Skip to main content
Physics

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

13
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Physics does not answer such questions. In the theoretical description of experimental observed phenomena, we see that the concept of (electrical) charge is very useful. In this mathematical description, we associate to some particles, e.g. an electron, the property "charged". This is similar to the concept of mass. What these concepts "are", to what extend they are "real" and what is their "cause" is, is not in the scope of physics. $\endgroup$
    – Tobias Fünke
    Commented Jul 1 at 13:28
  • $\begingroup$ so, if i'm getting this right, these particles give the property of charge to something like a metal or bigger atoms or molecules by just being themselves, but when they are taken individually, they show no such thing as "charge" because on a relatively larger scale, they themselves are the cause of it? $\endgroup$
    – shriekspeare
    Commented Jul 1 at 14:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ ah so no "cause" as such but it's a property for both the bigger object (due to the particles which make it up) and the particle as well $\endgroup$
    – shriekspeare
    Commented Jul 1 at 15:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @TobiasFünke I also do not fully agree with this picture as there may be a theory where the cause for charge can be fully derived from a mathematical consistency equation along the lines of the limitation of open strings to theories with self-dual lattices heavily restricting the symmetries and thus possible charges (in unitary irreps of these symmetries). Though one may then of course ask why the our universe should adhere to a description based on these objects. $\endgroup$
    – Thomas Tappeiner
    Commented Jul 1 at 15:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ ‘ just we don't know for sure yet’ No, just ‘we don’t know’. We also don’t know any experiment at present to investigate this question. $\endgroup$
    – my2cts
    Commented Jul 1 at 17:56