Magnetic Monopole's (non)existence

[mad mathematician]

Assume that one day will find axiomatics for physical theories.
Will magnetic monopoles (non)existence be part of the axioms (postulates) or their (non)existence be derived from the axioms?

How can one prove/disprove their physical existence?
If they are being observed by direct/indirect experiment then they exists, but otherwise you cannot disprove their existence by experiment.
And without knowing what are the exact postulates of any physical theory we cannot disprove their existence theoretically.

 

[Drakkith]

Assume that one day will find axiomatics for physical theories.

That's a really, really big assumption.

Will magnetic monopoles (non)existence be part of the axioms (postulates) or their (non)existence be derived from the axioms?

That's hard to say without knowing the theories in question.

And without knowing what are the exact postulates of any physical theory we cannot disprove their existence theoretically.

What do you mean? We know the postulates for our theories. That may or may not disprove magnetic monopoles theoretically, depending on the theory. For example, classical electromagnetism doesn't rule out magnetic monopoles, but the fact that we haven't observed them despite intensive searches for them makes us believe that they probably don't exist.

 

[mad mathematician]

But surely classical EM is only an approximate theory to QED.
For classical theory as you say it doesn't say we cannot have magnetic monoploes, it's sort of idle to their existence. (I mean we can change Maxwell equations appropriately to add their existence).
If we'll never have a set of axioms (or postulates) for all such physical theories then we may never know for sure if they exist or not, only if one day we'll find them by experiment. (It sounds like as if one day we might corrobate or falsify a liable QG theory which offers new predictions.)

 

[DaveE]

If we'll never have a set of axioms (or postulates) for all such physical theories then we may never know for sure if they exist or not, only if one day we'll find them by experiment.

Yup. So? The more I try to parse your question, the less sense it makes.

- It is very, very, very, very hard to disprove the potential existence of something.
- It is very, very, very, very hard to know the consequences of undiscovered "axioms", theories or models. That might be why they are currently unknown.
- I'm not even sure Physics has axioms. It is really an observational science in the end.

You might ponder the philosophical side of questions like this. You know, Russell's teapot and such. I, OTOH, think it's a waste of time.

 

[phyzguy]

You also cannot rigorously disprove the non-existence of fairies, leprechauns, or a teapot orbiting between Mars and Earth (this last is due to Bertrand Russell).

 

[DaveE]

https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_02.html

 

[mad mathematician]

Yup. So? The more I try to parse your question, the less sense it makes.

- It is very, very, very, very hard to disprove the potential existence of something.
- It is very, very, very, very hard to know the consequences of undiscovered "axioms", theories or models. That might be why they are currently unknown.
- I'm not even sure Physics has axioms. It is really an observational science in the end.

You might ponder the philosophical side of questions like this. You know, Russell's teapot and such. I, OTOH, think it's a waste of time.

I once read that a theory or model in science is adhered to until the last believer of that theory dies.
I guess my question is too philosophical.
I just read once that one of Hilbert's problems was finding such axiomatics if it exists.

 

[Drakkith]

I once read that a theory or model in science is adhered to until the last believer of that theory dies.

Adhered to by whom? If a theory is surpassed and is no longer useful, or found to be outright wrong, then mainstream science quickly moves away from adhering to it. There is almost always a few hardcore believers that don't move on, but so what?

 

[mad mathematician]

Adhered to by whom? If a theory is surpassed and is no longer useful, or found to be outright wrong, then mainstream science quickly moves away from adhering to it. There is almost always a few hardcore believers that don't move on, but so what?

By those who believe the theory to be true.

 

[weirdoguy]

theory or model in science is adhered to until the last believer of that theory dies

By those who believe the theory to be true.

So, "theory or model in science is adhered to (by those who belive it to be true) until the last believer of that theory dies". I guess you can say that about any idea, not only about scientific stuff.

 

[mad mathematician]

So, "theory or model in science is adhered to (by those who belive it to be true) until the last believer of that theory dies". I guess you can say that about any idea, not only about scientific stuff.

I am quite sure some ideas of past thinkers still work for us nowadays.
In science it's a bit different, because we don't know for sure what are the ultimate postulates, we always depend on experiments.
Not that it's a bad thing, just the way it is.