Coulomb's law without a pure inverse square relationship?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the implications of modifying Coulomb's law to a form that includes a finite range, specifically examining a force that varies as $$e^{-\lambda r}/r^2$$ instead of the traditional inverse square relationship. Participants consider the theoretical consequences of such a modification on established laws of electromagnetism, including Gauss's law and Maxwell's equations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that a force varying as $$e^{-\lambda r}/r^2$$ would lead to significant changes in the behavior of electric fields and the application of Gauss's law.
  • Others argue that while the modified force would not "break physics," it would result in different physical laws and consequences that deviate from current understanding.
  • A later reply questions whether the specific form $$e^{-ar}/r^2$$ is unique, suggesting that any function that falls off faster than $$1/r^2$$ would behave differently than those that fall off slower.
  • It is noted that the uniqueness of the $$1/r^2$$ relationship is tied to various symmetries and principles in physics, including implications for atomic physics and quantum mechanics.
  • One participant introduces the Yukawa potential as an example of a static potential with mass, discussing its derivation and relation to the modified Coulomb potential.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of modifying Coulomb's law, with some emphasizing the uniqueness of the $$1/r^2$$ relationship and others suggesting that various forms could yield different but valid physical theories. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the specific consequences of such modifications.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the nature of electric forces and their mathematical representations, as well as the implications for established physical theories, which are not fully explored or resolved.

Buffu
Messages
851
Reaction score
147
If we try to imagine how things would be if electric force were not a pure inverse square force but instead a force with finite range, for instance, a force varying like $$e^{-\lambda r}\over r^2$$, ...

Then it goes on explaining how Gauss law would fail because for a very large surface, E field would be vanish with flux through it and though we can calculate div for this field it won't depend on source density.

But I don't get what makes this particular function so evil that it would break physics, I can see that fallout rate is exponentially large for this function than would for a "pure inverse relationship".

Basically I want to know what makes this function so different than the ##1/r^2## relationship ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Buffu said:
Then it goes on explaining how Gauss law would fail because for a very large surface, E field would be vanish with flux through it and though we can calculate div for this field it won't depend on source density.

But I don't get what makes this particular function so evil that it would break physics, I can see that fallout rate is exponentially large for this function than would for a "pure inverse relationship".

Basically I want to know what makes this function so different than the ##1/r^2## relationship ?

"Break physics" is too vague. I think the main point is that there are consequences beyond the obvious. Maxwell's equations and all of electromagnetism would be much different.

Physics would still work, but it would work much differently from what we are used to.
 
Dr. Courtney said:
"Break physics" is too vague. I think the main point is that there are consequences beyond the obvious. Maxwell's equations and all of electromagnetism would be much different.

Physics would still work, but it would work much differently from what we are used to.

So nothing special about ##e^{-ar}/r^2## ? it could be anything except ##1/r^2## ?
 
Buffu said:
So nothing special about ##e^{-ar}/r^2## ? it could be anything except ##1/r^2## ?

Yes, but things that fall off faster than ##1/r^2## turn out to be much different from things that fall off slower than ##1/r^2##.

##1/r^2## is unique and special for lots of reasons, among them are Gauss's law and Maxwell's equations. But there are also some symmetries to ##1/r^2## that give rise to special and unique things in quantum mechanics: for example the degenerate energy levels of the hydrogen atom. Atomic physics and chemistry will all change significantly if there are significant deviations from the existing Coulomb's law.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Buffu
The Yukawa potential is the static potential due to a field with mass. In this case instead of the Poisson Equation you get
$$(\Delta+m^2)\phi=-\rho.$$
Now to get the Green function, i.e., the solution for a poin charge ##\rho=Q \delta^{(3)}(\vec{x})##, use a Fourier transform,
$$\phi(\vec{x})=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{k} \frac{1}{(2 \pi)^3} \tilde{\phi}(\vec{k}) \exp(\mathrm{i} \vec{x} \cdot \vec{k}).$$
Inserting this ansatz into the equation you get
$$(k^2+m^2) \tilde{\phi}=1 \; \Rightarrow \; \tilde{\phi}(\vec{k})=\frac{1}{k^2+m^2}.$$
For the Fourier integral you introduce spherical coordinates with the polar axis along ##\vec{x}##. After some algebra you are left with
$$\phi(\vec{x})=\frac{1}{4 \pi^2 r} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \mathrm{d} k \frac{k}{k^2+m^2} \sin(k r).$$
This integral can be solved with the usual trick making ##k## complex and close the contour by a large semicircle in the upper (lower) plane for the ##\exp(\mathrm{i} k r)## (##\exp(-\mathrm{i} k r)##) part of the sine. You pick up the poles at ##\mathrm{i} m## (##-\mathrm{i}m##), respectively, leading finally to
$$\phi(\vec{x})=\frac{1}{4 \pi r^2} \exp(-m r).$$
Of course, for ##m=0## you get back the Green's function for ##-\Delta##, i.e., the Coulomb potential for a unit charge.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Buffu

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K