Magnetic Photons: Abdus Salam's Theory on C-Violation

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Urvabara
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Magnetic Photons
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Abdus Salam's theory on C-violation, particularly focusing on concepts such as magnetic photons, \chi-fields, and the implications of non-minimal operators in quantum field theory (QFT). Participants explore various technical aspects and raise questions regarding the theory's details and current relevance in physics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants describe \chi-fields and \chi-particles as proposed fermions with magnetic charge, suggesting their role in quantum magnetic current in QFT.
  • Non-minimal operators are discussed as higher-order corrections in QFT that extend beyond the minimal coupling condition used in the standard model of particle physics.
  • There is a mention of a typesetting error regarding symbols like ig over m and e over m, which are clarified to be ratios.
  • Some participants propose that B-particles could be interpreted as magnetic photons, indicating Salam's suggestion of a second photon with magnetic couplings.
  • Questions arise about the interaction of mass-less vector mesons emitted by hadrons with atomic electric fields, with one participant expressing confusion and uncertainty about the context of Salam's work.
  • The current status of C-violation is noted, highlighting its maximal violation in weak nuclear interactions, particularly involving W-boson decays.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and uncertainty regarding specific aspects of Salam's theory, indicating that multiple competing views and interpretations remain. The discussion does not reach a consensus on several technical points.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations include the lack of bibliographical information regarding the timing of Salam's paper, which affects the understanding of the context in which these theories were proposed.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for those interested in advanced topics in quantum field theory, particle physics, and the historical context of C-violation theories.

Urvabara
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
Here is the Abdus Salam's http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~hetahein/tiede/salam.pdf "MAGNETIC MONOPOLE AND TWO PHOTON THEORIES OF C-VIOLATION".

Questions:
1. What are those [tex]\chi[/tex]-fields and [tex]\chi[/tex]-particles?
2. What does non-minimal mean?
3. What are those weird symbols: ig over m and e over m? There are no fraction bars.
4. B-particles = magnetic photons?
5. Does all mass-less vector mesons emitted by hadrons interact with atomic electric fields (or decay into leptons)?
6. Current status of C-violation in physics?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Urvabara said:
1. What are those [tex]\chi[/tex]-fields and [tex]\chi[/tex]-particles?

They are proposed fermions that have magnetic charge. This is what the quantum magnetic current would look like in QFT.

2. What does non-minimal mean?

Minimal operators are the lowest-order operator out of an infinite collection of operators. Minimal coupling is a condition for the standard model of particle physics. When considering higher-order corrections in a QFT, you often must include non-minimal operators. But it is usually sufficient to start with a minimal set, and build on it later. Notice that the non-minimal operators are suppressed by the mass (see below).


3. What are those weird symbols: ig over m and e over m? There are no fraction bars.

A typesetting error. They are ratios.

4. B-particles = magnetic photons?

Salam was proposing the existence of a second photon with "magnetic" couplings rather than the ordinary QED photon with "electric" couplings. Such a new field would have different transformation laws.

5. Does all mass-less vector mesons emitted by hadrons interact with atomic electric
fields (or decay into leptons)?

I'm confused by this point. I can't put it into context, since the link you sent does not have bibliographical information, so I'm not sure when it was that Salam wrote this. Maybe someone else can answer this (or if you can clarify the question for me, I'll give it another try). At a guess: yes, they do. There's been no substantiated evidence of a magnetic photon, or a magnetic monopole.

6. Current status of C-violation in physics?

C is maximally violated in weak nuclear interactions involving W-boson decays (there are no L-handed anti-neutrinos). Again, I would need to see *when* Salam wrote this paper to have an idea of what he was thinking about: he was, after all, the guy that figured out how the weak nuclear force worked, but was that before or after this paper?
 
Thanks for the reply!

blechman said:
A typesetting error. They are ratios.
Ok. I have updated the file.

blechman said:
no L-handed anti-neutrinos). Again, I would need to see *when* Salam wrote this paper to have an idea of what he was thinking about: he was, after all, the guy that figured out how the weak nuclear force worked, but was that before or after this paper?

A. Salam (1966). "Magnetic monopole and two photon theories of C-violation". Physics Letters 22: 683-684.
 
Anything new about this?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K