Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

A new derivation of Dirac's magnetic monopole strength

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.

2003 Eur. J. Phys. 24 111

(http://iopscience.iop.org/0143-0807/24/2/351)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:

IP Address: 128.59.222.12
This content was downloaded on 21/08/2014 at 02:28

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS
Eur. J. Phys. 24 (2003) 111–114 PII: S0143-0807(03)36133-1

A new derivation of Dirac’s magnetic

monopole strength
P V Panat
Department of Physics, University of Pune, Pune-411 007, Maharashtra, India

Received 24 April 2002, in final form 18 November 2002

Published 13 January 2003
Online at stacks.iop.org/EJP/24/111

Abstract
A new derivation of the strength of Dirac’s magnetic monopole is presented
which does not require an explicit form of the magnetic induction in terms of
g, the magnetic pole strength. The derivation essentially uses a modification of
Faraday’s law of induction and quantization of angular momentum.

1. Introduction

It was usual in introductory texts of earlier days to postulate two types of magnetic pole (or
sources), namely the magnetic ‘north pole’ and the magnetic ‘south pole’. This is done in
analogy with electrostatics where two types of charge occur. In electricity, the two types of
charge are designated as positive and negative charges and are quantized with the basic unit
of |e| = 4.8 × 10−10 esu (or 1.6 × 10−19 C). In magnetism, however, it is found that, no
matter how small one makes pieces of magnet, north and south poles are inseparable. If such
an isolated pole was to be discovered, then, in analogy with electrostatics, it would become
natural to postulate a force law of 1/r 2 type, where the isolated poles would experience a
central force. However, we see no isolated magnetic poles. We therefore say that no magnetic
monopole has been hitherto discovered. We always see that a magnet manifests at least as
a dipole. This means that the magnetic flux threaded by any closed surface is zero. This
remains true even in a time-varying situation. Maxwell incorporated it as one of his equations,
namely ∇
· B
= 0. Under these circumstances, we are forced to use an Amperian model
in which the magnetic field in the matter is produced by a multitude of tiny rings of electric
current distributed throughout the magnetic material, which leads us to infer that the matter is
constituted of electric charges. So far, this conclusion is not challenged by any experimental
evidence because, so far, no magnetic monopole has been found experimentally. Dirac, true to
his reputation of extracting a physical meaning from apparently anomalous situations (e.g. e+ ),
was fascinated by the possibility of the existence of the two types of magnetic monopole. He
related the magnetic monopole strength to the electric charge strength (electronic charge) e
via quantum mechanics.
Dirac’s idea of a magnetic monopole has lured many top-ranking physicists since its
enunciation in 1931 [1]. This is chiefly for two reasons, namely, (1) it is intrinsically beautiful
and (2) even if one magnetic monopole exists in the universe, that would entail the discrete
0143-0807/03/020111+04$30.00 © 2003 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK 111
112 P V Panat

(quantized) nature of electric charge. Despite the failure of experimental endeavors to track
down a free magnetic monopole, many theoretical as well as experimental papers still continue
to appear in the literature. Dirac’s original argument hinges on two basic assumptions [2]:
(1) there should be least deviation from the accepted form of electromagnetic theory and (2)
the existence of a vector potential A(

r , t) is assumed which naturally manifests in the minimal
coupling of the electron monopole interaction Hamiltonian Hint as
e

Hint = e
− p
· A, (1)
mc
where the monopole strength g enters through the vector potential A(

r , t),
being a scalar
potential. Here, we use the Gaussian (cgs) system of units. Subsequently, Dirac invented a
string of magnetic dipoles attached to the monopole extending up to infinity where another
monopole of strength −g is attached. The shape of the string is arbitrary. Each shape gives rise
to a vector potential. All of these shapes of the string give rise to different vector potentials,
which are gauge equivalent. The monopole strength g appears in the calculation of the vector
potential A(

r , t).
Dirac then calculated the solid angle subtended by the surface of two configurations of the
strings at the point of observation. This solid angle times g is Dirac’s gauge function which
appears in quantum mechanics in the phase of the electronic wavefunction. The single-valued
nature of the wavefunction then gives the well known value of lowest magnetic monopole
strength in terms of e, c and h̄, as
2eg
= h̄. (2)
c
It appears that in this derivation, the idea of string must be invoked because B
= ∇
× A

must hold. Moreover, to get A
in terms of g, one needs some length measure such that the
associated magnetic moment is expressed in terms of g. This length is a length of the string of
dipoles of Dirac. The monopole field is then defined as the difference between B
and B
 where
B
 is the magnetic induction on the string [2]. Another argument is given by Goldhaber [3];
it discusses scattering of an electron in the field of a magnetic monopole. He tacitly assumes
the impulse approximation, in conjunction with the Coulomb-type force law B
= rg2 r̂ and
calculates the angular momentum imparted to the electron in the process of scattering with
the assumption that the smallest change in the angular momentum (orbital) of the electron is
quantized in units of h̄. Goldhaber equates the change of angular momentum of the electron
to h̄ and gets Dirac’s condition of equation (2). Goldhaber’s arguments give the correct factors
of equation (2), which were missing in the earlier derivations of Saha [4] and of Wilson [5].

