Conservation Of Electric Charge

[Village Idiot]

The law of conservation of electric charge was advanced by Benjamin Franklin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_conservation

 

Couldn't that have been mere speculation? No disrespect to Ben is intended, but how could he have been so sure? My only doubts lie in the clause that insists upon a net charge of zero for the cosmos. The mechanism for maintaining such parity for fusion within fusing stellar plasma seems to fit the rule, but I can imagine no such process for static fusion within a stellar core. Such central cores of stars would be voided of electrons according to the workings of the downward-pointing electric fields that I think stars to possess.

 

Whether or not I am mistaken, nevertheless how could anyone prove that an electron must be annihilated whenever a proton meets such fate? Must we not be pretty sure before we call something a law?

 

Disproportionate logic is seen for our devotion to a speculation from perhaps our first authority about electricity. (Mind you of Carl Sagan's sage council against any authorities in science.) A universe with no net charge, as Ben would have it, wins out against today's science that despairs therefore for the longevity of gravity rather than to doubt our great leader. Otherwise, we would permit each other to entertain accelerating expansion as possibly due to electrostatic repulsion.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Heedless

[CraigD]

... how could anyone prove that an electron must be annihilated whenever a proton meets such fate?

We don’t need to prove that an electron is annihilated whenever a proton is, because matter-antimatter annihilation requires the conversion of pairs of particles of opposite charge. For examples, an electron (e^-, charge -1 e) annihilates with a positron (e⁺, charge +1 e), to produce a pair of photons (2 [imath]\gamma[/imath], charge 0). Higher energy annihilations are more complicated, but still conserve charge.

 

Otherwise, we would permit each other to entertain accelerating expansion as possibly due to electrostatic repulsion.

A problem with electrostatic (like charge) repulsion as an explanation for accelerating expansion (the rate of expansion becoming greater, not less, with time) is that electrostatic force decreases, rather than increases, as the distance between charged bodies increases. So electrostatic repulsion could explain acceleration decreasing more slowly than predicted by considering only velocity and gravitational force, but not it increasing with time.

[Eclogite]

Must we not be pretty sure before we call something a law?

Laws are relics of bygone days when we were more confident about the certainty of what science was telling us. In general they were applied to fairly simmple observations, though ones that might have large consequences. e.g. The Law of Conservation of Matter. Laws were principles, rather than theories and, I suspect, not necessarily rigorously tested at the time.

[Village Idiot]

We don’t need to prove that an electron is annihilated whenever a proton is, because matter-antimatter annihilation requires the conversion of pairs of particles of opposite charge.

 

I propose that there might be another method for of fusing protons than by matter-antimatter annihilation; Such would be the case if a ball of protons were to be squeezed by electrostatic and gravitational pressure without the presence of any electrons. Such a scenario should result within a star were it to have a downward-pointing electrical field.

 

 

 

A problem with electrostatic (like charge) repulsion as an explanation for accelerating expansion (the rate of expansion becoming greater, not less, with time) is that electrostatic force decreases, rather than increases, as the distance between charged bodies increases. So electrostatic repulsion could explain acceleration decreasing more slowly than predicted by considering only velocity and gravitational force, but not it increasing with time.

 

Indeed, I agree that it would be an increasing electrostatic charge upon the cosmos that would account for acceleration. That is what we should expect if all burning stars continuously delete positive charges without the parity enjoyed with fusion of plasma.

[CraigD]

I propose that there might be another method for of fusing protons than by matter-antimatter annihilation;

There are a few technical problems with some implied statements of this sentence:

Matter-antimatter annihilation is not nuclear fusion;

Protons and other nucleons can’t be fused. Only nuclei can be.

 

Fusion is when the atomic number of a nucleus is increased, such as hydrogen (atomic number 1) being transmuted into helium (AN 2). Annihilation of a nucleus results, in a manner of speaking, of it’s AN being reduced to zero.

 

You can’t force 2 protons to become a single larger nucleon with a charge of +2 or greater, except possibly in exotic scenarios, such as the formation of quark stars, where entire stellar-mass bodies may be considered single nucleons. Even in these exotic scenarios, I’ve heard of no mechanism that might result in a charge/mass ration much different than zero, as electrons are as likely to be compressed into these hypothetical bodies as protons are.

 

Such would be the case if a ball of protons were to be squeezed by electrostatic and gravitational pressure without the presence of any electrons.

Though it’s primarily kinetic effects – temperature – rather than gravitational ones, ordinary stellar nucleosynthesis does occur largely “without the presence of electrons”. This is because the atoms in the inner parts of stars where most fusion occurs are so hot that their atoms are in a plasma state, their electrons dissociated from their nuclei.

