*[In the hydraulic analogy, a capacitor is analogous to a rubber membrane sealed inside a pipe— this animation illustrates a membrane being repeatedly stretched and un-stretched by the flow of water, which is analogous to a capacitor being repeatedly charged and discharged by the flow of charge](By <a href="//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:KDS4444" title="User:KDS4444">KDS4444</a> - <span class="int-own-work" lang="en">Own work</span>, <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0" title="Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0">CC BY-SA 4.0</a>, <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=64021013">Link</a>)*
Continuation of the topic, started earlier, [post about the potential](https://busy.org/@leonid96/potential-or-how-to-move-the-earth-i-can-and-you).
This time I want to clarify what a charge is. And immediately there was an answer. Charge and electron is an elementary charged particle - this is not the same thing at all. But first a little digression into the story. For those who do not remember, I will remind you how a person came to such an opening as an electron.
In general, it is worth noting that the discoveries that a person ascribes to himself simply do not arise. For any discovery of everything comes the right time. It seems that all the discoveries are made at the very moment when they are needed. Although there are exceptions, for example, as with a stick for Selfie, which the Japanese invented long before it was used for its intended purpose. But the stick is, still a device and treated as inventions. In fact, all the discoveries are like thunder and lightning in the beginning of a thunderstorm. We feel a strong saturation and tension in the air, something like this is about to happen, everything is directly impregnated with this tension. And that's how it broke. Thunder of lightning and gushing rain. So with the discoveries. I would define all the discoveries as a collective product. No, of course, authorship most likely belong to individuals, but the soil or the basis for this, so to speak, the stresses before the beginning of the discovery, was created by all together. And only some of them were lucky to be among the first to commemorate themselves as a pioneer. I'll show you this now on the example of the discovery of an electron.
Ideas about the existence of an electron arose as a result of their observations in [Michael Faraday](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday), [Julius Plücker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Pl%C3%BCcker) and [William Crookes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Crookes). Then the hypothesis of the electron, as a separate part, was proved experimentally by Thomson and other physicists of his time. And already [Hendrik Antoon Lorentz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Lorentz) was so confident in the existence of the electron that on the basis of the hypothesis he created a theory. The birthday of the electron should be considered April 30, 1897. On this day at a meeting of the Royal Institute [Joseph John Thomson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._J._Thomson) made a report in which he outlined his research. Altogether it took about forty years and many efforts of various physicists. This was an important event on an equal footing with the recognition of the atom. Everything said that in nature there is a material carrier of charge. Although, like the atom, the electron was not recognized immediately. Even in 1920, the great physicist [Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_R%C3%B6ntgen) doubted his existence. And I doubt and now and now I will try, this is for you to prove.
For the proof, we consider an electric capacitor. An electric capacitor is a device that consists of two plates separated by a dielectric and can accumulate charges. As we have previously found out the charge - this is an electron, which is a separate material particle. It was also determined that the electron has a negative charge. A positive charge is created by the absence of electrons, they must be removed from the body somehow. (A little digression from life, it always surprised me when a waiter asked you for coffee with sugar or sugar-free coffee with sugar if you put sugar in it.) But how can coffee be without sugar, it is by nature conceived and so grows without sugar According to the logic from the aforesaid, the waiter turns out that coffee without sugar is coffee from which sugar was extracted, but this is impossible! It is correct to say simply coffee, it is "by its nature" without sugar!)
Let's consider the principle of the device and operation of an electric capacitor. The first electric capacitor was the Leyden jar, but we will consider the usual flat capacitor, which is depicted in Figure 1.
[Charge separation in a parallel-plate capacitor causes an internal electric field. A dielectric (orange) reduces the field and increases the capacitance.](By <a href="//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Papa_November" title="User:Papa November">Papa November</a> - self-made SVG version of <a href="//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dielectric.png" title="File:Dielectric.png">Image:Dielectric.png</a>, incorporating <a href="//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Capacitor_schematic.svg" title="File:Capacitor schematic.svg">Image:Capacitor schematic.svg</a> as its base., <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0" title="Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0">CC BY-SA 3.0</a>, <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=4030086">Link</a>)
As can be seen from the figure, in order to charge an electric capacitor, it is necessary to place an additional charge on one plate, and to remove it on the other (opposite) plate. Once again, since the charge is nothing more than an electron, it means that to charge the plate with a negative charge, it is necessary to place a certain number of electrons on it. On the second plate, you need to do the opposite. It already has electrons, but for some strange reason, they do not create a negative charge on the plate. But we should remove them from there, and the plate becomes positively charged or lacks electrons. To get to the original neutral state, it is necessary to put electrons back on it. It sounds like something is not real and doubtful, but physics claims that this is happening.
