Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Magnetic monopoles

  1. Dec 14, 2006 #1
    What would be the expected characteristic properties of the two magnetic monopoles?
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 14, 2006 #2
  4. Dec 14, 2006 #3
    This is a rather broad question and i don't know what level of study you are on, so let me present to you one of my favourite articles concerning this topic : Magnetic Monopoles from the Harvard Journal of Undergraduate Sciences (1996).

    It explains how monopoles arise from topology in a very introductory manner.


  5. Dec 17, 2006 #4
    ...without their presence in reality :biggrin:
  6. Dec 17, 2006 #5
    Why couldn't we think of the two monopoles of a magnetic field as being the two different spins states displayed by Fermions, and Bosons.
    Fermions which could be thought of as having a out to in spin, and Bosons which have an in to out spin?
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2006
  7. Dec 22, 2006 #6
    Can we think of Bosons as being a measure of one dimensional motion after all we can only detect either speed or direction with a photon? Fermions on the other hand have movement that we detect in all three dimensions. With this type of thinking would not a magnetic field fill the gap and appear to be movement in two dimensions.
  8. Dec 22, 2006 #7
    Would it make more sense to call time, our tool for measuring motion, as the first dimension and the second through fourth dimensions are the other three? Now a one dimensional particle has no motion or if you will zero rest mass. Motion in one direction is the second dimension, movement in the the third dimension is the point where two one dimensional movements interact by canceling, and finally in the fourth dimension we see the particle as the point where all three movements interact as mass.
  9. Dec 22, 2006 #8
    Would each one dimension particle or for the people who like to think small, field, have two possible directions of movement?
  10. Dec 22, 2006 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2018 Award

    You don't think that I could detect a helium atom in 3D the same way I would detect a fermion? What about a composite boson made up of fermions?

    How about asking one question at a time, waiting for someone to respond to that one first and understanding it, before proceeding to the next one? If not, you'll get a whole confusing, jumbled mess.

  11. Dec 23, 2006 #10
    Theoretically, when Dirac introduced magnetic monopoles in electromagnetism, his main intention was to make EM, a fully symmetric theory. This means that all electric charges become "magnetic charges" after replacing E with B and B with E. Another important consequence is the quantization of electrical charge or "magnetic coupling constant * electrical coupling constant = CONSTANT"

    Now, knowing this, you ask about different spin states between fermions and bosons and their analogy with magnetic monopoles. First of all, BE CAREFUL : a magnetic field does NOT have two monopoles. Ofcourse two monopoles is very possible but if you read what i just told you, you will understand that every electrical charge corresponds to a magnetic monopole after performing the duality transform.

    Also, let's say a magnetic field has a "+ monopole" and a "- monopole". Actually, using the underlying DIRAC theory learns us that, after performing the duality transform, such a magnetic situation corresponds to an ordinary electrical dipole (+ and - charge). So, if you look at your question, "in the electrical version" you will see that a distinction between fermions and bosons is not necessary since we did not need to do that when we defined a classical electrical dipole, quadrupole, etc etc

  12. Dec 23, 2006 #11
    The theory behind magnetic monopoles is written in four dimensions because :

    1) The basic quantity defining the EM F-tensor is [tex]A^{\mu}[/tex], a four vector with first component the scalar potential and the other three are the vector potential [tex]\vec A [/tex]

    2) Because of 1), we need a four vector to denote the position of a particle as a function of time. Ofcourse your first guess we be something like [tex]\vec{R} (t)[/tex] and put this 3-vector inside a 4-vector. THIS DOES NOT WORK because position and time do not tranform in the same way under a Lorenzt transformation. Reason, well in a 4-vector, the first and last three components behave differently under Lorentz transformations. In short, Lorentz covariance is NOT respected. The solution is to make a 4-vector of which the first component is time, the other three are position but all 4 components are written in terms of one scalar parameter tau : [tex]Z^{\mu}( \tau ) = (T( \tau), \vec {R} ( \tau)) [/tex] [1]

    The Maxwell equations can then be rewritten in terms of the parameter tau and for example, you would acquire a "magnetic current of magnetic charge g along a world line defined by the above Z-term"


    [1] arXiv:hep-ph/0310102 v2 21Oct 2003. “Dual superconductor models of color confinement”

    Georges Ripka, ECT*, Villa Tambosi, I-38050 Villazano (Trento), ITALY
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2006
  13. Dec 23, 2006 #12
    What's a "one dimension particle" ?
    How is it connected to "a small field" ?
    Why would you suspect the suggested "two possible movement directions" behaviour ?

  14. Dec 27, 2006 #13
    No one has been able to create a magnetic monopole in a lab yet, but magnetic quadrupoles do exist, and I even found a video of a permanent magnetic quadrupole on YouTube.

    The video looks impossible, but they are found inside of every particle accelerator. Take a look if you are interested in this topic.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
  15. Jan 3, 2007 #14
    I really don't see how this video shows "a quadrupole in action". Either you give a full scientific explanation to justify this video or you don't post it at all. YouTube is NOT peer reviewed source material and thus violates the PF guidelines.

    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
  16. Jan 28, 2007 #15

    I think of time as a one dimensional object, think of it as putting your pen on paper, the only two directions that this object can move is either in (smaller) or out (bigger). Because of duality, in my opinion any point even one that exists in only one dimension can be view as a field because I think of movement both inside and outside of that point.
  17. Feb 1, 2007 #16
    If I think of time as a one dimensional object, with your pen make the point move, because it only moves in two directions one is to dilate, and the other is to contract. I would think that this then makes the second dimension, motion. This would also account for our duality of motion in the following three dimensions, length, width, and heigth. Depending on where the movement originated inside or out side of our object, will have a big effect on the shape of our object. Follow this with the movement that makes up matter, where and when all three one dimensional movements are present and in big enough numbers that the flux will appear whole to any observer. Of course this would be thinking in five dimensional space with Time, Motion, length, width, heigth. Maybe I should switch to another forum such as strings to continue this thought what you think?
  18. Aug 22, 2007 #17
    Why don't we think of a photon, in its particle form, as a monopole?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook