LostConjugate said:
So there is a force besides the electromagnetic force as you explained in the hydrogen ion situation.
No, that is not really correct. The "force" you are referring to is not something new, it is the result of considering small perturbations to the average electronic wavefunctions of the isolated atoms. Another way of saying this is that it can be represented as the gradient of an interaction potential arising from small fluctuations in the electronic clouds of the atomic systems, which are made up of individual electrons and protons interacting via the EM force. So the only true force in the system is still just the EM force, the rest of it is a high-level approximate treatment.
This may still be what you are looking for, but I want to be as clear as I can about where it comes from.
LostConjugate said:
What if you had a lot of protons, like a very large number of them all in one spot, well close together. Each one had an electron so the entire assembly was electrically neutral. And you had a neutral Hydrogen Atom far away at distance r.
There should be a force between the huge proton collection potential well and this Hydrogen Atom somewhere r distance away due to what we have spoken of above.
Can it be calculated what the force would be for any given distance r? Where r is far enough way to exclude tidal forces.
Well, I wouldn't use H-atoms as you have done, because they are fermions, and thus have a whole other bag full of spin-related phenomena to deal with. However, if you use helium-4 atoms for your particles, then the dispersion forces we have been talking about are the largest terms in the interaction potential.
However, calculating the interaction potential is tricky. To a first approximation, if you know what the force is between two H-atoms as described above, you can represent the force between the isolated H-atom and the collection you describe as a sum over pairwise potentials. However, this is not precise, because higher level interactions between multiple particles come into play.
For example, it is known that the total dispersion forces among a triplet of atoms is *not* simply the sum of pairwise interaction, but that there is a new 3-body interaction that must be considered as well. To make matters worse, this 3-body interaction is not positive definite, like pairwise dispersion forces, and thus will not always increase the interaction energy. The interaction energy is computed as the sum of a (convergent) infinite series of many-body interactions.
Now, in practice, it is usually a good approximation to truncate the series after the pairwise terms, but the results are then not precise. So like I said, this is an approximate method that can be useful, but wouldn't really be suitable as a basis for a "new" conservative force, as you seemed to be seeking in your first post.