Physicists create synthetic magnetic monopole predicted more than 80 years ago

Jan 29, 2014
Physicists create synthetic magnetic particle
Artistic illustration of the synthetic magnetic monopole. Credit: Heikka Valja.

(Phys.org) —Nearly 85 years after pioneering theoretical physicist Paul Dirac predicted the possibility of their existence, an international collaboration led by Amherst College Physics Professor David S. Hall '91 and Aalto University (Finland) Academy Research Fellow Mikko Möttönen has created, identified and photographed synthetic magnetic monopoles in Hall's laboratory on the Amherst campus. The groundbreaking accomplishment paves the way for the detection of the particles in nature, which would be a revolutionary development comparable to the discovery of the electron.

A paper about this work co-authored by Hall, Möttönen, Amherst postdoctoral research associate Michael Ray, Saugat Kandel '12 and Finnish graduate student Emmi Ruokokski was published today in the journal Nature.

"The creation of a synthetic should provide us with unprecedented insight into aspects of the natural magnetic monopole—if indeed it exists," said Hall, explaining the implications of his work.

Ray, the paper's lead author and first to sight the monopoles in the laboratory, agreed, noting: "This is an incredible discovery. To be able to confirm the work of one of the most famous physicists is probably a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. I am proud and honored to have been part of this great collaborative effort."

Ordinarily, magnetic poles come in pairs: they have both a north pole and a south pole. As the name suggests, however, a magnetic monopole is a magnetic particle possessing only a single, isolated pole—a north pole without a south pole, or vice versa. In 1931, Dirac published a paper that explored the nature of these monopoles in the context of quantum mechanics. Despite extensive experimental searches since then, in everything from lunar samples—moon rock—to ancient fossilized minerals, no observation of a naturally-occurring magnetic monopole has yet been confirmed.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

Hall's team adopted an innovative approach to investigating Dirac's theory, creating and identifying synthetic magnetic monopoles in an artificial magnetic field generated by a Bose-Einstein condensate, an extremely cold atomic gas tens of billionths of a degree warmer than absolute zero. The team relied upon theoretical work published by Möttönen and his student Ville Pietilä that suggested a particular sequence of changing could lead to the creation of the synthetic monopole. Their experiments subsequently took place in the atomic refrigerator built by Hall and his students in his basement laboratory in the Merrill Science Center.

After resolving many technical challenges, the team was rewarded with photographs that confirmed the monopoles' presence at the ends of tiny quantum whirlpools within the ultracold gas. The result proves experimentally that Dirac's envisioned structures do exist in nature, explained Hall, even if the naturally occurring magnetic monopoles remain at large.

Finally seeing the synthetic monopole, said Hall, was one of the most exciting moments in his career. "It's not every day that you get to poke and prod the analog of an elusive fundamental particle under highly controlled conditions in the lab." He added that creation of synthetic electric and magnetic fields is a new and rapidly expanding branch of physics that may lead to the development and understanding of entirely new materials, such as higher-temperature superconductors for the lossless transmission of electricity. He also said that the team's discovery of the synthetic monopole provides a stronger foundation for current searches for magnetic monopoles that have even involved the famous Large Hadron Collider at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research. (Older theoretical models that described the post-Big Bang period predicted that they should be quite common, but a special model for the expansion of the universe that was later developed explained the extreme rarity of these particles.)

Added Aalto's Möttönen: "Our achievement opens up amazing avenues for quantum research. In the future, we want to get even a more complete correspondence with the natural magnetic monopole."

Hall, who was recently named a Fellow of the American Physical Society, said his team's experimental work arose out of interest from Amherst summer student researchers at a group meeting in 2011, well after Pietilä and Möttönen's 2009 paper had appeared in Physical Review Letters. "It felt as though Pietilä and Möttönen had written their letter with our apparatus in mind," he said, "so it was natural to write them with our questions. Were it not for the initial curiosity on the part of the students we would never have embarked on this project."

Explore further: Hide and seek: Sterile neutrinos remain elusive

More information: Observation of Dirac Monopoles in a Synthetic Magnetic Field, M. W. Ray, E. Ruokokoski, S. Kandel, M. Möttönen, and D. S. Hall, Nature, 2014: dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12954

The method used in the monopole creation has been developed in: Creation of Dirac Monopoles in Spinor Bose-Einstein Condensates, V. Pietilä ja M. Möttönen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 030401 (2009): link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v103/e030401

Related Stories

Artificial magnetic monopoles discovered

May 31, 2013

A team of researchers from Cologne, Munich and Dresden have managed to create artificial magnetic monopoles. To do this, the scientists merged tiny magnetic whirls, so-called skyrmions. At the point of merging, ...

Physicists Propose a Method to Observe Dirac Monopoles

Jul 28, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- For decades, scientists have been intrigued by the hypothetical existence of magnetic monopoles - particles with only a north or south magnetic pole, thus having a nonzero magnetic charge. ...

Large-scale cousin of elusive 'magnetic monopoles' found

Oct 06, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Any child can tell you that a magnet has a "north" and a "south" pole, and that if you break it into two pieces, you invariably get two smaller magnets with two poles of their own. But scientists ...

Recommended for you

Hide and seek: Sterile neutrinos remain elusive

19 hours ago

The Daya Bay Collaboration, an international group of scientists studying the subtle transformations of subatomic particles called neutrinos, is publishing its first results on the search for a so-called ...

Novel approach to magnetic measurements atom-by-atom

Oct 01, 2014

Having the possibility to measure magnetic properties of materials at atomic precision is one of the important goals of today's experimental physics. Such measurement technique would give engineers and physicists an ultimate ...

Scientists demonstrate Stokes drift principle

Oct 01, 2014

In nature, waves – such as those in the ocean – begin as local oscillations in the water that spread out, ripple fashion, from their point of origin. But fans of Star Trek will recall a different sort of wave pattern: ...

User comments : 92

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

qquax
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 29, 2014
These kind of articles always fails to properly stress that we are dealing with monopole quasiparticles. They are not naked monopoles, and I'd wager there may not be any in nature and Maxwell's div B = 0 equation (i.e. Gauss' law) won't have to be modified.
MrVibrating
3.7 / 5 (16) Jan 29, 2014
Rubbish - it's no more a 'monopole' than a bunch of disc magnets all glued same-side-up to a tennis ball...

Tell, you what, i've got something here even more amazing - it's a piece of string, with only one end, and doesn't even have a middle bit! It's just one end of a piece of string, but completely disembodied from any actual string. Yes it's a tricky beast to isolate, but i've nonetheless managed it - and it's just the left end. The right end and middle bit are completely absent!

A magnetic field is a vector quantity. It has magnitude and direction. There is no such objective entity as a 'pole' - they're merely subjective frames of reference between flux vectors - head-on = 'north' and end-on = 'south'.

For this reason it simply makes no sense to speak of monopoles - it's oxymoronic, a contradiction in terms!

Why are we so regularly condescended with these "yet another first (virtual) monopole"/s without so much as a nod to their classical incongruity?
MrVibrating
5 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2014
These kind of articles always fails to properly stress that we are dealing with monopole quasiparticles. They are not naked monopoles, and I'd wager there may not be any in nature and Maxwell's div B = 0 equation (i.e. Gauss' law) won't have to be modified.

Precisely - divergence of B is zero (for static fields) - Gauss's law for magnetism. I can only conclude that elementary monopoles must be a fallacious solution to the Dirac equation. I'd love to be proven wrong - but can anyone here, contributors or readers, explain away this basic conceptual paradox? If so i'm sure many here would love to read it..
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2014
it's no more a 'monopole' than a bunch of disc magnets all glued same-side-up to a tennis ball...

Maybe you missed the word 'synthetic' in the heading?
PPihkala
4 / 5 (2) Jan 29, 2014
"Finnish graduate student Emmi Ruokokski was published today in the journal Nature."

I bet that last name should be Ruokokoski, because without o it would not be any Finnish name, but with o it is common one.
Nestle
2.6 / 5 (7) Jan 29, 2014
it's no more a 'monopole' than a bunch of disc magnets all glued same-side-up to a tennis ball
Inside of magnetic motors the same type of monopoles generates the mechanical work. The theory needn't to be violated globally for still being violated locally. In addition, these monopoles are all created within material phase, which is much more dense, than the vacuum, so that their entropy violating effects are much more intensive.
Eikka
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2014
For this reason it simply makes no sense to speak of monopoles - it's oxymoronic, a contradiction in terms!


The same thing applies to the electric field, yet we have negative and positive electric charges in isolation. The existence of a magnetic monopole would mean the existence of a negative and positive magnet particle or equivalent, which we are simply calling a "monopole" for a lack of better name.

billpress11
2.5 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2014
For this reason it simply makes no sense to speak of monopoles - it's oxymoronic, a contradiction in terms!


The same thing applies to the electric field, yet we have negative and positive electric charges in isolation. The existence of a magnetic monopole would mean the existence of a negative and positive magnet particle or equivalent, which we are simply calling a "monopole" for a lack of better name.


We already have them, they are called the north and south poles.
Nestle
1.3 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2014
He probably means something like the magnetic charge, i.e. the object with magnetic lines of force coming from single point. The magnetic particles always have a two poles at same moment, not just single one. IMO when we attach two magnets with the same poles each other, the magnetic domains inside of it will get the monopole state partially. It's analogy of Dirac fermions within superconductors and another materials with mutually squeezed fermions in it. These monopoles are still dipoles at the global level, but not withing local context of ferromagnetic material itself. The EM wave propagates more slowly inside of material than across vacuum around it, so if you're switching the monopole state on and off fast enough, you can get a sufficient level of radiative time arrow violation within material, i.e. the violation of entropic arrow. Inside of magnetic motors the mutually repulsing magnets change their distance fast, so that during brief time intervals you can violate thermodynamic
MrVibrating
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 29, 2014
it's no more a 'monopole' than a bunch of disc magnets all glued same-side-up to a tennis ball...

Maybe you missed the word 'synthetic' in the heading?

Maybe you missed the whole point of my reply: that such 'virtual' monopoles (which are a total triviality) are the only kind possible - because magnetic flux is a vector; it has direction.

Can't you see the contradiction? To put it another way, if only one end of this flux vector is here in this reality, then where's the other end - what dimensions does it occupy? Ie. a conventional magnetic field occupies a volume in 3-space, hence a true monopole in 3-space couldn't be a vector (it'd be scalar). And again - there's no such things as 'poles' anyway - they're not an intrinsic component of the field; a flux loop has no poles... and once you get your head around that, you realise that two and zero are the only rational quantities of magnetic poles we can meaningfully speak of...

MrVibrating
5 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2014
it's no more a 'monopole' than a bunch of disc magnets all glued same-side-up to a tennis ball
Inside of magnetic motors the same type of monopoles generates the mechanical work. The theory needn't to be violated globally for still being violated locally. In addition, these monopoles are all created within material phase, which is much more dense, than the vacuum, so that their entropy violating effects are much more intensive.

Well no, motors work using conventional (ie. real) magnetic fields - they're vectors, one and all. They leverage time-dependent I/O asymmetries, (ie. powering a coil when aligned to a given stator pole) - otherwise they wouldn't be able to do any work (cos the curl of B = 0). But all the fields being applied are still bipolar - they're virtual-photon polarisations, lowering the local vacuum entropy. And all EM's and PM's use 'material phase' domains!

You can't have a monopole magnet precisely because you can't have a monopolar magnetic field
MrVibrating
5 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2014
For this reason it simply makes no sense to speak of monopoles - it's oxymoronic, a contradiction in terms!


The same thing applies to the electric field, yet we have negative and positive electric charges in isolation. The existence of a magnetic monopole would mean the existence of a negative and positive magnet particle or equivalent, which we are simply calling a "monopole" for a lack of better name.


Charge is a scalar - no direction implied. Magnetism has that extra dimension, which is intrinsic to its identity. Inextricably so, from here i'm afraid..
Nestle
1 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2014
You can't have a monopole magnet precisely because you can't have a monopolar magnetic field
Well, probably not macroscopically/statically. But locally and temporarily we can prepare the monopoles - and this is just the moment, when we could utilize them for negentropic thermodynamics. But magnetic monopoles already exist in stable form of CP violation. For example the asymmetric jets of black holes can be explained just with monopole concept - these objects are creating magnetic field stronger at one pole due to their intrinsic asymmetry. Such a black hole behaves like the vortex ring rotating at place - it sucks the space-time from one pole and throws it out at another. The resulting space-time drag leads into violation of magnetic field symmetry around it, i.e. into monopole. I presume, the CP violation observed for some atom nuclei is of the same origin: they do emit particles in preferential direction in similar way like the tiny black holes with asymmetric jets.
Nestle
3 / 5 (2) Jan 29, 2014
suggested a particular sequence of changing external magnetic fields could lead to the creation of the synthetic monopole. Their experiments subsequently took place in the atomic refrigerator
The spontaneous cooling bellow temperature of environment is prohibited in entropic thermodynamics.
MrVibrating
5 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2014
@Nestle - the most well-thought out answer so far, but i still have issues with it - yes you can make pseudo-monopoles in a lattice, but each domain remains a dipole. Magnetism according to SR is an effect between charges in relative motion, and according to QED an exchange of ambient angular momentum - in either case the sign of the momentum imparted is a function of the flux vector orientations relative to the charges' acceleration vector... hence how, and in what dimensions, would you move charges to generate a scalar magnetic field between them?

Again, magnetism without moving charges is meaningless, yet moving them in 3-space yields a dipole field. True monopoles just don't make sense on any level..

Rutherord's first paper (1886) dealt with time-dependent non-dissipative losses (violating classical symmetry), so i'm with you there, and propagation rate IS a function of field density, but if either end of a magnetic field held different magnitudes, that'd break Maxwell..!
qquax
5 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2014
MrVibrating, the motivation for a magnetic monopoles is almost as old as the Maxwell equations, as magnetic monopoles would make them look perfectly symmetric in the way they are commonly written.

Curiously, if you write them using Clifford geometric algebra it makes much more sense to treat the magnetic field as bi-vector while the electric one remains a vector field, i.e. this symmetry then appears more as a mirage of an inferior notation.

MrVibrating
5 / 5 (2) Jan 29, 2014
@Nestle, sorry, not seeing the relevance of CP violation / chiralty, but negentropic thermodynamics is a fascinating and neglected area (2LoT is a real glass-half-full persepctive IMHO - we wouldn't even be here without negentropic gradients!)

Fundamentally though i can't accept that B can have alternate values depending on the direction it's measured from - sure, it can change over time (ie. between measurements) but the instantaneous value for a field's poles can only ever be equal. Basically you're suggesting a temporal rather than spatial virtual monopole - which may even be possible, however not via a Maxwellian or Lorentzian type asymmetry, IMHO. Frame-dragged distortions wouldn't qualify either (10/10 for imaginative effort tho!)..

Cross-sectional flux density could vary between poles, but that's not quite the same thing, simply trading distance for force - the curl's still zero..

Monopoles would make perpetual motion machines possible.. that's gotta be a big clue!
Nestle
1.5 / 5 (2) Jan 29, 2014
not seeing the relevance of CP violation / chiralty
Why not to check it before replying blindly?
frame-dragged distortions wouldn't qualify either
Why not? It's a well known effect predicted with GR.
Monopoles would make perpetual motion machines possible.. that's gotta be a big clue!
The problem is, the mainstream physics is willing to study the phenomena just after when they have theory developed. It fits the contemporary religion, in which the formal math and theory is everything in science, but if Tesla or Faraday would delay their research in similar way, we would never have the electricity installed in out kitchens. The only solution is to fire the theorists and to give their money to experimenters.
MrVibrating
5 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2014
MrVibrating, the motivation for a magnetic monopoles is almost as old as the Maxwell equations, as magnetic monopoles would make them look perfectly symmetric in the way they are commonly written.

Curiously, if you write them using Clifford geometric algebra it makes much more sense to treat the magnetic field as bi-vector while the electric one remains a vector field, i.e. this symmetry then appears more as a mirage of an inferior notation.


Eeks a mathematician! (runs away)

Seriously though - you're suggesting monopoles would just be aesthetically pleasing? I was under the impression their existence was a specific prediction / solution - of the Dirac equation... which i'm presuming must be a red herring..

I had to Google Clifford algebra but if it obviates monopoles then i approve.. i'll have to keep an eye out for an idiot's guide..
Nestle
2 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2014
The magnetic monopole can apply for so-called scalar waves generation in Tesla experiments too. It's actually quite easy to imagine it: the magnetic field is created by current impulse around toroidal coil - but just during brief period of time, which is so short, that the magnetic field has not enough of time to revolve it. As the result, during the brief impulse the electromagnetic field is generated just with one side of coil preferentially.

The scalar waves and dark matter are all closely related to magnetic monopole concept (so called the anapoles). The anapoles are behaving like tiny gravitational lenses, so that the light waves tend to refract and revolve them - but because they're so temporary, that the EM wave has not enough of time to complete its motion around it in symmetrical way at the opposite end of gravity lens - and the resulting magnetic field will remain unsymmetrical, i.e. monopole.
MrVibrating
5 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2014
Why not to http://arxiv.org/.../9206263 before replying blindly?

Well sure IF they existed (if they could) then they'd be a candidate explanation. That tentative 'IF' is my whole reservation tho..

Why not? It's a well known effect predicted with GR.

It'd count the same way as my mono-ended string (hint, the other end is really just hidden in my fist - it's sleight of hand!)..

It'd be virtual, not physical.

The problem is, the mainstream physics is willing to study the phenomena just after when they have theory developed. It fits the contemporary religion, in which the formal math and theory is everything in science, but if Tesla or Faraday would delay their research in similar way, we would never have the electricity installed in out kitchens. The only solution is to fire the theorists and to give their money to experimenters.
OU could cause a local variation in fundamental constants precipitating the mother of all fallouts.. careful what you wish for!
Nestle
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2014
Inside of vacuum its not easy to prepare monopoles in this way, because the light is spreading pretty fast through it and the vacuum density is affected with electrostatic field intensity in small extent only (Tesla did use the megavolt generators and magnetic extinguisher of discharge for faster interruption of current). But inside of solid phase or boson condensates the effective speed of EM propagation is much lower (actually just a few meters per second inside of boson condensates), so that the fooling of Maxwell's theory in this way is much simpler. Also, the temporal formation of anapoles, i.e. temporal lenses for EM waves is much easier, because the effective refractive index of boson condensates can be modulated in much wider extent. The same applies for propagation of magnetons within ferromagnetics. The monopoles do exist only inside of solid phase, but they're slow enough for introduction of negentropic effect even for slow switching speed of magnetic field.
MrVibrating
5 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2014
The magnetic monopole can apply for so-called scalar waves generation in Tesla experiments too. It's actually quite easy to imagine it: the magnetic field is created by current impulse around toroidal coil - but just during brief period of time, which is so short, that the magnetic field has not enough of time to revolve it. As the result, during the brief impulse the electromagnetic field is generated just with one side of coil preferentially.
The field's a product of the current - its magnitude may be time dependent, but not its symmetry. You're thinking of Sv - entropy viscosity (per Rutherford) - but it doesn't work the way you're thinking - at every instant in the evolution of the field curl and div = 0.

Sv is interesting in that it's a potentially non-thermodynamic loss mechanism (calorimetry would imply energy destruction), and i'm open to persuasion as to its reversibility, however not via a Maxwellian violation. To accept anything else would be a religious leap.
Porgie
5 / 5 (1) Jan 29, 2014
So, does it repel everything or attract everything? After all, they are saying magnetic.
MrVibrating
5 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2014
It'd repel like-poles and attract complimentary ones, just as its ambidextrous counterpart..
Nestle
1 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2014
It'd be virtual, not physical
The Rayleigh scattering and blue color of sky is caused with virtual density fluctuations too (the atmosphere density are getting averaged, so for slowly changing EM waves the atmosphere appears homogeneous and transparent - but not for waves of higher frequency). Even the virtual particles can have permanent effects, when they emerge at sufficiently high density. Therefore the devices like the MEG cannot amplify the EM signal for sufficiently fast changing AC current, but they still fulfill the Maxwell laws perfectly for DC current.
You're thinking of Sv - entropy viscosity (per Rutherford) - but it doesn't work the way you're thinking
Just read about magnetic viscosity first. When the coercivity of material is changing slowly, then the spreading of field around magnetic domains becomes non-Maxwellian.
Nestle
1 / 5 (2) Jan 29, 2014
For example the overunity effects of Orbo device depends on magnetic viscosity of ferromagnetic materials in the following way: when you magnetize the ferromagnetic material inside of toroidal coil with sufficiently high electric current, then the material will get saturated and it will not attract the magnet anymore. When you interrupt the current, the magnetic domains will get restored with vacuum fluctuations gradually (you could detect the Barkhausen effect during it) - and the material will start to attract magnet again. The mechanical work done during this is assisted with vacuum fluctuations, after then - not with current, which has been already switched off.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2014
@zephyr / Nestle
Orbo device

you mean the one built by Steorn?
The one that never worked? That one?

https://en.wikipe...i/Steorn

they have YET to build one that works per its claims

surely you are not pushing the Stoern Orbo free energy device that never worked????
it violates the law of conservation of energy

there cant be perpetual motion machines, says science
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 29, 2014
@zephyr
Orbo device

there was a panel of scientists headed by Ian MacDonald, emeritus professor of electrical engineering at the University of Alberta which started in Feb 2007...
In June 2009 the jury announced its unanimous verdict that "Steorn's attempts to demonstrate the claim have not shown the production of energy. The jury is therefore ceasing work".
[Dick Ahlstrom (24 June 2009). "Irish "energy for nothing" gizmo fails jury vetting". Irish Times]

Steorn then claimed because of difficulties in implementing the technology the focus of the process had been on providing the jury with test data on magnetic effects for study. Steorn also said that these difficulties had been resolved and disputed its jury's findings

references of claims and reference list provided here:

https://en.wikipe...i/Steorn

to be continued
Nestle
1.5 / 5 (2) Jan 29, 2014
there cant be perpetual motion machines, says science
The science allows the violation of thermodynamics with quantum mechanics (I mean all these Maxwell daemon stuffs). Now we can just talk about scope, at which the quantum mechanics may apply. My point is, the boson condensates are fancy and all, but they don't actually represent the most intensive quantum system in the nature. They cannot survive the heating above few Kelvin temperatures due to low energy density of forces involved. But the magnetic domains within ferromagnetics are different stuff - they can survive Curie temperatures over 1000 °C because of much stronger spin-spin interactions and they do represent the most stable and energetically intensive quantum system opened to violation of thermodynamics in real life.
the jury announced its unanimous verdict
Yes, the similar conference decided, that the cold fusion effects are BS. Did such decision change something with experiments done so far?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2014
@Zephyr
Orbo device

last little bit

Steorn had a device powered by a rechargeable battery. Steorn said that the device produced more energy than it consumed and recharged the battery.
HOWEVER No substantive details of the technology were revealed and no independent evidence of Steorn's claim was provided
On 1 April 2010 Steorn opened an online development community, called the Steorn Knowledge Development Base (SKDB), which they said would explain their technology.[33] Access is available only under licence on payment of a fee.
[sic]

from the link:

https://en.wikipe...i/Steorn

no working model has ever publicly been verified to produce the free energy

no references/public verification
paywalled and licensed fee site for verification

i would consider that proof that it doesnt work!
Nestle
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2014
no working model has ever publicly been verified to produce the free energy
Verified? If you consider the peer-review only as a verification, then I can tell safely, no peer-reviwed attempt for replication of Orbo has been done so far. And this is whole the problem - until no such attempt will be done and published (both with positive or negative result, it doesn't matter) - then the factual reliability of your stance is equivalent to mine one. I'm just providing the explanation, in which this device could work, because I do know, that the interest and acceptation of modern physicists depends of transparent theory very much. These guys essentially want to understand every phenomena before starting its serious research (which is just poorly masked search for safe job and long-term professional carrier). They don't want to risk their job & grants not a bit.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2014
Verified? If you consider the peer-review only as a verification, then I can tell safely, no peer-reviwed attempt for replication of Orbo has been done so far

@zeph
peer review is not the ONLY way
it was Steorn that requested a jury of scientists
those scientists were picked by Steorn
it was THAT JURY that conclusively proved that the results claimed by Stoern were invalid.
On top of that, there has NEVER been a working model that has been verified from an outside impartial source to do what Steorn claimed
then the factual reliability of your stance is equivalent to mine

WRONG AGAIN

in my stance is SCIENCE

your stance states that your model/hypothesis is essentially nothing more than an attempt to make a perpetual motion machine, whereas REAL SCIENCE says that you cannot do it
you provide NO PROOF other than the Stoern claims
Steorn failed
there is NO MACHINE

SCIENCE WINS!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 30, 2014
@zephyr says
I'm just providing the explanation, in which this device could work, because I do know, that the interest and acceptation of modern physicists depends of transparent theory very much

but thats just it... it CANNOT work as it violates the fundamental principles of physics
no perpetual motion machines
principle of conservation of energy and all that
Rejecting conservation of energy would undermine all science and technology
These guys essentially want to understand every phenomena before starting its serious research (which is just poorly masked search for safe job and long-term professional carrier). They don't want to risk their job & grants not a bit.

most likely this is true
but that still doesnt make their physics correct
Nestle
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2014
it was THAT JURY that conclusively proved that the results claimed by Stoern were invalid
You cannot prove anything, if you even don't bother to publish an article about it in peer-reviewed journal. Sorry, but the criterion of falsifiability in science are valid for everyone - both for proponents of ideas, both for their deniers. The conclusion of some anonymous jury is not a science - but a theological discourse.
principle of conservation of energy
These devices don't violate the conservation of energy. This energy is provided with quantum fluctuations of vacuum. I.e. by the same fluctuations, which do allow the formation of magnetic monopoles, btw. The formation of monopoles violates the "principles of physics" as well.
Nestle
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 30, 2014
but that still doesn't make their physics correct
If you think so... But I just talked about mainstream physicists..;-) It's evident, you even don't need to read my posts here for to oppose them. Your stance is motivated with pure negativism - you're arguing the groups of words, not the actual content.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2014
Zephyr says
You cannot prove anything....

not just some anonymous jury, a jury of scientists picked specifically validate the science and outcome and to make sure the claim made by Steorn was legitimate
the scientists picked could not validate the claims

one can reasonably assume at this point that they will never publish their hypothesis because it will show without doubt that they attempted to violate basic physics

the demonstration was essentially their experiment and it failed

this is proof even without the publication for peer review as experimentation is used for the validation of hypothesis

the only thing a peer reviewed paper would do is show HOW it failed and why they could not violate the principle of conservation of energy

but as you have seen even YOUR explanations dont shed light on it as you are also violating the basic principles in your statements
Nestle
1 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2014
as you have seen even YOUR explanations don't shed light on it as you are also violating the basic principles in your statements
Lets the readers decide it, OK? The plain saying I'm violating something doesn't mean, I'm really doing it.
the demonstration was essentially their experiment and it failed
This is just the problem - it wasn't independent replication, published in peer-reviewed journal the less. The findings cannot be disproved in this way and I'm not even talking about lack of scientific approach, interest the less in this particular case.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2014
Zephyr says
It's evident, you even don't need to read my posts here for to oppose them. Your stance is motivated with pure negativism

I am motivated by reality
you said here
For example the overunity effects of Orbo device depends on magnetic viscosity of ferromagnetic materials in the following way: when you magnetize the ferromagnetic material inside of toroidal coil with sufficiently high electric current, then the material will get saturated and it will not attract the magnet anymore. When you interrupt the current, the magnetic domains will get restored with vacuum fluctuations gradually (you could detect the Barkhausen effect during it) - and the material will start to attract magnet again. The mechanical work done during this is assisted with vacuum fluctuations, after then - not with current, which has been already switched off

that you can build a perpetual motion machine
this is patently false
I challenge you to do it!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2014
@zephyr
The plain saying I'm violating something doesn't mean, I'm really doing it.

now you are back-pedalling...
your statements violate the conservation of energy
anyone familiar with the basics of physics will see that

tell you what
I will give you 90 days to build your perpetual motion machine as stated above
using your physics as you stated
then you can get it independently verified and write a paper on it

your success will net you amazing amounts of money, however, I am willing to give you 100% of my taxable income for the year 2015 if you are successful in building a perpetual motion machine in the next 90 days using the profound physics that you claim above

how about that?
Nestle
1 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2014
It's both theoretically, both experimentally both experimentally proven, we can build the overunity device - this violates your "conservation of energy" already. The only question is, if we can push it harder with smarter approach. We're paying the scientists for it, so we should already see some results...
to give you 100% of my taxable income for the year 2015
An income of anonymous Internet troll, who is spending whole day at PO forum...? Try to impress me with hard numbers, please....
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (2) Jan 30, 2014
@zephyr
about your link

http://phys.org/n...ncy.html

here is ONE explanation for it
So, how does this not totally and completely invalidate the conservation of energy? We have to look at how energy flows through the entire system, not just at the electricity in and light out. When the LED gets more than 100% electrically efficient, it starts to cool itself down, which is another way of saying that it's stealing energy (in the form of heat) from its environment and converting that heat into those over-unity photons.
This cooling effect has some interesting implications for low-power electronics, but most importantly, we can all rest just a little bit easier knowing that the basic physical rules that frame our perception of the universe have survived for one more day.
[sic]

http://www.dvice....nt-l.php

An income of...,please

send me an e-mail addy
i will mail you back
you wont because of fear
you CANT build it

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2014
An income of anonymous Internet troll, who is spending whole day at PO forum...? Try to impress me with hard numbers, please....

@zephyr

at least you are funny... you dont know about physics, but you are funny!
especially given your hyperbole! oh, the irony!

i will stand by my words. send me an e-mail
send me a contract when i contact you back!
we can get it legal if you want! i dont mind that at all!

the reason that you will not is simple.
it is impossible to build
you cannot build a perpetual motion machine
you cannot violate the basic principles of physics like that

not even YOU Zephyr!
maybe your aether crackpot stuff can explain your world, but it doesnt work in REALITY...which is where we live

your machine above will never work
and there is no way for you to ever prove it
i am still giving you the chance though!

Bye, Z!
Whydening Gyre
1 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2014
Charge/potential differential. A difference between 2 adjacent charges, creates interaction. Zero is a place marker. The boundary marker between 2 charges. It's the VERB that counts, not the nouns.

There can be NO other way for THIS Universe to exist..
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Jan 30, 2014
Have enjoyed the comments. I have nothing to add except questions concerning MM's which posters above may be able to answer.
I seem to remember that the last decade at least a couple of similar claims were made. One from Dublin College (2010) apparently used nano scale mags and involved 'spin ice'.
Weren't merging skymions also claimed to produce MM sometime last year? The difference being then it was NOT claimed as a solution to the Dirac problem.
What is the difference between this article and that of the MM similarity in 'flux tube' experiements?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2014
Maybe you missed the whole point of my reply: that such 'virtual' monopoles (which are a total triviality) are the only kind possible - because magnetic flux is a vector; it has direction.

Can't you see the contradiction?

Since there exists such a thing as electric flux, which is also a vector (and since we do have electric 'monopoles' - i.e. separate charge carrying particles)...not really.
Tachyon8491
5 / 5 (2) Jan 30, 2014
It's all a question of perspective - I am delighted to inform that I have invented a push, without a pull - conversely, also a pull without a push. If I focus on one of these for an infinitesimal moment of its entanglement with its non-self environment, I can transiently neglect the existence of its opposite. Oops... that does not mean that its opposite is non-existent though, does it? I believe this whole polemical debate is fundamentally a philosophical/metaphysical one that cannot ever base itself on empirical physics and its experimental observations...
Osteta
Jan 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Lex Talonis
5 / 5 (2) Jan 30, 2014
According to the person speaking for the group, they have done it..

But a few billionths of a degree above absolute zero, for what amounts to pixi dust - while it may be a step in the path towards practical real world applications.

I am more interested in hearing, "Hey we have invented iron oxide monopole magnets and here is a set of them running in a kitchen blender motor - with a 99% efficiency at $25 a kilo."

Tomato juice anyone?

Eikka
2 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2014
Charge is a scalar - no direction implied. Magnetism has that extra dimension, which is intrinsic to its identity. Inextricably so, from here i'm afraid..


You're confusing the field for its source.

If a magnetic monopole should exist, it too would have to be scalar.
Eikka
3.5 / 5 (2) Jan 30, 2014
I am more interested in hearing, "Hey we have invented iron oxide monopole magnets and here is a set of them running in a kitchen blender motor - with a 99% efficiency at $25 a kilo."


Magnetic monopoles don't allow you to break any efficiency limits, because any motor built using them would be analogous to electrostatic motors and generators.

Any suggestion that they do is analogous to claiming that you can squeeze a steel spring and get more energy out by releasing it.
MrVibrating
5 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2014
Zephyr,

I've personally validated different versions of Orbo (i was in the SKDB) - it's true that the excess work is performed by virtual photons (all magnetic work is) however you're confused with respect to e-Orbo - saturation damps the core's ability to produce back-EMF, decoupling input from output. Barkhausen jumps accompany all changes in B and not just passive changes. In e-Orbo the work becomes free as the platter speed increases because the only losses are resistive, ie. a function of time (following Joule's 2nd law for heat, Q=(I^2) x (r) x (t), whereas the magnetic work is temporally invariant (at least up to Sv speeds). IOW the Orbo you're referring to depends on materials having high mu, low coercivity and negligible Sv.

For an Sv-type gain , check out the old k-toy - it's an interaction with two different MPE's depending on the dimension its measured in (ie. X vs Y/Z) - the asymmetry occurs because B rises slower than it falls. Still no signs of any monopoles tho..
Osteta
Jan 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2014
@zephyr
demonstrating the "aether drift"

from your link
Since the current experiment demonstrates that the absolute motion of the earth can be magnetically detected, why do experiments with light not detect it?
[sic]
how did the experiment rule out movement/effects from known magnetic sources already present (earth/ etc)?
How did it rule out movements that might have been made by other forces?
How do we know that there was no external noise/forces affecting the setup?
where are the references/additional information and the peer review?
Considering
The values recorded in the data tables have an uncertainty of only plus or minus 0.02 mm in most cases, and 0.04 mm in a very few cases

I would still go with results at 10^(-17) level that PROVE aether WRONG

http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.1284

http://www.exphy....2009.pdf

MrVibrating
5 / 5 (2) Jan 30, 2014
Maybe you missed the whole point of my reply: that such 'virtual' monopoles (which are a total triviality) are the only kind possible - because magnetic flux is a vector; it has direction.

Can't you see the contradiction?

Since there exists such a thing as electric flux, which is also a vector (and since we do have electric 'monopoles' - i.e. separate charge carrying particles)...not really.

Ah i see - because current is a vector composed of scalar elements, all vectors are likewise reducible? Is that what you're thinking? Current's a vector because it has magnitude and direction - so it behaves as a dipole, with positive and negative terminals. But magnetism isn't a current, rather, it's an epiphenomenon of currents. A kind of vacuum wake. Magnetism is a force between moving charges - that's why it's a vector. Again, how and where would you move your charges to generate a monopolar magnetic field?
MrVibrating
5 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2014
Charge is a scalar - no direction implied. Magnetism has that extra dimension, which is intrinsic to its identity. Inextricably so, from here i'm afraid..


You're confusing the field for its source.


The source is motion between charges, ie. current.

If a magnetic monopole should exist, it too would have to be scalar.

Yes that's exactly what i've said.

At least, it'd be scalar in our familiar space... notwithstanding that it could be a vector in some higher dimensional manifold - with one end protruding here, and the other elsewhere, or something. I'm trying to stay open minded here...
no fate
5 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2014
"I'm trying to stay open minded here..." MV

Why? You have a clear understanding of the forces/fields. The people who are debating you range from mildly informed to not. The researchers created a monopole effect, not a monopole as you stated in your first post...rubbish indeed.
antialias_physorg
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 31, 2014
The researchers created a monopole effect, not a monopole as you stated in your first post

And if you read the article you will notice that it says exactly that. Nowhere do they say they have created a monopole. All the fuzz is because you (and MrVibrating) don't know how to read scientific articles.

Reading such articles is NOT like reading a newspaper. You have to pay attention. Especially you have to pay attention not to assume stuff that isn't expressly stated. That way you can save yourself a lot of confusion/grief about imagined shortcomings.

...sometimes the shortcomings are just in the reader.
Osteta
Jan 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
no fate
5 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2014
The researchers created a monopole effect, not a monopole as you stated in your first post

And if you read the article you will notice that it says exactly that. Nowhere do they say they have created a monopole. All the fuzz is because you (and MrVibrating) don't know how to read scientific articles.


Speaking of shortcomings, read the title.

Then we have this comment from the lead researcher:"Finally seeing the synthetic monopole, said Hall, was one of the most exciting moments in his career." or " The result proves experimentally that Dirac's envisioned structures do exist in nature, explained Hall"

Your style of reading scientific articles needs some fine tuning.

They say it many times. Is it the word "Synthetic" that threw you off? That word differentiates between naturally occurring, and constructed. Not between actually creating something or just mimicking an effect.
Osteta
Jan 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Jan 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Jan 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Jan 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Jan 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Jan 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MrVibrating
5 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2014
Why? You have a clear understanding of the forces/fields. The people who are debating you range from mildly informed to not. The researchers created a monopole effect, not a monopole as you stated in your first post...rubbish indeed.

LOL i said no such thing - i used the term 'virtual' monopole, and derided its triviality on that basis.

What i really object to is that the researchers, as quoted in the article, and the tone of the article itself, vaunts this 'virtual' monopole (NOT 'synthetic') as being some kind of noteworthy breakthrough, that could be valuable in establishing attributes of a REAL monopole. Articles - and research, generally, of this ilk - predicate their interest upon the propagation of an extremely spurious (if not downright false) scientific premise, when it should be treated as near-pseudoscience, with all due qualifications and caveats.

Unicorns aren't merely 'elusive' - describing a toy one won't help you bag the real beasty.
MrVibrating
5 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2014
The result proves experimentally that Dirac's envisioned structures do exist in nature, explained Hall, even if the naturally occurring magnetic monopoles remain at large.

[...]

"It's not every day that you get to poke and prod the analog of an elusive fundamental particle under highly controlled conditions in the lab."


^This^ is the problem - it tacitly overstates the research value by conspicuously understating its highly controversial context, and entertaining, unquestioningly, the over-exited and laughably hubristic conclusions of the researchers.

"Our achievement opens up amazing avenues for quantum research. In the future, we want to get even a more complete correspondence with the natural magnetic monopole."


LMFAO :)

MrVibrating
5 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2014
The researchers created a monopole effect, not a monopole as you stated in your first post

And if you read the article you will notice that it says exactly that. Nowhere do they say they have created a monopole. All the fuzz is because you (and MrVibrating) don't know how to read scientific articles.

Reading such articles is NOT like reading a newspaper. You have to pay attention. Especially you have to pay attention not to assume stuff that isn't expressly stated. That way you can save yourself a lot of confusion/grief about imagined shortcomings.

...sometimes the shortcomings are just in the reader.

For my reply just read your own back at yourself - i'm explicitly criticizing the worth of 'synthetic' unicorns, and the farcical pretense of "advancing our understanding" of 'real' ones, without so much as a blink at the elephant scratching its arse in the corner.

And FWIW, i put 'synthetic' oil in my bike, and it's REAL lubricant, not an abstract representation..
MrVibrating
5 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2014
I am more interested in hearing, "Hey we have invented iron oxide monopole magnets and here is a set of them running in a kitchen blender motor - with a 99% efficiency at $25 a kilo."


Magnetic monopoles don't allow you to break any efficiency limits, because any motor built using them would be analogous to electrostatic motors and generators.

Any suggestion that they do is analogous to claiming that you can squeeze a steel spring and get more energy out by releasing it.

I was being coy when i said monopoles would make PM possible - i should've said "easier" or simpler. But by exploiting Sv we could attract in and repulse out from a monopole at super-Sv speeds and gain KE.

Classical conservation of energy simply doesn't apply to time-dependent magnetic interactions. This is, understandably, often quite a bombshell for many folks so give me a second and i'll write up a few paragraphs qualifying this point...
MrVibrating
5 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2014
Firstly, any electrodynamics textbook will begin by explaining that classical CoE cannot be applied to time-dependent passive changes in B - such interactions are, by definition, non-conservative.

This is not conjecture but a basic fact. For example two magnets attract together over a distance D, and we harness this conversion of MPE to KE - maybe storing it in a flywheel. This is the interaction's output work.

Next, we perform our input work, separating them back to their initial D.

The force/distance integrals will only sum to zero if there's no change in B between output and input.

If however there's significant Sv, then B will continue to rise after the output stroke - in attraction, magnets pull each other up their B/H curves, to 'Bmax'. If Bmax is thus higher when we come to input our work, then we must input more energy separating them, than they output initially.

In the 1st case (no Sv), the flywheel coasts to a halt as D is restored. In the 2nd, it hasn't enough go..
MrVibrating
5 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2014
These passive mid-interaction changes in B are what you might listen for via Barkhausen steps, as Zephyr alluded.

The form of input work and output work, classically, is FxD - hence this is likewise the form of the loss. We've input more work to the field, than it has output. Hence this is not a conventional thermal loss - rather, this type of loss mechanism is thermodynamically categorised as "non-dissipative" - the excess work has gone to FxD, not heat loss.

So long story short, monopoles would make this a lot easier to reverse, and closed-loop gains would've been discovered by the Victorians - at the very least, Rutherford would've found it. Instead, it took another two centuries and the luck of the Irish...

Fundamentally though, if we only had a PARTIAL monopole - one pole weaker, the other stronger - then a closed-loop gain would be trivial, so it's a slippery slope...
MrVibrating
5 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2014
Incidentally, i'm not affiliated with Steorn in any way, i think my NDA's have expired although i still honour their spirit - anything i've mentioned in relation to their IP is, i believe, already public domain. I research classical symmetry breaks as a hobby, and i'm currently working on the single most compelling case i've come across thus far, that of Johann Elias Bessler. This was, i'm convinced, another genuine claim, now three centuries unresolved. But as much as i could bang on about it, this is getting way OT...
S_Bilderback
not rated yet Feb 02, 2014
For the appearance of a PM machine, it would require a mechanism for "stealing or converting" energy from other dimensions that don't normally interact with our universe (making dimensions 6-8 our entropic dumping grounds). Could it be possible? Never say never, good luck with that proof set.
I read too much sy-fy
Nestle
5 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2014
if we only had a PARTIAL monopole - one pole weaker, the other stronger - then a closed-loop gain would be trivial, so it's a slippery slope
Well exactly. In classical electromagnetic based on strictly transverse waves the monopoles shouldn't exist, but when time symmetric quantum mechanics is involved, the negentropic phenomena may arise. In this way the mainstream physics could be connected with aetheric physics, which is symmetric with respect to longitudinal and transverse wave.
it would require a mechanism for "stealing or converting" energy from other dimensions
Or simply from vacuum noise, which represents such a dimension in similar way, like the Brownian noise represents the (third dimension of) underwater at the (two-dimensional) water surface. But so far it seems, that these negentropic phenomena are limited with low energy density of vacuum fluctuations (CMBR noise) and impractical to use.
Mimath224
not rated yet Feb 02, 2014
@antialias_physorg, what the articles states
'...Fellow Mikko Möttönen has created, identified and photographed synthetic magnetic monopoles in Hall's laboratory on the Amherst campus. ..and first to sight the monopoles in the laboratory...'
I don't think that 'synthetic' = 'effect'
MrVibrating does seem to have '1st hand knowledge' here and certainly to me a MM would be a scalar. What I find difficult is that if MM would attract/repel unlike/like then doesn't that imply a force? Unless MM is doing this in a GR way and warping surroundings. If MM is a scalar it's not an inert one and therefore, just like temperature, would have a gradient from point to point, which is a vector.
On a very simplistic level my initial reaction to this article (and others like it elsewhere) is that if the researches have found anything invalidating Mawell's equations then perhaps they have found a 'new (quasi)particle'. Or did the experiment just 'damp' one pole?
MrVibrating
not rated yet Feb 02, 2014
For the appearance of a PM machine, it would require a mechanism for "stealing or converting" energy from other dimensions that don't normally interact with our universe (making dimensions 6-8 our entropic dumping grounds). Could it be possible? Never say never, good luck with that proof set.
I read too much sy-fy

This is precisely my concern - there's no magic step in a time-dependent interaction; every detail's dependent on CoE, including the lag. Hence it'd be a real leap to presume that energy isn't ultimately conserved - as you say, most fundamentally, the entropy of some field (ie. some component of the vacuum) must change in relation to the disunity.

By all accounts the vacuum energy derived from QED remains one of the biggest uncorrected mistakes in physics, yet various fundamental constants may be products of its activity. Saving the world would be a hollow victory if it risks destroying the universe..

http://phys.org/n...ser.html
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Feb 02, 2014
I don't think that 'synthetic' = 'effect'

Synthetic means: not natural. How hard is that to understand? The article also states quite plainly what they did and didn't do - all you need to do is be able to read.

I understand that many people would misunderstand, because they are not used to reading scientific articles (more precisely: they are not aware that reading scientific articles requires a different skillset than reading newspaper articles). And this lack of skill is quite evident in many here (especially MrVibrating, but also Nestle and others).

That's fine. Lack of such skill is nothing to be ashamed of. How could they have the skill if they have never worked/been exposed to real scientific work?

But making pronunciations based ON such lack of skill - that is something to be ashamed of.
MrVibrating
not rated yet Feb 02, 2014
@Mimath224 - 'damping' one pole is the first thing would-be PM mobilists try. Eventually - if they persist long enough - they learn that this is prohibited, per Maxwell, and that the only shielding possible is by concentrating the field into a higher-mu material (this is how RF shielding works).

You're right that virtual monopoles could constitute quasiparticles, i think - tho not sure how mobile they'd be, unless they could form magnons? All of these virtual monopoles however are using the same underlying principle of folding the 'hidden' poles inwards - the outward uniform polarity is a charade, and nothing here violates Maxwell.
MrVibrating
5 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2014
I don't think that 'synthetic' = 'effect'

Synthetic means: not natural. How hard is that to understand? The article also states quite plainly what they did and didn't do - all you need to do is be able to read.


LOL same troll post 3 times in a row, how very dull.

Your nomenclature is also inadequate, as i've already pointed out - synthetic is a synonym for something artificial, manufactured. Virtual would be a more honest description - something that behaves as if it were real, but isn't.

A real monopole wouldn't be dependent upon myriad dipoles, and neither would a synthetic one.
Nestle
not rated yet Feb 02, 2014
Synthetic means: not natural. How hard is that to understand?
What in modern physics is not "natural"? The physicists just created a set of conditions and the monopoles resulted naturally from it. In the same way, like they identified many obscure subatomical particles already. Are these particles less natural (i.e. nonexisting in nature) just because of it? I already explained above, why these monopoles aren't fully fledged one: it's because they were not prepared in vacuum, but in environment of boson condensates, which is surprisingly dense with respect to speed of light spreading. It corresponds the interior of neutron stars in this respect.
ab3a
not rated yet Feb 02, 2014
@MrVibrating: Monopoles would make perpetual motion machines possible.. that's gotta be a big clue!


Perhaps this is why we won't find them naturally. In other words, it may well be that it takes energy to sustain a magnetic monopole, thus conservation of energy is preserved.
Nestle
not rated yet Feb 02, 2014
it takes energy to sustain a magnetic monopole, thus conservation of energy is preserved
Yep, this is a good insight. In general, all artifacts, which can be observed with boson condensates will need an energy from outside for their survival, because the temperature of Universe is 3 Kelvins or so - and the boson condensates all need lower temperature for their existence. Currently the only experiment, which indicates that the monopoles could exist at room temperature without introduction of energy from outside is this one. If I'm correct, than the drag of magnets could be explained with the interaction of monopoles formed with their magnetic domains with anapoles of dark matter in the vacuum. Another indirect indicia can be, that some black holes do appear like monopoles (with single jet) and they do appear stable too - but I admit, that such observation may not apply to terrestrial conditions. We simply need more experiments to judge it.
Mimath224
not rated yet Feb 02, 2014
@Mimath224 - 'damping' one pole is the first thing would-be PM mobilists try...

You're right that virtual monopoles could constitute quasiparticles, i think - tho not sure how mobile they'd be, unless they could form magnons? All of these virtual monopoles however are using the same underlying principle of folding the 'hidden' poles inwards - the outward uniform polarity is a charade, and nothing here violates Maxwell.

@MrVibrating, yes, understand, but your comment really says what I didn't have the confidence (or knowledge) to say, that is perhaps 'charade' aplies to some teams in order to get recognition!?
@antialias_physorg oh come on, you can do better than that...or maybe you can't. Gravitational lensing does not produce a synthetic object it produces an effect that more than object exists. After amputation the brain can send signals that give the effect that the part still exist but synthetic limbs perform functions...how many more examples do you need.

Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Feb 03, 2014
You're confusing the field for its source.


The source is motion between charges, ie. current.


Nope. That doesn't explain permanent magnets, which are magnetized due to electrons being basic dipole magnets without the need to move as a collective current. The external field arises from the alignment of electrons which are not paired with other electrons of opposing spin state (which would contain the magnetic field).

The existence of magnetic monopoles simply predicts that electrons have an inner structure with two opposing magnetic charges. In other words, split the electron, find the magnetic monopole.
EWH
not rated yet Feb 03, 2014
Regarding Clifford Algebras in physics, all the more comprehensible stuff is listed under "geometric algebra". (The GA that has nothing to do with Artin, but rather David Hestenes.) Most of the GA papers explain things from first principles and are quite easy to understand compared with most physics papers. The better papers usually have Chris Doran or Leo Dorst among the authors. The latter's "Geometric Algebra for Computer Science" is a good textbook, and his free GAViewer visualization software is a great help, particularly with conformal GA. (Which has circles and spheres as primitives along with lines, points, planes). Doran and the other Cambridge group researchers have the best physics papers. Jaap Suter's Geometric Algebra Primer is the best medium-length introduction.

Some motivation: in 4D GA all 4 of Maxwell's equations and special relativity reduce in usable form to 4 characters saying that the gradient of the current is the field. (4-current and Faraday bivector field.)
MrVibrating
not rated yet Feb 03, 2014
@Eikka

There's two forms of electron motion to consider, axial and orbital, and a corresponding magnetic moment for each, hence the motion requirement is satisfied - there couldn't be a magnetic field otherwise.

Electrons are supposed to be fundamental, and besides, magnetism is not a property of charges or currents - moving charges do not exchange energy directly, but via the intermediary of the vacuum. The magnetic interaction is a menage á trois, an inter-reaction, and the force is manifested via vacuum-generated virtual-photons exchanging momentum between the charges in signed units of h-bar... so magnetism doesn't come 'from' the charges, and isn't strictly a property of them - it's a vacuum interaction.

A monopole would thus require a way of moving charges that only elicits virtual-photon exchanges of a preferred sign, regardless of the translation or polarisation directions, which in turn would seem to transcend or defy the limits of the 3-space the charges are confined to..
Mimath224
not rated yet Feb 03, 2014
MrVibrating, can you enlighten me on your '...via vacuum-generated virtual-photons exchanging momentum between the charges...'
If we are using M's eqs then B field is generated by moving charges...hope I said that right? Aren't virtual-photons more theoretical than say moving e? Are you implying that magnetism is part of the vitual theory or that a moving charge invokes virtual (particle) theory to explain how the B field moves?
Osteta
Feb 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Feb 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Feb 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Feb 03, 2014
@antialias_physorg oh come on, you can do better than that...or maybe you can't.

Point is: I was a scientist for over 10 years. I know how to read scientific articles and it is obvious that some others here don't. If you can't accept that then I urge you to enter a scientific field and find out for yourself.
Mimath224
not rated yet Feb 03, 2014
@antialias_physorg Oh that explains it! I spent years correcting the English in 'scientific' reports, in industry that is.
Osteta
Feb 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Feb 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MrVibrating
not rated yet Feb 03, 2014
MrVibrating, can you enlighten me on your '...via vacuum-generated virtual-photons exchanging momentum between the charges...'
If we are using M's eqs then B field is generated by moving charges...hope I said that right? Aren't virtual-photons more theoretical than say moving e? Are you implying that magnetism is part of the vitual theory or that a moving charge invokes virtual (particle) theory to explain how the B field moves?

The standard model of particle physics assigns so-called elementary bosons as mediators of the fundamental forces, and virtual photons are responsible for the EM force. These aren't emitted by electrons, but simply co-opted from the vacuum around them. Interactions are described at this level by quantum electrodynamics, and this is currently the closest we can get to dealing with what the field actually is, rather than just what it does.
MrVibrating
not rated yet Feb 03, 2014

Point is: I was a scientist for over 10 years. I know how to read scientific articles and it is obvious that some others here don't. If you can't accept that then I urge you to enter a scientific field and find out for yourself.

Well if the fruits of all your haughty achievements have culminated in the belief that monopoles could exist because, after all, electrons do, then fewer posters could better illustrate the chasmic gulf between reading and UNDERSTANDING that your self-esteemed self, sir..

Besides, if you think the existence of electrons is evidence in favour of monopoles (!) then you should be even less impressed by fake ones than i am...

So what, then, in your rapier-like scrutiny of the article, do you see of value in this achievement - do you agree with the conclusion that it could advance our understanding of real monopoles? Any more pearls besides "electrons exist"? Don't hold back on us now, eh..? ;)
MrVibrating
not rated yet Feb 03, 2014
@EWH cheers for the heads up, i've now got Suter's primer on the Kindle...

Edit: lol, just checked me library and i've already got GA and its application to Mathematical Physics, and also Gravity Gauge Theories and GA, both by Doran. Will stick 'em on the holiday list...
MrVibrating
5 / 5 (1) Feb 03, 2014
@Osteta - that's a fascinating line of thought... so would that mean it was intrinsically impossible to manifest a monopole, or might there be some way to force it to collapse out?

My overriding impression remains that they're a solution without a problem tho.. with too much baggage (too classically controversial) for mere aesthetic appeal...
Mimath224
not rated yet Feb 04, 2014
@MrVibrating, thanks, yes I understand your comment. Hadn't thought of it that way. Would the dipole then come about as being the 'ball thrower' and 'ball catcher', to use a common place analogy. But if that were so then a monopole could only exist via the former with the latter being 'extracted' or 'cancelled' while the 'ball' was still on route. H'mmm, that wouldn't work either because it would exclude a 'replacement' to fill the gap via, perhaps, the virtual 'soup'. Would seem that I'm becoming more entrenched with 'no monopoles' idea!
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Feb 04, 2014
I spent years correcting the English in 'scientific' reports, in industry that is.

So? What has correctiong spelling mistakes got to do with being able to understand the content? You have to realize that science is different. It's done by people who are very mathematically minded - and hence very precise in what they write (and more importantly: what they DON'T write). Science reports are reports on facts. Not essays of prose.

If something is not explicitly mentioned in the article then it wasn't done. If it's not an explicit conclusion stated by the authors then it's not a supportable conclusion with the data they have. Anything you interpret beyond what the article states is therefore -with a on certainty bordering likelyhood- false. If you think you, as a layman, can glean some info on the fly that the authors didn't with years of study on the subject and 20-30 more IQ points then you're just kidding yourself.
Osteta
Feb 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mimath224
not rated yet Feb 04, 2014
antialias_physorg there's a big difference in correcting English and just spelling mistakes. Obviously you don't even understand that!
Osteta
Feb 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Feb 04, 2014
antialias_physorg there's a big difference in correcting English and just spelling mistakes. Obviously you don't even understand that!

I do. I also worked as a project manager for translation/validation services for technical manuals for almost 2 years. And no: The people translating, validating, editing such articles don't know about technical articles at all. There's a HUGE difference between editing/checking and writing/understadning scientific articles.
MrVibrating
5 / 5 (1) Feb 04, 2014
@Mimath224 - yes, you've got the drift.. with the minor addition that the momentum of the balls can be positive or negative. Normally, catcher and pitcher in zero-G would propel themselves backwards whether throwing or catching, whereas here, catching a ball having negative momentum would propel you towards the thrower. A monopole would only exchange + or - momentum, depending on the polarity of another pole it interacts with, rather than both, per normal dipoles..
Mimath224
not rated yet Feb 04, 2014
MrVibrating, thanks for addition. Enjoyed the 'chat'...which is why I come here and to learn more about what's going on.
Chemist90
not rated yet Mar 04, 2014
I've seen a lot of comments speaking in classical terms. You must step out of the classical and step into the quantum world for this to make sense. A magnetic monopole follows from the quantization of electric charge in quantum mechanics. "Quantization" meaning, almost, restriction to certain energy levels. In classical mechanics magnetism is continuous, with no restrictions. A magnetic monopole confirms the existence of a charged particle that carries each magnetic pole with it without the opposite pole. The existence of this singular particle would confirm the quantization of the electron, and be a huge boon to a unified theory being more like quantum theory. This also means huge philosophical implications. You can not explain magnetic monopoles with current college level electromagnetic theory. It forces the treatment of electromagnetism with quantum mechanics. I want to say that none of you are wrong technically, just treating it with the wrong equations and frame of ref.
Rimino
Mar 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.