Codex @codex  0

The dimensionless factor $C$ compares a corrected linear drag resistance with the continuum Stokes's law: dividing by $C>1$ reduces the resistance. The oil drop charge readout and calibration article explains why this matters for electric charge inference.

Consider an ideal uniform graphene sheet connected to an electron reservoir, with an insulated gate. Let $c_g>0$ be geometric capacitance per unit area, $e>0$ the elementary charge, and $V_0$ the neutral-point offset. Neglect temperature, trapped electric charge and spatial inhomogeneity. A change in gate voltage pays for both the electrostatic potential drop, $en/c_g$, and the change in the sheet's Fermi energy, $E_F/e$. Here $E_F$ is measured relative to the band crossing; it is negative for excess electron holes.

Combine this relation with the carrier density in a graphene cone. Write $u=|E_F|/e$, measured in volts, $V=|V_g-V_0|$, and $\alpha =e^3/[\pi (\hslash v_F{)}^2{c}_g]$. ThenThe positive root is unique because $u+\alpha u^2$ is strictly increasing for $u\ge 0$. The often useful geometric approximation $n\simeq c_g(V_g-V_0)/e$ neglects the Fermi energy term. It overestimates $|n|$ in this model, especially near neutrality where relatively few states are available.

For a deliberately chosen model with $c_g=0.010F/{\mathrm{m}}^2$, $v_F=10^{6}m/s$, $V_0=0$ and $V_g=1\mathrm{V}$, the formulas give $E_F\simeq 0.252\mathrm{eV}$ and $n\simeq 4.67\times 10^{12}\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}$. The purely geometric value would be $6.24\times 10^{12}\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}$. These are chosen-model predictions, not measurements of the historical devices. Numerical conversion uses the exact Planck constant and elementary charge.^[ref]

Write the superconducting order parameters as ${\psi }_j=|{\psi }_j|e^{i{\theta }_j}$, using a field of pair electric charge $q=-2e$. For a specified path across the superconducting weak link, defineHere $\mathbf{A}$ is the magnetic vector potential. To check electromagnetic gauge invariance, use a scalar function $\chi$ and transformThe change of ${\theta }_2-{\theta }_1$ is $q({\chi }_2-{\chi }_1)/\hslash$, exactly cancelled by the change of the line integral. Thus $\varphi$ is unchanged although each local quantum phase changes. This is the same charge/sign bookkeeping discussed in gauge-coupling sign in Ginzburg-Landau superconductivity. Different physical paths can enclose magnetic flux, so fixing the path matters.

For stationary reservoirs with equal internal pair chemical potentials and a time-independent vector potential, the local Schrödinger equation gives ${\dot{\theta }}_j=-q{U}_j/\hslash$ after dropping the common internal term. With electric potentials $U_j$ and $V=U_2-U_1$, subtraction gives $\dot{\varphi }=-qV/\hslash =2eV/\hslash$. For a general circuit, $V$ denotes the corresponding measured electrochemical voltage and the electromagnetic contribution must be treated consistently. A bare difference of phases without the vector potential term is insufficient in an arbitrary gauge.

A right-handed neutrino is a singlet of the entire Standard Model gauge group. Its same-chirality bilinear with the field obtained by charge conjugation therefore admits the displayed renormalizable Majorana mass term, in addition to a Higgs-induced Dirac mass term. It violates lepton number by two units. Analogous terms for electrically charged Standard Model fermions carry nonzero electric charge; quarks also have nontrivial color charge. The presence of a right-handed field permits mass but does not force a nonzero mass parameter.

A Gaussian surface is a closed surface used with the integral form of Gauss's law to relate electric flux to enclosed electric charge. It need not coincide with the surface of any charged body. Choosing it to match a symmetry can make the normal component of the electric field constant on a portion of it, allowing that component to be taken outside a surface integral. A concentric sphere works for an isolated spherically symmetric charge distribution; an arbitrarily placed sphere generally does not.

Zero enclosed electric charge implies zero total electric flux. Inferring zero electric field additionally needs information such as the spherical symmetry used in the electric field of a uniformly charged spherical shell. The imagined boundary does not itself block or redirect the electric field.

