Saturday, April 5, 2014

Superstrong electromagnetic interactions

Since I've given up trying to put out a separate paper quickly on the superstrong magnetic force between highly accelerating ultrarelativistic charges, as I said in the previous post,  and have gone back to trying to finish my more general paper on the relationship between electrodynamics and relativistic kinematics, I should report out a little on what I found and didn't find.

The strong attractiveness of the magnetic force in the retarded magnetic acceleration field is already shown in the version posted on arxiv.  What I was trying to determine was whether there's an obvious way there can be net attraction in the time symmetric case, as considered by Schild, where the magnetic force due to the advanced field tends to cancel the force due to the retarded field.  My idea was that in the ultrarelativistic case the delay and advance angles approach 90 degrees, so maybe it might be possible to change the phase relationship so that the net force is strongly attractive on average.

It turned out that although I was able show tentatively that the retarded and advanced forces don't have to exactly cancel and can easily exceed in magnitude Coulomb repulsion, I wasn't able to generate a net attractive force.  I may try further later but for now I have gone back to trying to finish the more general argument.

What I did was to assume two charges were circularly orbiting each other in an approximately circular orbit with an orbit diameter smaller than one one-hundredth the size of a proton, and at a velocity very close to the speed of light.  I wrote a matlab program to calculate the full retarded and advanced, and non-radiative and radiative, electric and magnetic fields at the position of one particle due to the other, and accounting for delay and advancement, where the motion was assumed to be circular and periodic, but allowing the accelerations to depart from the strict centripetal acceleration of a pure circular orbit.  That is, I let the non-centripetal acceleration affect the fields but not the orbit.  Then I looked at the induced acceleration of one particle due to the other, and attempted to construct a configuration where the motions of each particle induced by the other would be consistent.  I totally ignored radiation damping, as did Schild, although it's enormous in this configuration.

It turned out to be pretty simple to build a configuration where the motions seem approximately consistent in the time-symmetric electrodynamic sense.  A lot more work would be needed to determine if this is a real or meaningful result, and I don't mean to assert that it is.  If I had more confidence I could build something convincingly meaningful in a reasonable amount of time, I'd continue to work on it, but for now I think my time is better spent elsewhere.

To illustrate what I'm trying to describe, I captured a plot from my matlab program, see below.   Clicking on the figure should expand it.  The top two strip plots are what is used to calculate the full em field at the position of the second (test) particle, and then the bottom two plots are the acceleration induced on the test particle.  The scales are not very meaningful because the magnitudes depend on how close the velocity is to the speed of light, and the orbital radius, and the invariant particle masses, and in a complicated way.

The top two strip plots show the motion of the charge the generates the field that the test particle moves in.  That's the field source particle.  The field that the test particle generates isn't allowed to affect the source particle here.  The top plot shows that I arbitrarily imposed a strong radial oscillating (at the orbital period) acceleration on top of the constant radial centripetal acceleration in it's circular circular orbit.   The second plot is showing that there's no comparatively significant motion in the tangential or axial directions.  That's just the noise level when some large positive and negative numbers got added together, at matlab default precision.

Then the time retarded and advanced fields at the test particle position, moving oppositely in a nominally circular orbit, are calculated and the corresponding acceleration of the test particle due to their sum is plotted on the two lower strips. What's interesting to me is that the oscillating radial acceleration of the source particle has induced a similar radial acceleration in the test particle, out of phase such that if it were allowed to act back on the source particle has a hope of leading to a consistent periodic motion, perhaps.  There is also a tangential acceleration induced, but it's much smaller in magnitude.  The smaller magnitude is in part at least due to the difference in relativistic mass along track versus cross-track.

This would be a rabbit hole to pursue seriously, that one might never emerge from.  But it would be fun.

Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Magnetism as the Origin of Preon Binding

A week or so ago I googled "preon binding force" and turned up an article by Jogesh Pati, the originator of the term "preon," according to wikipedia:

Magnetism as the origin of preon binding

Physics Letters B, Volume 98, Issue 1-2, p. 40-44.
It is argued that ordinary ``electric''-type forces - abelian or nonabelian - arising within the grand unification hypothesis are inadequate to bind preons to make quarks and lepton unless we proliferate preons. It is therefore suggested that the preons carry electric and magnetic charges and that their binding force is magnetic. Quarks and leptons are magnetically neutral. Possible consistency of this suggestion with the known phenomena and possible origin of magnetic charges are discussed.

(The article can be downloaded without fee here.)

So, apparently, I am not the first to think preons might be bound magnetically.  However, in order to achieve magnetic binding, the above article postulates that preons possess magnetic charges, which are not required by the mechanism I propose.

I decided to write a short paper on how electrical charges even of like polarity can be magnetically bound according classical electrodynamics, without going extensively into the relativistic kinematics arguments, to submit to a journal as soon as possible.  I thought I could just excerpt that part of my paper as it's currently posted on arxiv, but now I'm wanting to elaborate a little bit further, taking better account of retardation and perhaps looking at how it acts in time symmetric electrodynamics (i.e., allowing for time-advanced as well as time-retarded interaction).  Properly accounting for retardation makes things much more complicated and possibly intractable, but it is impossible to argue that it's negligible in this case.  It is thus not going as quickly as I'd initially hoped.  

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

A new version of my magnetic force paper on Arxiv

It's here.  It isn't the final version, but it has significant improvements compared to previous.  Section IIb is improved in the sense that there are no leftover terms in the magnetic force derived as a Coriolis effect of the relative rotation of the lab frame relative to the field source particle rest frame as seen by the test particle co-moving observer (TPCMO).  This is a result of having the correct sign on the Thomas precession as observed by the TPCMO, which is opposite of that seen by an inertial observer of an accelerated frame, as usually is provided in textbooks.  The explanation of how this happens is at the end of new Appendix A.

The new Appendix A also has a complete derivation of the Thomas precession using very elementary analysis that I hope is more transparent than other derivations, and may be unique in its own right.  I needed such a derivation because unlike other derivations that focus on the precession of a spinning particle, this one is focused on kinematics more generally, I'd say, and so obtains directly standard kinematical effects of rotation, such as that the velocity of a particle in a rotating frame is the velocity in the non-rotating plus an angular velocity of the rotation crossed with the radius vector to the particle from the center of rotation.  This is particularly important because it has been argued previously (by Bergstrom) that even though the magnetic force is clearly a Coriolis effect of the Thomas precession, it cannot give rise to an anticentrifugal forces because it applies only at a point and not more globally.  Bergstrom invents an interpretation that there is a "mosaic" of transformations between non-inertial and inertial reference frames such that the rotation applies only at the center of rotation, but I believe this interpretation is without real basis, and furthermore is disproved by the analysis in my Appendix A of version 7.  It seems pretty clear that the sole purpose of Bergstrom's interpretation is to avoid the otherwise obvious conclusion that if the Thomas precession causes a Coriolis effect as the magnetic force, then it must also cause a centrifugal-like force.  So, I believe this clears the way for a convincing relativistic argument that there need to be anti-centrifugal and anti-Euler forces.

I also used this update as an opportunity to introduce for the first time on arxiv the hypothesis that the anti-centrifugal force is the ultra-strong force that binds preons to from quarks.

The improvements to section IIb make it fully consistent with that part of the talk I gave at the PIERS conference last August.  Unfortunately due to confusion related to finding a sign error at the last minute and the deadline for the paper, they didn't get into the paper published in the conference proceedings. I discussed that sign error in at least one previous post.  Later on perhaps I will make a corrected version of that and post it on Reasearchgate.  The charts I gave as the talk for the PIERS conference are already posted there.  The talk also has an overview of the analysis that is now in Appendix A, but Appendix A is more advanced and more rigorous, in particular in how the partial derivative of time in the TPCMO's frame with respect to source particle rest frame time should be obtained.  The version in the talk gets the right result but the reasoning behind it is not quite right.  Getting it through a defensible derivation is a very significant improvement, I feel.

