# Magnetic photons?

1. Oct 27, 2007

### Urvabara

Here is the Abdus Salam's http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~hetahein/tiede/salam.pdf [Broken] "MAGNETIC MONOPOLE AND TWO PHOTON THEORIES OF C-VIOLATION".

Questions:
1. What are those $$\chi$$-fields and $$\chi$$-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: May 3, 2017
2. Oct 30, 2007

### blechman

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

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).

A typesetting error. They are ratios.

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.

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.

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?

3. Oct 30, 2007