Monopoles

[rigney]

Is there, or can there ever be any proof of monopoles? Since we can explain the effects of what we consider gravity to be through very sophisticated formulation; is it possible that monopoles might fit into that same catagory?

[swansont]

Are you talking about magnetic monopoles, or monopoles in general? The former have never been conclusively, repeatedly observed. The latter abound in electrostatics and gravitation.

[ajb]

Is there, or can there ever be any proof of monopoles?

 

I assume you mean magnetic monopoles in a modified version of Maxwell's theory?

 

One proof would be to find one in the lab.

 

If you mean "theoretical evidence", then the best I can point to is quantisation of electric charge. The presence of magnetic monopoles forces electric charge to be quantised. But this is not really proof. Maybe we can find other arguments for charge quantisation.

 

Since we can explain the effects of what we consider gravity to be through very sophisticated formulation; is it possible that monopoles might fit into that same catagory?

 

I don't really understand what you are asking.

 

However, more sophisticated theories of particles also have monopoles. Furthermore, it is expected that these would be created in the early universe. So, the existence or not of more general monopoles is a tough subject.

 

As an aside, there is lots of great mathematics behind monopoles and related things.

[rigney]

AJB, both you and Swansont's understanding of the question is far beyond my ability to answer. Math to me is like pouring oil and water together, they just don't mix. But, if I can use a: "What If". What if every particle of matter in the universe is endowed with this innate trait of being monopolar as the result of Quauqism?

Edited June 27, 2010 by rigney

[insane_alien]

monopolar in what? magnetism? electrostatics? gravitational? what?

 

you can't just say monopolar without a qualification of what its a monopole of.

[ajb]

Field theories can have two "particle-like objects":

 

1) Quanta.

2) Solitons (monopoles are an example of topological solitons, there are also non-topological solitons).

 

The first is quantum mechanical in nature, the second is classical.

 

Are you asking if all matter could be solitons? I doubt there is a formulation of everything as a soliton. There is the Skyrme model (a type of sigma-model) in which baryons are described by a topological soliton known as a Skyrmion. The topological charge is identified with the Baryon number. I think it was Skyrme who first asked if quanta and solitons are fundamentally different or not. In the context of the sinh-Gordon model he showed how quantua and solitions are essentially the same. I can't recall the details, but you can relate this to the massive Thirring model.

 

 

There is a nice review paper from 1995 by D.I. Olive "EXACT ELECTROMAGNETIC DUALITY". It covers the basics of electromagnetic duality in electromagnetism and also supersymmetric theories. It also talks about Zamolodchikov's work on giving particles mass via conformal symmetry and solitons. It may be of interest here. You can find it here.

Edited June 27, 2010 by ajb

[swansont]

Quauqism

 

 

What is this?

[rigney]

monopolar in what? magnetism? electrostatics? gravitational? what?

 

you can't just say monopolar without a qualification of what its a monopole of.

 

 

I really thought there was only one answer to monopole. I thought it meant only one pole. If I may ask, what is a gravitational monopole?

[ajb]

I really thought there was only one answer to monopole. I thought it meant only one pole.

 

 

Yes, you need to examine the field lines.

 

Think about the gravitational field around a massive, spherically symmetric, non-rotating body.

[rigney]

 

What is this?

 

 

 

What little I know of quantum physics or mechanics wouldn't fill a gnats ear. But a sub-particle, preferably the quark; I hope can one day be shown as the transitional phase between the world of anti-energy and our world of matter. The word Quauq seemed appropriate.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Yes, you need to examine the field lines.

 

Think about the gravitational field around a massive, spherically symmetric, non-rotating body.

 

 

That's my problem. I can't imagine a magnetic field unless it is a natural lode stone, having been induced electrically to form a magnet, or generated from an external source to propel something such as a motor/generator. But each of these are bipolar or multipolar conditions. My thought is, if a single ballbearing could be magnetised spherically to retain "either" an attractive or repulsive state on every point of its surface, that to me would be a monopole. I believe this is the natural phenomenon inside each atom from inception.

Edited June 27, 2010 by rigney
Consecutive posts merged.

[swansont]

That's my problem. I can't imagine a magnetic field unless it is a natural lode stone, having been induced electrically to form a magnet, or generated from an external source to propel something such as a motor/generator. But each of these are bipolar or multipolar conditions. My thought is, if a single ballbearing could be magnetised spherically to retain "either" an attractive or repulsive state on every point of its surface, that to me would be a monopole. I believe this is the natural phenomenon inside each atom from inception.

 

We've never seen it happen. But electrostatic charges behave like this, as does mass. So you have to tell us what system you are looking at when discussing monopoles.

[rigney]

Well!, at what, and what type of monopole are we dealing with, when speculating gravitational forces? Since I don't know, I hope the question is appropriate.

[swansont]

The gravitational field of a single particle is a monopole; it exhibits 1/r^2 behavior. What exactly is the speculation?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think there's some confusion here about the term "monopole" and how it can apply to gravitation, magnetism, and electrical fields.

 

"Monopole" doesn't just mean "magnetic monopole," where there's just a North pole sitting there. (You know how the magnetic field of a bar magnet goes out one end and around to the other? The magnetic field of a monopole just goes out. Or in.)

 

"Monopole" could also refer to a gravitational field. For example, here's the gravitational field of the Earth:

 

 

Gravity acts like a field like magnetism acts like a field. You can draw field lines for gravity just as you can for a bar magnet.

 

So there are gravitational monopoles and electrical monopoles. But there aren't magnetic ones.

[rigney]

Went to Google and typed in "Magnetic Monopole". I don't know exactly what all of it means, but there were pages of it.

 

News Share Blog Cite Print Email BookmarkMagnetic Monopoles Detected In A Real Magnet For The First Time

ScienceDaily (Sep. 4, 2009) — Researchers from the Helmholtz-Zentrum Berlin für Materialien und Energie have, in cooperation with colleagues from Dresden, St. Andrews, La Plata and Oxford, for the first time observed magnetic monopoles and how they emerge in a real material.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Magnetic monopoles are hypothetical particles proposed by physicists that carry a single magnetic pole, either a magnetic north pole or south pole. In the material world this is quite exceptional because magnetic particles are usually observed as dipoles, north and south combined. However there are several theories that predict the existence of monopoles. Among others, in 1931 the physicist Paul Dirac was led by his calculations to the conclusion that magnetic monopoles can exist at the end of tubes – called Dirac strings – that carry magnetic field. Until now they have remained undetected.

 

Jonathan Morris, Alan Tennant and colleagues (HZB) undertook a neutron scattering experiment at the Berlin research reactor. The material under investigation was a single crystal of Dysprosium Titanate. This material crystallises in a quite remarkable geometry, the so called pyrochlore-lattice. With the help of neutron scattering, Morris and Tennant show that the magnetic moments inside the material had reorganised into so-called 'spin-spaghetti'. This name comes from the ordering of the dipoles themselves, such that a network of contorted tubes (strings) develops, through which magnetic flux is transported. These can be made visible by their interaction with the neutrons which themselves carry a magnetic moment. Thus the neutrons scatter as a reciprocal representation of the Strings.

 

During the neutron scattering measurements a magnetic field was applied to the crystal by the researchers. With this field they could influence the symmetry and orientation of the strings. Thereby it was possible to reduce the density of the string networks and promote the monopole dissociation. As a result, at temperatures from 0.6 to 2 Kelvin, the strings are visible and have magnetic monopoles at their ends.

 

The signature of a gas made up by these monopoles has also been observed in heat capacity measured by Bastian Klemke (HZB). Providing further confirmation of the existence of monopoles and showing that they interact in the same way as electric charges.

 

In this work the researchers, for the first time, attest that monopoles exist as emergent states of matter, i.e. they emerge from special arrangements of dipoles and are completely different from the constituents of the material. However, alongside this fundamental knowledge, Jonathan Morris explains the further meaning of the results: "We are writing about new, fundamental properties of matter. These properties are generally valid for materials with the same topology, that is for magnetic moments on the pyrochlore lattice. For the development of new technologies this can have big implications. Above all, it signifies the first time fractionalisation in three dimensions is observed."

