Tải bản đầy đủ - 0 (trang)
A5. An Example with Equal Masses: Positronium

# A5. An Example with Equal Masses: Positronium

Tải bản đầy đủ - 0trang

54

Cynthia Kolb Whitney

3) The condition defining Ve becomes

meVe2 / re = e2 / (2re )2

The solution is then Ve ≈ e

(A5.6)

me (2re ) × (1 / 2) .

4) The factors for removing the small-angle approximations from PT and PR simplify.

The expression for energy loss rate due to radiation changes from

2

2

⎧1

PR → ⎨ ⎡⎣cos(α − β) + cos(β) ⎤⎦ ⎬ PR to PR → ⎡⎣cos(α / 2) ⎤⎦ PR

2

(A5.7)

5) The expression for the energy gain rate due to torquing changes from

⎧1

PT → ⎨ ⎡⎣sin(α − β) (α − β) + sin(β) β′ ⎤⎦ ⎬ PT to PT → ⎡⎣ sin(α / 2) (α / 2) ⎤⎦ PT (A5.8)

⎩2

35

30

25

20

Series1

Series2

15

10

5

0

1

24

47

70

93

116 139 162 185 208 231 254 277 300

Figure A5.2. Positronium solutions.

Being formally analogous to Hydrogen, Positronium also has a ‘ground-state’, low-speed

solution, plus a family of high-speed sub-ground solutions. Figure A5.2 illustrates the

solutions. The range of system radii starts at 10−16 cm, and goes to 10−11 cm via 301 points.

The ground-state solution occurs between points 269 and 270, at system radius of about

3 × 10−12 cm (quite a bit smaller than the 5.28 × 10−9 cm for the Hydrogen atom), with orbit

Recent Progress in ‘Algebraic Chemistry’

55

speed of about 0.22 c . The other solutions are superluminal, occurring in the vicinity of

V = πc,5πc,9πc,13πc,...

The ‘ground-state’ solution for Positronium occurs at about point 270, where system

radius is about 3.04 × 10−12 cm and V = 0.22c . This state is qualitatively like the groundstate solution for Hydrogen: it is unstable. Any perturbation to the right, to higher energy, is

amplified by energy gain due to torquing, and any perturbation to the left, to lower energy, is

amplified by energy loss due to radiation. As we know from experience, Positronium is

indeed quite unstable; it tends to annihilate itself quite quickly.

The sub-ground solutions for Positronium are startlingly different from the corresponding

sub-ground solutions for Hydrogen: they occur where the energy gain rate due to torquing is

near maximum, not near where it is passing through zero. This is a consequence of the perfect

mass equality of the two particles in Positronium, opposite to the extreme mass inequality of

the particles in Hydrogen. While both Positronium and Hydrogen have dips in the energy loss

rate due to radiation at angle α = π,3π,5π, 7π,.... , Hydrogen has its energy gain rate due to

torquing pass through zero there, whereas Positronium has it passing through maximum there.

The reason for this difference is visible within the mathematics describing energy gain rate

due to torquing:

1. Hydrogen always has angle β ≈ 0 , so for α = π,3π,5π, 7π,.... , both the sin β and the

sin(α − β) involved in the expression for energy gain rate due to torquing pass

through zero.

2. Positronium always has angle β = α / 2 , so sin β = sin(α − β) = sin(α / 2) . The

sin(α / 2) passes through unity at α = π,3π,5π, 7π,....

As a result of this difference between Hydrogen and Positronium, all of the Positronium

superluminal solutions are actually doublets: a solution to the right with higher system radius,

lower orbit speed, and a solution to the left with lower system radius and higher orbit speed.

Within each doublet, the solution to the right is extremely stable: the plot shows that any

perturbation further right, to higher energy, is driven back by energy loss due to radiation, and

any small perturbation left, to lower energy, is driven back by energy gain due to torquing.

The solution to the left is then just the reverse, extremely unstable: any small perturbation

right, to higher energy, is encouraged by energy gain due to torquing, and any perturbation

further left, to lower energy, is encouraged by energy loss due to radiation. Something even

worse is not obvious in the plot, although it is obvious in the mathematics. For this solution to

the left, the factor cos(α / 2) that enters the radial force components is actually slightly

negative. So no such circular orbit can exist at all, unless a retaining radial force arises from

some external circumstance.

The conclusion to remember for future reference is that the Positronium solutions occur

at orbit speeds just slightly below V = (πc,5πc,9πc,13πc) .

56

Cynthia Kolb Whitney

A6. Charges of the Same Sign

Technical journals occasionally feature reports and commentary about the apparently

incomprehensible phenomenon of electrons clustering together. Some of these articles have

been in the Galilean Electrodynamics journal I now edit [29-31]. The phenomenon is widely

known; related literature cited in the third of those references is quite extensive, and some of

it appears in the most widely circulated physics journals.

The non-central forces illustrated in figure A5.1 for Positronium can also provide a

mechanism that can explain charge clusters. As is emphasized by Appendix 2 (A2), there is

no limitation on Galilean speed V ; it can exceed c . Figure A6.1 illustrates a case where two

like charges are orbiting each other at speed V = πc . Because of the ‘mid-point’ feature of

Eqs. (A1.2b), the Coulomb ‘repulsion’ between the two charges is half-retarded, and because

of the super luminal orbit speed, the ‘repulsion’ actually works as attraction.

Figure A6.1. Attraction between two like charges orbiting at superluminal speed V = πc .

Figure A6.1 just constitutes a ‘proof of existence’: there do exist circumstances in which

like charges attract. More detailed analysis of the binary same-charge system begins with

figure A6.2, which is similar to the figure A5.2 for Positronium. The angle α is the sum of

the half retardation angles, both of which are β = α / 2 .

Figure A6.2. Binary charge cluster.

Let us identify exactly what changes are needed to adapt the existing Positronium

analysis to the binary charge cluster. The change from an opposite-charge to a same-charge

system requires that:

Recent Progress in ‘Algebraic Chemistry’

57

1. The two charges nominally repel each other, instead of attracting each other as in the

Positronium case.

2. The radiation created by the system changes form to quadrupole, rather than dipole,

as it was in the Positronium case.

3. The torque on the system everywhere reverses sign from what it was in the

Positronium case.

The Positronium analysis identified intervals π < α < 3π , 5π < α < 7π , 9π < α < 11π ,

etc., within which the attraction between electron and positron works as if it were repulsion.

The complementing intervals 3π < α < 5π , 7π < α < 9π , 11π < α < 13π , etc., must play a

similar role for the same-charge pair: within these intervals, the repulsion between same

charges must work as if it were attraction. Note that figure A6.1 basically illustrated the first

point of the first such interval: α = π .

the opposite-charge Positronium system. The kind of radiation does not matter very much

qualitatively, inasmuch as solutions are associated with dips to zero radiation that are in turn

keyed to speeds at multiples of πc , regardless of what kind of radiation it is.

The sign of torquing is more significant. The Positronium solutions displayed the

existence of regimes of negative torque within which both radiation and torquing cause

energy loss from the system considered. No solution for system balance between radiation

and torquing can exist in these regimes. The excluded intervals for Positronium were

2π < α < 4π , 6π < α < 8π , 10π < α < 12π ,... The complementing intervals 4π < α < 6π ,

8π < α < 10π , 12π < α < 14π ,… are excluded for the same-charge system.

The details of the analysis follow. The angles again satisfy:

α−β ≡β ≡ α / 2

(A6.1)

The initial formula for energy gain due to torquing changes slightly; i.e., from

PT = ( e4 / me ) c(2re )3 to PT = (q 4 / mq ) c(2rq )3

(A6.2)

The ‘same-charge’ condition causes several changes in the initial formula for energy loss

due to radiation. For Positronium we had (slightly rearranged for easy in conversion)

PR = 25 ( e6 / me2 ) 3c3 (2re )4 = 24 (2e6 / me2 ) 3c3 (2re )4

(A6.3)

For one thing, we have q ’s instead of e ’s, as in PT above. In addition, we have

from Jackson [4], P = ck 6Q02 / 240 , and insert, Q0 = 2qd 2 with d = 2rq , and k = Ω / c with

Ω2 = q 2 / mrq d 2 , plus a factor of 26 for the Thomas rotation [28] that this system

experiences due to unbalanced forces. We end up with

### Tài liệu bạn tìm kiếm đã sẵn sàng tải về

A5. An Example with Equal Masses: Positronium

Tải bản đầy đủ ngay(0 tr)

×