 

The most common stellar nucleosynthesis paths require some electrons, because they must be combined (we could say “fused”, but had better not, to avoid conflicting with the definition of fusion I gave above) with protons to form neutrons, because nuclei with AN greater than hydrogen’s 1 are unstable without at least 1 neutron.

- See correction here

 

Though in principle fusion could be induced via electrostatic force – for example, in a hypothetical mechanical press with a large positive charge – this still wouldn’t result in a violation of conservation of charge, because no step of the fusion sequence violates it.

 

Put in quantum mechanical terms, in order to violate conservation of charge using ordinary nucleons, you’ve got to change a proton’s U quark to a D quark, or a neutron’s D quark to a U quark. This happens whenever beta decay or electron capture (AKA “inverse beta decay”) occurs, but these processes create or absorb electrons. So you might visualize the “how to violate conversation of charge” problems as “how to have beta decay or electron capture without electrons”.

 

Speculating how you might do this is way over my head. You’d need a much better mathematical physics education than mine, I think, to manage such speculation.

[Village Idiot]

Laws are relics of bygone days when we were more confident about the certainty of what science was telling us. In general they were applied to fairly simmple observations, though ones that might have large consequences. e.g. The Law of Conservation of Matter. Laws were principles, rather than theories and, I suspect, not necessarily rigorously tested at the time.

 

You have been helpful. It can be an intimidating situation to find oneself needing to break a law.

[Village Idiot]

 

Protons and other nucleons can’t be fused. Only nuclei can be.

 

 

My struggle is merely with fusion of hydrogen atoms. Barring those with neutrons, aren't protons nuclei of hydrogen?

[CraigD]

My struggle is merely with fusion of hydrogen atoms. Barring those with neutrons, aren't protons nuclei of hydrogen?

Yes. The nucleus of a ¹H atom consists of 1 proton, and nothing else.

 

To avoid confusion, though, we should still not equate “proton” with “nucleus”, in the same way we make a distinction between “a flock of one sheep” and “a sheep”. The distinction is a subtle, but important.

 

When 2 free (not bound together with each other or any other protons or neutrons) protons are fused, a nucleus consisting of 2 protons is formed. Though the product of the simplest imaginable kind of fusion, this nucleus, of a ²He atom (in this shorthand notation, the raised 2 gives the atomic weight of the nucleus), also called a diproton, is unstable, decaying quickly, so it’s only involved briefly in intermediate steps of various fusion reaction chains (in nuclear chemistry, a “chain” means, more or less, a reaction starting and ending with completely or fairly stable nuclei and byproducts).

 

Perhaps your struggle to understand H to He fusion would be helped if you just dove into the details of one of the reaction chains, the proton-proton chain reaction:

 

 

Read and think deeply on the linked-to article that goes with this diagram, its references, and other texts on the subject you can find, ‘til every part of it is familiar to you, then, like Neo in the first Matrix movie, sit back, blink and say “[whoa] I know nuclear chemistry!” ;)

 

Important pointer: diagrams like these suggest that the reaction paths shown are the only ones that can or do occur. This isn’t the case. The shown reactions are the ones that complete the chain. Other reactions are more common, but not shown, because they don’t contribute to completing the chain. A good exercise is to draw your own diagram, sketching all the reactions you can. The resulting confused-looking mess of a diagram shows more closely what’s really happening, which, paradoxically, can be a big help in clearing your mind of confusion.

 

Having just repeated what I describe above (just looking at the diagram, which I first encountered in my school in my dewy youth in the 1970s, not reading everything), I realize I must correct my previous post:

The most common stellar nucleosynthesis paths require some electrons, because they must be combined (we could say “fused”, but had better not, to avoid conflicting with the definition of fusion I gave above) with protons to form neutrons, because nuclei with AN greater than hydrogen’s 1 are unstable without at least 1 neutron.

The part about nuclei with more than 1 proton being unstable without neutrons is correct, but the part about a neutron in common nucleosynthesis paths (more or less a synonym of “fusion reaction chains”) being formed by an electron being combined with/captured by a proton,

¹H + e^- → n + v_e

is wrong. What happens more often, so importantly, is that a diproton loses one of its protons, decaying to a deuterium nucleus, a positron, and a neutrino:

²He → ²H + e⁺ + v_e

 

Alas, it appears I don’t really know nuclear chemistry! :( Perhaps I should reevaluate my use of Keanu Reeves as a role model.

[Village Idiot]

Yes. The nucleus of a ¹H atom consists of 1 proton, and nothing else.

 

To avoid confusion, though, we should still not equate “proton” with “nucleus”, in the same way we make a distinction between “a flock of one sheep” and “a sheep”. The distinction is a subtle, but important.