Edited June 28, 2010 by rigney

[swansont]

Is there a question here?

 

 

Is the topic magnetic monopoles? Why is gravity being brought up? Please clarify what this thread is about. This is getting annoying.

[Mr Skeptic]

My thought is, if a single ballbearing could be magnetised spherically to retain "either" an attractive or repulsive state on every point of its surface, that to me would be a monopole. I believe this is the natural phenomenon inside each atom from inception.

 

And which pole would be the attractive, and which the repulsive one?

[rigney]

Is there a question here?

 

 

Is the topic magnetic monopoles? Why is gravity being brought up? Please clarify what this thread is about. This is getting annoying.

 

 

SwansonT, Seems you have a rather preceptive nuance to my questions or responses. My not understanding, and replying with more questioning; seems to have some how ruffled your feathers. And while I mean no disrespect, I suggest you read the entire thread befor becoming so bored with my ignorance. I have worked in industry my entire life and never heard a stupid question. But on occassion, some of my answers may have seemed that way. Rarely do I take a finite stand to assume anything. So, not being a professional in any field, I initiated this thread with what seemed to be a sensible question and have yet to find an answer that is palpable.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I think there's some confusion here about the term "monopole" and how it can apply to gravitation, magnetism, and electrical fields.

 

"Monopole" doesn't just mean "magnetic monopole," where there's just a North pole sitting there. (You know how the magnetic field of a bar magnet goes out one end and around to the other? The magnetic field of a monopole just goes out. Or in.)

 

"Monopole" could also refer to a gravitational field. For example, here's the gravitational field of the Earth:

 

 

Gravity acts like a field like magnetism acts like a field. You can draw field lines for gravity just as you can for a bar magnet.

 

So there are gravitational monopoles and electrical monopoles. But there aren't magnetic ones.

 

 

Cap'n, I'l not disagree with what you say 'cause I really dont know? But I can lay a magnet down under a piece of pape, sprinkle powdered iron on the paper and see the results. Other than in theory, how do we see that with gravity? And if you will look below (above), I went to Google and there are pages of stuff on monopoles. But, I still don't know anything about them??

Edited June 28, 2010 by rigney
Consecutive posts merged.

[swansont]

SwansonT, Seems you have a rather preceptive nuance to my questions or responses. My not understanding, and replying with more questioning; seems to have some how ruffled your feathers. And while I mean no disrespect, I suggest you read the entire thread befor becoming so bored with my ignorance. I have worked in industry my entire life and never heard a stupid question. But on occassion, some of my answers may have seemed that way. Rarely do I take a finite stand to assume anything. So, not being a professional in any field, I initiated this thread with what seemed to be a sensible question and have yet to find an answer that is palpable.

 

Far be it from me to discourage questions. The issue I have taken is that your last post didn't ask a question.

 

As has been explained, by others as well as by me, is that "Is there, or can there ever be any proof of monopoles?" is an ill-formed question. We've asked for clarification, and you have not given it. Every time someone discusses magnetics, you bring up gravitation. When gravitation is explained, you hop back to magnetics. They are unrelated.

 

 

So I will ask, yet again: which are we discussing here? Magnetism or gravity?

[rigney]

Far be it from me to discourage questions. The issue I have taken is that your last post didn't ask a question.

 

As has been explained, by others as well as by me, is that "Is there, or can there ever be any proof of monopoles?" is an ill-formed question. We've asked for clarification, and you have not given it. Every time someone discusses magnetics, you bring up gravitation. When gravitation is explained, you hop back to magnetics. They are unrelated.

 

 

So I will ask, yet again: which are we discussing here? Magnetism or gravity?

 

 

 

I suppose both gravity and magnetism since I understand neither. Other than answers I still might like to question, I see no reason for the seeming animosity on your behalf.

