Comment by JumpCrisscross
2 years ago
> why must protons and electrons be perfectly complementary regarding charge?
According to QED's spin origin of charge, it's because charge comes from spin. What values a particle's spin can take are restricted to certain integer or half-integer values.
> According to QED's spin origin of charge, it's because charge comes from spin.
Children have the remarkable ability to see the world as it truly is, and so are able to ask the most profound questions. As adults, we learn to obfuscate our, ah, knowledge deficiencies in various ways, and so lose that ability over time. I'm of the opinion that great physicists are like children in being able to see through to the heart of the matter, and ask -- and answer -- questions that matter. This is certainly a theme you can see with Einstein, Bohr, Feynman, and others.
Why do I say this? Because GP's question was profound, and saying "it's because charge comes from spin" is the sort of obfuscatory answer I see most physicists give very, very often when they're faced with such questions.
That's completely aside from the fact that "it's because charge comes from spin" is entirely incorrect. All charged particles have spin, but not all particles with the same spin and other similar properties are charged.
> saying "it's because charge comes from spin" is the sort of obfuscatory answer
If you refuse to ask further questions, yes. If you keep asking why, it opens the door to what charge fundamentally is.
> All charged particles have spin, but not all particles with the same spin and other similar properties are charged
Spin and charge are fundamentally connected. That said, I was answering according to SOC, which remains a hypothesis.
That just deflects the question one level down without explaining anything.
"Because it is" is not a helpful answer to "why?"
The question wasn't "why do protons have +1 charge", it was "why do protons have +1 charge, *considering electrons have -1 charge". The fact that possible charges are restricted to a few values is a much more satisfying answer to the latter than the former
> deflects the question one level down without explaining anything
There’s a lot of levels to SOC. Which do you think is “because it is?”
If you’re asking why spin values are restricted, it’s in the spin-statistics theorem [1]. If you’re asking why spin causes charge, that’s SOC. There are lifetimes of understanding contained within those layers.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin–statistics_theorem
Physics doesn't attempt to answer the question "why", it answers "how".
Richard Feynman addresses a similar "why" question in a great way in this interview[1], and how "why" questions are problematic in science.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA
You eventually have to take _something_ as given.
I never heard this. I'm almost sure it's wrong. Do you have a link?