The next moment is the way in which one can place the charge-electrons on the plate of the electric capacitor. This can be done with the help of a potential difference. On the difference in potentials and what is the potential I said in the previous post. Let me recall the difference in potentials - this is the ability to overcome a potential determined by the distance. If the bodies are caused by mutual attraction, then what serves as a charge? And then a little problem with the definition. We know for sure, and assert that the charges interact with each other. The [law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law) describing this interaction was discovered by [Charles-Augustin de Coulomb](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles-Augustin_de_Coulomb) in 1785, has a very similar formulation with the law of mutual attraction of material bodies. The force with which charges interact is directly proportional to the product of these charges and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. It is established and proved that the opposite charges are attracted, while the same charges are repulsed. In our case, when we consider the charge of an electric capacitor, we are dealing only with electrons whose charge is negative. How can you charge the capacitor. To do this, we need a source that has a potential difference. If we short-circuit this source, the system will tend to equalize the potentials, and the motion of the charge-electrons begins, from the greater potential to the smaller. The value of the difference in potentials will mean which path the electrons can pass through. In the case of a short circuit, we consider the path to be practically zero, which is fraught with the release of a huge amount of heat and can lead to an explosion. Connect our source with the potential difference to our capacitor. Electrons will run (as well as the body falls to the ground from a certain height) along a chain from a larger potential to a neutral plate.
[A simple resistor-capacitor circuit demonstrates charging of a capacitor.](By <a href="//commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PureCore&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="User:PureCore (page does not exist)">PureCore</a> - <span class="int-own-work" lang="en">Own work</span>, <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0" title="Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0">CC BY-SA 3.0</a>, <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=4819852">Link</a>)
Electrons will run to the plate and there to stop, as before a wall that stops us. So further is the dielectric, through which electrons can not move, or rather can, but very, very few, which is practically not noticeable and difficult to determine. But what's the matter, the electrons themselves can not move, but the effect they have on the second plate can, the dielectric for such an impact is not an obstacle. And since there are "free, uncharged" electrons there, as a result of the interaction, the electrons from the second plate will be directed toward the positive charge of our source. As a result of this action, we get the following picture:
1. Our source must reduce its potential, so part of the work is already done.
2. The electric capacitor will be charged, on one plate there will be some number of electrons, on the second, exactly the same number of electrons will be absent.
3. If we turn off our source, then the electric capacitor will now also have a potential difference.
With an ideal circuit, in the absence of resistance in the circuit, this difference should be equal to the potential difference that our source decreased when charging the electric capacitor. This indicates the important property of an electric capacitor, as an element of an electrical circuit, to temporarily create a potential difference and be its source, in the right place of this circuit.
I hope this is understandable and we have figured it out. The only thing I would like to note. In physics, it is common to consider the direction of the movement of charges, from plus to minus, although this does not correspond to reality. But such is physics. I think it's easy in the mind to make an appropriate representation, based on what was written, and turn everything the other way around. The meaning of what is happening does not change.
Let's consider the next point. From a physical point of view, what happens in fact during the charge on our plates and with a capacitor. Let's return to the figure above with a charged electric capacitor. We have an increased potential on one platinum, on the second lowered. Where there is an increased potential, there is an excess of electrons and a "minus" charge. Where there is a reduced lack of electrons and a "plus" charge. The next point is what is defined as the capacitance of the electric capacitor. Following from the name this is the amount of charge that an electric capacitor can accumulate.
