Axion Posted March 8, 2021 Posted March 8, 2021 how true is that the 2009 discovery of magnetic monopoles changed the GLM law? Quote Magnetic monopoles detected in a real magnet for the first time ~ https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-09/haog-mmd090209.php Quote Scalar waves are two of three possible wave types, the electromagnetic wave, in 1888 discovered by Heinrich Hertz, the electric scalar wave, discovered by Tesla around 1890, and the magnetic SW, which plays the crucial role in biology [2]. However, until now the scalar waves have not been recognized by the physicists because they are not describable with the Maxwell equations. It is important to know that the third equation (div B = 0) was extended by the Helmholz Society in 2009 (div B> 0) by the discovery of Magnetic Monopoles. Unknowingly, this discovery results in scalar waves. ... https://www.oatext.com/longitudinal-magnetic-waves-trigger-higher-atp-levels-and-extend-the-aging-process-of-plants.php 2013 ~ Consequences of the Extended Field Theory ~ Konstantin Meyl ~ http://www.k-meyl.de/go/Primaerliteratur/2P9_0930-1-piers-extended_field_theory.pdf
dimreepr Posted March 8, 2021 Posted March 8, 2021 4 minutes ago, Axion said: how true is that the 2009 discovery of magnetic monopoles changed the GLM law? 2013 ~ Consequences of the Extended Field Theory ~ Konstantin Meyl ~ http://www.k-meyl.de/go/Primaerliteratur/2P9_0930-1-piers-extended_field_theory.pdf Imagine that...
swansont Posted March 8, 2021 Posted March 8, 2021 Topological monopoles are not the monopoles excluded by Maxwell's equations.
Axion Posted March 8, 2021 Author Posted March 8, 2021 20 minutes ago, swansont said: Topological monopoles are not the monopoles excluded by Maxwell's equations. hm, Please explain ... now when they are observed so its not probability, thus its logical that the equitation should be changed!? https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_Second_Maxwell_Equation_Say_There_Are_No_Magnetic_Monopoles Quote Introducing magnetic monopoles into the Maxwell’s equations is trivial: It is even so trivial that all of its properties are completely arbitrary:Its existence is not forbidden, nor required eitherMass and charge are arbitraryIn fact, by allowing magnetic charges the Maxwell’s equations obtain a newsymmetry, a U(1) duality transformation between electric and magneticfields/charges/currents ... https://indico.cern.ch/event/810353/contributions/3462348/attachments/1867309/3071081/2019-06-24_FJFI_ATLAS_CZSK_Workshop_monopoles.pdf Quote div B = 0 forbids the existence of monopoles as no monopoles are observed it follows that div B = 0 https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?97869-Magnetic-Monopoles-and-Maxwell-s-Equations&s=b79088bf2af42b8777906677ac8aca87&p=1639625#post1639625
swansont Posted March 8, 2021 Posted March 8, 2021 Maxwell's equations forbid a fundamental particle that is a magnetic monopole, not a material such as spin ice, or some other condensed matter system, that exhibits such properties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole#"Monopoles"_in_condensed-matter_systems
studiot Posted March 8, 2021 Posted March 8, 2021 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Axion said: hm, Please explain ... Magnetic monopoles have never been observed. This history (the most up to date I could find - 2019) has an easy to digest explanation by a renouned expert Physicist. Note the string monopoles are simply very long thin strings with a pole at each end so the poles are really well separated. But both exist. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/02/07/the-enduring-mystery-of-detecting-the-universes-only-magnetic-monopole/ Note also that just as 'holes' in semiconductors are not real particles but the net result of the surroundings which can be considered to act as though they were real, it is possible to arrange spins so their combination acts as if it were a single pole. Edited March 8, 2021 by studiot
Axion Posted March 8, 2021 Author Posted March 8, 2021 4 minutes ago, studiot said: Magnetic monopoles have never been observed. hm I have offered the german finding in the first quote of the first post here is another one successful experiment 2014 ~ Physicists create synthetic magnetic monopoles in the lab ~ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140129164807.htm
studiot Posted March 8, 2021 Posted March 8, 2021 Did you actually read the article by Dr Siegel that I posted ? Experimenters have been 'discovering' monopoles for a long time. The trouble is no one has yet reproduced the findings of any of them so the claims cannot be substantiated.
