mcompengr Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 . Like nada OR -1 + 1 = 0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 (edited) Charge is an electromagnetic interaction in this case it has no net charge even though it does interact with the electromagnetic force Edited October 19, 2014 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pootisman Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 A neutron doesn't have a charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 I would say that it has charge zero, but this is semantics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 . Like nada OR -1 + 1 = 0. What is the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 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 ( ? ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beejewel Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kramer Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcompengr Posted October 27, 2014 Author Share Posted October 27, 2014 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. 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