2. A new derivation of Dirac’s result

We now present an alternative derivation which does not invoke the specific form of the
Coulomb-type relationship between B
and g. In Goldhaber’s derivation, the scattering centre
is the monopole and it is the electron that gets scattered. We present an alternative approach
in which the electron is stationary and the monopole is moving in the field of the electron with
a velocity v
(along the y-axis) so large in magnitude that its trajectory is hardly altered. Let
the coordinates of the electron be (0, 0, b). At any instant t, the magnetic charge density ρm
and magnetic current density J
m are
ρm = gδ(x)δ(z)δ(y − vt) (3a)


Jm = g v
δ(x)δ(z)δ(y − vt). (3b)
The monopole modifies the conventional Maxwell equations in vacuum to




× B
= 1 ∂ E + 4π Je
∇ (3c)
c ∂t c
A new derivation of Dirac’s magnetic monopole strength 113

Figure 1. The instantaneous positions of the electron and the monopole in a scattering event.

· B
= 4πρm
∇ (3d)



∇
× E
= − 1 ∂ B − 4π Jm (3e)
c ∂t c
∇
· E
= 4πρe . (3f)
Here, ρe and J
e are the electric charge and electric current density respectively.
A crucial modification of Faraday’s law will now be used: as the monopole moves from
y = −∞ to +∞, the electric field produced along the ring L in figure 1 is

= − 1 ∂
m − 4πgvδ(y − vt)
| E| (4)
2πbc ∂t 2πbc
where
m is the magnetic flux.
The total impulse imparted to the electron in the x-direction is then

∞ +∞
e  2eg
Px = eE dt = −
m  + . (5)
−∞ 2πbc bc
−∞
Clearly, the magnetic flux term
m has the same value at t = ±∞ and thus cancels out. It
should be noted that the evaluation of
m needs a specific form of the force law; however,
any physically sustainable theory would require a force to go to zero when the finite source
is at infinity. At worse, on the other hand, the force could be a constant. This will decide the
value of
m . This
m will have the same value when the monopole is at y → −∞ as when
it is at y → ∞. Thus, if initially the electron is at rest, then the minimum change in angular
momentum of the electron, which is quantized, is b Px . The
m term in equation (5) is zero
and thus we get
2eg
= h̄ (6)
c
which is Dirac’s result.

3. Discussion

It is to be noted that, in the derivation of equation (6), no specific law of force is invoked to find

m and the corresponding term in equation (5) is zero by symmetry arguments. Moreover,
since the vector potential does not appear explicitly anywhere, the concept of string is not
necessary. Since we have used integrated quantities and not trajectories under a specific
114 P V Panat

equation of motion, our derivation is general. Moreover, our derivation shows that we can
exploit the symmetry of modified Maxwell equations in E
and B.
While Goldhaber solves
the equation of motion of an electron in the monopole field, here we use a modification of
Faraday’s laws in the presence of the monopole. We calculate the force on the electron as
e E
which is the Lorentz force for the stationary electron. With Goldhaber’s arguments, and
usage of the Ampere–Maxwell relation to calculate the angular momentum imparted to the
monopole, one obtains an equation similar to equation (5) except that
m will be replaced

e , E
by − B
and force by g B
and we will get the same result as in equation (6). This is a
consequence of the duality transformation, also manifest in the electromagnetic field tensor
F µν and its dual.

Acknowledgments

I acknowledge my senior students who aroused my interest in this topic while I was taking
their electrodynamics class. I thank Dr P Durganandini for valuable discussion. I also thank
Dr R K Pathak and Dr Banpurkar for improving the quality of this manuscript.

References
[1] Dirac P A M 1931 Proc. R. Soc. A 133 60
[2] Jackson J D 1975 Classical Electrodynamics 2nd edn (New York: Wiley) pp 251–60
[3] Goldhaber A S 1965 Phys. Rev. B 140 1407
[4] Saha M N 1936 Ind. J. Phys. 10 141
[5] Wilson H A 1949 Phys. Rev. 75 309