What gives an electron its charge?How do electrons get a charge?What does a subatomic charge actually...

Multiple options for Pseudonyms

How to replace the "space symbol" (squat-u) in listings?

Need help understanding harmonic series and intervals

Do I have an "anti-research" personality?

What does YCWCYODFTRFDTY mean?

How to creep the reader out with what seems like a normal person?

Pressure to defend the relevance of one's area of mathematics

Has any spacecraft ever had the ability to directly communicate with civilian air traffic control?

Pawn Sacrifice Justification

Illegal assignment from SObject to Contact

Why was Germany not as successful as other Europeans in establishing overseas colonies?

What is the strongest case that can be made in favour of the UK regaining some control over fishing policy after Brexit?

Can fracking help reduce CO2?

What is a Recurrent Neural Network?

How to back up a running remote server?

Can a creature tell when it has been affected by a Divination wizard's Portent?

"ne paelici suspectaretur" (Tacitus)

Examples of non trivial equivalence relations , I mean equivalence relations without the expression " same ... as" in their definition?

Past Perfect Tense

Find the coordinate of two line segments that are perpendicular

Why is the origin of “threshold” uncertain?

Why do Ichisongas hate elephants and hippos?

What does 「再々起」mean?

Help, my Death Star suffers from Kessler syndrome!



What gives an electron its charge?


How do electrons get a charge?What does a subatomic charge actually mean?Empirical bound on sum of electron and proton chargeWhat is charge?Why is an electron negatively charged, and what is the difference between negative and positive charges?How do electrons get a charge?Electrons and MagnetismWhy is the charge of a proton positive?Why are electrons negetively charged?What is the difference between poisitive and negative charge?Explanation of charge for a student just entering physics













3












$begingroup$


What exactly gives electrons a charge? I understand how in molecules, an imbalance between electrons and protons give ions charges and I also understand that there is really no positive or negative charge, they are just names assigned to opposite charges, but I am just very unsatisfied with not actually knowing what an electron is and why it has a charge.










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Loki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The is basically a duplicate of physics.stackexchange.com/q/154350
    $endgroup$
    – ohwilleke
    2 hours ago


















3












$begingroup$


What exactly gives electrons a charge? I understand how in molecules, an imbalance between electrons and protons give ions charges and I also understand that there is really no positive or negative charge, they are just names assigned to opposite charges, but I am just very unsatisfied with not actually knowing what an electron is and why it has a charge.










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Loki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The is basically a duplicate of physics.stackexchange.com/q/154350
    $endgroup$
    – ohwilleke
    2 hours ago
















3












3








3





$begingroup$


What exactly gives electrons a charge? I understand how in molecules, an imbalance between electrons and protons give ions charges and I also understand that there is really no positive or negative charge, they are just names assigned to opposite charges, but I am just very unsatisfied with not actually knowing what an electron is and why it has a charge.










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Loki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




What exactly gives electrons a charge? I understand how in molecules, an imbalance between electrons and protons give ions charges and I also understand that there is really no positive or negative charge, they are just names assigned to opposite charges, but I am just very unsatisfied with not actually knowing what an electron is and why it has a charge.







particle-physics electrons charge standard-model elementary-particles






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Loki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Loki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 1 min ago









Qmechanic

108k122021255




108k122021255






New contributor




Loki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 2 hours ago









LokiLoki

184




184




New contributor




Loki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Loki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Loki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The is basically a duplicate of physics.stackexchange.com/q/154350
    $endgroup$
    – ohwilleke
    2 hours ago
















  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The is basically a duplicate of physics.stackexchange.com/q/154350
    $endgroup$
    – ohwilleke
    2 hours ago










1




1




$begingroup$
The is basically a duplicate of physics.stackexchange.com/q/154350
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
2 hours ago






$begingroup$
The is basically a duplicate of physics.stackexchange.com/q/154350
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
2 hours ago












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















5












$begingroup$


I know electrons have a negative charge and that they are subatomic
particles made up of even smaller particles,




This is incorrect. Electrons are, so far as we know, fundamental particles which just happen to have a negative charge of -1 in elementary charge units as one of their properties.



