The problem of my initial characterization of the anticentrifugal force, which is in section V of the version at the link above, is that it obtains a force law that is inversely proportional to only the first power of the interparticle separation. The Coulomb repulsion of course is inversely proportional to the square of the separation, so in order to overcome it, the anticentrifugal force should be inverse to a higher power of separation than two. The strong magnetic force obtained in section VI is inverse to the third power of separtion, and so meets this expectation. On the other hand, when I equated the anticentrifugal force magnitude with that of Coulomb repulsion, I got essentially the same formula that I got by equating the Coulomb repulsion with the strong magnetic force (and immediately declared success). Naturally when I examined this situation further I was perplexed and at least a little disturbed by it. I'm still in the process of sorting this out, but I think there's probably a straightforward explanation, that there's a hidden dependence on separation in the assumption of near light-like particle velocities, that can contribute additional inverse dependence on separation. However, while looking into this, I realized there's an easier and I think more straightforward way to see the direct correspondence between the anticentrifugal force and the strong magnetic force. I put this into a new draft version of my paper, but I don't want to do another update on arxiv just yet, pending addressing the issue of retardation, so I think I will copy it in here instead, for now.

The above equation (303), derived as the anticentrifugal force, is essentially the same as Eq. (34) of my version 5 at the link above, that is derived from the Lienard-Wiechert potentials, if the test and source particles are of equal mass, apart from some gamma factors that still need to be sorted out carefully. This shows more explicitly than the current arxiv version how the strong magnetic force is the embodiment of the anticentrifugal force of the Thomas precession.

## No comments:

## Post a Comment