Talk:Magnetic monopole

Criticizing magnetic monopoles using conventional language.

A monopole is a speculative exception to the rule that magnetic fields diverge away from one magnetic pole, say the N pole, then converge again to its paired S pole. But then it is required for the magnetic field to close the loop by returning to the N pole.

Non mathematically inclined physicists see this last requirement as arbitrary, and look for the exception, magnetic monopoles.

But mathematical physicists will look for mathematical reasons, and reasons from physics theory, for not finding monopoles.

The physical theory at stake is the conservation laws. I argue that the conservation of angular momentum and the conservation of energy would be broken by magnetic monopoles.

Make two rings interlinked. Provide rollers so that they can spin, one in the x-y plane and another in the z-x plane. Embed a positive charge in one ring, and embed a magnetic north pole in the other. Now give one a spin. From the law of induction, the other ring will start to rotate, and the one slow. This conserves energy. But angular momentum disappears in one plane, and differently oriented angular momentum appears in the other.

But angular momentum would be conserved if an ordinary magnet were embedded instead of a monopole. No net induction would happen.

Now consider that a crossed E field and B field will provide a net impulse and energy boost to an electric charge that crosses them at right angles to both. This is the principle of an electric motor. To conserve energy, the source of the electrostatic field or the source of the magnetic field would be de-energized to compensate. If the source of the E field is static, then the electromagnet that provides the B field must give up energy and de-magnetize.

Actually, the charge must be coupled to a mass that is trailing it , or otherwise moving at different direction than the charge. This is needed to get work done by the magnetic field.

But a magnetic monopole can not de-magnetize, so the law of conservation of energy would then be broken.

Now, the deeper and non-conventional understanding of this result invokes the basic properties of spacetime. Energy, momentum, and angular momentum are conserved because they are sources of gravity. And sources of gravity are conserved because the Bianchi identities are an intrinsic part of geometry. “The boundary of a boundary is zero.” So the origins and sinks of momentum are naturally zero from this property of spacetime geometry.

If a physicist wants to argue that conservation comes from group theory, the reply is that group theory is also part of geometry.

So electromagnetic energy must be conserved by the existence of the potential A. And then the Bianchi identities applied to A directly require the non existence of magnetic monopoles.

I have written a simulator for a rotating motor powered with free energy from a magnetic monopole. 2602:306:3126:3170:DA1:17AC:3686:FFF1 (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussions about improving the article and not about a general discussion of the topic. WP:NOTFORUM. Constant314 (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced statement challenged

NPguy, my edit summary says: "well, then, lets just delete it: it is WP:OR, unsourced, and incorrect as stated; in any event, it is only a tangentially interesting observation in this context". With which of these do you disagree? That it is original research, that is is unsourced, that it is incorrect as stated, or that it has little relevance in the context? Any one of these qualifies it for deletion; you will have to remedy all of these if it is to be kept (yes, the onus is on you, since it has been challenged). If you are unable to source this statement in a reliable source, it is reasonable for me to remove it, regardless of your disagreement. —Quondum 22:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I see you deleted my response, so I'll phrase it differently. I've observed your behavior and decided not to engage in a discussion because the behavior I have observed is both unfriendly and unreasonable. I don't in any way concede that you're right, but it's not worth my time to argue with you. NPguy (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

That is a more civil tone, but you still make a general accusation about my behaviour, which still qualifies as a personal attack. I am also left guessing about what you are referring to.

You twice reverted my changes without providing a motivation of the validity of the challenged content ([1], [2]). I removed your change once only ([3]). Another editor reverted you again ([4]), saying to take it to talk page. Discussing content is the accepted approach. —Quondum 02:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to hear about my "tone" and I don't particularly want to engage in a debate. Sometimes a superficially "civil" tone can be rude and condescending. I gave simple explanations in the edit summaries that should have been enough. You are the one who replaced unsourced text about pseudovectors with more or less equivalent -- but also unsourced -- text about differential forms. My reason for reverting was that the article should be accessible to those with an interest in physics and should not presume knowledge or relatively obscure and abstract mathematics. The text that was dropped as a result was valuable point: Some have wondered if the apparent asymmetry of Maxwell's equations -- the absence of magnetic charges -- isn't just an artifact of life in three spatial dimensions. I may be wrong, but I'm not aware that this wondering has led to any useful theoretical insight, but it is at least a source of curiosity and, as such, seems relevant. NPguy (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I replaced unsourced text (that is unsourced, and IMO, obviously invalid), with unsourced text. That was a mistake on my part. I should have simply removed it as invalid, unsourced text. This is what I did with my second edit. You seem to think that it should be included, without substantiating why you think it might be valid.