They are not, so far as we know, made up of even smaller particles. It behaves like a particle that is not composite and is basically a zero radius point in space called a point particle, to the fullest extent that it is possible to test this experimentally. As explained in the point particle link:




[T]here is good reason that an elementary particle is often called a
point particle. Even if an elementary particle has a delocalized
wavepacket, the wavepacket can be represented as a quantum
superposition of quantum states wherein the particle is exactly
localized. Moreover, the interactions of the particle can be
represented as a superposition of interactions of individual states
which are localized. This is not true for a composite particle, which
can never be represented as a superposition of exactly-localized
quantum states. It is in this sense that physicists can discuss the
intrinsic "size" of a particle: The size of its internal structure,
not the size of its wavepacket. The "size" of an elementary particle,
in this sense, is exactly zero.



For example, for the electron, experimental evidence shows that the
size of an electron is less than 10^−18 m. This is consistent with the
expected value of exactly zero.




Fundamental particles (a.k.a. elementary particles), in general, are each one of a finite number of ways that quantum fields can have a local excited state that each behaves in a well defined way.



So far, the fundamental particles we know about are six kinds of quarks, three kinds of charged leptons (including the electron), three kinds of neutrinos, the W+ boson, the antiparticles of all of these particles, the Z boson, the photon, eight kinds of gluons, and the Higgs boson (each kind of quark comes in three colors and each of those can have left or right parity, each kind of charged lepton can have left or right parity, all neutrinos in the Standard Model are left parity and all anti-neutrinos in the Standard Model are right parity). There is also one hypothetical particle, the graviton, which a great many scientists (but not all) believe is an additional fundamental particle.



This is reality as we observe it, and the Standard Model does not provide any deeper explanation for it. Many extensions of the Standard Model, such as supersymmetry, propose that even more fundamental particles exist. But, science has not pierced successfully yet to a layer more fundamental than the Standard Model.




I am just very unsatisfied with not actually knowing what an electron
is and why it has a charge.




So are lots of scientists. But, they haven't come up with any better explanations. At best, many theoretical physicists would suggest that it might be related to M-theory (i.e. string theory) somehow or other. But, there is no realized, specific model implementing string theory that answers these questions in any meaningful way.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$














    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "151"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });






    Loki is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f476687%2fwhat-gives-an-electron-its-charge%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    5












    $begingroup$


    I know electrons have a negative charge and that they are subatomic
    particles made up of even smaller particles,




    This is incorrect. Electrons are, so far as we know, fundamental particles which just happen to have a negative charge of -1 in elementary charge units as one of their properties.



    They are not, so far as we know, made up of even smaller particles. It behaves like a particle that is not composite and is basically a zero radius point in space called a point particle, to the fullest extent that it is possible to test this experimentally. As explained in the point particle link:




    [T]here is good reason that an elementary particle is often called a
    point particle. Even if an elementary particle has a delocalized
    wavepacket, the wavepacket can be represented as a quantum
    superposition of quantum states wherein the particle is exactly
    localized. Moreover, the interactions of the particle can be
    represented as a superposition of interactions of individual states
    which are localized. This is not true for a composite particle, which
    can never be represented as a superposition of exactly-localized
    quantum states. It is in this sense that physicists can discuss the
    intrinsic "size" of a particle: The size of its internal structure,
    not the size of its wavepacket. The "size" of an elementary particle,
    in this sense, is exactly zero.



    For example, for the electron, experimental evidence shows that the
    size of an electron is less than 10^−18 m. This is consistent with the
    expected value of exactly zero.




    Fundamental particles (a.k.a. elementary particles), in general, are each one of a finite number of ways that quantum fields can have a local excited state that each behaves in a well defined way.



    So far, the fundamental particles we know about are six kinds of quarks, three kinds of charged leptons (including the electron), three kinds of neutrinos, the W+ boson, the antiparticles of all of these particles, the Z boson, the photon, eight kinds of gluons, and the Higgs boson (each kind of quark comes in three colors and each of those can have left or right parity, each kind of charged lepton can have left or right parity, all neutrinos in the Standard Model are left parity and all anti-neutrinos in the Standard Model are right parity). There is also one hypothetical particle, the graviton, which a great many scientists (but not all) believe is an additional fundamental particle.



    This is reality as we observe it, and the Standard Model does not provide any deeper explanation for it. Many extensions of the Standard Model, such as supersymmetry, propose that even more fundamental particles exist. But, science has not pierced successfully yet to a layer more fundamental than the Standard Model.




