Re: What creates the charge of an electron?

On 11/07/2024 04:27 PM, rhertz wrote:

It seems that such question shows much more ignorance in the physics
community than questioning what composes the electron's mass.
>
At least, modern theories about electron's mass constitution are based
on the proposed existence of preons, which also form quarks.
>
Any standard search in Google and alike shows this definition:
>
"Charge is just a physical property of matter that causes it to
experience a specific force (aka interact with a specific field). That’s
all."
>
So, the definition of charge at quantum level is axiomatic: It exists.
>
Fractional charges that (allegedly), quarks have, are impossible to
detect and measure, because quarks don't exist freely, because they are
tightly coupled to the gluon soup. Big difference with electrons, which
can travel freely in space (i.e.: cosmic radiation).
>
Another explanation is that, at atomic and quantum level, charge exist
BECAUSE it manifests when suffer forces due to electromagnetic
radiation, and then moves in rectilinear or spiral pathways. But this
definition opens the door to explanations about that charges MIGHT NOT
EXIST if the carrier of the charge is left alone and undisturbed.
>
As with mass, what is charge at elementary level (electrons) IS UNKNOWN,
ABSOLUTELY UNKNOWN.
>
There are no answers coming from Quantum Field Theory or others, except
what was proposed within the String Theory, which was abandoned.
>
So, summarizing the state of physics in 2024:
>
- Mass? We don't know what it is. It seems a property of matter.
>
- Charge? We don't know what it is. It seems a property of matter.
>
- Magnetism? We don't know what it is. It seems related to charges.
>
- Energy? We don't know what it is. We stick with classic definitions.
>
- Size of electrons and quarks? WE DON'T KNOW. It could be ZERO.
>
- Gravity? We don't know what it is, but it seems that violates the
  Noether Teorem for symmetry, as antigravity hasn't been observed.
>
- Origin and size of the universe: WE DON'T KNOW. The BBT is fatally
  flawed, but Fred Hoyle's pseudo-static universe was abandoned decades
  ago.
>
- Astrophysics/Astronomy? The more is being found or proposed, the less
  is known.
>
- Relativity? It's a mathematically beautiful theory, but worthless.
>
>
WHAT REMAINS? Only what Engineering, Technology, Chemistry and Medical
Sciences can provide, being the driving forces for the last 140 years of
advancement in civilization.
>
We should CANCEL PHYSICS as a career. It doesn't worth it.
>
We can't measure things under 1 picometer or above 30 AU (solar system).
>
Why pretend to propose waste money analyzing things beyond our
capabilities, which provide not a single practical value to mankind?
>
For instance, and in other level of reasoning: We WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO
LIVE IN MARS, BECAUSE WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO RETURN TO EARTH AFTER A
LONG STAY. OUR BODY WOULD BE DESTROYED.
>
And so many other issues, like long space travels, living at the bottom
of the seas, or in caves 1 Km deep. If the Sun farts an X.50 flare in
our direction, most of the species are done.
>
Fuck unregulated science research. We have to put limits on everything,
LIKE RESEARCH AND OPERATIONS ON HUMAN GENDER CHANGES.
>
AS I ALWAYS SAY: THEY KNOW NOTHING, BUT THESE PARASITES PROFIT FROM OUR
IGNORANCE.
>
LONG LIFE TO INVENTORS, THE REAL SUPPORT OF CIVILIZATION SINCE DAY ZERO.

If the lesser gravity of Mars is what you're thinking about,
imagine a simple sort of a centrifuge as a (six-week)
decompression chamber.
You don't have to buy Higgs on matter, that's only one of
the super-symmetric extremes up at "unification energy",
and your classical mechanics largely work just fine as
with regards to the atomic model of matter and mass.
Charge of course is largely potential, it's merely
the "un-fulfilled" as it were, of course there's
static charge and current both, and, the fluid model
of electricity of course has skin effect not core effect.
When you mention magnetism it is as with regards to
it's really related to the kinetic, and quite formulaically
according to potential, again, potential difference,
also known as "electro-motive force".
Particles, are a conceit. When asked, Einstein was like,
"Are particles real? Yeah, ...." Yet, waves model them,
and, resonance model those.
Gravity as a fall gravity seems sensible. It's all the
real potential fields, versus the drowse-beneath-the-apple-tree
and profoundly-acknowledge-what-goes-up-comes-down when
there's-a-head-bump-because-you-fell-asleep. That is
to say, a fall-gravity requires infinite-distance space
potentials, which is simpler in a sense, than pull-gravity
constantly violating conservation (or, for the lifetime
of nucleons).
The trans-Planckian nucleonic particles the quarks and
quarks and quarks again - that just goes all the way
down to superstrings/supercordes, that's what superstring
theory is, a smooth to-be-continuous background down
past the grain of "the un-cuttable: atoms".
They say superstring theory makes no predictions -
yet actually it's whatever mathematics can actually say.
That said, it seems you're excluding all the other theories
for one that isn't really any of them (for they'd get broken).
Of course neither of Big-Bang nor Steady-State are falsifiable, ....