Electric Charge in Composite Magnetic Monopole Theories

  • Alfred S. Goldhaber
Part of the Studies in the Natural Sciences book series (SNS, volume 10)


It is observed that the spin approach to the interaction of electric charges with magnetic monopoles leads naturally to theories with composite monopoles made from SU(2) gauge fields. The key steps are to express the “electromagnetic field angular momentum” associated with a charge-pole system as a quantum-mechanical spin operator (as was done some years ago) and then to identify this spin operator as the generator of SU(2) transformations on charged-particle wave functions. It is emphasized that composite monopoles may not occur unless electric charge is one of the operators of an SU(2) symmetry. The formalism for conservation of electric charge, and quantization of the electric charge of a monopole, is developed at a “first-quantized” level. Speculations are given on high energy charge-pole scattering. Some problems with second quantization are discussed, and the possibility is raised that there may be an infinite mass renormalization of a composite monopole which has finite mass in the classical approximation.


Gauge Theory Electric Charge Wave Packet Gauge Field Magnetic Monopole 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    P. B. Price, E. K. Shirk, W. Z. Osborne and L. S. Pinsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 35, 487 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. P. B. Price, these proceedings.Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    H. Poincaré, Compt. Rend. 123, 530 (1896).Google Scholar
  4. 3.
    P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) A133, 60 (1931).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. P. A. M. Dirac, these proceedings.Google Scholar
  6. 4.
    D. Rosenbaum, Phys. Rev. 147, 891 (1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 5.
    A. S. Goldhaber and J. Smith, Rep. Prog. Phys. 38, 731 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 6.
    A. S. Goldhaber, Phys. Rev. 140, B1407 (1965). In this paper the Hamiltonian in Eq. 2 was written down, and shown to be equivalent to that of Dirac, avoiding the singular string in return for the introduction of 2s redundant components of the wave function. However, H was not recognized as the square of a velocity operator, and the connection with gauge theory described below was not made.Google Scholar
  9. 7.
    H. J. Lipkin, W. I. Weisberger and M. Peshkin, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.) 53, 203 (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 8.
    C. N. Yang and R. L. Mills, Phys. Rev. 96, 191 (1954).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 9.
    T. T. Wu and C. N. Yang, in Properties of Matter Under Unusual Conditions, (H. Mark and S. Fernbach, eds., Interscience, N. Y.), 349 (1969). In this work the point monopole gauge field (Eq. 5) was written down, but not recognized as a magnetic pole.Google Scholar
  12. 10.
    An elementary consequence of this derivation of the SU(2) gauge field formulation of monopole theory is that the isospin of a single-particle wave function contributes to the total angular momentum. After all, the starting point was,L = k + sti, but from s from the gauge field formalism by R. Jackiw and C. Rebbi in an MIT preprint, “Spin from Isospin in a Gauge Theory,” C. T. P. 524, February, 1976. They refer to a recent preprint by M. Prasad and C. Sommerfield, which I have not seen. A similar observation has been made by P. Hasenfratz and G. t Hooft, Phys. Rev. Lett., in press.Google Scholar
  13. 11.
    G. ‘t Hooft, Nuc. Phys. B79, 276 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 12.
    A. M. Polyakov, ZhETF Pis. Red. 20, 430 (1974).Google Scholar
  15. M. Polyakov, JETP Lett. 20, 194 (1974).Google Scholar
  16. 13.
    There has been some confusion about this because the word “monopole” has been associted with topological properties of constructs which do not produce the Lorentz force of a magnetic pole on an electrically charged particle. From a matter-of-fact point of view then, these SU(3) gauge field solutions have nothing to do with magnetic monopoles, and do not contradict the assertions made here. A. Chakrabarti, Nucl. Phys. B101, 159 (1975)Google Scholar
  17. W. J. Marciano and H. Pagels, Phys. Rev. D12, l093 (1975).Google Scholar
  18. W. J. Marciano and H. Pagels, Phys. Rev. D12, l093 (1975).Google Scholar
  19. 15.
    B. Julia and A. Zee, Phys. Rev. Dll, 2227 (1975).Google Scholar
  20. M. K. Prasad and C. M. Sommerfield, Phys. Rev. Lett. 35, 760 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 16.
    A. H. Guth has informed me that the charge density operator can be obtained in a straight-forward manner. It is a nonlocal function of deviations from the static monopole gauge field.Google Scholar
  22. 17.
    I. Tamm, Z. Phys. 71, 141 (1932).Google Scholar
  23. 18.
    P. P. Banderet, Heiv. Phys. Acta 19, 503 (1946).Google Scholar
  24. 19.
    T. T. Wu and C. N. Yang, Phys, Rev. D12, 3845 (1975) and to be published. The different regions overlap, and in the overlap of 2 regions both gauges are defined and non-singular. The transformation between the two gauges must be single-valued.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alfred S. Goldhaber
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Theoretical PhysicsState University of New York at Stony BrookUSA

Personalised recommendations