    I am just very unsatisfied with not actually knowing what an electron
    is and why it has a charge.




    So are lots of scientists. But, they haven't come up with any better explanations. At best, many theoretical physicists would suggest that it might be related to M-theory (i.e. string theory) somehow or other. But, there is no realized, specific model implementing string theory that answers these questions in any meaningful way.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      5












      $begingroup$


      I know electrons have a negative charge and that they are subatomic
      particles made up of even smaller particles,




      This is incorrect. Electrons are, so far as we know, fundamental particles which just happen to have a negative charge of -1 in elementary charge units as one of their properties.



      They are not, so far as we know, made up of even smaller particles. It behaves like a particle that is not composite and is basically a zero radius point in space called a point particle, to the fullest extent that it is possible to test this experimentally. As explained in the point particle link:




      [T]here is good reason that an elementary particle is often called a
      point particle. Even if an elementary particle has a delocalized
      wavepacket, the wavepacket can be represented as a quantum
      superposition of quantum states wherein the particle is exactly
      localized. Moreover, the interactions of the particle can be
      represented as a superposition of interactions of individual states
      which are localized. This is not true for a composite particle, which
      can never be represented as a superposition of exactly-localized
      quantum states. It is in this sense that physicists can discuss the
      intrinsic "size" of a particle: The size of its internal structure,
      not the size of its wavepacket. The "size" of an elementary particle,
      in this sense, is exactly zero.



      For example, for the electron, experimental evidence shows that the
      size of an electron is less than 10^−18 m. This is consistent with the
      expected value of exactly zero.




      Fundamental particles (a.k.a. elementary particles), in general, are each one of a finite number of ways that quantum fields can have a local excited state that each behaves in a well defined way.



      So far, the fundamental particles we know about are six kinds of quarks, three kinds of charged leptons (including the electron), three kinds of neutrinos, the W+ boson, the antiparticles of all of these particles, the Z boson, the photon, eight kinds of gluons, and the Higgs boson (each kind of quark comes in three colors and each of those can have left or right parity, each kind of charged lepton can have left or right parity, all neutrinos in the Standard Model are left parity and all anti-neutrinos in the Standard Model are right parity). There is also one hypothetical particle, the graviton, which a great many scientists (but not all) believe is an additional fundamental particle.



      This is reality as we observe it, and the Standard Model does not provide any deeper explanation for it. Many extensions of the Standard Model, such as supersymmetry, propose that even more fundamental particles exist. But, science has not pierced successfully yet to a layer more fundamental than the Standard Model.




      I am just very unsatisfied with not actually knowing what an electron
      is and why it has a charge.




      So are lots of scientists. But, they haven't come up with any better explanations. At best, many theoretical physicists would suggest that it might be related to M-theory (i.e. string theory) somehow or other. But, there is no realized, specific model implementing string theory that answers these questions in any meaningful way.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        5












        5








        5





        $begingroup$


        I know electrons have a negative charge and that they are subatomic
        particles made up of even smaller particles,




        This is incorrect. Electrons are, so far as we know, fundamental particles which just happen to have a negative charge of -1 in elementary charge units as one of their properties.



        They are not, so far as we know, made up of even smaller particles. It behaves like a particle that is not composite and is basically a zero radius point in space called a point particle, to the fullest extent that it is possible to test this experimentally. As explained in the point particle link:




        [T]here is good reason that an elementary particle is often called a
        point particle. Even if an elementary particle has a delocalized
        wavepacket, the wavepacket can be represented as a quantum
        superposition of quantum states wherein the particle is exactly
        localized. Moreover, the interactions of the particle can be
        represented as a superposition of interactions of individual states
        which are localized. This is not true for a composite particle, which
        can never be represented as a superposition of exactly-localized
        quantum states. It is in this sense that physicists can discuss the
        intrinsic "size" of a particle: The size of its internal structure,
        not the size of its wavepacket. The "size" of an elementary particle,
        in this sense, is exactly zero.



        For example, for the electron, experimental evidence shows that the
        size of an electron is less than 10^−18 m. This is consistent with the
        expected value of exactly zero.




        Fundamental particles (a.k.a. elementary particles), in general, are each one of a finite number of ways that quantum fields can have a local excited state that each behaves in a well defined way.