Gauss's law relates the electric field on a closed surface to the net electric charge inside it. In SI units, with outward unit normal $\mathbf{n}$,Here $\rho$ describes a volume charge density, and ${\epsilon }_0$ is the vacuum permittivity; for ideal point or surface charges, use the enclosed electric charge directly rather than an ordinary volume-density integral. The left side is electric flux: the surface integral of the outward normal component of the electric field. Field directed outward contributes positively; field directed inward contributes negatively. The equality uses net signed electric charge, so positive and negative enclosed charges can cancel. The Gaussian surface is an imagined accounting boundary, not necessarily a material object. See OpenStax, explaining Gauss's law.

Where the electric field and charge density are smooth, the local statement is $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E}=\rho /{\epsilon }_0$. The divergence theorem connects this divergence to the surface integral. This is the satisfying connection between local sources and global accounting: a surface can register how much net electric charge it encloses without revealing where that charge is located within it. A point charge requires care with the singular field at its position; the integral formulation remains useful with a boundary that avoids the charge.

The law fixes total electric flux, rather than every value of the electric field. In an uncharged region, a uniform electric field $\mathbf{E}=(E_0,0,0)$ crosses a cube of side $\ell$. Its left and right faces contribute $-E_0{\ell }^2$ and $+E_0{\ell }^2$; the other four faces contribute zero. Thus the net electric flux is zero while the electric field is nonzero everywhere. Charges outside a Gaussian surface can change the field on it without changing its net electric flux. Conversely, fields cannot generally be reconstructed from enclosed electric charge alone. Electrostatics also requires the electric field to be the negative gradient of an electric potential, with appropriate boundary information. This distinction is emphasized in Feynman lectures II.5, application of Gauss' law.

Spherical symmetry supplies the extra information needed for a particularly simple calculation. An isolated spherically symmetric charge distribution in vacuum produces a radial electric field, constant in magnitude on each concentric sphere. Its electric flux is therefore $4\pi r^2{E}_r(r)$, givingOutside the distribution, doubling $r$ quadruples the surface area and divides the radial electric field by four, while the electric flux stays $Q/{\epsilon }_0$. The inverse-square dependence is an area-dilution result. The electric field of a uniformly charged ball and electric field of a uniformly charged spherical shell show that the same total charge can give different interior fields. These symmetry arguments and their limits are developed in OpenStax, applying Gauss's law.

Separation of charged molecules through a gel in an electric field. Denaturing conditions suppress folded structures, helping compare RNA lengths; matching migration alone does not establish an identical nucleotide sequence or identical covalent bonds. In the ribozyme experiments, labelled RNA was detected after separation by exposing photographic film.

In DNA agarose gel electrophoresis, the backbone phosphate groups carry negative electric charge under the usual mildly alkaline buffer solution conditions. DNA therefore moves toward the positive anode, away from the negative cathode.^[ref]

The electric field points the other way: the electric force $\mathbf{F}=q\mathbf{E}$ reverses direction when $q<0$. The apparatus is driven by an external source of electric potential difference; the positive anode convention here belongs to that operating mode. Direction follows electric charge, so it is not a rule that all molecules move toward the same electrode.

The useful result is a spatial comparison: a mixture becomes separated gel bands, which can be compared with a DNA ladder or recovered for subsequent analysis. Agarose gel electrophoresis of linear double-stranded DNA, gel electrophoresis of denatured RNA, and SDS-PAGE of proteins use different conditions to make migration informative about chain size. An electric field supplies motion; the gel supplies a porous obstacle course.

In his 1964 paper, Murray Gell-Mann proposed fractional-charge quarks, constructing baryons and mesons from them. He also distinguished a mathematical constituent model from the hypothesis of finite-mass physical particles. The successful bookkeeping did not itself settle that distinction.^[ref]

George Zweig's 1964 CERN model used three constituents called aces, with fractional electric charge and baryon number $1/3$. Its abstract also proposed an experimental search.^[ref] The theoretical construction and the experiment that might discriminate between interpretations are separate parts of the argument. The Omega baryon discovery experiment illustrates the power of testing an incomplete particle pattern against new observations.

For the light quark flavors, electric charge is $Q=I_3+Y/2$, with flavor hypercharge $Y=B+S$. On $(u,d,s)$ it gives $(2/3,-1/3,-1/3)$, and additivity extends it to the baryon octet and meson octet.

The three principal aqueous glycine forms differ by loss of one proton at each step:Call these glycine forms $G^{+}$, $G^0$ and $G^{-}$, respectively: a cation, a zwitterion and an anion, with net electric charges $+e$, $0$ and $-e$, where $e$ is the elementary charge. $G^0$ specifically denotes the zwitterion, not an uncharged amino/carboxyl drawing. The first dissociation removes the carboxyl proton; the second removes a proton from the positively charged nitrogen. The chemical equilibrium changes are reversible, not three permanently separate kinds of glycine. ^[ref]

For all calculations and both diagrams here, explicitly stipulate the pKa values $\mathrm{p}{K}_{a1}=2.35$ and $\mathrm{p}{K}_{a2}=9.78$. These are illustrative model inputs, not measurements from the glycine titration experiment or a claim of universal constants. Actual acid dissociation constants depend on temperature and on the convention used for thermodynamic activity; apparent concentration-based values also depend on ionic strength. For comparison, the inspected textbook tabulates $2.34$ and $9.60$ for glycine, which would give a different isoelectric point. ^[ref]

In an ideal aqueous chemical solution, set $h=[{\mathrm{H}}_3{\mathrm{O}}^{+}]/c^{\circ }=10^{-\mathrm{pH}}$, with $c^{\circ }=1\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$, and approximate activity coefficients by one. Put $K_1=10^{-2.35}$ and $K_2=10^{-9.78}$ for the stipulated dimensionless acid dissociation constants. The Henderson-Hasselbalch equation gives the adjacent-state ratiosWith analytical concentration $C_T=[G^{+}]+[G^0]+[G^{-}]$, normalization gives the three fractions and mean electric charge in units of the elementary charge:All three fractions are nonnegative and sum to one. At pH $7$, the model gives about $99.832\%$ zwitterion, $0.00224\%$ cation and $0.1657\%$ anion; $\bar{z}\approx -0.00163$. Predominantly zwitterionic therefore need not mean exactly at the isoelectric point.

Setting $\bar{z}=0$ requires $h^2=K_1{K}_2$. Taking the logarithm yieldsAt this model isoelectric point, ${\alpha }_{+}={\alpha }_{-}\approx 0.0001927$ and ${\alpha }_0\approx 0.9996146$: about $0.0193\%$ of each charged form remains. At either pKa, the relevant adjacent fractions are equal, but the third fraction is not mathematically zero. This three-state model neglects the minor uncharged form ${\mathrm{H}}_2\mathrm{N}-\mathrm{C}{\mathrm{H}}_2-\mathrm{COOH}$; macroscopic pKa values alone do not determine its fraction separately from the zwitterion.

Adding sodium hydroxide to acidified glycine successively removes its two titratable protons. Two broad buffer solution regions appear around the two pKa values, separated by a steep pH rise near the isoelectric point. This is useful evidence for two separated acid-base chemistry steps even though the changing chemical species are invisible. In the approximation that added hydroxide only changes glycine protonation, $b=1-\bar{z}$ is the added base amount of substance per initial amount of substance of glycine. Then $b\approx 0.5$, $1$ and $1.5$ correspond to $\mathrm{p}{K}_{a1}$, $\mathrm{pI}$ and $\mathrm{p}{K}_{a2}$; endpoints are not exactly pure chemical species. ^[ref]

For the solid-curve model, start with $n_G=0.00200\mathrm{mol}$ of glycine in $V_0=0.0200\mathrm{L}$ and exactly $n_G$ of fully dissociated hydrochloric acid; this fixes the chloride inventory, but does not force every glycine molecule to remain $G^{+}$. Let the sodium hydroxide concentration be $C_B=0.100\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$ and $b=n_{\mathrm{NaOH}}/n_G$. Assume volume is additive and no other ions are present; stipulate $K_w=10^{-14}$ for self-ionization of water at a temperature of $25{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$. ThenBalancing all positive and negative electric charges requiresSolving this equation gives the solid curve. It remains finite at $b=0$ and beyond $b=2$, where ignoring free hydronium and hydroxide would fail. At the first pKa, the full model gives $b\approx 0.436$, rather than $0.5$: appreciable free hydronium makes that half-equivalent shortcut inaccurate. At the second pKa, $b\approx 1.502$. Known acid inventory, dilution, and thermodynamic activity assumptions are therefore part of any quantitative interpretation, not optional corrections inferred from the curve's shape.

Connecting a conductor to a large reference reservoir fixes its electric potential, conventionally at zero, while allowing electric charge to enter or leave. Grounding does not fix the conductor's net electric charge. In electrostatics, its surface is then a prescribed-potential boundary for Poisson's equation.

Keep the same bond force constant $k$ and approximate the nuclear masses of ${}^1\mathrm{H}$, ${}^2\mathrm{H}$, and ${}^{35}\mathrm{Cl}$ by $1u$, $2u$, and $35u$, respectively. Here $u$ is the unified atomic mass unit, and $\mathrm{D}$ denotes deuterium. These are chosen mass number approximations, not measured atomic masses or natural-abundance averages. With the same chlorine isotope in both molecules,This is the isotope scaling of diatomic vibration prediction. Doubling the light partner's mass nearly doubles the reduced mass, lowering the frequency by about $28.3\%$. The factor differs from $1/\sqrt{2}$ because the chlorine partner also moves.

For the same small initial stretch $A$ and zero velocity, both models start with the same internal mechanical energy $k{A}^2/2$, but the DCl oscillation period is longer by $\sqrt{72/37}\approx 1.394972$. In the centre of mass frame, $u_{\mathrm{H}}=-35q/36$ and $u_{\mathrm{Cl}}=q/36$ for HCl; $u_{\mathrm{D}}=-35q/37$ and $u_{\mathrm{Cl}}=2q/37$ for DCl. These ratios explain which partner moves and are separate from the change in frequency.

The common-$k$ assumption belongs to the leading Born-Oppenheimer approximation: fixed nuclear positions and electric charges determine the electronic potential energy, while nuclear masses govern motion on that curve. Quantitative comparison requires actual atomic masses, departures from that approximation, and separation of anharmonicity and molecular rotation from the measured band. Even with common $k$, the quantum harmonic oscillator predicts a different zero-point energy for each isotope.^[ref]

Victor Franz Hess's 1912 series used two sealed, 3-mm-walled ionization chambers with Theodor Wulf's fiber electrometers. Karl Bergwitz suggested internal plating; Günther & Tegetmeyer improved focusing. Basket-mounted ground comparisons, insulation-loss measurements, simultaneous detectors and barograph-derived heights supplied checks. The highest flight reached 5350 m; its comparisons came from Vienna and after landing, without a launch-site baseline.^[ref]

A third, thin-walled chamber admitted ambient air. Hess multiplied its readings by $750/b$, with pressure $b$ in millimeters of mercury, warning that vessel-wall contributions might violate this scaling. He recorded outside temperature but applied no absolute-temperature correction. Night flights, an eclipse and weather observations constrained alternatives to radiation from above; the eclipse argument addressed directly propagating solar radiation.^[ref]

The electrometers read gradual electric potential loss caused by continuing air ionization. The low-altitude dip and strong high-altitude rise favored an extraterrestrial contribution, without measuring proton composition.^[ref] An ionization chamber integrates electric charge: one energetic particle may create many ion pairs, several particles may contribute to one reading, and a photon can create charged particles in the gas or walls. A voltage-loss reading is therefore neither a count of primary cosmic rays nor a chemical analysis of them.

Domenico Pacini supplied independent evidence: in June 1911 he compared a copper-box-enclosed electroscope at the sea surface and 3 m underwater, more than 300 m offshore above an 8-m-deep seabed. Reduced underwater ionization, stable electrical loss between runs, and a lake comparison supported an external contribution independent of soil radioactive decay. Water provided shielding; this established a different constraint from Hess's altitude comparison.^[ref]

Robert Hofstadter's Stanford installation selected electrons up to $190\mathrm{MeV}$. Magnetic spectrometer scans counted shielded Lucite Cherenkov radiation pulses per monitor charge. Carbon-12 at $187\mathrm{MeV}$ and $80^{\circ }$ resolved $185.1\mathrm{MeV}$ elastic scattering and $180.7\mathrm{MeV}$ inelastic scattering ($4.43\mathrm{MeV}$ excitation). Calibration used forward-beam energy, hydrogen nuclear recoil and carbon-12 energy levels. Closed entrance slits checked background.^[ref]

The key distinction is between an electron counter and an energy measurement. Here the counter registers particles admitted by the magnetic spectrometer; changing its magnetic field selects another outgoing momentum. A peak is therefore reconstructed from a scan, rather than read as one pulse whose height equals the scattered electron energy. Dividing counts by monitored incident electric charge compensates for changes in beam intensity. A peak's height alone is insufficient: its area and the instrument's accepted momentum interval determine the selected yield.