 

Quote:by rigney

Cap'n, I'll not disagree with what you say 'cause I really dont know? But I can lay a magnet down under a piece of pape, sprinkle powdered iron on the paper and see the results. Quote: Other than in theory, how do we see that with gravity? And if you will look below (above), I went to Google and there are pages of stuff on monopoles. But, I still don't know anything about them??

Edited June 28, 2010 by rigney

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I don't think you can really trace out gravitational field lines like you can with magnetic field lines. Field lines are a conceptual thing, resulting from how we describe magnetism and gravity as "fields;" they just indicate the direction of the force on something in that field.

 

In magnetism, those conceptual lines must go from one pole to another. In gravity, there aren't "poles", and the field lines just go straight in to the mass.

 

Field lines are just a result of how we look at gravity and magnetism mathematically.

[swansont]

I suppose both gravity and magnetism since I understand neither.

 

Since they are unrelated, how about discussing one here, and opening up a separate thread for the other?

[Mr Skeptic]

Cap'n, I'll not disagree with what you say 'cause I really dont know? But I can lay a magnet down under a piece of pape, sprinkle powdered iron on the paper and see the results. Quote: Other than in theory, how do we see that with gravity? And if you will look below (above), I went to Google and there are pages of stuff on monopoles. But, I still don't know anything about them??

 

You can't see magnetic field lines, and the iron fillings do not show you where the magnetic field lines are. The magnetic field lines are imaginary, simply a way to visualize. Same with the gravitational field lines, and electric field lines.

 

The way the field lines work, is that there are infinitely many of them, although it is only practical to show a finite number of them, and their density is related to the strength of the field, and their direction the direction of the field. The field lines can be drawn as little arrows of varying length instead, its the same thing.

[rigney]

I don't think you can really trace out gravitational field lines like you can with magnetic field lines. Field lines are a conceptual thing, resulting from how we describe magnetism and gravity as "fields;" they just indicate the direction of the force on something in that field.

 

In magnetism, those conceptual lines must go from one pole to another. In gravity, there aren't "poles", and the field lines just go straight in to the mass.

 

Field lines are just a result of how we look at gravity and magnetism mathematically.

 

 

While I appreciate your response, my lack of math leaves me to ponder ignorance, "Mine". But in looking back at your sketch on gravity; that is exactly how I perceive a monopole to look like in any atom, regardless of the element. If such a thing as a ball bearing could be magnetized, would it retain both a north pole and south pole as does a bar magnet, or would it be similar to your description of gravity? As I understand it, monopoles exist in subatomic particles and are prevelent in all matter? If I wear out my welcome, just say "chuck it".

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

While I appreciate your response, my lack of math leaves me to ponder ignorance, "Mine". But in looking back at your sketch on gravity; that is exactly how I perceive a monopole to look like in any atom, regardless of the element. If such a thing as a ball bearing could be magnetized, would it retain both a north pole and south pole as does a bar magnet, or would it be similar to your description of gravity? As I understand it, monopoles exist in subatomic particles and are prevelent in all matter? If I wear out my welcome, just say "chuck it".

 

A ball bearing would have a north and south pole as well. Let me explain a bit.

 

Magnetic fields arise from charged particles (like electrons, the stuff of electricity) moving. If you hold a compass near a wire carrying a strong current, the needle will move because of the wire's magnetic field. Now, in a material like iron, there are many electrons orbiting around the iron atoms. These electrons are moving. Because they're moving, they make tiny magnetic fields.

 

A normal lump of iron, though, isn't much of a magnet, because all those tiny magnetic fields are pointing in different directions and they just cancel each other out. When you hold a big magnet next to the lump, though, you line up all those electrons to make them orbit the same way, and all their magnetic fields point the same way. They add together. They make a magnet.

 

Because the magnetic field comes from tiny magnetic fields from individual atoms, the shape of the chunk of metal doesn't matter. It could be a horseshoe, a donut, a ball, a mushroom, or a miniature Christmas tree. It doesn't matter, because all those tiny magnetic fields from the electrons have north and south poles.

 

Now, this is a bit of a simplification, of course -- quantum effects mean electrons aren't actually going around in nice simple orbits, but it doesn't really matter.