Magnetic Monopole Discovered?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Details here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1440729&postcount=98

[mikelepore]

If it's true this would mean that the 2nd of Maxwell's four laws of electromagnetism (the divergence of the magnetic field vector is always zero) would no longer be considered a universal truth. Maxwell's equations are just about the only thing that made it through the discoveries of special and general relativity and then quantum mechanics without having to be modified -- and now we would suddenly have a problem with them.

[Vincent]

If it's true this would mean that the 2nd of Maxwell's four laws of electromagnetism (the divergence of the magnetic field vector is always zero) would no longer be considered a universal truth. Maxwell's equations are just about the only thing that made it through the discoveries of special and general relativity and then quantum mechanics without having to be modified -- and now we would suddenly have a problem with them.

I wouldn't doubt that it's true, but from what I understand it's implications for electromagneticsm are very minimal due to the nature of monopole found. Though it opens up new theoretical possibilities, which is why this is a significant find.

[mikelepore]

Me: "If it's true...."
You: "I wouldn't doubt that it''s true...."

Well, the article says "we may have found them" and it says "it seems that...."

[Black Sheep]

Does DM say that the colliding opposites in a magnet should be the two poles, and only that?
It can always run back to the proton-electron.

[mikelepore]

If someone had to identify opposites in the production of a magnetic field, they wouldn't be the electron and proton pair, because a single elementary particle can be the source of an intrinsic magnetic field. The opposites or poles would be - which is the direction from which the spin looks clockwise and which is the direction from which the spin looks counterclockwise. To speak of the spin of a particle doesn't mean that it's actually spinning, but somehow it has angular momentum, and no one has a visual picture of what that means.

In cases where a magnetic field is produced by a current loop you have several opposites, which can cancel out; for example, a clockwise loop of positive charges or a counterclockwise loop of negative charges would produce the same magnetic field orientation. You also have a potential gradient causing that current loop.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bulk Sheep:


It can always run back to the proton-electron.

In addition to what Mike has said, some DM-fans do what you say, but others some use the electron-positron pair. But the thing is that the theory speaks about a 'unity and interpenetration of polar opposites' and neither of these fit the bill. They are not 'internally' but externally connected.

Moreover, they do not turn into each other (as the theory says they must do so 'inevitably', and as a result of 'struggle' -- has anyone witnessed a positron 'struggling' wth an electron? Anyway, when they meet, the annihilate one another!).

Nor do they change because if their own 'internal contradictions', since, for example, the electron has no internal structure.

And protons do not change anyway. Neither do photons nor electrons

[bezdomni]

Hm. If this is the case, I wonder if a molecule could be constructed that is a natural monopole (i.e. would behave very much unlike water).

Are there any technical papers on this? Quickly scanning arXiv gives this (http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-lat/0703023), but I'd be interested in seeing something more in terms of research.


Neither do photons nor electrons
I was going to give you full marks for correctly using "nor" (in all it's outdated grammatical glory), but then I realized you didn't punctuate that sentence. :p

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Hm. If this is the case, I wonder if a molecule could be constructed that is a natural monopole (i.e. would behave very much unlike water).

Erm, I thought monopoles were elementary particles?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

SovietNickers:


I was going to give you full marks for correctly using "nor" (in all it's outdated grammatical glory), but then I realized you didn't punctuate that sentence.

And I thought I was the pedant here!:tt2: