NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20/NN_1992_20.iso/spool/sci/physics/14348

Text File | 1992-09-09 | 5.9 KB | 119 lines

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Path: sparky!uunet!seas.smu.edu!vivaldi!aslws01!aslws01!terry
From: [e-mail] (Terry Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Did electric/magnetic symmetry "break"?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: aslws01
Organization: NEC America, Inc. Irving, Texas
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:40:19 GMT
Lines: 106

Hi folks,

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (John C. Baez) writes:

> ... 2em/hbar must be a multiple of an integer.   Note that this condition
> is PERFECTLY SYMMETRICAL BETWEEN MAGNETIC AND ELECTRIC CHARGES.

(?) disappointing.  you have simply restated the original premise -- that
photons are fully symmetrical between electric and magnetic vectors --
only this time in caps.  This is non-enlightening.


> To repeat myself, I don't think there is any asymmetry between electric
> and magnetic charges of the form "magnetic charges (if they exist) must
> be > 68.5 times as big as electric charges."  This seeming asymmetry is
> just an artifact of a particular system of units.

No.

The monopole equivalent of a hydrogen atom (it cannot exist, of course)
would need to be 68.5 times smaller than a regular hydrogen atom in order
to coexist with it in the same universe.  That hardly qualifies as being
an "artifact of a ... system of units."  (If you do not understand why,
please think on it a bit before responding.)

My proposal was an example of what I call a "farfetch," or a constrained
wild-hair idea that should be attacted mercilously but rigorously once it
has been stated.  I'll restate it more pointedly:

   EM SYMMETRY FARFETCH: In the very, VERY early universe, the current
   coupling value (alpha) had no real meaning.  Charges, if they could be
   defined in a meaningful way at all, were of magnitude sqrt( 2em/hbar ),
   and were completely symmetrical between the electric and magnetic
   components.  The most likely model would be a universe of completely
   uncharged (say photon-like) particles, except that the structure of
   space itself would have to have no bias towards the formation of our
   current suite of alpha-charge particles.  A weaker (and probably more
   easily disproven) scenario would be to propose either the existence
   of "particles" with dual electric/magnetic charge, or the existence
   of four equally distributed types (+,-,N,S) of each charged particle.

   The mathemtical system describing this universe is farfetched to include
   the possibility of multiple vacuua as it cools.  In each of these vacuua
   the original symmetry of particles with regard to em is broken or
   "crystalized" into a particular configuration in which each potential
   particle type now only has two charge configurations, either (+,-) or
   (N,S).  Within any particular vacuum it is impossible to tell whether
   you are (+,-) or (N,S) -- they have the appearance of exactly the same
   particle set with which we are currently familiar.

   The resulting vacuua would be seen to be different only if two of them
   formed "side by side," or if a remnant of one was left within the other.
   Spin quantization makes the spaces totally incompatible without a "kink"
   or soliton boundary to resolve them, resulting in a situation much of
   the same sort as "domain walls," "cosmic strings," and "monopoles" in
   some of the GUT theories.  (For all I know, some of those theories may
   BE the same as what I've just described -- they DO give monopole charge
   solutions, after all.  Could any GUT experts comment?)

So there is the farfetch.  The objective is to propose a *simple* reason
why it cannot work -- a missed fact, a key issue, something of that sort.

So far I haven't seen anything that hits the actual issue closely enough.
Yes, I know all about magnetic field as a result of applying relativity
to the electric field.  And vice-versa if you allow monopoles to exist,
hmm?  In which case you are left with exactly the same particle-charge
asymmetry with respect to hbar that is really my question.

BTW:  No, I do NOT consider the Mystery of Alpha, much talked about in
song, dance, an folklore, to be quite the same question as whether a very
early universe could have had a much simpler, more direct relationship
between charge and hbar.  My question is whether a coherent mathematical
structure could be built up in which the current alpha is not relevant,
and is replaced by a much more direct relationship with hbar.  That does
not necessarily mean that such a mathematical construct would "explain"
the actual value of alpha.

On the other hand... has anyone ever tried to explain alpha as being
the result of multiple-vacuua solutions to a universe that was originally
symmetrical in the way electric and magnetic charge behave?  Doesn't
exactly sound like one of your run-of-the-mill approaches to that little
classic, does it?   }=-)>

                Cheers,
                Terry Bollinger, Physics Twerp


P.S. -- For the rest of you:  "fine-structure constant", "alpha", and
        "1/137" are all fine, fancy ways of talking about the magnitude
        of the charge on an electron -- exactly my original question, as
        in "why are electrons only 1 of these thingies, and anything that
        has a magnetic charge would have to have the equivalent of about
        60 some odd of these thingies?"

        And there you thought we were talking about something impressive!

        Check out Richard Feynman's "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and
        Matter" for a very nice, non-intimidating discussion of the mystery
        surrounding why an electron has this charge, and what it means.


P.S.S - Gee... Nice to see all of those answers to the request for a non-
        technical explanation of "hidden variable" theories!  I'm not even
        sure whether or not I should put in my 2 cents ...