1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Monopole magnetic material

  1. Sep 16, 2008 #1
    Hi all,

    During my student time, I was impressed by the conclusion that magnetic only exists in nature in di-pole, that results in the fact that it is impossible for a magnet to have only North pole or South pole.

    By my own experiment, recently I have discovered methods to create monopole magnetic material. To say in more detail, I do not have ambition to modify the second Maxwell's equation in electrodynamic divB = 0, or to prove that Dirac theory about existence of magnetic charge is true etc, I simply made the magnetized specimen to have the same kind of pole at both edges (Both north pole or both south pole).

    1. Solution 1:
    The problem here is that when we cut a magnet in the middle, it results in 2 smaller magnet, each has both north and south pole at 2 edges. When we continue to cut these small magnets, smaller magnet are created again.. and so on. I have put a question that, what happens if I try to weld two magnets into one, by the edges having the same kind of pole?

    Then, I bring 2 magnets to a mechanic shop to ask them to weld their north poles together.
    (See my attached picture magnet.png). And I have a magnetized specimen that has south poles at both edges, while the North poles were hidden in the middle.


    The created product was tested by using compass, I put the its two edges in turn near the North, then the South pole of the compass needle for checking. By this way, I found that it made the South pole of compass needle to be pushed away, and attracted its North pole when using both edges.

    2. Solution 2:
    My original thought came from the fact that a made of steel specimen would become magnetized when contacting with a magnet. When I let one edge of the specimen contacted with the North pole of a magnet, that edge becomes the South pole of a new magnet, while the other edge becomes the North pole. Vice versa, when one edge of the specimen is let contacted with the South pole of a magnet, that edge becomes the North pole, while the other edge becomes the South pole.
    Then, I put a question: What happens if I contact 2 edges of one specimen with 2 North poles of 2 different magnets? Will both edges become South poles? Does it really become a magnetized specimen with 2 South pole?

    By above thinking, I selected the Gilette razor blades as specimens for my experiment. To do that, I touched a blade by 2 magnets at 2 edges as the attached picture P1010720-1.jpg

    The blade must be contacted with 2 magnets by the same kinds of pole, North or South. As shown in the picture, the both edges of the blade are contacted with the North poles. In this case, the final products are majority mono South pole sample. Otherwise, if I touch the blade with 2 South poles at two edges, I will have a mono North pole sample. However, sometimes I get the opposite result.

    When doing the contact, the two edges must be touched with the magnet’s poles at the same time. Many times, I failed at the last moment just by touching one edge with magnet before the other awkwardly.

    Then, I let it there for around 7 or 8 hours before testing the result.

    There is also another way of contacting, as the attached picture P1010719-1.jpg.

    The final products were tested by using compass, I put the two edges of the blade in turn near the North, then the South pole of the compass needle for checking.

    Many samples of blade pass the testing. Both edges of a mono North pole sample made the North pole of compass needle to be pushed away, and attracted its South pole. Vice versa for the mono South pole sample.

    The ratio of pass samples on total is 4/10, i.e. by doing experiments with 10 blades, there are 4 pass at all and 6 fail (becoming di-pole). One of the reasons for failure, as my guessing, is the asynchronous touching of the magnets as saying above.

    The mono pole status can be maintained in within 1 or 2 days. After that time, I retested the pass samples and found that they turn into di-pole magnetic.

    Above is the detail information of my solutions to generate mono-pole magnetic samples. By reading this, any member can replicate the experiment. I am still holding the pass samples here for demo in need. You can contact me for more information at email: thinhnb@gmail.com

    Any feedback are welcomed

    Thinh Nghiem from Vietnam

    Attached Files:

  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 16, 2008 #2
    Put your magnet under a piece of card or paper. Sprinkle iron filings on the paper, and see what your 'monopole' really looks like.
  4. Sep 17, 2008 #3
    lets suppose that a regular magnet can be thought of as a north and south monopole connected together. lets suppose you could in fact glue 2 such magnets together as you suggested. but lets not stop there. glue lots of such magnets into a sphere with their north monopoles in the center. can you see why the resulting structure would be uninteresting? it would have absolutely no external field.
  5. Sep 17, 2008 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I didn't read your post in full, but putting two bar magnets back to back would create a magnetic quadrupole, not a monopole.
  6. Sep 22, 2008 #5
    Hi all,

    Firstly, thank you for your feedback.

    Here we have 2 different issues: How can we generate monopole magnetic in experiment, and if successful, does it have any application in technology

    1. First of all, how to generate monopole magnetic in experiment. If you read my text again, you can see that I have no ambition to change the second equation of Maxwell divergence B = 0, or to discuss Dirac theory about the existence of magnetic charge. I am an engineer, I just comprehend a monopole magnetic specimen simply as a specimen that has 2 heads sharing the same kind of magnetic pole (North or South). You can see in my experiments that I only focused on that thought. I agreed that the first solution may create pseudo monopole, as Clem's comment. Why don't you share your time to try the second one to see if it can be replicated. It's rather easy to do.

