[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 1 KB, 407x77, 1a.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7432338 No.7432338 [Reply] [Original]

Hey /sci/, I was wondering, why does a proton hold it's charge?

Is a proton's charge a traditional Coulomb charge that can be transferred to another particle? Essentially, is it possible to discharge a proton, and if not, why?

>> No.7432365

>>7432338
>Essentially, is it possible to discharge a proton, and if not, why?
no, a proton's charge is a combination of the fractional charges of the quarks it's made of. The quarks have an intrinsic electric charge.

>> No.7432443

>>7432365
Is the charge of a proton located all at the same point or is it unevenly distributed like that of the water molecule?

>> No.7432460

>>7432365
What makes a quark's charge intrinsic?

>> No.7432610

>>7432460
god

>> No.7432624

>>7432443
Neither; because a proton is actually made of quarks (you'll hear it said that it's made of three quarks, an up, an up, and a down, but it's actually made of a zillion quarks that all have opposite properties and balance out, with a remaining excess of two up quarks and a down quark) and these quarks all have charge, it's distributed throughout the whole proton.

The quarks themselves, as far as we can tell, are intrinsically charged. Ultimately, electric charge is as intrinsic as mass, as far as we can tell; in fact, you might call mass "gravitational charge." You can only change an object's charge by transferring some charged particles to or from it, and because there's AFAWK no charged particles more fundamental than a quark, you can't discharge a quark. (And if you could, it wouldn't be a quark anymore, same way that a proton isn't a proton if you remove one of those up quarks)

>> No.7432665

>>7432460
A few generations ago, gravity was an intrinsic property of matter.

Science is always wrong.

>> No.7432669

>>7432665
>A few generations ago, gravity was an intrinsic property of matter.

Now it's an intrinsic property of matter and energy.

People were wrong when they said the Earth was flat. People were wrong when they said the Earth was a sphere. But the latter group of people were much, much less wrong.

>> No.7432672

>>7432665
>Science is always wrong.
But it approaches being not-wrong asymptotically, like .9. approaches 1.

>> No.7432698
File: 463 KB, 581x332, get-thee-back.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7432698

>>7432665
>implying "wrong" is absolute

>> No.7432721

>>7432698
>>7432672
>>7432669
how dogmatic, I don't think the guy was trying to bash science in any way whatsoever but people still felt that it was necessary to defend it

>> No.7432725

>>7432721
/sci/ is a bunch of fedora tipping nerd losers. We both know that the Bible is all you need.

>> No.7432893

>>7432338
Yes.

Turn one of the up quarks into a down quark turns the proton into a neutron, kicking out the positive charge on a positron, and a neutrino to make sure some other properties are conserved. Takes a little bit of energy to do so, about 2x 0.511 MeV.

>> No.7433333

>>7432721
>I don't think
that's where you went wrong