On a sunny day (Thu, 3 Nov 2011 01:43:59 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Bill Beaty wrote in :
The diameter of the electron is not known, and as its influence never stops, it could be assumed to be infinite. That makes the outcome of your equation rather smallish don't you think?
You're confusing the electron with its influence: confusing charge with e-field. The electron's e-field extends outwards, but the actual coulombs are located in a quite small region. (And during electric current in metals, the charge-flow is actually inside the metal and not in surrounding space. Also magnets are different than magnetic fields, and for basically the same reason.)
Could electrons have zero size? Not in classical terms, because the smaller the region of charge, the larger the energy stored in the surrounding e-field. A zero-radius electron would carry infinite energy and have infinite mass. However large an electron actually is, we can replace it with a small metal ball of equal diameter. And then calculate "Voltage of One Electron."
((((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( (o) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty Research Engineer beaty, chem washington edu UW Chem Dept, Bagley Hall RM74 billb, eskimocom Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700 ph 206-543-6195
Well I guess it's probably higher over a larger distance, if it's two fission product nuclei.
Fission bomb =3D "static electricity bomb."
((((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( (o) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty Research Engineer beaty, chem washington edu UW Chem Dept, Bagley Hall RM74 billb, eskimocom Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700 ph 206-543-6195
On a sunny day (Thu, 3 Nov 2011 19:04:10 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Bill Beaty wrote in :
That is philosophical. You OTOH have a problem with infinite small size (not classical). And infinities do not exist in my view in [of] nature.
How big is the United States? Well, we all know the map. But its influence is felt everywhere on earth. You could state that the US was very big:-) But of course it is infinitely small and shrinking.
Hey I am just doing some philosophy. Of course you are 100% right, but, after all these years jingling with them electrons I would still like to know more about them, what charge really is (does an electron radiate some form of something, and does a proton or positron radiate something differently polarised? Or just absorb something>? Or is it some sort of black hole? (are particles?), or what? I guess I will never know. But playing with the limited description that math gives us won't help you a bit in understanding what it really is - in my view- too.
The magnetic moment of subatomic particles, in the near field, is much stronger than the electric field and allows proton-proton, neutron- neutron, and proton-neutron to bind into atomic nuclei.
The magnetic moment force varies inversely as the forth power of the separation, and the electric force varies inversely as the square of the separation. This fact has been ignored by nuclear physics. The binding energy has to be empirically measured by weighting the atom, because the released binding (atomic) energy creates a (missing) mass defect.
The magnetic moment has been ignored by particle and nuclear physics. The strong force is not a single force, but it is the conjunction of the particles electric and magnetic forces.
It is now possible( over the last decade) to derive the binding energy of elements, from first principles, and show which combinations of nucleons are stable or unstable against decay.
A microcoulomb of charge on a metal sphere does not vary depending on a reference. Length, speed, potential, these certainly are relative: their value depends on which reference they're measured from, and different observers can obtain different values at the same time (hence a wire doesn't "have" a voltage, and neither does an object "have" an altitude.) But charge is different: not relative, not various values of stored charge depending on arbitrary choice of reference. That's why a conservation law applies to charge but not to speed. That's why "charge of an electron" is a physics constant, rather than something that varies or can be arbitrarily set to zero.
ured.
That's perfectly correct: to measure a certain quantity of charge, we use a unit test charge. But better read the entire textbook since you've missed something basic. (Or better yet, go talk to your physics instructor rather than trusting internet trolls on SED!) Because of the conservation of charge rule, the quantity of charge being measured is not altered by using a different reference. If we employ a doubled unit test charge, the quantity of coloumbs on the object being measured does not double. The charge on an electron,
1.6e-19 coulombs, can't be set to a different value arbitrarily in the way speed etc. can.
Now with altitude of an object or with speed of an object, the measured value will change depending on our chosen reference, so a single object has no single speed or altitude. Speed or altitude is not stored inside objects. But a metal object with 10uCoulomb has the
10uC stored on its surface, and we can't change this to some other value except by removing or adding charge from the object.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.