swansont Posted March 8, 2021 Posted March 8, 2021 39 minutes ago, Axion said: hm I have offered the german finding in the first quote of the first post here is another one successful experiment 2014 ~ Physicists create synthetic magnetic monopoles in the lab ~ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140129164807.htm <sigh> Researchers have created and photographed synthetic magnetic monopoles under lab conditions. The development lays the foundation for the underlying structure of the natural magnetic monopole – the detection of which would be a revolutionary event comparable to the discovery of the electron. In the summary it is quite clear that they have not, in fact, discovered a magnetic monopole. A magnetic monopole is a particle just like an electron, but with a magnetic rather than an electric charge. Some 80 years ago Paul A. M. Dirac, one of the founders of quantum physics, discovered a quantum-mechanical structure allowing the existence of magnetic monopoles. Dirac's original framework has now been experimentally realized for the first time. They realized a Dirac monopole, which is a QM structure, not a fundamental particle. As I pointed out before, these are not the same thing. I really hope this does not have to be pointed out again.
Axion Posted March 8, 2021 Author Posted March 8, 2021 28 minutes ago, swansont said: They realized a Dirac monopole, which is a QM structure, not a fundamental particle. As I pointed out before, these are not the same thing. I really hope this does not have to be pointed out again. hm spinning ice is quasi particle You say, probably for quantum tunneling You'll say that is also quasi relation, You know particle physics recently is in question, but as force such behavior as stated before here is another one is observed, so not that I want to postulate new physics but just asked is it possible div B = 0 to be expanded to div B> 0 by the proposed quantum monopole observations! the point is that maybe we dont have the finite understanding or true way of measurement at the moment, not that I am somehow debunking or proving something but just saying its not possible to stay hooked on the current physics indefinitely as dogma and in same time there are multitude of anomalies in the measurements not just in particle physics but also plasma physics [1] so dont play that game "I really hope this does not have to be pointed out again" its like moderating authority not discussion ... -2
swansont Posted March 8, 2021 Posted March 8, 2021 39 minutes ago, Axion said: hm spinning ice is quasi particle You say, probably for quantum tunneling You'll say that is also quasi relation, You know particle physics recently is in question, but as force such behavior as stated before here is another one is observed, so not that I want to postulate new physics but just asked is it possible div B = 0 to be expanded to div B> 0 by the proposed quantum monopole observations! the point is that maybe we dont have the finite understanding or true way of measurement at the moment, not that I am somehow debunking or proving something but just saying its not possible to stay hooked on the current physics indefinitely as dogma and in same time there are multitude of anomalies in the measurements not just in particle physics but also plasma physics [1] so dont play that game "I really hope this does not have to be pointed out again" its like moderating authority not discussion ... You're just throwing out physics terminology (spin ice, not spinning ice, I did not say anything about quantum tunneling) If you want to you can go study physics and follow along with Dirac's derivation of the monopoles he predicted, but I have little patience for anything resembling "we don't know everything so we know nothing" style of arguments, or appeals to physics as dogma. If you want to dive into the deep end of physics, you need to first learn how to swim. You need to bring a certain amount of physics knowledge to the table in order to have a discussion. 1
Axion Posted March 8, 2021 Author Posted March 8, 2021 3 minutes ago, swansont said: You need to bring a certain amount of physics knowledge to the table in order to have a discussion. I brought certain quotes and question and You didnt answer on them directly just evaded the answer stating magnetic monopoles are not particles, now when I pointed that particle physics is in vacuum You say you are not fit to swim in physics, as answer I'll use el.un. proponents point Scientific "Ignore-ance" is Not Bliss ... my skepticism is not per'se against physics but mainstream dogmas almost same assurance like in microbiology around RNA editing like we know what we do, yep as always exceptionalism is factor for great mistakes or wasted time! so I'll ask again can someone answer my prime question!? -3
