How Would Quantum Forces Change If the Classical Charge Equation Altered?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kurious
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Charges Forces
kurious
Messages
633
Reaction score
0
If the classical attraction between two coulomb charges was
constant x q1 x q2 / r ^3 or another constant x q1 x q2/ r^4 instead of
k x q1 x q2 / r ^2 (perhaps the constants could still be the
same-though I doubt it)
what would be the force relations on a quantum scale using coupling
constants?
Also what are the force relations if the r terms are on the top line
so force increases with distance?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Terms and Conditions - Posting Style Guide - Posting FAQ
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't quite understand what you are asking.
Maybe you can show which "normal" (i.e., with an inverse square law) version of "force relations on a quantum scale" you are thinking about, so that we can speculate on how they change if r^2 is replaced by r^3.

Also, it may help to know your motivation for this question.
 
If qft can derive kqq/r*r for large distances then at short distances shouldn't the force between charges be expressible in terms of a similar relation with different power of r and a different value of k.
 
Thread 'Why is there such a difference between the total cross-section data? (simulation vs. experiment)'
Well, I'm simulating a neutron-proton scattering phase shift. The equation that I solve numerically is the Phase function method and is $$ \frac{d}{dr}[\delta_{i+1}] = \frac{2\mu}{\hbar^2}\frac{V(r)}{k^2}\sin(kr + \delta_i)$$ ##\delta_i## is the phase shift for triplet and singlet state, ##\mu## is the reduced mass for neutron-proton, ##k=\sqrt{2\mu E_{cm}/\hbar^2}## is the wave number and ##V(r)## is the potential of interaction like Yukawa, Wood-Saxon, Square well potential, etc. I first...
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...

Similar threads

Replies
44
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
10K
Replies
7
Views
9K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top