Electric Charge (1 Viewer)

[Green Yoda]

But confused on this..
protons have a positive charge and electron have negative charge
lack of electrons have positive charge and excess of electrons have negative charge

Are this two interconnected?
Would a positively charged particle be the same magnitude as the proton?

 

[Green Yoda]

Also when it says "electric field" does it mean the lack or excess of electrons in a particle or the actual electron and proton?

 

[porcupinetree]

But confused on this..
protons have a positive charge and electron have negative charge
lack of electrons have positive charge and excess of electrons have negative charge

Are this two interconnected?
Would a positively charged particle be the same magnitude as the proton?

A proton and an electron are two different particles which each have an equal magnitude of charge (but opposite in sign). A lack of electrons can sometimes act as a positive charge, but isn't an actual positive charge in the same sense as a proton.

Not too sure what you mean in your last question, but: not all positive charges have the same charge as a proton. (If that's what you were asking)

 

[porcupinetree]

Also when it says "electric field" does it mean the lack or excess of electrons in a particle or the actual electron and proton?

Again not too sure what you're asking, but an electric field is created by the presence of positive or negative charges. If we have a composite particle made up of several positive and negative charges (eg an atom made up of protons and electrons [neutrons also, but they're neutral]), the resultant electric field is effectively the sum of the electric fields generated by each component of the composite particle.

 

[Green Yoda]

Oh so if a particle is + its not actually in the same as the proton charge.
When talking about electric fields having a + and - particle it is in the sense of the lack and excess of electrons
but + charge is a proton but in electric fields it is the lack of electrons..
this two concepts confuse me

 

[porcupinetree]

Oh so if a particle is + its not actually in the same as the proton charge.

A proton is simply an example of a particle with a positive charge. To be precise, it has a charge of +1.602 x 10^-19 C, or +1e, where e is the magnitude of the charge of an electron. It is absolutely possible to have positively charged particles that have a different magnitude of charge - an example is an alpha particle: composed of two protons and two neutrons, it has an overall charge of +2e.

When talking about electric fields having a + and - particle it is in the sense of the lack and excess of electrons

The electric field strength at a particular point is defined by the strength of the force that a positive unit charge would experience (that is, the direction of the field corresponds to the direction that a positive charge would experience a force). Hence, it makes more sense to talk about the direction of an electric field, rather than "whether it is + or -".

The direction of the field may be influenced by the fact that there is a "lack and excess of electrons" with reference to a particular composite particle that is causing the field. (e.g. a Na+ ion has 11 protons but only 10 electrons - this 'lack' of an electron means that overall, the Na+ ion is positively charged and will create an electric field.

 

[anomalousdecay]

An atom will try to obtain a neutrally charged state due to electrostatic forces.

Think of this simply as opposite charges attract.

Magnitude is just a quantity with a unit. You are confusing magnitude with something else.

The magnitude of charge for a single proton and a single electron is approximately equal for the intents and purposes of atoms. However, the charges of both behave in opposite ways to each other relative to other negatively and positively charged bodies.

If you have two protons at a point in space, then you have twice the amount of charge compared to if you had a single proton at that point.

If an atom has neutral charge (equal amount of protons and electrons) and you remove 3 electrons from an atom's outer shell, then overall at the point in space local to the atom, you will have a charged atom with its net charge equal to the charge of approximately 3 protons. This is because you removed 3 electrons locally which kept the atom neutral at that point in space.

An electric field exists as an effect of the existence of a net charge that is not zero in a specific region. The region of interest can vary depending on what you are looking at. For the intents and purposes of high school, assume that you are either looking at an infinitesimal point charge the size of an electron or proton or a body of charge such as sheet metal or spheres.

 

[Green Yoda]

An atom will try to obtain a neutrally charged state due to electrostatic forces.

Think of this simply as opposite charges attract.

Magnitude is just a quantity with a unit. You are confusing magnitude with something else.

The magnitude of charge for a single proton and a single electron is approximately equal for the intents and purposes of atoms. However, the charges of both behave in opposite ways to each other relative to other negatively and positively charged bodies.

If you have two protons at a point in space, then you have twice the amount of charge compared to if you had a single proton at that point.

If an atom has neutral charge (equal amount of protons and electrons) and you remove 3 electrons from an atom's outer shell, then overall at the point in space local to the atom, you will have a charged atom with its net charge equal to the charge of approximately 3 protons. This is because you removed 3 electrons locally which kept the atom neutral at that point in space.

An electric field exists as an effect of the existence of a net charge that is not zero in a specific region. The region of interest can vary depending on what you are looking at. For the intents and purposes of high school, assume that you are either looking at an infinitesimal point charge the size of an electron or proton or a body of charge such as sheet metal or spheres.

So an field with a charge of +1 has the same net charge as an proton and a charge of -1 the same as an electron?

 

[cookie_dough]

So an field with a charge of +1 has the same net charge as an proton and a charge of -1 the same as an electron?

charges produce fields, but the field is the region in which a force is felt, and is not charged. fields are measured in force per unit charge, not charge so a field does not have a 'net charge' at all i dont think

 

[anomalousdecay]

So a point with a charge of +1.60217662E-19 C has the same net charge as an proton and a point with charge of -1.60217657E-19 C the same as an electron?

Fixed so that I can say yes. Saying a "field of charge" is a completely different thing which I don't think you'll encounter for a while. In fact, even when you do encounter such a scenario, I would advise never saying "field of charge" since the statement is ambiguous.

For the case you are asking about, it is a charge at a single point.

For the case of a charged plate, you can look at the total charge of the plate and even the charge density at increments. The same applies for all other sorts of shapes.

 

[porcupinetree]

So an field with a charge of +1 has the same net charge as an proton and a charge of -1 the same as an electron?

We don't really talk about electric fields having charges - they are the result of charged particles (in the same way that a gravitational field is the result of a particle having mass. The gravitational field itself doesn't have mass, but its strength depends upon the mass of the particle causing the field.)

 

[Green Yoda]

Fixed so that I can say yes. Saying a "field of charge" is a completely different thing which I don't think you'll encounter for a while. In fact, even when you do encounter such a scenario, I would advise never saying "field of charge" since the statement is ambiguous.

For the case you are asking about, it is a charge at a single point.

For the case of a charged plate, you can look at the total charge of the plate and even the charge density at increments. The same applies for all other sorts of shapes.

and this point with a charge is referring to the lack and excess of electrons, right?

 

[Silly Sausage]

Generally, there is an electric flux which can be described by the surface integral (assuming it's a sphere).



Q is the total charge within the surface S

 

[anomalousdecay]

and this point with a charge is referring to the lack and excess of electrons, right?

The best way to think of it is as an excess of positive charge, hence having a net positive charge, or an excess of negative charge, hence having a net negative charge.

Thinking about it as a lack/excess of electrons may give you misconceptions about what charge is.

 

[porcupinetree]

The best way to think of it is as an excess of positive charge, hence having a net positive charge, or an excess of negative charge, hence having a net negative charge.

Thinking about it as a lack/excess of electrons may give you misconceptions about what charge is.

+1

Electrons are simply one example of many particles which are charged.

 

[Green Yoda]

Hmm I see, Its kinda getting clear..but I will do more research on this.
Thank you guys