Detecting Magnetic Monopoles: Beyond Fermilab Experiments

[MathematicalPhysicist]

have magnetic monopoles been detected?
and what kind of experiments are being done other than the ones being tested in the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois, according to this link: http://www.aip.org/physnews/graphics/html/monopole.htm

for those who are unfamiliar to the subject here an explanation about them:http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/MagneticMonopole.html

 

[Jonathan]

No monopoles have been found. I have wondered though if the coil shown in the attachment would prove their existence. I've never made the coil, but it seems like one end would be stronger than the other. If there is any interest shown in this, I start a thread in the Theorectical Physics page.

 

[Integral]

You will not create a monopole with any configuration of wires. That is all covered by Maxwell's equations, for that to happen Gauss's Law would have to be rewritten. If a monopole exists it must be an existing particle, not a construction of man.

 

[Jonathan]

I got some news for you: classical electrodynamics is hundreds of years behind particle physics. The theory is so full of holes, it is worthless. I've given up on the attachment, no matter how small I make the picture (in paint), it's too big to send.

 

[Jonathan]

One more try...It worked! Sorry for the poor quality...but where is the link for the attachment? It says it's there, but I can't find it...Am I supposed to do this?: https://www.physicsforums.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=56043

 

[Jonathan]

Well, I don't know why the attachment link doesn't appear, but by clicking on the edit button on my previous post, you can scoll down and click the link, smalloddmagnet or whatever I called it. I can't figure this stuff out.

 

[Tyger]

Originally posted by Jonathan
Well, I don't know why the attachment link doesn't appear, but by clicking on the edit button on my previous post, you can scoll down and click the link, smalloddmagnet or whatever I called it. I can't figure this stuff out.

Try converting your attachment to a jpeg. You can do that with paint.

 

[Jonathan]

I don't know how to do a bmp->jpeg conversion. The attachment is hardly worth the work, it's just something I scribbled out in paint and is the size of a stamp to make it small enough for the site to accept it.

 

[Integral]

Originally posted by Jonathan
I got some news for you: classical electrodynamics is hundreds of years behind particle physics. The theory is so full of holes, it is worthless. I've given up on the attachment, no matter how small I make the picture (in paint), it's too big to send.

I have news for you, you have no clue as to what you are talking about. Perhaps you should put down the coffee table physics intertainment books and pick up a textbook.

 

[Jonathan]

Hey now, I didn't mean to be offensive! Just because we disagree doesn't mean that I'm wrong or that I read read books that are dumbed down for the average idiot! I know quantum electrodynamics is true and that experimental evidence in the past fifty years has proven that low symmetry classical electrodynamics is inconsistent with reality. I want to add that I don't claim to understand all of anything, but I want to point out that unless you understand Maxwell's theory as it was originatly put forth, in quarternion algebra, as opposed to the butchered theory taught as his today, you are unaware of the higher symmetries or the fact that his original theory predicts systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium can exist, thereby allowing the extraction of energy straight out of the quantum energy fluctuations of the vacuum.
Btw, you spelled entertainment wrong.

 

[Integral]

Hey now, I didn't mean to be offensive! Just because we disagree doesn't mean that I'm wrong or that I read read books that are dumbed down for the average idiot!

The basic laws of physics are not an issue of debate, just because we disagee does indeed mean you are wrong. You will need to prove that you have not read "dumbed" down books. Complete a upper division Universtiy course in E&M then present yourself as an expert, until that time, read more, claim less.

BTW, If you haven't noticed, my spelling suxs.

 

[Jonathan]

Don't you dare tell me you understand the quarternion algebra of Maxwell's theory. It's hard to accept the results of his theory, but I didn't come up with it, nor did I make Lorentz and Heavyside regauge the maths, I'm just a messenger. I don't think they teach his original theory anymore, it's too controversial, so it's hard to be an expert. It seems to me that my merely conceptual understanding of his theory in its original form outweighs yours.

 

[Jonathan]

What happened to my other post?

 

[chroot]

The quaternions were developed by Hamilton as a predecessor to modern vector notation. All of Maxwell's theory is contained in the four equations (when presented in vector calculus notation) or two equations (when presented in differential form notation). There is no additional information in the quaternion notation, just more encumberance.

- Warren

 

[Jonathan]

Nope. The quarternions are more complete, you have to apply the math to systems that supposedly can't exist, and you'll see what I mean. The vector algebra is only equal to quarternions provided a few assumptions are met. In any system that violates these basic assumptions, the vector algebra will be shown to be incomplete. I too, unfortunately, do not know the quarternion version of his theory and so I really can't argue on any more that a conceptual foundation. I have an experiment half done that could prove me right or wrong, but to complete it I need a bunch of wire made of high quality degenerate semiconductor, with huge relaxation time. But they don't make that and may not even know how.

 

[Integral]

Originally posted by Jonathan
Don't you dare tell me you understand the quarternion algebra of Maxwell's theory. It's hard to accept the results of his theory, but I didn't come up with it, nor did I make Lorentz and Heavyside regauge the maths, I'm just a messenger. I don't think they teach his original theory anymore, it's too controversial, so it's hard to be an expert. It seems to me that my merely conceptual understanding of his theory in its original form outweighs yours.

It is interesting that while you admit on one hand that you do not know what you are talking about, this because you have only "conceptual" knowledge. On the other you claim that all I know is wrong. It is clear that you not only do not know much of the current state of E&M nor you do not really understand that which you claim replaces, or suplants it.

Such an attitude will land your posts in the Theory Development forum.

The original question has been answered.