studiot Posted March 8, 2021 Posted March 8, 2021 (edited) 4 hours ago, Axion said: how true is that the 2009 discovery of magnetic monopoles changed the GLM law? 1) Magnetic monopoles were not discovered in 2009. 2) Your link is not a true representation of Gauss law of magnetism. It is a modern derivation of it, which does not take into account the fact that the original law, as Gauss experimentally verified it, was only show to be true to a first order. He found that to a first order [math]F \propto \frac{{{M_1}{M_2}}}{{{d^2}}}[/math] That is the force between magnets varies as the product of their pole strengths and inversely as their distance apart. He tested this over distances between 1.1 and 4.0 metres. ref : C F Gauss Poggend An 38 p591 1833 Go and read his paper. Edited March 8, 2021 by studiot
Axion Posted March 8, 2021 Author Posted March 8, 2021 6 minutes ago, studiot said: 1) Magnetic monopoles were not discovered in 2009. as I can see then they are observed first time so excuse me for the semantics ... "2009 ~ Magnetic Monopoles Detected In A Real Magnet For The First Time" [1] GLW is pointed by me in general, but in fact the derivation in the 3rd maxwell equation is in question div B = 0 so again evading the question i.e. would the "discovery" of magnetic monopoles lead to div B > 0 its simple question but is not answered in the reply above!?
Ghideon Posted March 8, 2021 Posted March 8, 2021 34 minutes ago, Axion said: would the "discovery" of magnetic monopoles lead to div B > 0 its simple question but is not answered in the reply above!? The Dirac strings mentioned in the link https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090903163725.htm does not imply that the quote in the opening post is correct: 5 hours ago, Axion said: Scalar waves are two of three possible wave types, the electromagnetic wave, in 1888 discovered by Heinrich Hertz, the electric scalar wave, discovered by Tesla around 1890, and the magnetic SW, which plays the crucial role in biology [2]. However, until now the scalar waves have not been recognized by the physicists because they are not describable with the Maxwell equations. It is important to know that the third equation (div B = 0) was extended by the Helmholz Society in 2009 (div B> 0) by the discovery of Magnetic Monopoles. Unknowingly, this discovery results in scalar waves. ... https://www.oatext.com/longitudinal-magnetic-waves-trigger-higher-atp-levels-and-extend-the-aging-process-of-plants.php "scalar waves" does not seem to exist at all in mainstream physics.
MigL Posted March 8, 2021 Posted March 8, 2021 Actual magnetic monopoles are excluded by one of Maxwell's equations. Nevertheless they can be included, and have been theorized to have been created at certain stages of the universe's early evolution, specifically at domain boundaries. One of the explanations for their rarity is the 'dilution' brought about by inflation and subsequent expansion. They are mostly predicted by GUTs, along the same lines as Supersymmetric particles, which have not been observed either. If you understand a little Physics and math, this might be a good place to start ... Magnetic monopole - Wikipedia What you describe is certain 'conditions' which act as magnetic monopoles, These same 'conditions' can also be treated as particles. ( like the 'holes' Studiot mentioned )
studiot Posted March 8, 2021 Posted March 8, 2021 1 hour ago, Axion said: as I can see then they are observed first time so excuse me for the semantics ... "2009 ~ Magnetic Monopoles Detected In A Real Magnet For The First Time" [1] GLW is pointed by me in general, but in fact the derivation in the 3rd maxwell equation is in question div B = 0 so again evading the question i.e. would the "discovery" of magnetic monopoles lead to div B > 0 its simple question but is not answered in the reply above!? It is noted in my original reply that the 2009 experiment you linked to does not show physical monopoles. Here is a description of the experiment, note that the opposite pole does exist as I said, but that it is hidden away creating a "quasiparticle that serves as a magnetic monopole analogue." Quote Magnetic strings can be created under specific laboratory conditions, where the two ends of the strings, corresponding to north and south poles, can be well-separated by extremely large distances. If one pole is kept relatively isolated from the rest, it can create a quasiparticle that serves as a magnetic monopole analogue. D. J. P. Morris et al. (2009), Science Vol. 326, 5951, pp. 411-414 So divB = 0 is currently safe, though as MigL notes (and again is discussed in the table in the article i linked to) if a monopole is ever found it is easy to modify this equations to accomodate that. 1
Axion Posted March 8, 2021 Author Posted March 8, 2021 1 hour ago, studiot said: So divB = 0 is currently safe, though as MigL notes (and again is discussed in the table in the article i linked to) if a monopole is ever found it is easy to modify this equations to accomodate that. and this is more normal answer, THanks ... but did You checks the hype about the standard model i.e. "particle physics recently is in question" probably You are aware that this means maybe the standard model is wrong!? if so then we have other variables for consideration around the need for monopoles as particles? fundamentally this means "noone knows for sure what particles are in our universe or what equations describe their exact behavior in all circumstances" ... 2 hours ago, MigL said: What you describe is certain 'conditions' which act as magnetic monopoles, exactly, it could be some sort of Near Field force [1][1]
MigL Posted March 9, 2021 Posted March 9, 2021 What has to be kept in mind is that Physicists are trying to describe the workings of the universe/reality with mathematical models. We have models that describe matter of being composed of irreducible quantum particles, which sometimes act as particles and other times as waves, but may be either/nether, and, as far as we know, have zero size. We also model some effects as particles ( easier to handle mathematically ), because of convenience. Solitons, inflatons, the previously mentioned holes are treated as particles by our models; yet they are not. On the other hand, some of our models ( QFT ) treat leptons, like electrons and neutrinos, and quarks, as excitation effects of their respective fields, and not a quantum particle at all. Sometimes it's hard not to confuse the model with whatever reality actually is ... 1
Axion Posted March 9, 2021 Author Posted March 9, 2021 true ... defacto the models are derived from and postulated by some theory, thus the same should be measurable so we would say its law, now, as we can see recently measurements got wrong with the standard particle model, and this completely changes many mainstream dogmas, normally opens door for different interpretations as Tesla said that couldnt be explained mathematically to those that simply dont have will for open mind but just scientific elitism ... -3
Ghideon Posted March 9, 2021 Posted March 9, 2021 New scientific discoveries will be made. Current models will be modified or, in some cases, replaced by new and better models. That is expected and an exiting part of science. Some theories that are supported by large amount of evidence is less likely to be completely replaced. And many ideas that were completely wrong according to old theories will still be completely wrong when new discoveries are made. Complaining about dogma or elitism will not change that.
Axion Posted March 9, 2021 Author Posted March 9, 2021 I am not complaining but in the way how mainstream theories are imposed as finate simply they are becoming scientific dogmas! so instead in this thread to have discussion on probabilities the same is evaded simply by mainstream fingerprinting, and when I challenged that mainstream notion concerning particles, I was ignored, on top the thread ended up in Specul subforum, so Please tell me how is this not scientific elitism!?
Bufofrog Posted March 9, 2021 Posted March 9, 2021 3 minutes ago, Axion said: I am not complaining but in the way how mainstream theories are imposed as finate simply they are becoming scientific dogmas! Glad your not complaining since theories are neither finite nor dogma, so that would be a waste of time!
Axion Posted March 9, 2021 Author Posted March 9, 2021 3 minutes ago, Bufofrog said: Glad your not complaining since theories are neither finite nor dogma, so that would be a waste of time! yeah but Tesla was complaining, and still He was ridiculed, so elite dogmatism rulz among many ...
Bufofrog Posted March 9, 2021 Posted March 9, 2021 1 minute ago, Axion said: yeah but Tesla was complaining, and still He was ridiculed, so elite dogmatism rulz among many ... His good ideas were accepted, his bad ideas were rejected [shrug].
Recommended Posts