Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

160 submissions , 130 unreviewed
4,191 questions , 1,562 unanswered
5,027 answers , 21,345 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
593 active unimported users
More ...

  Fermionic field configuration from magnetic monopole?

+ 1 like - 0 dislike
92 views

In the quantum mechanics problem of a charged particle interacting with a magnetic monopole field, the orbital angular momentum ends up being quantized in units of half integer spin. This appears for instance in Dirac's 1931 paper on the topic.

Using the idea that magnetic charge $g$ and electric charge $e$ obey a quantization condition $$eg = 2\pi n \hbar,$$

we can see that this has a semi-classical analogue in that we can define the angular momentum of the total field of the magnetic monopole at the origin and the point charge at position $\vec{r}$ as $$\vec J_{field}=\int \vec r'\times(\vec E\times \vec B)dV' = -\frac{eg}{4\pi}\hat{r}=-\frac{n}{2}\hbar \hat{r}.$$

So for odd values of $n$ this is quantized in half integers.

So I'm wondering what is going on here in terms of spin and statistics? Can a charged particle and magnetic monopole (both bosons, say) together be treated as a fermionic dyon?

I've read a 1968 paper by Finkelstein and Rubinstein showing how topological defects of bosonic fields could be fermionic, is there a relation to this case?

asked Feb 13 in Theoretical Physics by octonion (145 points) [ revision history ]
edited Feb 14 by octonion

What field do you insert in your integral $\vec J_{field}=\int \vec r\times(\vec E\times \vec B)dV$? If it is of a resting electron, then this integral is equal to zero since $\vec B=0$.

It is also unclear why your integral is equal to $-\frac{eg}{4\pi}\hat{r}=-\frac{n}{2}\hbar \hat{r}$. Is it a definition?

B is the magnetic Coulomb field of a magnetic monopole, E is an electric Coulomb field. Evaluate the integral as an exercise and use the quantization condition $eg=2\pi n \hbar$ and you will see the result.

So your magnetic monopole is electrically charged too?

There are two particles, "a charged particle interacting with a magnetic monopole field." I edited the sentence about the fields and put a prime on the variables in the integral so hopefully it's more clear if you want to try it yourself.

Thank you for your explanation (there are two particles). But I feel myself uncomfortable about this integral because it uses the instant values of the fields. I wonder whether these two particles will stay at the same distanse when the time is running. Because in absence of other fields the angular momentum $\vec{J}$ may be a conserved quantity.

They won't stay the same distance. This $J_{field}$ is not separately conserved, the total angular momentum which includes the orbital angular momentum of the point charge about the monopole is conserved. You can see that just by taking the time derivative of $\vec{r}\times(m\vec{v})$ and using the Lorentz force law.

That integral is not something I came up with, by the way. It goes back to JJ Thompson in 1904. I'm guessing that my actual question is also something that has been answered a long time ago too.

I see. You mean something like an atomic configuration. In order to give some meaning to $\vec{J}$, this quantity must appear naturally in some "atomic" calculation. Take as an example a Hydrogen atom in some $|n,l,m\rangle$ state and give us a situation where its electromagnetic field matters. Then we will see some analogy with your "dion".

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysic$\varnothing$Overflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...