Register to reply

Why does the monopoles not exist

by Faraz Murtaza
Tags: exist, monopoles
Share this thread:
Khashishi
#2
Jun6-12, 02:42 PM
P: 887
why should they exist?
DrewD
#3
Jun6-12, 05:56 PM
P: 446
Monopoles do exist

cronanster
#4
Jun6-12, 08:45 PM
P: 24
Why does the monopoles not exist

What kind of monopoles are we talking about?
Gordianus
#5
Jun6-12, 08:49 PM
P: 217
Electric monopoles do exist. Somehow, I feel the O:P asked about magnetic monopoles; a very common question.
Vorde
#6
Jun7-12, 10:22 AM
Vorde's Avatar
P: 784
Electric Monopoles do exist, like Gordianus said. Assuming the OP is talking about Magnetic monopoles, why should they exist?

To rephrase: Even though there are theories that predict the existence of magnetic monopoles, the mainstream particle theories do not. Physically there is nothing wrong with their existence, but there is no reason for them to exist, either.
Nabeshin
#7
Jun7-12, 10:35 AM
Sci Advisor
Nabeshin's Avatar
P: 2,193
Quote Quote by Vorde View Post
To rephrase: Even though there are theories that predict the existence of magnetic monopoles, the mainstream particle theories do not. Physically there is nothing wrong with their existence, but there is no reason for them to exist, either.
Huh? Monopoles are actually a fairly generic prediction of grand unified theories, from what I understand. It's actually a large conflict between theory and observation, since obviously we don't see any. This led, in part, to the development of inflation theory, which is more or less the standard paradigm for early universe cosmology (in one incarnation or another).
Vorde
#8
Jun7-12, 10:42 AM
Vorde's Avatar
P: 784
I meant theories that are considered 'true' now, like QED and EWT (is that how it's called?), not GUTs. I was under the impression that currently verified theories do not predict monopoles, and the existence of monopoles in speculative TOEs and GUTs are one of their experimental testing points.

I see how that point of view did not get across in my earlier post.

Though I am confused as to how magnetic monopoles led to inflation theory?
Nabeshin
#9
Jun7-12, 11:14 AM
Sci Advisor
Nabeshin's Avatar
P: 2,193
Quote Quote by Vorde View Post
I meant theories that are considered 'true' now, like QED and EWT (is that how it's called?), not GUTs. I was under the impression that currently verified theories do not predict monopoles, and the existence of monopoles in speculative TOEs and GUTs are one of their experimental testing points.

Though I see how that point of view did not get across in my earlier post.

Though I am confused as to how magnetic monopoles led to inflation theory?
Well while it's true that we have no direct experimental verification of GUT scale physics, and likely never will, my point is that it seems a fairly generic prediction of what must be going on at those scales. This could be false, as I obviously haven't surveyed all theories claiming to describe these energy ranges, but I think it's fairly universal.

The reason this motivated inflation theory is precisely what I stated before. If you predict a monopole density which is much larger than the observed bounds (we do have some bounds), then that's obviously a contradiction. Either the theory is wrong, or the observations are flawed (not likely, given the magnitude of the discrepency). Now, as I've mentioned monopoles seem to be a fairly straightforward prediction of what's going on at GUT energies, so there's no clear way to get around producing them. The only way to lower the density, then, is to dilute them over a larger volume; this is precisely what inflation does.
Faraz Murtaza
#10
Nov20-12, 11:52 PM
Faraz Murtaza's Avatar
P: 32
Quote Quote by cronanster View Post
What kind of monopoles are we talking about?
we are talking about magnet poles
Faraz Murtaza
#11
Nov20-12, 11:55 PM
Faraz Murtaza's Avatar
P: 32
Quote Quote by Vorde View Post
Electric Monopoles do exist, like Gordianus said. Assuming the OP is talking about Magnetic monopoles, why should they exist?

To rephrase: Even though there are theories that predict the existence of magnetic monopoles, the mainstream particle theories do not. Physically there is nothing wrong with their existence, but there is no reason for them to exist, either.
what is OP?
CAN YOU PLEASE TELL
Ibix
#12
Nov21-12, 12:27 AM
P: 378
Original Post or Original Poster. The first post in a thread or the person who made it.
tris_d
#13
Nov21-12, 02:06 AM
P: 162
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amperes_Law



Magnetic field due to moving charge. Count the poles, and point out where is the north and where is the south pole.
sophiecentaur
#14
Nov21-12, 05:10 AM
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
sophiecentaur's Avatar
P: 12,130
You don't actually need to 'have' magnetic fields at all. The force that we call magnetism can be accounted for by the relativistic effects on moving charges. None of it's real- it's just models and we choose the one that suits a situation best.
tris_d
#15
Nov21-12, 05:46 AM
P: 162
Quote Quote by sophiecentaur View Post
You don't actually need to 'have' magnetic fields at all. The force that we call magnetism can be accounted for by the relativistic effects on moving charges. None of it's real- it's just models and we choose the one that suits a situation best.
How's that relevant to whether magnetic monopoles exist or not? Whatever is the way you account it for you still can measure what is called sink and source, positive and negative, or north and south pole. The question I have for you is how many poles can you count on that image above of magnetic field due to moving charge, and can you point where is the south and where is the north pole?
sophiecentaur
#16
Nov21-12, 06:30 AM
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
sophiecentaur's Avatar
P: 12,130
My point was that an argument based on fields need not be totally valid (sufficient?) once you realise that the field concept is only a concept. I know that post of yours is a great way to show that monopoles "can't" exist, based on the model that field lines have no 'ends'. But field lines are only a construct to model what we observe. The question of the existence of the monopole may require more than a field line argument.
tris_d
#17
Nov21-12, 06:51 AM
P: 162
Quote Quote by sophiecentaur View Post
My point was that an argument based on fields need not be totally valid (sufficient?) once you realise that the field concept is only a concept. I know that post of yours is a great way to show that monopoles "can't" exist, based on the model that field lines have no 'ends'. But field lines are only a construct to model what we observe. The question of the existence of the monopole may require more than a field line argument.
I'm not talking about "models" or "constructs". This is real.
Take a permanent magnet in your hand and you can measure it.


Field lines have no ends?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field

Do you see field lines start at north pole and end at south pole?


Is this picture below of magnetic dipole?
Can you point where is north and south pole?

Vanadium 50
#18
Nov21-12, 07:33 AM
Mentor
Vanadium 50's Avatar
P: 16,316
The statement that field lines have no ends is identical to the statement that there are no monopoles. It's not an explanation.

Furthermore, all at Tris_d has shown is that in the situation he describes there are no monopoles, not that there are no monopoles anywhere.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Maxwell's equations for electricity and magnetism Classical Physics 7
Could monopoles ever be created in particle accelerators? General Physics 4
Questions about monopoles High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics 2
Can anyone tell me the properties of monopoles? General Physics 20
Science behind magnetic monopoles in any depth? Quantum Physics 10