 

When 2 free (not bound together with each other or any other protons or neutrons) protons are fused, a nucleus consisting of 2 protons is formed. Though the product of the simplest imaginable kind of fusion, this nucleus, of a ²He atom (in this shorthand notation, the raised 2 gives the atomic weight of the nucleus), also called a diproton, is unstable, decaying quickly, so it’s only involved briefly in intermediate steps of various fusion reaction chains (in nuclear chemistry, a “chain” means, more or less, a reaction starting and ending with completely or fairly stable nuclei and byproducts).

 

Perhaps your struggle to understand H to He fusion would be helped if you just dove into the details of one of the reaction chains, the proton-proton chain reaction:

 

 

Read and think deeply on the linked-to article that goes with this diagram, its references, and other texts on the subject you can find, ‘til every part of it is familiar to you, then, like Neo in the first Matrix movie, sit back, blink and say “[whoa] I know nuclear chemistry!” ;)

 

Important pointer: diagrams like these suggest that the reaction paths shown are the only ones that can or do occur. This isn’t the case. The shown reactions are the ones that complete the chain. Other reactions are more common, but not shown, because they don’t contribute to completing the chain. A good exercise is to draw your own diagram, sketching all the reactions you can. The resulting confused-looking mess of a diagram shows more closely what’s really happening, which, paradoxically, can be a big help in clearing your mind of confusion.

 

Having just repeated what I describe above (just looking at the diagram, which I first encountered in my school in my dewy youth in the 1970s, not reading everything), I realize I must correct my previous post:

 

The part about nuclei with more than 1 proton being unstable without neutrons is correct, but the part about a neutron in common nucleosynthesis paths (more or less a synonym of “fusion reaction chains”) being formed by an electron being combined with/captured by a proton,

¹H + e^- → n + v_e

is wrong. What happens more often, so importantly, is that a diproton loses one of its protons, decaying to a deuterium nucleus, a positron, and a neutrino:

²He → ²H + e⁺ + v_e

 

Alas, it appears I don’t really know nuclear chemistry! :( Perhaps I should reevaluate my use of Keanu Reeves as a role model.

 

Awesome. Thanks for taking the time and effort on my behalf. Happily, I don't see anything that refutes my hope that, a moon-sized ball perhaps, of nuclei is centered within our sun as an example explaining an ongoing virtual generation of negative charge for the cosmos. There lies circumstances for a completely different chain of reactions. Protons can zip around in a plasma without being so hemmed in by repulsive neighbors. Without knowledge of comparable detail, one can entertain belief that a positron can be annihilated in return for its equivalent energy if though it has no electron with which to conspire for a suicide pact. Unless it escapes its proton with sufficient velocity to escape the inner core, it must accept a lonely death. To rise out of the center, it would have to push a lot of protons and should hardly get far holding onto much velocity. The heaviest squeeze in the sun would be at the center, with a downward-pointing electric field and an almost unreasonable load of solar matter upon it, why would it not be squeezed against its neighbor much worse that a passenger on a New York subway? I don't know but did hear tell that protons pushed close enough together will fuse, and energy will take the place of a bit of matter when that happens.

 

I also know too little to be gulled into the flavor-morph explanation that explains the neutrino shortage. To a dummy, that sure looks like a fudge factor. The static core fusion fancied here might have accounted for the shortage, and might have shown the shortage as estimation for the amount of static fusion supplementing the dynamic reactions with plasma.

 

This is not meant to sass a big bunch of important people, but simply represents a sober thought that could be so expressed in a world with freedom of speech. If I were prone to sass anyone, it would be the folks that fail to discern the difference between a voltage-difference measurement and an assay of charged particles within an atmosphere. Charge and voltage ain't the same damn thing! Obviously, the earth is charged negatively; the whole nine yards! Contiguous dynamic disturbance prevents all of the extra electrons from being confined to a bubble of electrons above most of the air. There would be more than the nominal two microamps of negative current rising per square kilometer of Earth surface, because that low figure was measured down at sea level for crying out loud. Those electrons don't rise because the sky is positive, the sky measures positive with respect to ground on a volt meter because the negative charge of the whole world repels electrons upward, and Ohm's law demands what we call a minus to positive I x R drop all the way up. Why doubt me here? I have been in electronics for over six decades and earned my pay by knowing little more than just that.

 

Logic is available to equate the solar electric field as pointing down as with the earth, and most stars might seem to be similar. That would explain our macroscopic electrical formations that in turn clarify the true way polar jets work, how lightning is produced on our planet, and even the way snow flakes take the shape they do. We might even get Dr. Kaku to change his predictions about failing gravity.