Monopoles, Gauge Fields, and Anomalies

  • Alfred S. Goldhaber
Part of the Progress in Physics book series (PMP, volume 9)


The possible catalysis of baryon disintegration by magnetic poles is a beautiful example of the way in which monopoles illuminate fundamental concepts of physics. This hypothetical process is followed step by step, with an effort to minimize arbitrary hypotheses and to state clearly those which remain, as well as the consequences of changing them. The conclusions are that there should be a large cross section for catalysis in collisions of slow monopoles with nucleons, though not with large nuclei, but the intrinsic rate for destruction of a nucleon captured by a pole could be many orders of magnitude below the 1023 per second which characterizes strong interactions. It is argued that Rubakov’s and Callan’s pictures of catalysis are compatible but distinct, and either permits a strong rate but requires at least a weak rate.


Large Cross Section Compton Wavelength Strong Rate Weak Rate Flux Time 
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.


  1. [1]
    C.P. Dokos and T. N. Tomaras, Phys. Rev. D21. 2940 (1980).Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    G.’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B79. 276 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    A. M. Polyakov, JETP Lett. 20, 194 (1974).Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    A. Abouelsaood, to be published. P. Nelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 939 (1983). P. Nelson and A. Manohar, ibid, 943 (1983).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    C. G. Callan, Jr., Phys. Rev. D26, 2058 (1982).Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    J. Arafune and M. Fukugita, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1901 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Stephen J. Parke, SLAC, to be published.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    J. S. Trefil, H. P. Kelly, and R. T. Rood, Nature 302, 111 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    A. S. Goldhaber, in Wingspread Workshop on Magnetic Monopoles, R. A. Carrigan, Jr. and W. P. Trower, eds. ( Plenum, NY ) 1983.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    S. Nussinov and L. Stodolosky, unpublished, (1982).Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    C. G. Callan, Jr., Nucl. Phys. B212, 391 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    V. A Rubakov and M. S. Serebryakov, Nucl. Phys. B128, 240 (1983).Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    E. W. Kolb, S. A. Colgate and J. Harvey, Phys. Rev. Lett 49, 1373 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    S. Dimopoulos, J. Preskill and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett 119B, 320 (1982).Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    M. S. Turner, Nature 302, 804 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    G.’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 8 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Y. Kazama, Univ. of Kyoto, to be published.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    T. Yoneya, Tokyo Univ.,to be published.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    T.-M. Yan, Cornell Univ.,to be published.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    E. Witten, Phys. Lett. 117B, 324 (1982)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alfred S. Goldhaber
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Theoretical PhysicsState University of New York at Stony BrookStony Brook, Long IslandUSA

Personalised recommendations