The mysterious missing magnetic monopole

August 9, 2016 by T'mir Danger Julius, The Conversation
All the magnets we’ve ever seen have a north and a south, but there might be some out there that have only one end. Credit: Shutterstock

You've probably heard of the Higgs boson. This elusive particle was predicted to exist long ago and helped explain why the universe works the way it does, but it took decades for us to detect.

Well, there's another that has also been predicted by quantum physics, and it's been missing for an even longer time. In fact, we still haven't spotted one, and not through lack of trying.

It's called the magnetic monopole, and it has a few unique properties that make it rather special.

Parallels

Those with an interest in physics are probably already familiar with an electric monopole, although you may know it by its more common name: electric charge.

Opposite attract and like charges repel through the interaction of electric fields, which are defined as running from positive to negative. These are the somewhat arbitrary labels for the two opposing electric charges.

Electric monopoles exist in the form of particles that have a positive or negative electric charge, such as protons or electrons.

At first glance, magnetism seems somewhat analogous to electricity, as there exists a with a direction defined as running from north to south.

However, the analogy breaks down when we try to find the magnetic counterpart for the electric charge. While we can find electric monopoles in the form of charged particles, we have never observed .

Instead, magnets exist only in the form of dipoles with a north and a south end. When a bar magnet is split into two pieces, you don't get a separate north part and a south part. Rather you get two new, smaller magnets, each with a north and south end.

Even if you split that magnet down into individual particles, you still get a magnetic dipole.

When we look at magnetism in the world, what we see is entirely consistent with Maxwell's equations, which describe the unification of electric and magnetic field theory into classical electromagnetism.

They were first published by James Maxwell during 1861 and 1862 and are still used daily on a practical level in engineering, telecommunications and medical applications, to name just a few.

But one of these equations – Gauss's law for magnetism – states that there are no magnetic monopoles.

The magnetism we observe on a day-to-day basis can all be attributed to the movement of electric charges. When an electrically charged particle moves along a path, such as an electron moving down a wire, this is an electrical current. This induces a magnetic field that wraps around the direction of the current.

The second cause of magnetism involves a property from quantum mechanics called "spin". This can be thought of in terms of an electrically charged particle rotating on an axis rather than moving in a particular direction.

This generates an angular momentum in the particle, causing the electron to act as a magnetic dipole (i.e. a tiny bar magnet). This means we can describe magnetic phenomena without the need for magnetic monopoles.

But just because our classical electromagnetic theories are consistent with our observations, that does not imply that there are no magnetic monopoles. Rather, this just means that there are no magnetic monopoles anywhere that we have observed.

A single magnetic monopole might be hiding out there somewhere. Credit: CERN/MoEDAL

Once we start to delve into the murky depths of theory, we begin to find some tempting arguments for their presence in the universe.

The lure of duality

In 1894, Nobel Laureate Pierre Curie discussed the possibility of such an undiscovered particle and could find no reason to discount its existence.

Later, in 1931, Nobel Laureate Paul Dirac showed that when Maxwell's equations are extended to include a magnetic monopole, electric charge can exist only in discrete values.

This "quantisation" of electric charge is one of the requirements of quantum mechanics. So Dirac's work went towards showing that classical electromagnetism and quantum electrodynamics were compatible theories in this sense.

Finally, there are few physicists who can resist the beauty of symmetry in nature. And because the existence of a magnetic monopole would imply a duality between electricity and magnetism, the theory suggesting magnetic monopoles becomes almost intoxicating.

Duality, in the physical sense, is when two different theories can be related in such a way that one system is analogous to the other.

If it were the case that the electric force was completely analogous to the magnetic force, then perhaps other forces would also be analogous to one another. Perhaps then there would be some way to relate the strong nuclear force to the weak nuclear force, paving the way to a grand unification of all physical forces.

Of course, just because a theory has an appealing symmetry doesn't make it correct.

Monopole mirage

Scientists have come close to seeing magnetic monopoles by producing monopole-like structures in the lab using complex arrangements of magnetic fields in Bose-Einstein condensates and superfluids.

But, while these show that a magnetic monopole is not a physical impossibility, they are not the same as discovering one in nature.

Particle physics experiments have, on occasion, announced possible monopole candidates, but so far none of these discoveries have been shown to be irrefutable or reproducible.

The Monopole and Exotics Detector at the Large Hadron Collider (MoEDAL) has taken up the search, but has found no monopoles to date.

As a result, magnetic monopole enthusiasts have turned their sights to explaining why we haven't seen any monopoles.

If the current generation of particle accelerators have failed to detect a magnetic monopole, perhaps the mass of a monopole is simply greater than we are able to create at present.

Using theory, we can estimate the maximum possible mass for the magnetic monopole. Given what we already know about the structure of the universe, we can estimate that the monopole mass could be up to an enormous 1014 TeV.

An object this massive may have been produced only in the very early stages of the universe after the Big Bang, before cosmic inflation began. If the universe cooled to a point that monopole creation was no longer energetically possible before expanding, perhaps the monopoles are out there. Just few and far between. The trick is to find one.

Explore further: Physicists discover quantum-mechanical monopoles

Related Stories

Physicists discover quantum-mechanical monopoles

April 30, 2015

Researchers at Aalto University (Finland) and Amherst College have observed a point-like monopole in a quantum field itself for the first time. This discovery connects to important characteristics of the elusive monopole ...

Magnetic monopoles in spin ice crystals

November 12, 2015

Today one of the major goals of physicists is to unify the forces of nature into a Grand Unified Theory that could portray a more elegant and comprehensive representation of the Universe. One step towards this big theory ...

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, the physicists ...

Recommended for you

Bursting bubbles launch bacteria from water to air

November 15, 2018

Wherever there's water, there's bound to be bubbles floating at the surface. From standing puddles, lakes, and streams, to swimming pools, hot tubs, public fountains, and toilets, bubbles are ubiquitous, indoors and out.

Terahertz laser pulses amplify optical phonons in solids

November 15, 2018

A study led by scientists of the Max Planck Institute for the Structure and Dynamics of Matter (MPSD) at the Center for Free-Electron Laser Science in Hamburg/Germany presents evidence of the amplification of optical phonons ...

Designer emulsions

November 15, 2018

ETH material researchers are developing a method with which they can coat droplets with controlled interfacial composition and coverage on demand in an emulsion in order to stabilise them. In doing so they are fulfilling ...

Quantum science turns social

November 15, 2018

Researchers in a lab at Aarhus University have developed a versatile remote gaming interface that allowed external experts as well as hundreds of citizen scientists all over the world to optimize a quantum gas experiment ...

94 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (20) Aug 09, 2016
Well, there's another elusive particle that has also been predicted by quantum physics, and it's been missing for an even longer time. In fact, we still haven't spotted one, and not through lack of trying.

A hypothesis which predicts unicorns should reveal something is profoundly wrong with the hypothesis.
Scroofinator
1.8 / 5 (16) Aug 09, 2016
The idea of the monopole as a seperate particle (like the graviton) is the part in which their logic is flawed.
baudrunner
1.4 / 5 (14) Aug 09, 2016
...Higgs boson. This elusive particle was predicted to exist long ago and helped explain why the universe works the way it does
no, it doesn't

It supports the current standard model. That's all.
baudrunner
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 09, 2016
Ions are monopoles. Free electrons are monopoles.

By definition, a pole exists only relative to its complement, as in darkness wouldn't exist without light to compare it to. Monopoles cannot exist independently because that violates the definition. So, monopoles don't actually exist. They are just an exotic idea.
arom
Aug 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.8 / 5 (17) Aug 09, 2016
EM theory in its present form precludes magnetic monopoles.
Correct. This is because magnetism is not a separate phenomenon, but the relativistic correction for the movement of an electric charge; in short, it is simply another effect of electric charge, which is why we call the force electromagnetism. The so-called "electric force" is just as much of a pseudo-force as magnetism is; the electric force's action does not account for motion of the source of the EM field.

Simple as that.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (17) Aug 09, 2016
The idea of the monopole as a seperate particle (like the graviton) is the part in which their logic is flawed.


So write and tell them, before they waste any more time looking for it.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 09, 2016
The idea of the monopole as a seperate particle (like the graviton) is the part in which their logic is flawed.
So write and tell them, before they waste any more time looking for it.
For once he's right.

A stopped clock is right twice a day. It's not very significant.
ursiny33
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 10, 2016
Thats only a theory, of a mono pole, that exists outside the laws of magnetics, which you might consider the charged matter you measure as negative or positive ,more than likely. Is an unbalanced charge field, were you only measure the dominant charge and your tools can't measure a fractional minor charge, in quantum charge mass , there is no such a thing as a single charged particle they come balanced of equal charge, or unbalanced in the universe either positive dominant or negative dominant, for example the negative charge of an electron. Is only .666 negative with a .333 positive construction in quantum charge mass and that the negative mass divided .333- against .333+ offset each other and your measure the .333 - negative thats left and classifying it a negative particle because you don't have the tools to see reality
ursiny33
1.5 / 5 (10) Aug 10, 2016
Neutral particle .500 + and .500- no charge on quantum field charge measured
ursiny33
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 10, 2016
Neutron .666 negative quantum field charge .333 positive / proton .666 positive quantum died charge .333 negative rule out that unbalanced magnetic construction and we can buy into a singe pole charge outside the laws of magnetic field charge you don't have the tools to even confirm what you think is reality you haven't considers it
Seeker2
1 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2016
@Da Schneib
This is because magnetism is not a separate phenomenon, but the relativistic correction for the movement of an electric charge; in short, it is simply another effect of electric charge, which is why we call the force electromagnetism. The so-called "electric force" is just as much of a pseudo-force as magnetism is; the electric force's action does not account for motion of the source of the EM field.
I remember something about the electric force drops off as 1/r^2 like gravity. I see the Higgs field as the generator of virtual particles normally randomized but if you disturb this directional randomization, like with a moving charge, you get a magnetic field. So magnetism is a continuous macro effect, not quantized. So I suppose an uncharged particle moving through the Higgs would stir things up and reduce the magnetic field. Just wondering.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2016
@Da Schneib
This is because magnetism is ... the relativistic correction for the movement of an electric charge;
So if charged particles ejected from the sun are not ejected at relativistic speeds there would be no solar flares?
Mimath224
5 / 5 (9) Aug 10, 2016
@Da Schneib
This is because magnetism is not a separate phenomenon, but the relativistic correction for the movement of an electric charge; in short, it is simply another effect of electric charge, which is why we call the force electromagnetism. The so-called "electric force" is just as much of a pseudo-force as magnetism is; the electric force's action does not account for motion of the source of the EM field.
I remember something about the electric force drops off as 1/r^2 like gravity. I see the Higgs field as the generator of virtual particles normally randomized but if you disturb this directional randomization, like with a moving charge, you get a magnetic field. So magnetism is a continuous macro effect, not quantized. So I suppose an uncharged particle moving through the Higgs would stir things up and reduce the magnetic field. Just wondering.

Biot-Savart law also has 1/r^3 if it includes vector r too
Scroofinator
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2016
So write and tell them, before they waste any more time looking for it.
For once he's right.

A stopped clock is right twice a day. It's not very significant.

Ouch Schneib, so harsh.

JD, I have elaborated on my idea of the monopole before. Essentially every atom, in the presence of a weak EM field, is a monopole. The spin/rotation is so fast that for every second the atom's magnetic moment will have pointed in nearly every direction, thus averaging out to be a monopole once time is considered. Nothing is static in this universe.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (12) Aug 10, 2016
A stopped clock is right twice a day.

But the correlation coefficient is zero ;-)
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Andrew Palfreyman
5 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2016
div B = 0
Sorry
Scroofinator
2.3 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2016
Not every atom has a magnetic moment. Some have nuclear magnetic moment, some have electronic magnetic moment.

Every atom has an electron and proton, therefore every atom has a MM
A magnetic moment is a dipole, not a monopole.

Sure, when it's static, which is never...
If you consider spin as rotation of charge then why would it point in many different directions?

It's like a bouncy ball: if you were to put a laser on it and toss it, each time it hits it will point into a different direction. Now think of that on a quantum scale.
if a monopole rotates that does not average out its moment

It's the rotating dipole that creates the monopole.
You should be better informed before posting.

You should be more imaginative before posting.
ursiny33
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 10, 2016
In the magnetic dimension of electrical polarity, you need balanced charges and unbalanced fractional polarity charges , for the forces of magnetic attraction for magnetic bonding of quantum matter to build mass matter to make gravity even possible
baudrunner
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 10, 2016
You _do_ see the contradiction in your statement, I hope?
yah, when you put them in the same sentence. They are separate paragraphs, though. And you do get my point.

The idea of poles being able to be "indefinitely far apart" is original, and no doubt based on your readings of photon entanglement experiments. However, there are no occurrences of the words "entanglement", "apart", "distance" etc.in the article. They are looking for independent monopoles.

If you take two bar magnets with N of one facing S of the other and continually separate them farther and farther apart, then eventually the magnetic field that you can observe initially using iron filings will cease to exist altogether. The respective complements of each of those poles of its own bar magnet will overwhelm the initial attractive force between the two separate bar magnets. This is the situation in reality. The "entanglement" that you imagine simply cannot be.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (14) Aug 10, 2016

But the correlation coefficient is zero ;-)


What zero? Life isn't truth according to you. Your logic and foundation says "0"is really not there. There is no evidence, and no science, without life being truth.

If life is truth, then it's truthful evidence and your comments calling people names are lies. Own up!
Why do you keep posting this quasi-religious spurious religio-babble? The truth is that you are a loon; a certifiable candidate for the psychiatric ward; a semi-literate ecclesiastic preacher on par with Fred Phelps.

You've already been banned once for your babbling unintelligible gibberish. Working for #2?
ursiny33
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 10, 2016
Mass is not built under the forces of repulsion, of charged particles but magnetic attraction which leads to gravity multiples of mass
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (14) Aug 10, 2016
Well, there's another elusive particle that has also been predicted by quantum physics, and it's been missing for an even longer time. In fact, we still haven't spotted one, and not through lack of trying.

A hypothesis which predicts unicorns should reveal something is profoundly wrong with the hypothesis.
Exactly!! That's why the EU is such a laughable religion!

This is just great. cantthink and religio-prattleboob in the same comment section, both promoting their religion.
shavera
4.7 / 5 (13) Aug 10, 2016
It's the rotating dipole that creates the monopole.


No it doesn't. You can't create a monopole simply by rotating a dipole over all a sphere. Consider: A surface surrounding a monopole has a non-zero flux. A surface surrounding a dipole has zero flux. No amount of rotation turns zero flux into non-zero flux.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (13) Aug 10, 2016
Mass is not built under the forces of repulsion, of charged particles but magnetic attraction which leads to gravity multiples of mass

Holy geezus and now we have the mutterings of Zephir as well. Is there no end to the madness?
Scroofinator
2 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2016
No amount of rotation turns zero flux into non-zero flux.

You're missing the point, this idea doesn't create flux, nor does it violate gauss' law. It's essentially making "pseudo" monopoles out of dipoles.

Thought experiment; take two He atoms and isolate them in a confined space. As they float around, not wanting to become a molecule, one passes by the other (not hitting). Do they continue to travel in their own separate directions?
Ever Bleed
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2016
There is a number of things to consider.
- Not every atom has a magnetic moment. Some have nuclear magnetic moment, some have electronic magnetic moment.
- A magnetic moment is a dipole, not a monopole.
- If you consider spin as rotation of charge then why would it point in many different directions? There is conservation of angular momentum.
- if a monopole rotates that does not average out its moment
You should be better informed before posting.

I couldn't resist pointing out to smarter people than myself, that you need to replace the "is" in the first line, with an "are". English major. Just sayin'.
Scroofinator
2 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2016
Some have an even number of electrons and an even number of nucleons. In general these pair off, resulting in overall zero magnetic moment.

Given that the electron has a much stronger MM than the proton, and the neutron is very close to nothing, even if there are even numbers of electrons/nucleons there will still be a net MM.

You keep forgetting conservation of angular momentum.

"Viewing a magnetic dipole as a rotating charged particle brings out the close connection between magnetic moment and angular momentum. Both the magnetic moment and the angular momentum increase with the rate of rotation."
https://en.wikipe...c_moment
Scroofinator
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2016
if an atom has an even number of nucleons AND an even number of electrons

Then how about an example please?

You said "the rotating dipole that creates the monopole"

Pseudo-monopole. Gauss' law can't be violated.
Hyperfuzzy
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 11, 2016
This is so stupid, there are no words.
antiantigoracle
Aug 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Scroofinator
3 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2016
Helium, 2E 2P 2N
MMe=-9.285x10^26 J/T
MMp=1.411x10^26 J/T
MMn=-9.662x10^27 J/T
How does the electron's magnetic moment get cancelled out when it's 6 times larger than that of the nucleons combined?

Pseudo-monopole: overall effect of a dipole with a high spin and rotation.

Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2016
Phys,
I think Scroof may be hinting at... superluminal type spin.
An interesting speculation...
Scroofinator
3 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2016
The nuclear spins and the electron spins are paired off.

No, the charge is paired off, meaning that they are electrically neutral. But that sure doesn't mean they aren't still electromagnetically active. How else would we be able to detect the 21 cm line?
"The ground state of neutral hydrogen consists of an electron cloud bound to a proton. Both the electron and the proton have intrinsic magnetic dipole moments ascribed to their spin, whose interaction results in a slight increase in energy when the spins are parallel, and a decrease when antiparallel."
https://en.wikipe...gen_line

The pseudo-monopole is due to this parallel/antiparallel oscillation, and if there are two particles near each other there is an overall attraction unless the two are completely in phase.
Scroofinator
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2016
I think Scroof may be hinting at... superluminal

Could've stopped there WG, lol. After all, isn't that the goal :)

All elements have their own base energy level, thus per quantum field theory have their own fields. Each action has an equal and opposite reaction, so if we take action by increasing the energy level in a region of the field it should decrease in another. If you can control how far this action is apart, you can make a wave and ride on.

Alcubierre says it's possible.
gculpex
3 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2016
A positive monopole and a negative monopole meet....

Nothing special, just a regular particle is seen.
trevor_white
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2016
a structure with an internal pole and an external pole may display the desired properties but is that a monopole or not
david_gold
1.8 / 5 (8) Aug 12, 2016
In my paper on 'Quantum Magnetodynamics of Gravity' http://www.scienc...vity.pdf magnetic monopoles emanate from quantum chromodynamic coupling, as a by-product of quark/gluon interactions, and are forwarded as the mediators of the gravitational and magnetic fundamental forces. Thus inferring magnetic monopoles are massless gauge-bosons that are particles/antiparticles whereby facilitating annihilation of these opposite magnetically charged particles.

Added to the above, if magnetic monopoles did not interact with light then could be considered analogous to neutrinos, which at first these particles were also extremely difficult to detect. Similarity with neutrinos would then forward explanation why magnetic monopoles remain undetected by the fact of their equivalent 'invisibility'. Whereas neutrinos are free radical particles the precise functionality of magnetic monopoles, as presented above, would further compound difficulty in detection.
Scroofinator
3 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2016
I never said helium produced it, i was trying to imply that all elements have their own EM spectrum. And I meant that the EPN magnetic moments never completely cancel out, so every element has a magnetic moment.
Protoplasmix
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 12, 2016
A positive monopole and a negative monopole meet....

Nothing special, just a regular particle is seen.

A magnetic monopole walks into a bar, and the bartender says, "hey, some guys are lookin' fer you."
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (1) Aug 12, 2016
The MM says "well they ain't goin ta see me now with dem faces in their books"
tinitus
Aug 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tinitus
Aug 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 13, 2016
Ironically just the areas of research, which are ignored if not dismissed with mainstream physics
@zephir the pseudoscience TROLL
1- you forgot to read this: http://www.auburn...ion.html

2- read these: https://en.wikipe...c_method

https://en.wikipe...evidence

lastly:
If you make a claim without evidence, then the counter claim (reciprocal) without evidence holds the exact same validity. If you say something is without being able to prove it with evidence than simply saying something is NOT is equally valid and holds the same truth.

the cornerstones of the scientific method:
the claim
+
physical evidence supporting claim
+
it must be compatible with observation & past validated knowledge

dismissal of a baseless claim is not prejudice or wrong, it is REQUIRED by the scientific method
tinitus
Aug 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antiantigoracle
Aug 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2016
Sorry, I just tried to help the scientists with the search for confirmation of their own ideas
ROTFLMFAO

@zeph
and i bet you really believe that too...

problem is: you don't use the scientific method
you use your belief

by definition that is pseudoscience

the only thing you help do is:
1- spread misinformation, blatant lies, stupidity and pseudoscience

2- provide a point of reference for an instructor in any science field to demonstrate to others how science should never be done

3- provide an example of confirmation bias, Dunning-Kruger, delusion, pseudoscience, pluralistic ignorance and mass hysteria so that youths have a clear cut well-defined nut-job to look at as a demonstration of what they should never aspire to be

if you got out of your moms basement more, you would know that

... of course, that would also mean advancing your education past being a fry specialist at the local McD's as well
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2016
PS @zeph
you said
they're not only overlooking the findings of alternative science
no, they are not overlooking alternative science like your crap
.... they're not paying attention to it at all because it isn't science, scientific nor can it be validated

why?

because it aint science

there is absolutely no science whatsoever in your claims... if there was, you would be publishing in peer reviewed journals, not running a reddit PHISHING site attempting to convert the stupid for your own aggrandizement

tinitus
Aug 14, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
3.5 / 5 (4) Aug 14, 2016
a structure with an internal pole and an external pole may display the desired properties but is that a monopole or not

Isn't it then still bipolar? Just a different direction (or axis)?
tinitus
Aug 14, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tinitus
Aug 14, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2016
The simplest illustration of monopole concept is In essence it's the vortex ring, which is dragging its environment so fast, so that the EM field cannot escape from one side of it. Which is "easily" achievable inside the boson condensates, which easily form vortices and where the light is propagating very slowly due to massive entanglement of many atoms at the same moment.

Oh I see...mini-black holes then?
Seriously where does your info come from....'Quantum-mechanical monopoles discovered ,Researchers at Aalto University and Amherst College, USA, have observed a point-like monopole in a quantum field itself for the first time.' There is a picture there which describes the 'monopole' they created which they say is close to the theoretical picture predicted @ http://www.aalto....-04-30/. Perhaps others here would like to view that (if they haven't already) and comment accordingly. Looks a bit 'iffy' to me but then I'm a layman.
tinitus
Aug 14, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tinitus
Aug 14, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tinitus
Aug 14, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mimath224
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 14, 2016
How does zeph come up with this neverending story of sciencey crap?
Science should examine his head !

Oh, shame on you. Didn't you know that in Aethro kinematic theory the magnetic field is caused by the circulation of the Aether...I thought everyone knew that. Two Aether vortex rings in opposite directions give a dipole like magnetic field while if separated by distance such would give a monopole pattern.
Yeah, I know utter c**p maybe zeph will experiment and disappear...we can but hope.
tinitus
Aug 14, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tinitus
Aug 14, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tinitus
Aug 14, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tinitus
Aug 14, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tinitus
Aug 14, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gculpex
3 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2016
a structure with an internal pole and an external pole may display the desired properties but is that a monopole or not

I thought the same thing, sort of like a biological cell with a thin layer for the difference.
tinitus
Aug 14, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Aug 14, 2016
@zeph & the gish-gallop of stupid
1- 11 posts and no evidence other than: imgur, jimether DOT com blog of non-sceintific stupidity, a dictionary definition you don't understand and a physics site you didn't comprehend

2- why do you flood with known pseudoscience to support what you believe?
do you really think that you will be able to actually argue a scientific point when your resources are predominantly pseudoscience or opinion articles?

what makes you any different than ISIS/ISIL or any other religion spouting their belief without evidence or with delusional belief in links that don't actually prove anything but your literacy fails?

can you honestly prove anything about your aether stupidity other than you're adherence to it's dogma because you don't want to agree with the evidence of the SM?

you've not proven anything to date other than your religious fanaticism and literacy failures
learn about reality before posting crap
http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
tinitus
Aug 14, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Aug 14, 2016
The simplest illustration of monopole concept is In essence it's the vortex ring, which is dragging its environment so fast, so that the EM field cannot escape from one side of it. ..., which easily form vortices and where the light is propagating very slowly due to massive entanglement of many atoms at the same moment.

Oh I see...mini-black holes then?
Seriously where does your info come from....'Quantum-mechanical monopoles discovered ,Researchers at Aalto University and Amherst College, USA, have observed a point-like monopole in a quantum field itself for the first time.' There is a picture there which describes the 'monopole' they created which they say is close to the theoretical picture predicted @ http://www.aalto....-04-30/. Perhaps others here would like to view that (if they haven't already) and comment accordingly. Looks a bit 'iffy' to me but then I'm a layman.

Looked like it had separate poles to me...
But, I'm just an artist...
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 14, 2016
I'm the only person at the world, who understands why and how the contemporary physical theories are working.

...aaaand that's why you spend your time on a science journalism site's comments section (not even a science site, but a science journalism site). Even to someone as terminally deluded as you that should raise a few flags, alarms, klaxons, air horns, fog horns and air raid sirens as to the veracity of your statement.
You, sir, are so utterly crazy they'll have to invent a new word for it.
tinitus
Aug 14, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tinitus
Aug 14, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tinitus
Aug 14, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2016
If you didn't understand something, feel free to ask
@zeph
i did ask two important questions above... ya gonna give me honest answers?
I'm the only person at the world, who understands why and how
and you really believe this too, even though you've demonstrated an epic failure to provide not only empirical evidence to support your pseudoscience but you also demonstrate a complete ignorance (and illiteracy) regarding the basic science involved
this is called the "Dunning-Kruger" effect: https://en.wikipe...r_effect

here's the problem with your comment:
if you had half the ability you claim you have, you would be not only providing evidence that is better than pseudoscience (and your beliefs)...

but you would also be posting links to reputable science & studies that you yourself wrote and others validated

given that you can only lurk/troll science sites that don't moderate, it's telling...
tinitus
Aug 14, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tinitus
Aug 14, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2016
It's telling that mainstream science massively moderates/censors its sites
@zeph the pseudoscience terrorist
ROTFLMFAO
there is little to no moderation here on PO, ya idiot... there isn't censorship for new evidence based arguments, or logical thought on *any* moderated science site

... only for delusional bullsh*t

more to the point: there is a *very clear definition* for what constitutes science vrs what is not science
https://en.wikipe...evidence

if what you have to "share" in your collection isn't constrained by the scientific method, then it is, by definition, pseudoscience, and not science

it is no different than the religious idiots posting here about their faith

in fact, the only difference between you and the religious idiots is that you aren't making near as much money and you likely pay taxes (because being a fry-cook isn't a 501(c)3, nor is it able to claim religious status or tax exemption)
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2016
@zeph the pseudoscience terrorist troll
Did you ever bother to visit the reddit archive of my posts?
no, nor will i ever

there are some important reasons why:
1- it is not science

2- it is not source material, reputable, or validated

3- it isn't constrained by the scientific method

4- i don't like fiction and very rarely read any fiction at all... so why would i read your fiction?
This is not how the ignorant site looks like
no matter how much "science" you include, so long as you give equal validity to pseudoscience, faith or belief then it's a pseudoscience site

it is also the very definition of ignorant site, pseudoscience site or delusional beliefs (or religion) which i have nothing to do with
maybe we could compare it with this yours one instead
Sure

here is my site: http://science.sciencemag.org/

Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 14, 2016
If one of the poles of a magnet gets obliterated somehow I suppose the lines of force around it would also unravel but there might still be some around the other pole, so it would be, at least temporarily, a magnetic monopole. The monopole could still drag around its lines of force and exert an emf if they crossed the path of any other charges. Or so it seems.
Mimath224
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 14, 2016
@Captain Stumpy: ....Our qualification levels are so different, you even cannot recognize it in similar way, like the ant sitting at the tree cannot imagine the size of the tree. You would need a distance, which you haven't.

Unfortunately, you've shown your ignorance again...you don't know anything about ants. Ants CAN calculate distance and they don't 'sit' in trees because they're to damn busy 'protecting' it. Look up 'path integrator' and learn something about the world you live in...on second thoughts you live in a different world to the rest of us, Ha!
GToeroe
5 / 5 (2) Aug 15, 2016
Avoiding Dirac's mistakes in his attempts on a monopole theory there is a consistent theory called "Regular Charge-Monopole Theory" (RCMT), which casts a system of fields and charges by E -> B; B ->-E; e -> g; g -> -e (g monopole strength) into a system of fields and monopoles obtained from an application of pure theoretical arguments to Maxwellian electrodynamics. For a mixed system RCMT yields the following results: 1. Charges do not interact with bound fields of monopoles; monopoles do not interact with bound fields of charges; radiation fields of the systems are identical and charges as well as monopoles interact with them. 2. g is a free parameter (unlike in Dirac's theory). With this ansatz strong force can be described with quarks carrying a monopole charge + a core monopole within a proton carrying an opposite monopole charge describing explained and unexplained data from QCD experiments. So monopoles could be always there before our eyes (tau.ac.il/~elicomay/)
tinitus
Aug 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2016
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NWQ6aGWBFV4/Uuq-2gCkG-I/AAAAAAAAFFY/Plc-vaWIE5U/s1600/Scientists_create_monopoles_in_synthetic_magnetic_field_medium%25281%2529.gif
@zephTROLLING with pseudscience
1- your links states "1.bp.blogspot.com"... it's not valid source material let alone science

2- blogs are *not* equivalent to reputable peer reveiwed source material

3- if ya can't find reputable source material it is telling about the content you're attempting to validate
IOW- it's PSEUDOSCIENCE, not science

Seeker2
not rated yet Aug 15, 2016
Homespun science theory? For example, lines of force are actually strings of virtual particle pairs arranged head to tail. That is if you call the virtual electron the tail and the virtual positron the head. Virtual positrons have lower energy density than virtual electrons. Normally these particle pairs are distributed randomly but in the presence of a real charged particle the virtual positron will be attracted to the electron and the virtual electron will be attracted to the positron and the string of heads and tails will begin to build up. When the real particles move relative to each other the lines of force will be spread out or bunch up leading to an emf normal to the lines of force. The point of energy density is that the vacuum pressure provides the force to make the electrostatic attraction. That is the lowest energy state of the vacuum is when regions of high density approach regions of low density. Opposites attract.
Seeker2
not rated yet Aug 15, 2016
cont
Similar effect with Newtonian gravity except regions of low energy density are caused by the presence of matter which displaces the vacuum energy pressure. So everything is driven by the dark energy. Not surprising since there is so much of it out there.
tinitus
Aug 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mimath224
4.8 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2016
your links states "1.bp.blogspot.com"... it's not valid source material let alone science
Ironically you're raising this objection at PhysOrg, which is "just" an "suspiciously untrustful" popular science news site. What are you doing right here, after then? The formal orientation to source instead of substance of information is one of signs of pathological skepticism. In this way many important findings of the recent decades were pluralisticaly ignored and dismissed, because they didn't originate from authoritative sources.

@tinitus, don't think that's 100% correct because MOST articles here quote the full detail article source. However, in this case I don't think I would classify the website 'Conversation' similarly as that site looks like a general conversation setup.
gculpex
1 / 5 (1) Aug 15, 2016
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NWQ6aGWBFV4/Uuq-2gCkG-I/AAAAAAAAFFY/Plc-vaWIE5U/s1600/Scientists_create_monopoles_in_synthetic_magnetic_field_medium%25281%2529.gif

So a monopole decides to move backwards in a circle?
Seeker2
not rated yet Aug 16, 2016
In this way many important findings of the recent decades were pluralisticaly ignored and dismissed, because they didn't originate from authoritative sources.
More likely the ghost of a science fiction writer come back from the dead to haunt us.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Aug 16, 2016
"just" an "suspiciously untrustful" popular science news site
@zephir the pseudoscience TROLL
and i've also said in the past that an article is not equivalent to a study, have i not?

PO is nothing more than a news aggregate
What are you doing right here
this site is geared towards news and discussion of said news using common tactics familiar to STEM discourse, historically called rules but now called guidelines on PO on order to pander to trolls

regardless
to post a link to PO, a blog or other similar source as evidence of anything other than a quote or a news article is like posting the address of a church as proof of a deities existence

just because you believe in something doesn't mean it's real, nor does linking anecdote or more "believers" justification of being valid, interpreted correctly, nor scientific fact

source material = peer reviewed journal studies with evidence that can be validated, not opinion links
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Aug 16, 2016
@zeph cont'd
In this way many important findings of the recent decades were pluralisticaly ignored and dismissed, because they didn't originate from authoritative sources
1- again, you are using transference

2- you don't comprehend what pluralistic ignorance is, and you sure as h*ll haven't made an argument for it being present in mainstream science, though you demonstrate it with your links

3- it is not pluralistic ignorance to dismiss falsified studies, debunked pseudoscience or anything that doesn't have evidence or that can't be replicated (like your cf arguments, aether, or other pseudoscience)

this is where your pluralistic argument fails:
no evidence = dismissed as irrelevant
not able to replicate = no valid evidence
falsified by current known physics = no evidence

until you can bring evidence that isn't opinion or belief, or that can be validated and then replicated, then what you are arguing is, by definition, pseudoscience (not science)
tinitus
Aug 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tinitus
Aug 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tinitus
Aug 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
not rated yet Aug 16, 2016
...like the monopole turbulences of dark matter.
High brow sci-fi all the way.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.