4 ms·
The hint from quantum field theory (and things like lattice gauge theory) is that charge emerges from interesting topological states/defects of the underlying f
by andyferris 8mo ago
The hint from quantum field theory (and things like lattice gauge theory) is that charge emerges from interesting topological states/defects of the underlying field (by "interesting topological shapes" I mean - imagine a vortex in the shape of a ring/doughnut). It's kind of a topological property of a state of the photonic field, if you will - something like a winding number (which has to be an integer). Electric charge is a kind of "defect" or "kink" in the photonic field, while color charge (quarks) are defects in the strong-force field, etc.
When an electron-positron pair is formed from a vacuum, we get all sorts of interesting geometry which I struggle to grasp or picture clearly. I understand the fact that these are fermions with spin-1/2 can similarly be explained as localized defects in a field of particles with integer spin (possibly a feature of the exact same "defect" as the charge itself, in the photonic field, which is what defines an electron as an electron).
EDIT:
> However, there are no theories why this is -- they are simply measured and that is it.
My take is that there _are_ accepted hypotheses for this, but solving the equations (of e.g. the standard model, in full 3D space) to a precision suitable to compare to experimental data is currently entirely impractical (at least for some things like absolute masses - though I think there are predictions of ratios etc that work out between theory and measurement - sorry not a specialist in high-energy physics, had more exposure to low-energy quantum topological defects).
- RupertSalt 8mo ago> interesting topological states/defects of the underlying field eddies in the space-time continuum?
- UncleSlacky 8mo agoIs he?
- ndsipa_pomu 8mo agoWhat?
- quchen 8mo ago(Note the post you’ve replied to mentioned electrons and _protons_, not positrons.)
- empath75 8mo ago> something like a winding number (which has to be an integer). Electric charge is a kind of "defect" or "kink" in the photonic field, while color charge (quarks) are defects in the strong-force field, etc. Quark's don't have integer charge
- franktankbank 8mo agoRedefine the down quark charge as the fundamental unit and you lose nothing.
- marcosdumay 8mo ago> you lose nothing For some reason electrons have charge -3 then, that coincides with the proton charge for no good reason.
- AnimalMuppet 8mo agoRight, but then you have the questions of 1) why do leptons have (a multiple of) the same fundamental unit as quarks, and 2) why does that multiple equal the number of quarks in a baryon, so that protons have a charge of exactly the same magnitude as electrons? I mean, I guess you could say that charge comes from (or is) the coupling of the quark/lepton field to the electromagnetic field, and therefore if it's something that's quantized on the electromagnetic side of that, then quarks and leptons would have the same scale. I'm not sure that's the real answer, much less that it's proven. (But it might be - it's a long time since my physics degree...)
- franktankbank 8mo ago> it's a long time since my physics degree... me too, just addressing that a fraction might as well be an integer with some redefinition of the fundamental charge.
- phkahler 8mo agoHave you seen this: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281322004_The_electron_is_a_helically-circulating_spin-12_charged_photon_generating_the_de_Broglie_wavelength https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281322004_The_elect... Or any of the more recent work that references it?
- ndsipa_pomu 8mo agoIs this the same idea behind Williamson & Van der Mark's electron model? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYyrgDEJLOA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYyrgDEJLOA