Magnetic monopoles?

[KipIngram]

I was a little unsure whether to post this in the relativity or quantum section, so mods please move it if it fits better in quantum. Also, I'm not pushing the argument below out as "obviously true" - I'm just throwing out the idea for feedback and commentary.

 

I've read about people trying to find magnetic monopoles. But given that the magnetic and electric fields are related to one another relativistically, there will always be a magnetic field (in some inertial frame) if there is an electric field in any inertial frame. Imagine that in my lab frame I set up a uniformly charged rod (long compared to the lab). In my lab frame the charge configuration is stationary, and I measure an electric field but no magnetic field.

 

Now an observer flying through my lab will see charges in motion, and will measure a magnetic field. But that field exists purely because of the requirements of relativity. It seems that if monopoles existed then they would have to be detectable in the lab frame too. I'm not totally sure of that, but after all, they would be distinct particles. Is it possible for particles to exist in one frame but not in another frame?

 

Anyway, that's the thought process - I'm wondering if the very relativistic origin of the magnetic field implies that it's created by the same particles that create the electric field, which would mean no further particles are required.

Ooops - sorry for the duplicate post. Is it possible for me to delete posts I've created, or does that require moderator assistance?

[MigL]

Most of what I know about magnetic monopoles comes from GUTs, which predict their formation at the boundaries of domains where a symmetry break has occurred.

Their production and lack of decay modes ( due to vacuum energy configuration ) predicted large amounts of magnetic monopoles in the present universe.

This is what Alan Guth was working on when he stumbled on the idea of inflation.

Inflation neatly took care of the problem ( and many others ) By making them extremely rare after inflation.

 

I believe P A M Dirac came up with their lack of decay modes, but he had previously worked on relativistic considerations of monopoles ( and used that symmetry to establish charge quantization ), and that work may be something to look into for an answer to your questions.

[TakenItSeriously]

I was a little unsure whether to post this in the relativity or quantum section, so mods please move it if it fits better in quantum. Also, I'm not pushing the argument below out as "obviously true" - I'm just throwing out the idea for feedback and commentary.

 

I've read about people trying to find magnetic monopoles. But given that the magnetic and electric fields are related to one another relativistically, there will always be a magnetic field (in some inertial frame) if there is an electric field in any inertial frame. Imagine that in my lab frame I set up a uniformly charged rod (long compared to the lab). In my lab frame the charge configuration is stationary, and I measure an electric field but no magnetic field.

 

Now an observer flying through my lab will see charges in motion, and will measure a magnetic field. But that field exists purely because of the requirements of relativity. It seems that if monopoles existed then they would have to be detectable in the lab frame too. I'm not totally sure of that, but after all, they would be distinct particles. Is it possible for particles to exist in one frame but not in another frame?

 

Anyway, that's the thought process - I'm wondering if the very relativistic origin of the magnetic field implies that it's created by the same particles that create the electric field, which would mean no further particles are required.

Ooops - sorry for the duplicate post. Is it possible for me to delete posts I've created, or does that require moderator assistance?

I always avoided anything on relativistic electromagnetism because it seemed like confusion squared, so I may be asking a naive question but does't Gause's law say mangnetic monopoles can't exist?