The following formula is **С=ε A/d (1)**
It can be seen from the formula that the capacitance of the electric capacitor depends directly on the area of one plate (smaller, if the plates are different) and inversely proportional to the distance between the plates or to the thickness of the dielectric. The coefficient is the dielectric constant. The larger the plate, the more charge it will be able to accumulate the capacitor and vice versa. Consequently, the charge-electrons in the condenser is located on the surface of the plate, because the capacitance does not depend on the thickness of the plate. The second parameter is the thickness of the dielectric. And here we can assume that the capacitance of the capacitor is concentrated in the dielectric, rather than on the plates. But this is not so. The dielectric has a charge exactly the same as the plate but opposite sign. If our platinum has a negative charge, then the dielectric has a positive charge (see figure). A capacitor is a device, and it can only work if there are two components, plates and a dielectric between them. In this case, the dielectric and the plate are in a bunch. The dielectric does not let the platinum discharge, but the metal has no property to store the charge, only if it has the shape of a sphere (in this case the inner volume of the sphere, which is less than the surface on which the charge is located) plays the role of the dielectric. To flatten the plate it needs to close on the second plate, which is also charged, but with the opposite sign. But dielectrics have the property that they do not allow the charge to build a closed circuit through itself. Therefore, the discharge can occur only in the opposite direction, in that through which the electric capacitor was charged.
Let's sum up the subtotal. We found out that electrons are concentrated on the surface of one plate, and in the second absence (as physics claims) exactly in the same amount.
The next moment is a description of the capacitance of an electric capacitor through another formula
**C = Q / V (2)**
As can be seen from the formula, the capacitance is also directly proportional to the charge, or the number of electrons on the plate and inversely proportional to the potential difference between the plates. It is very important to understand that the potential difference on the capacitor can not be infinite. Because each substance has its own limit. If the difference exceeds the permissible properties of the material, then dielectric breakdown occurs, the electric capacitor will be discharged and become unusable. These data are in the handbooks, obtained by an experimental method and used in the design of capacitors.
Let's take a closer look at this formula. What we have. The potential difference is the distance that a charge can overcome to compare potentials or ghost the system to zero state. A potential difference is formed with the help of forces from outside, in our case with the aid of a source, by scattering charges-electrons, over a distance that the dielectric properties permit. All this is in accordance with theoretical physics. Now we will conduct such an experiment. For the experiment, we use an electric capacitor consisting of two plates and a dielectric, in which there will be air. Such an electric capacitor is also called air. Next, watch the video.
https://youtu.be/JSe22zQEjlk?t=2m9s
And make a small calculation using formulas (1) and (2) to determine the capacitance of the electric capacitor.
When the area of the plate decreases, the capacity of the capacitor will decrease - this follows from formula (1). If the capacitance of the capacitor decreases, formula (2) will increase the potential difference. The charge-electrons will always be constant, they do not move anywhere. What happens to the electrons on the plate. And what, in such a case, is the potential, if the distance between the electrons did not change, the electrons did not move. Hence, the potential should remain constant. But practice says the opposite, it changes, all according to the formulas. I pictured in the figure how this happens.
I'm that part of the charge-electrons that "allegedly" do not participate in the capacitance of the electric capacitor, brought out, but really they are in their place on the plate. But these charges simply changed their orientation and now the lines connecting the opposing charges are lengthened. This is possible only in conductors, since there charges can move freely in any directions. In dielectric insulators, a change in the position of the charge is impossible, for that it is a dielectric to keep its charged state constantly. We did the job of separating the charges by the distance when they shifted the platinum. This increased the potential difference, and the charge, the number of electrons, remained the same and the capacitance decreased. All according to the rules of physics.
And immediately a question. If the electrons can move so freely in the conductors, why they are not carried away by the interaction force and do not mix to the side of platinum, which participates in the capacitor capacitance. We all know the experience with small pieces of paper, which are attracted to a charged ebonite or glass rod. Alternatively, we can rub the same wand with fur or fur, and again, the charges-electrons easily leave one body and move to the second. And what about our case. What is the error. Most likely the mistake is that the charge is a property of the body or substance, and not a separate material particle. You will not find a single case and confirmation of the emergence of a charge without a substance. You will not find not one case where only a negative or positive charge could arise. They always arise in pairs, like the two sides of the same coin. If you allow what to charge means to excite. And the potential difference is the force with which the charge is produced, by analogy with the compression of the spring-only we have electric excitation.
In this case, one can simply and easily explain the experiment with a change in the capacitance of the electric capacitor. The charge is not changed. But when the interaction geometry changes, the potential difference also changes. As with the spring squeezed more with great effort will be unclenched and the bigger way it will pass. Stronger charged, then the discharge will be stronger and the greater interval it can pass. If we choose such a gap between the plates and the size of the platinum, then with further approach the potential will increase so much that an air dielectric breakdown occurs. The same property is explained by the example of a pointed electrode. At the acute end, the potential is always higher than on the flat end. Because the charge is the same, and the area is smaller, then the potential is greater.
Finishing, I want to tell you whether to agree or not, but everything is logical. If we talk about the elementary charge, then all the evidence is obtained indirectly and confirm only the size of the minimum charge - it is the charge of the electron which is equal to **q=−1.6021766208(98)×10−19 C**. But the multiplicity of the charge does not yet imply the existence of an individual particle.
Sincerely yours, Leonid R.
*[The electron is a subatomic particle, symbol
e−
or
β−
, whose electric charge is negative one elementary charge.[8] Electrons belong to the first generation of the lepton particle family,[9] and are generally thought to be elementary particles because they have no known components or substructure.[1] The electron has a mass that is approximately 1/1836 that of the proton.[10] Quantum mechanical properties of the electron include an intrinsic angular momentum (spin) of a half-integer value, expressed in units of the reduced Planck constant, ħ. As it is a fermion, no two electrons can occupy the same quantum state, in accordance with the Pauli exclusion principle.[9] Like all elementary particles, electrons exhibit properties of both particles and waves: they can collide with other particles and can be diffracted like light. The wave properties of electrons are easier to observe with experiments than those of other particles like neutrons and protons because electrons have a lower mass and hence a longer de Broglie wavelength for a given energy.
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron)*
**Michael Faraday** FRS (/ˈfærədeɪ, -di/; 22 September 1791 – 25 August 1867) was a British scientist who contributed to the study of electromagnetism and electrochemistry. His main discoveries include the principles underlying electromagnetic induction, diamagnetism and electrolysis.
**Julius Plücker** (16 June 1801 – 22 May 1868) was a German mathematician and physicist. He made fundamental contributions to the field of analytical geometry and was a pioneer in the investigations of cathode rays that led eventually to the discovery of the electron.
**Sir William Crookes** OM PRS (/krʊks/; 17 June 1832 – 4 April 1919) was a British chemist and physicist who attended the Royal College of Chemistry[1] in London, and worked on spectroscopy. He was a pioneer of vacuum tubes, inventing the Crookes tube which was made in 1875.
**Hendrik Antoon Lorentz** (/ˈlɒrənts/; 18 July 1853 – 4 February 1928) was a Dutch physicist who shared the 1902 Nobel Prize in Physics with Pieter Zeeman for the discovery and theoretical explanation of the Zeeman effect. He also derived the transformation equations underpinning Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity.
**Sir Joseph John Thomson** OM PRS[1] (18 December 1856 – 30 August 1940) was an English physicist and Nobel Laureate in Physics, credited with the discovery and identification of the electron; and with the discovery of the first subatomic particle.
**Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen** (/ˈrɛntɡən, -dʒən, ˈrʌnt-/;[2] German: [ˈvɪlhɛlm ˈʁœntɡən]; 27 March 1845 – 10 February 1923) was a German[1] mechanical engineer and physicist, who, on 8 November 1895, produced and detected electromagnetic radiation in a wavelength range known as X-rays or Röntgen rays, an achievement that earned him the first Nobel Prize in Physics in 1901.
**Charles-Augustin de Coulomb** (/ˈkuːlɒm, -loʊm, kuːˈlɒm, -ˈloʊm/;[1] French: [kulɔ̃]; 14 June 1736 – 23 August 1806) was a French military engineer and physicist. He is best known for developing what is now known as Coulomb's law, the description of the electrostatic force of attraction and repulsion, but also did important work on friction.
hiveblocks