Is the human body electrically neutral?

[Playfishpaste]

Nonsense.

Many particles have charge, not just the electron. Even neutrons are made up of charged particles; ( 1-up quark (+2/3) and 2-down quarks (-1/3)) even though their net charge is zero (2/3- 2*1/3 = 0). That fact that quarks are so tightly bond together in a neutrons structure that we rarely see them in action, doesn't mean the charges aren't there.

Quarks are fundamental charge carrying particles just the same as electrons. In a different universe we might be running our toasters with the movement of quarks instead instead of the movement of electrons.

That something is composed of particles with charge does not mean it itself has charge. For instance, that a neutron is composed of quarks does not imply it will have charge (since the net charge is 0).

The only instance in which a supramolecular structure can have a net charge that is not 0 is when it contains electrons which are not evenly distributed. Since there is no supramolecular structure with electrons that are evenly distributed, there is therefore no supramolecular structure which has a net neutral charge (ever).

[Sphere]

Okay.

I think we talking about different things, I am talking about net charge, you are talking about the formation of electric dipole moments in structures such as proteins (I.e. the uneven distribution of charges) But, correct me if I'm wrong.

What I am not sure about is the idea that you can equate an electric dipole moment with charge. On the face of it, I don't see that you can because if you did, then you would have to say that even the neutron has a charge, because it too has an electric diopole moment just like protiens.

[Playfishpaste]

I am herein talking about the net charge (the sum of the charges inside of some object). There are electric dipoles in supramolecular objects, though, and they themselves often have various partial charges, with which they interact with other supramolecular objects.

[Sphere]

Please explain further. Wiki isn't helping me understand.

You are talking about supramolecular objects like proteins attracting an unbalanced number of extra electrons because of their inherent electric dipoles?

[Playfishpaste]

Please explain further. Wiki isn't helping me understand.

You are talking about supramolecular objects like proteins attracting an unbalanced number of extra electrons because of their inherent electric dipoles?

Well, they do that yes (as do human bodies), however, I'm just pointing out there is never an even distribution of electrons or other subatomic particles among any group of molecules, as they are always popping in and out of existence. Some people like to say "the net charge is just the average of the charges in a body" but this doesn't really make any sense. Charges are discrete units. You either have a charge of 87 or you don't. Ditto for non-elementary charge. Likewise (and most importantly) you either have a charge of 0 or you don't.

[Nikitn]

All non-ion molecules always have a net charge of exactly ZERO. It doesn't matter if the charge is evenly distributed or not it's completely irrelevant. A molecule contains both all the electrons and the nuclear particles. What exactly is your point here?

[Mangalore]

a bit weird to talk this definitive about a highly complex biochemical system build on reactions and controlled via electrical impulses. If we look close enough we probably have tons of charges propagating about every second. If we take a broad enough mean average and big enough part of the body we are probably entirely neutral.

Don't see the meaning in this though.

[Nikitn]

yeah the question was pretty bad but most people here apparantly don't remember anything from their HS science classes, so not unexpected.

[Playfishpaste]

All non-ion molecules always have a net charge of exactly ZERO. It doesn't matter if the charge is evenly distributed or not it's completely irrelevant. A molecule contains both all the electrons and the nuclear particles. What exactly is your point here?

WrbA is a non-ion molecule. If it has a net charge of zero, it should have an even number of positive and negative elementary charges.

It doesn't.

What do you take net charge to mean?

[Sphere]

WrbA is a non-ion molecule. If it has a net charge of zero, it should have an even number of positive and negative elementary charges.

It doesn't.

What do you take net charge to mean?

Straight from wikipedia

An ion is an atom or molecule in which the total number of electrons is not equal to the total number of protons

If the protons and electrons are unequal, it is an ion. Are you talking about ionic bonding? But I think we are just haggling about definitions here.

If you put a WrbA protein in a uniform electric field, would it accelerate? If so it is an ion/charged.

[Nikitn]

WrbA is a non-ion molecule. If it has a net charge of zero, it should have an even number of positive and negative elementary charges.

It doesn't.

What do you take net charge to mean?

what would meet your crazy definition of a net zero charge? That the electrons are inside the protons and not moving??

[ash3]

In our body DNA phosphate pert is -ively charged and its effect is cancelled by +ively charged protein due to arginine and lysine. So overall our body is netural in the absence of any of them our body will be a charged body.

[Col. Tartleton]

There's actually no supramolecular structure in the entire universe which ever has a neutral electric charge, unless it doesn't have any electrons in it.

That was literally the most wrong thing I've ever read someone write about electricity. I don't know what's more disgusting, that or Vizsla trying to get Himster to insert a light bulb into his rectum.

[Gaidin]

I'm not sure why Sphere never freaked people out by telling them out much potential voltage the body is walking around with at any given moment.