical charge . Now imagine this Proton has the ability by conductance to conserve an amount of electrical charge equal and proportional to its own dimensions . The conserved electrical charge would become electrically neutral , neutralised by the Proton . This elementary charge could be viewed as an Electron ? Different dimensions of Protons would have more or less Electrons creating different elements of the periodic table . (Dialectric particles perhaps) . Edited March 23, 2023 by splodge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted March 23, 2023 Share Posted March 23, 2023 35 minutes ago, splodge said: This is my last post of the day being a first time user of this forum unless the mods wants to hit the unlock button ! Imagine we have a single Proton and this Proton is without an electron . This Proton neither has an electrical charge . Now imagine this Proton has the ability by conductance to conserve an amount of electrical charge equal and proportional to its own dimensions . The conserved electrical charge would become electrically neutral , neutralised by the Proton . This elementary charge could be viewed as an Electron ? Different dimensions of Protons would have more or less Electrons creating different elements of the periodic table . (Dialectric particles perhaps) . Yeah. Bye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 23, 2023 Share Posted March 23, 2023 2 hours ago, splodge said: Now imagine this Proton has the ability by conductance to conserve an amount of electrical charge equal and proportional to its own dimensions . Still meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joigus Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 On 3/23/2023 at 5:18 PM, splodge said: In the present atomic model the atom consists of components but could the electron just be an elementary particles conservation of charge ? Conservation of charge bears out an elementary symmetry. The electron is a carrier of that symmetry. How could bilateral symmetry (a quality of a thing) be the thing itself? Flies have bilateral symmetry. Is bilateral symmetry of a fly the fly itself? Please, come to your senses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 I get the impression that you're saying electrons are required simply because protons acquire a certain positive charge that needs to be 'balanced out' due to charge conservation. Alas, electrons do exist, and have been measured/observed on their own, without a 'balancing' proton. And electrons are not charge, rather, they have the property of charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joigus Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 Ah, so OP maybe is trying to say, 'could the electron be there just because charges need to balance out?' If that's the case, I know of a class of theorems called 'soft boson theorems' in QFT that say that something very weird would happen if charges didn't balance out at distances long enough, and that would make QFT inconsistent. That alone wouldn't explain why the universe is not just a soup of photons from all the particle-antiparticle pairs having annihilated each other long in the past... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 2 hours ago, joigus said: Conservation of charge bears out an elementary symmetry. The electron is a carrier of that symmetry. How could bilateral symmetry (a quality of a thing) be the thing itself? Flies have bilateral symmetry. Is bilateral symmetry of a fly the fly itself? Please, come to your senses. Impossible. This was Theorist again. 🤪 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joigus Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 9 minutes ago, exchemist said: Impossible. This was Theorist again. 🤪 Ah, so there's a history of the theorist... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 10 minutes ago, joigus said: Ah, so there's a history of the theorist... On many forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KJW Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 7 hours ago, joigus said: Conservation of charge bears out an elementary symmetry. The electron is a carrier of that symmetry. How could bilateral symmetry (a quality of a thing) be the thing itself? Flies have bilateral symmetry. Is bilateral symmetry of a fly the fly itself? Please, come to your senses. [My bold] To be fair, relatively few people are aware that charge is the result of a symmetry. Perhaps you could explain what that symmetry is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joigus Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 4 minutes ago, KJW said: To be fair, relatively few people are aware that charge is the result of a symmetry. Perhaps you could explain what that symmetry is. I can do better than that: https://people.math.harvard.edu/~knill/teaching/mathe320_2017/blog17/Hermann_Weyl_Symmetry.pdf According to Hermann Weyl, something is symmetric when it looks the same after you change a condition. The 'thing' is thus symmetrical under the change of such 'condition'. A sphere is symmetrical under rotations around its centre. A fly is symmetrical under reflection through a mirror. The laws of physics are symmetrical under changing particles for antiparticles. ... And so on The usefulness of Weyl's definition stems from the fact that certain transformations can be expressed in very simple terms as functions of few parameters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KJW Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 5 minutes ago, joigus said: I can do better than that: https://people.math.harvard.edu/~knill/teaching/mathe320_2017/blog17/Hermann_Weyl_Symmetry.pdf According to Hermann Weyl, something is symmetric when it looks the same after you change a condition. The 'thing' is thus symmetrical under the change of such 'condition'. A sphere is symmetrical under rotations around its centre. A fly is symmetrical under reflection through a mirror. The laws of physics are symmetrical under changing particles for antiparticles. ... And so on The usefulness of Weyl's definition stems from the fact that certain transformations can be expressed in very simple terms as functions of few parameters. What I meant was: to what symmetry does charge conservation correspond? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joigus Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 1 minute ago, KJW said: What I meant was: to what symmetry does charge conservation correspond? Global phase invariance. IOW, \[ \psi\rightarrow e^{i\alpha}\psi \] where \( \alpha \) is a constant phase shift in the wave function. You can easily prove charge is conserved via Noether's theorem if you have a Lagrangian that produces the equations of motion. It's the global version of gauge invariance. When you have local gauge invariance, not only gauge charge is conserved, but a field has to step in to guarantee it is preserved. And god says, Let there be light, Let there be gluons, Let there be Z and W bosons, and (hopefully), Let there be gravitons, even if nobody can calculate anything with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genady Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 Quote The symmetry that is associated with charge conservation is the global gauge invariance of the electromagnetic field. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_conservation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joigus Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 Also: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Gauge_invariance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KJW Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 (edited) Thank you for your effort, but I was hoping for something I didn't already know (although a clarification of the distinction between global and local symmetries pertaining to Noether's theorem would be helpful). My particular difficulty is about the connection between a wavefunction, which describes probability of general objects, and electromagnetism, which is a more specific notion than the objects to which wavefunctions apply. And of course, there are the weak and strong forces, with their own symmetries. The symmetries of the electromagnetic, weak, and strong forces are often described as "internal symmetries", but I find this term unsatisfying. Another thing: How does [math]A'_{\mu} = A_{\mu} + \partial_{\mu} \phi[/math] from classical electrodynamics relate to [math]\psi\, ' = e^{i \phi} \psi[/math] from quantum mechanics? Edited February 11 by KJW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now