The path should now be clear to complete the analysis and obtain a relativistically exact (to order v^2/c^2) derivation of the magnetic force as a Coriolis effect of the Thomas precession.  This should also bring along an anti-Euler force of the Thomas precession, if one exists as I think necessary.  The anti-centrifugal force with be strongly implied, but can't be proven until the analysis is extended to order v^4/c^4.  But of course, as mentioned previously, it can already be found in Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamics, if one knows where to look.

Saturday, October 12, 2013

The Magnetic Force as the Ultra-Strong Force that Binds Preons to form Quarks and Leptons

I want to make the point in this post, that although one could easily dismiss my contention that existence of the Thomas precession along with electrostatic forces implies existence of an anti-centrifugal force that can overcome electrostatic repulsion as speculative and unproven (and you'd be right), it is a different matter so far as the existence of strong magnetic force that can do the same is concerned.  Anyone with an undergraduate physics student's understanding of electrodynamics can see this for their self with a half-hour's worth of derivation.

To derive the interparticle separation, between two like charges, where the magnetic force will overcome electrostatic attraction, while not leading to a mass for the bound composite that exceeds the proton mass, one can simply evaluate the magnetic part of the Lorentz force for a first relativistic charge moving in the magnetic field of a second relativistically-moving charge, that is also accelerating due to electrostatic forces due to the presence nearby of the first charge.  Everything needed is in a standard electrodynamics textbook such as Jackson or Griffiths, and on just a couple of pages (or on wikipedia, alternatively).

First, calculate the acceleration of a charge with arbitrary rest mass in the non-radiative electric field of a second nearby charge, as a function of the separation between the charges and their velocities.  This must be done using the proper relativistic forms for both the electric field, using the electric field derived from the Lienard-Wiechert potentials, and for the resulting acceleration due to the electric force, which must be based on the relativistic equivalent of Newton's law of inertia.  

Next, get the magnetic part of the radiative field due to the accelerated (second) charge, again using the Lienard-Wiechert field expressions.  Assume the second charge is moving at approximately (i.e., asymptotically close to) the speed of light perpendicularly to the direction of its acceleration.  This is consistent with

Sunday, October 6, 2013

The Preon Model as a Possible Application for Relativistic Kinematical Forces

A few days ago I read an article in the November 2012 Scientific American, by Don Lincoln of Fermilab, "The Inner Life of Quarks," that describes arguments that quarks and leptons are not themselves fundamental, but rather are made up of more fundamental objects named "preons."  The fact that leptons and quarks come in three known "families", with a hierarchy of increasing mass across them, and where the members of  heavier families decay rapidly into the equivalent members of the lightest family, suggests the more-massive families' members are just excited forms of the lightest. Since it is difficult to see how a truly fundamental object can have excited states, more fundamental constituents seem likely.

In the preon model described in the article, which is said to be only one of several that have been put forward, there are two different fundamental preons, termed the "plus (+)" and the "zero (0)", along with their antiparticles.  The plus and its antiparticle have electrical charge, while the zero and its antiparticle do not.
The gluons that are the carriers of the strong force are also composite objects made of the same set of preons.

Lincoln writes and illustrates that the preon model does a good job of representing the known hierarchy of the various families of quarks and leptons and their associated bosonic force particles.  But, according to the article, there is a fundamental problem with the preon model: because the masses of the leptons and quarks are already established, there is no room in it to accommodate the masses of force carrying particles needed to bind like-charged preons into the various charged quarks and leptons.  For example, gluons in the Standard Model account for most of the proton mass, while the up and down quarks are quite light comparatively.  Particles to bind preons with similar charges as quarks would need to be at least as massive as the gluons, and so would lead to larger quark masses than observed. This is where the anti-centrifugal force of the Thomas precession can help.  It provides a mechanism for overcoming electrostatic repulsion that does not require mediation by massive force-carrying particles.  It is simply a kinematical necessity of

Saturday, September 7, 2013

Slides from my talk at PIERS 2013 Conference

I have posted a pdf file of the slides from my PIERS 2013 talk, on Researchgate, here.

The material in the file is quite a bit beyond the version of the paper in the conference proceedings, and the slightly newer version (v6) currently posted on arxiv.  I'm working now towards completing a new version for arxiv that will provide the material outlined in the talk, and perhaps complete the relativistic proof to order v^2/c^2 that the magnetic force can be interpreted as a Coriolis effect of the Thomas precession.  In the meantime, though, the slides from the talk are to the best of my knowledge more correct than the arxiv version or the PIERS paper, where they differ.

Saturday, July 13, 2013

A New Version of My Magnetic Force Paper on Arxiv

The new version of my paper explaining the origin of the magnetic force as being a kinematical consequence of Thomas precession has been up for over a week now here. It's similar to the conference version I put on Researchgate and linked to previously, but it has two new appendices, an Errata section, and a change to the explanation of how the magnetic force is related to Thomas precession. 

The conference version of the paper was improved in various ways compared to the previous arxiv version (v5), and so the new posting on arxiv is much better than the last version, I think.  First, it fixes the glaring sign error I mentioned previously.  More importantly, it has a much better description of what is the expected anti-centrifugal force of the Thomas precession, that shows explicitly the inverse-cube dependence on interparticle separation (as necessary to overcome the inverse-square character of electrostatic repulsion), and then it shows how this prediction agrees with existing Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamics in the case of bound circular motion, getting much better agreement than previously.  Previously I had an extra Lorentz (gamma) factor squared, which would certainly not be negligible given that it is an ultrarelativistic case where the anti-centrifugal or strong magnetic force becomes significant.

The new version, like the conference version, assumes that the correct form for the angular velocity of the Thomas precession, as observed from the laboratory frame, is as given by Jackson and most other authors, as opposed to the formula according Malykin (derived by Ritus, originally, references are in my paper on arxiv).  This was very nice in getting agreement in the ultrarelativistic case on the Lorentz factors, and for a brief while I thought it might also be working better in obtaining the magnetic force in the low velocity limit, but now I am having severe doubts.  Finding the sign error flustered and confused me into thinking I could solve problems with that part too using the Jackson formula, but as I think about it further I'm suspecting that Malykin is nonetheless correct.  It may be possible to reinterpret my anticentrifugal force to be consistent with Malykin, since Malykin does not say that the Jackson formula is wrong, merely that it applies to observations made from the accelerating reference frame rather than from the lab frame.

The Errata section retracts the conjecture of the last two versions that the expected magnetic-like force due to kinematical consequences of acceleration of the field-source charge, that I call a quasi-magnetic force, might account for the electron gyromagnetic ratio being (about) twice the classically-expected value.  The doubling of the strength of the spin-orbit coupling it predicts would only happen in positronium atoms, not in hydrogen atoms.  The Errata section also mentions my doubts about the correctness of using the Jackson Thomas precession angular velocity formula.  I hope to get it resolved pretty soon.  The fully relativistic derivation should answer the question.  I already have quite a lot of it done, and it seems to strongly support Malykin, still, to me.  I'm eager to return to working on it in earnest, but next I have to make the slides for my conference talk, and then give the talk.  When I have the slides I plan to make them generally accessible.

The new appendices together are an explicit demonstration of the relativistic-kinematical character of the magnetic force, and how it can always be related to a Coulomb force between two charges in at least one inertial reference frame.  This should not be controversial or any kind of surprise, but I have never seen this derivation in any textbook, so I thought it worth putting in.  It doesn't involve the Thomas precession explicitly.

Another thing perhaps worth mentioning: the conference version of the paper has some different expository content than the arxiv version.  The abstract and introduction in the conference version were written from scratch, and I didn't copy that content into the arxiv version.  I did shorten the introduction of the arxiv version, though, compared to previous, since it was saying a lot of things would be done in the paper that haven't been done yet.  I'll bring that part back when they are.