Since you have not even started to explain why you think the statement is valid, let me start with a bit of analysis of why it is invalid:

• The statement says: "The fact that the electric and magnetic fields can be written in a symmetric way is specific to the fact that space is three-dimensional." This basically says that when decomposed (into two parts), there is a "swapping" symmetry that does not occur in any other number of dimensions than four (1 time + 3 space). The problem with this is that in any even number of dimensions, a field can be proposed that obeys a form of Maxwell's equations, and such a "swapping" symmetry does indeed occur with many of these.
• The statement further says: "When the equations of electromagnetism are extrapolated to other dimensions, the magnetic field is described as being a rank-two antisymmetric tensor, whereas the electric field remains a true vector." To describe the magnetic field as a tensor at all is categorically false, because by definition, a tensor obeys specific transformation rules, which the magnetic field alone does not.
• The form in which these statements are made is liable to induce incorrect inferences, because the EM field is not two vector fields: it is a single differential 2-form, or, in the language that the second statement uses, The EM field is a single antisymmetric tensor. The subdivision into E and B is frame-dependent, and any statements in this form are at risk of not being Lorentz-invariant. This seems to be a pitfall that the statements fell into.

So, however interesting you find it, the removed section is simply incorrect (and consequently, it seem inevitable that no reliable source will exist that claims what it says). Given this, and the fact that another editor evidently also disagrees with its inclusion, should it be in the article? —Quondum 19:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll just make two points. First, I'm not defending the wording of the statement you deleted. Attacking that wording is beside the point.

I'm saying that it expresses something interesting that fits in this article. Second, this is physics, not mathematics. The question is not whether a field exists with certain properties, but about properties of electromagnetic fields in three space (or four spacetime) dimensions. If Maxwell's equations look so symmetrical in swapping E and B, why aren't there magnetic charges too? NPguy (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what out is that you feel belongs.

The observation of the symmetry of Maxwell's equations (without zero magnetic charge) does belong, and is essentially already present in Magnetic monopole § Duality transformation, only in a more general form.

Your comment that "the non-existence of magnetic charges [is an] oddity of the magnetic field" is pretty central to the article, but is not referenced by the removed note.

Maybe we understand the note differently. It appears to have been inserted by an IP, and appears to be "original research". It seems to be making a statement that there is an interesting property that is unique to four spacetime dimensions. Regardless of whether this is physics, mathematics or anything else, we need to be able to source statements that we include, and my point is that we have no sources for this uniqueness claim. All my analysis is basically to show that I have reason to believe that we will not find a reliable source for a claim that four-dimensional spacetime is unique in this way. However, if the note is making some other claim, maybe you can help to suggest what that is? —Quondum 20:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Topological Monopole?

Is a topological monopole the same as / similar to / different than a magnetic monopole? Also, are 'Alice rings' a related phenomenon worthy of mention here? Sample source: [5]. Thanks, Last1in (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Too speculative for Wikipedia. Still primary research. From your source "While the team have yet to observe this inversion experimentally". Constant314 (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry that I was unclear. I wasn't necessarily suggesting using that source for anything. I was just wondering if what they are discussing is the same as what this article is about. If it is, perhaps we can find real source that mention it and create a redir for other non-scientists who stumble upon the term. Same questions, really, for 'Alice rings'. It is a legit term and, if so, should some mention of them from real RSs be discussed in this article? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Not in this article. Generally, we stay away from primary results until they become widely accepted and reproduced. Constant314 (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Magnetic monopole created in 2014 with Bosen-Einstein condensate

Magnetic monopole was created in 2014 with Bosen-Einstein condensate. Could someone update the article. Sources: https://www.tekniikkatalous.fi/tiede/2014-01-30/Aalto-tutkija-l%C3%B6ysi-ensimm%C3%A4isen-synteettisen-hiukkasen-%E2%80%93-80-vuoden-etsinn%C3%A4n-j%C3%A4lkeen-3317491.html and https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12954 --HenriHa (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

My english skill isn't good enought to update this article with this radical changes. --HenriHa (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

dots

Why in the world would someone write \text{...} = \frac{1}{c^2} instead of \cdots = \frac{1}{c^2} ? That is absurd. $${\begin{aligned}{\text{...}}&={\frac {1}{c^{2}}}\\[12pt]{\text{versus }}\cdots &={\frac {1}{c^{2}}}\end{aligned}}$$ 2601:447:CD80:E200:5960:6ACF:38E4:A8CC (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)