0

In terms, which someone with a background in chemical physics & quantum chemistry might understand, what is the evidence that the strong force, across whatever its range is, follows something other than an inverse square law?

a) Specifically, as when the strong force is is said to be "~137" times the strength of the electromagnetic force, and the "~137" factor derives from the expression for the fine structure constant, which 1) explicitly is a function of electric charge squared, and 2) explicitly comprises the constant for the electromagnetic inverse law expression.

b) All fundamental are conservative and the only $1/r^n$ force function that is conservative is the $1/r^2$ force function, which is the inverse square law.

c) Do not a) and b) imply that over whatever range the strong force occurs that it obeys the inverse force law, and as regardless of charges of interacting particles, the strong force is attractive, that the strong force then is proportionate to (-)absolute value of the product of the electric charge of the interacting particles?

jng224
  • 3,697
Doc
  • 23
  • 3
    Why do you think (b) is true? – jacob1729 Aug 03 '21 at 09:35
  • related: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/270020/50583 – ACuriousMind Aug 03 '21 at 09:38
  • An inverse square law is conservative, however, a conservative force need not be an inverse square law (Hooks law for example, the spring force is conservative.) so your assertion is already flawed. – Triatticus Aug 03 '21 at 09:45
  • In the c) part, you mean that since the factor 137 is a function of the electric charge, then the strong force would be proportional to the electric charge of the particles involved? Do I understand correctly your question? – Prallax Aug 03 '21 at 10:00
  • My understanding of the CORRESPONDENCE PRINCIPLE is that in the classical limit, wave-particle descriptions will produce the correct particle result, which for a stationary state, corresponds to a closed orbit that is only produced by 1/r^2. – Doc Aug 03 '21 at 16:52
  • As per the answer, you are still assuming $\frac{1}{r^2}$ is the only central force that has closed orbits, and this is still wrong. – Triatticus Aug 03 '21 at 17:01
  • I had not considered the modeling of strong force as being proportionate to r, which I understand is the only other central force which produces a closed orbit, and am not adverse to that, but it seems to me that the Bohr-de Broglie two-particle model from which the fine structure constant derives, inherently follows an inverse law formulation. As such -and this is upon which my question hinges- it by elementary dimensional analysis seems to me that the strong force follows an inverse force law proportionate to the (-) product of the charges of the particles. – Doc Aug 03 '21 at 17:05
  • It seems to me that there could be some misconceptions:
    • The correspondence principle cannot be used when talking about the strong interaction, because there is no classical limit of the strong interaction. It is a purely quantum phenomenon.
    • The magnitude of the strong interaction between two color charged particles has nothing to do with their electromagnetic charge. For instance, the gluons are electromagnetically neutral (zero charge) but have color, so they interact strongly
    – Prallax Aug 04 '21 at 15:37
  • As you observed, in the classical limit, the Youkawa potential becomes the coulomb potential, which I think demonstrates correspondence. In any case this is tangential to my inquiry, and the results obtained using the dimensional/formulaic analysis alluded above seems to hold water as far as I have been able to carry it, hence, my questions... – Doc Aug 04 '21 at 20:59

1 Answers1

6

$1/r^2$ is not the only conservative force

Maybe your confusion stems from Bertrand's theorem, which states that $f(r) \propto 1/r^2$ and $f(r) \propto r$ are the only central forces for which all bound orbits are closed.

In general every spherically symmetric central force is conservative.

Yukawa interaction between nucleons

Even if the fundamental strong interaction happens between quarks and is mediated by gluons, also nucleons (protons and neutrons) feel the strong interaction, despite being color neutral. An analogy could be the Van der Waals force, which is electromagnetic, but can happen between globally neutral molecules.

Strong interaction between nucleons can described as if mediated by pions, which (unlike the photon or the gluon) are massive particles. An interaction mediate by massive particles can be described by the Yukawa potential

$$V(r) \propto \frac{e^{-r /\lambda}}{r}$$

where $\lambda = {\hbar \over mc}$ is the De Broglie wavelength of the pion (m is the mass of the pion). This is a generalization of the inverse square law. Indeed, if you put $m=0$, you obtain the electromagnetic potential, which is correct, because the photon is massless. Instead, if you use the mass of the pion, you see that the potential goes to zero way faster than the $1/r$ electromagnetic potential, hence the short range.

Strong interaction between quarks

The interaction between quarks is different. It is mediated by gluons, which are massless and therefore should be long range, but we need to consider the effects of asymptotic freedom and confinement that make the range of the interaction very short.

The bottom line is that the strong interaction at its most fundamental level must be treated with the QCD formalism and cannot be described just as a classical force $f(r)$.

Prallax
  • 2,859
  • I had not considered modeling the strong force as being proportionate to r, but given the apparent asserted relation of the fine structure constant to quantifying the strength of the strong force relative to the electromagnetic force with the implicit inverse law relation to the formulation of the fine structure constant AND with your observation that in the classical limit the Youkawa potential corresponds to the inverse law, so, without postulating pions or gluons, if you are saying the strong force follows the Youkawa potential, how is this evidenced? – Doc Aug 03 '21 at 18:22
  • 1
    I do not suggest that you model the strong force as being proportional to r. I meant to say that every central force is conservative, not just 1/r^2 or r, which are special only because they produce closed orbits, which imo is an irrelevant property in this context – Prallax Aug 04 '21 at 15:23
  • Anyway, I must confess that I could not follow your reasoning in this comment. I got lost in the subordinate clauses, I'm sorry – Prallax Aug 04 '21 at 15:26
  • Welcome to the albeit not a very exclusive "Cannot Understand My Subordinate Clauses Club", and thank you for your patience! The Bohr-de Broglie wave-particle model is an inverse law model. In the classical limit, stationary states correspond to closed orbits. Similarly, as you observed, the Youkawa potential corresponds to the inverse law, coulomb potential. My error in mischaracterizing 1/r^2 as the only conservative central force, otherwise, is tangential to my inquiry. – Doc Aug 04 '21 at 18:58
  • To restate the basis of my questions, 1) the fine structure constant derives from the Bohr-de Broglie model, which as noted above explicitly entails the inverse law. 2) The strength of the strong force standardly is quantified relative to the coulomb force through the fine structure constant, and now with your mention of the Youkawa potential, it is to be observed that the Youkawa potential explicitly includes the fine structure constant (besides as noted above corresponds to an inverse potential). I with some success have modelled quark binding using this framework. – Doc Aug 04 '21 at 19:06
  • As such, I would like to understand what is the evidence that demonstrates quark binding produces stationary states, which are described by something other than them sitting in an inverse law potential. I am a retied physician who had a short career in chemical physics and quantum chemistry. Atomic & molecular geometries primarily are determined by consideration of the electromagnetic potentials of their constituent electrons and nuclei. – Doc Aug 04 '21 at 19:24
  • Modelling: the strong force as an inverse law, including electromagnetic interactions, using relativistic masses, and modeling quark-pairs using the Bohr-de Broglie model accurately produces both the neutron and proton total quark binding energies as well as providing an explicit description for nuclear lattice structure. What to me is remarkable is that while atomic & molecular structure is modelled as particles (nuclei) orbited by wave-particles (electrons), nuclear structure entirely is composed of just wave-particles (quarks)... So, is their a physicist in the house? – Doc Aug 04 '21 at 19:40
  • I would like to point out some obvious facts, just to be sure that we agree on this. – Prallax Aug 05 '21 at 14:30
  • I would like to continue either this mid-afternoon, or catch-as-catch-can through the weekend. Sorry for the delay, and again, I appreciate discussing this with you. – Doc Aug 05 '21 at 15:11