# Is the neutron uncharged or neutrally charged?

## Recommended Posts

.

Like nada OR -1 + 1 = 0.

##### Share on other sites

Charge is an electromagnetic interaction in this case it has no net charge even though it does interact with the electromagnetic force

Edited by Mordred
##### Share on other sites

The neutron consists of three quarks (and a bunch of gluons, but gluons have zero charge): two down quarks and one up quark. The down quark has electric charge -1/3. The up quark has charge +2/3. The net charge of the neutron is therefore: (-1/3) + (-1/3) + (2/3) = 0.

The proton is similar. It consists of two up quarks and one down quark, so its net charge is: (2/3) + (2/3) + (-1/3) = 1.

##### Share on other sites

A neutron doesn't have a charge.

##### Share on other sites

I would say that it has charge zero, but this is semantics.

##### Share on other sites

.

Like nada OR -1 + 1 = 0.

What is the difference?

##### Share on other sites

What is the difference?

The way I interpreted the question, he's wondering whether the neutron is composed of charges that sum to zero, or if it just has zero charge (i.e. if quarks weren't charged).

##### Share on other sites

Somewhat off-topic, if so please move, but why has the fundamental unit of charge not been 're-normalised' such that the electron now would have 3 units.

Not that it would make any difference.

In one case I have to think of a quark having 1/3 of a fundamental charge (?).

In the other, an elementary particle has 3 units of charge ( ? ).

##### Share on other sites

Somewhat off-topic, if so please move, but why has the fundamental unit of charge not been 're-normalised' such that the electron now would have 3 units.

Not that it would make any difference.

In one case I have to think of a quark having 1/3 of a fundamental charge (?).

In the other, an elementary particle has 3 units of charge ( ? ).

Probably because quarks always appear in bound states which have net integer charge.

##### Share on other sites

What is the difference?

Something that contains constituent charges can have multipole moments owing to the charge distribution, although the neutron's electric dipole moment is too small to currently measure.

Somewhat off-topic, if so please move, but why has the fundamental unit of charge not been 're-normalised' such that the electron now would have 3 units.

Not that it would make any difference.

In one case I have to think of a quark having 1/3 of a fundamental charge (?).

In the other, an elementary particle has 3 units of charge ( ? ).

My guess is that it's because only a small fraction of scientists study the nucleus, and there's a whole bunch of inertia behind the status quo. This is a nomenclature question — no actual physics would change.

##### Share on other sites

No waves have net charge, all waves have a peak and a trough. For every credit there must be a debit. The neutron is not a special case.

##### Share on other sites

MigL, on 19 Oct 2014 - 11:31 PM, said:

Somewhat off-topic, if so please move, but why has the fundamental unit of charge not been 're-normalised' such that the electron now would have 3 units.

Not that it would make any difference.

In one case I have to think of a quark having 1/3 of a fundamental charge (?).

In the other, an elementary particle has 3 units of charge ( ? ).

Swansont

My guess is that it's because only a small fraction of scientists study the nucleus, and there's a whole bunch of inertia behind the status quo. This is a nomenclature question — no actual physics would change.

-----A very interesting conundrum exposed by Migl, and a very strange accurate response from Swansont. And with this you may throw over a quilt, and leave the thread to sleep. Less troubles, less headaches, for moderators.

##### Share on other sites

The way I interpreted the question, he's wondering whether the neutron is composed of charges that sum to zero, or if it just has zero charge (i.e. if quarks weren't charged).

I was thinking two bits would be required to represent charge in the (composite partical) universe,

but that would mean an unused state. If the universe was balanced ternary, rather than binary, then

one tri-state bit would do.

Simulation is huge with theroretical physics, and a model is only so good as it is close to the thing

being modeled, so maybe "ternary" hardware would be better. Yin and Yang are not enough.

## Create an account

Register a new account