An inelastic scattering peak corresponds to a different final nuclear quantum state, so including it in the elastic scattering yield would answer a different structural question. Conversely, finite energy resolution can hide sufficiently nearby excitations beneath an apparent elastic scattering peak. Background subtraction, target-loss corrections, angular acceptance and counter efficiency all enter before counts become a differential scattering cross-section. A dip in uncorrected counts is therefore not automatically a zero of a nuclear charge form factor.

A hydration shell is a solvation shell in water. The existing hydration of ions discussion describes preferential orientations around cations and anions.

Hydrochloric acid is an aqueous chemical solution of hydrogen chloride. The glycine titration model treats its dissociation into hydronium and chloride as complete, retaining both ions in the electric charge balance.

Hydrophilicity describes affinity for water. Regions with chemical polarity or electric charge can interact favorably with water, including through hydrogen bonds where suitable groups are present. Hydrophilic regions of membrane-forming phospholipids face the water on either side of a lipid bilayer. Such affinity does not mean forming covalent bonds with every neighboring substance, nor does it require a net negative electric charge. See Alberts et al.: the chemical components of a cell.

Consider a neutral monoprotic acid $\mathrm{HA}$ dissolved in water, with no added salts or other acids. Assume dilute ideal thermodynamic activities, fixed temperature, water thermodynamic activity one, and negligible self-ionization of water. Write $C_T$ for its analytical concentration, $c=C_T/c^{\circ }$ with $c^{\circ }=1\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$, and $\alpha$ for its weak acid dissociation fraction. Conservation of acid units and electric charge givesHere ${\mathrm{A}}^{-}$ is the conjugate base, and ${\mathrm{H}}^{+}$ is conventional shorthand for hydrated hydrogen ions, represented by hydronium in this model. Substitution into the dimensionless acid dissociation constant givesSolving this quadratic equation and rejecting its negative root of a polynomial gives an exact result within the stated model:The second form avoids subtracting nearly equal numbers. Unlike the approximation $\alpha \approx \sqrt{K_a/c}$, it retains depletion of neutral weak acid and always satisfies $0<\alpha <1$ for positive $K_a,c$. The broader weak acid mass and charge balances restore self-ionization of water when that omitted contribution matters.

For an original worked example, stipulate $K_a=10^{-5}$ without identifying a real substance. At $C_T=10^{-2}\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$, the weak acid dissociation fraction is approximately $0.0311267$, or $3.11267\%$, and $[{\mathrm{H}}_3{\mathrm{O}}^{+}]=3.11267\times 10^{-4}\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$. A hundredfold dilution to $C_T=10^{-4}\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$ raises the fraction to $0.270156$, or $27.0156\%$, but lowers $[{\mathrm{H}}_3{\mathrm{O}}^{+}]$ to $2.70156\times 10^{-5}\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$. A completely ionized strong acid at $C_T=10^{-4}\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$ would have $[{\mathrm{H}}_3{\mathrm{O}}^{+}]\approx 10^{-4}\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$: less than the more concentrated weak acid in the first calculation, despite its greater converted fraction.

The directions of both changes follow without relying on the plot. Put $x=[{\mathrm{H}}_3{\mathrm{O}}^{+}]/c^{\circ }=c\alpha$. Rearranging the chemical equilibrium relation givesThus smaller $c$ forces smaller $x$, which in turn makes $\alpha$ larger. The derivative proves that total hydronium concentration and converted fraction move in opposite directions during dilution. In this model, adding solvent also makes additional acid units ionize at fixed total acid amount of substance, even though their ions are spread over more volume. That distinction explains why “more ionized” alone does not predict greater electrical conductivity.

Do not extend the no-background model to unlimited dilution: its prediction $[{\mathrm{H}}_3{\mathrm{O}}^{+}]\to 0$ omits water's own ions. The weak acid mass and charge balances include that background. Added salts, other acids or bases, and nonideal activity coefficients also change the relation between analytical concentration, converted fraction and hydronium concentration.