        So far, the fundamental particles we know about are six kinds of quarks, three kinds of charged leptons (including the electron), three kinds of neutrinos, the W+ boson, the antiparticles of all of these particles, the Z boson, the photon, eight kinds of gluons, and the Higgs boson (each kind of quark comes in three colors and each of those can have left or right parity, each kind of charged lepton can have left or right parity, all neutrinos in the Standard Model are left parity and all anti-neutrinos in the Standard Model are right parity). There is also one hypothetical particle, the graviton, which a great many scientists (but not all) believe is an additional fundamental particle.



        This is reality as we observe it, and the Standard Model does not provide any deeper explanation for it. Many extensions of the Standard Model, such as supersymmetry, propose that even more fundamental particles exist. But, science has not pierced successfully yet to a layer more fundamental than the Standard Model.




        I am just very unsatisfied with not actually knowing what an electron
        is and why it has a charge.




        So are lots of scientists. But, they haven't come up with any better explanations. At best, many theoretical physicists would suggest that it might be related to M-theory (i.e. string theory) somehow or other. But, there is no realized, specific model implementing string theory that answers these questions in any meaningful way.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$




        I know electrons have a negative charge and that they are subatomic
        particles made up of even smaller particles,




        This is incorrect. Electrons are, so far as we know, fundamental particles which just happen to have a negative charge of -1 in elementary charge units as one of their properties.



        They are not, so far as we know, made up of even smaller particles. It behaves like a particle that is not composite and is basically a zero radius point in space called a point particle, to the fullest extent that it is possible to test this experimentally. As explained in the point particle link:




        [T]here is good reason that an elementary particle is often called a
        point particle. Even if an elementary particle has a delocalized
        wavepacket, the wavepacket can be represented as a quantum
        superposition of quantum states wherein the particle is exactly
        localized. Moreover, the interactions of the particle can be
        represented as a superposition of interactions of individual states
        which are localized. This is not true for a composite particle, which
        can never be represented as a superposition of exactly-localized
        quantum states. It is in this sense that physicists can discuss the
        intrinsic "size" of a particle: The size of its internal structure,
        not the size of its wavepacket. The "size" of an elementary particle,
        in this sense, is exactly zero.



        For example, for the electron, experimental evidence shows that the
        size of an electron is less than 10^−18 m. This is consistent with the
        expected value of exactly zero.




        Fundamental particles (a.k.a. elementary particles), in general, are each one of a finite number of ways that quantum fields can have a local excited state that each behaves in a well defined way.



        So far, the fundamental particles we know about are six kinds of quarks, three kinds of charged leptons (including the electron), three kinds of neutrinos, the W+ boson, the antiparticles of all of these particles, the Z boson, the photon, eight kinds of gluons, and the Higgs boson (each kind of quark comes in three colors and each of those can have left or right parity, each kind of charged lepton can have left or right parity, all neutrinos in the Standard Model are left parity and all anti-neutrinos in the Standard Model are right parity). There is also one hypothetical particle, the graviton, which a great many scientists (but not all) believe is an additional fundamental particle.



        This is reality as we observe it, and the Standard Model does not provide any deeper explanation for it. Many extensions of the Standard Model, such as supersymmetry, propose that even more fundamental particles exist. But, science has not pierced successfully yet to a layer more fundamental than the Standard Model.




        I am just very unsatisfied with not actually knowing what an electron
        is and why it has a charge.




        So are lots of scientists. But, they haven't come up with any better explanations. At best, many theoretical physicists would suggest that it might be related to M-theory (i.e. string theory) somehow or other. But, there is no realized, specific model implementing string theory that answers these questions in any meaningful way.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited 1 hour ago

























        answered 2 hours ago









        ohwillekeohwilleke

        2,074924




        2,074924






















            Loki is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            Loki is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













            Loki is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            Loki is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















            Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f476687%2fwhat-gives-an-electron-its-charge%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            What is the “three and three hundred thousand syndrome”?Who wrote the book Arena?What five creatures were...

            Gersau Kjelder | Navigasjonsmeny46°59′0″N 8°31′0″E46°59′0″N...

            Hestehale Innhaldsliste Hestehale på kvinner | Hestehale på menn | Galleri | Sjå òg |...