    2. The second issue referred to Granpa's comment, is this result helpful to any area of engineering? Actually I don't know. Maybe my experiment contributes to the development of many engineering areas like data storage product, electronics spare parts etc. Or maybe finally it has no value at all. So, I posted here for reference. If any engineer reading this forum consider that my thought is helpful, it will be used.

    Thinh Nghiem
  7. Sep 22, 2008 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You can't create a monopole from dipole magnets no matter how you try to connect them. You'll always get a quadrupole with the arrangement in solution 1. If you want to call it a monopole, well, that's up to you but you won't be able to speak with anyone else (including here at PF) without confusion. Another comment: your measurement apparatus (compass) is much too crude for you to determine what you have. Follow phrak's suggestion--it will allow you to visualize the H field lines, and you will see that they always loop.

    I can't follow your description of "solution 2"; I'm guessing that your magnet is too weak to consistently magnetize the razor blade.
  8. Sep 23, 2008 #7
    Yes, the razor blade is rather weakly magnetized. However, it is strong enough to make the compass needle turning. If you follow my instruction to let razor contact with magnets within 7 - 8 hours, it will have effect.

    I will try phrak's suggestion.
  9. Sep 24, 2008 #8
    I don't want to sound rude, but do you honestly expect that so many people, having searched for magnetic monopoles for so long, never came up with the idea to stick two magnets together?
  10. Sep 24, 2008 #9
    Hi Nick89,

    Yes, I have. I do not determine that I am quite right, that's the why I post my actions here for feedback. But I know that sometimes many development in science and technology come from very simple initial thought. Many people did not come up with it just because it's too simple, while they are thinking about complicated issues. Who could imagine that the first microscope was made just by 2 lens put far from each other with reasonable distance, and the optic fibre technology began with a very basic effect in optic, the Tyndall effect about wholly reflection.

    Thanks for your opinion
  11. Sep 25, 2008 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    But these were done by experts in those fields, not by some amateurs.

    If you are still convinced you have a "monopole", then map out the field made by your configuration. The rest of us are convinced you don't have a monopole. Until you can show such mapping, there is no evidence that you have a monopole.

  12. Sep 25, 2008 #11


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Wait, I want to make sure I got this correct. I didn't read the entire first post, but it seems all the OP has done is to simply tape like poles of two separate magnets and he now has a monopole?
  13. Sep 25, 2008 #12
    Correction: he believes he has a monopole.
  14. Sep 25, 2008 #13
    I have been consulted by some specialists in this area. Now I agree that I am wrong. I think we can stop this topic here. Thank you all for your opinions.
  15. Oct 28, 2008 #14
    Hi! i have a question for the most known in this area. I have a magnet. if i cut it in half i get two other magnets, each with 2 poles north and south. My question is if i continuously divide them in less and less pieces into very very small pieces are the north and south poles still "there".?

    On the other hand is it like mawells laws of electromagentism? "Electric field is a Magnetic field". One doesnt exist without the other. What "we" are trying to do is impossible. A magnetic North pole creates a South pole and vice-versa. One is the other. Thats why we cannot separate it.
    What happens when we cut a magnet in half? there is a creation of another pole! (one creates the other!)

    Example: take for instance a resistance. for a resistance R we want to separate admittance. This is nonsense, one "is" the other.

    Edit: What could be discovered is a way of "killing out the creation of that pole", that is, what is the process involved when we cut the magnet? What's the "reaction that makes its tick"?

    I would like to hear some good comments on this thankyou!
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2008
  16. Oct 28, 2008 #15
    Magnetic north and south poles are not two separate 'things'. When you cut a magnet in half, you do not create a pole of the other 'sign', it was already there, merely hidden by the fact that there are so many tiny magnets (the atoms themselves) with all their magnetic fields pointing in roughly the same direction.

    If you keep cutting up a magnet you will have a magnetic north and south pole until you reach a single atom. The atom has a magnetic moment (due to the (classically) orbiting electron(s) which are accelerating charges) and hence still can be thought of as a north and south pole.

    If a magnetic monopole would be found, it would have to consist of something we have not discovered yet. As far as I know there is no way to create a monopole with the current facts we believe true.
  17. Oct 28, 2008 #16
    If you want a field that resembles a "monopole", then here is my suggestion. At distances very close to one pole of a bar magnet, the other pole is too far away to exert much influence. This is for all practical purposes a virtual monopole. The field is like that of a monopole if it existed.

    Motors/generators make use of this property since day one. BR.

  18. Oct 28, 2008 #17
    If we then take a infintly large magnet we would get at the extremities an ideal monopole, thus study the properties of such.

    In this matter, we can define regions, where we consider monopole region, or the dipole region.

    I think it is important to study this phenomenon. We can learn many things
  19. Oct 28, 2008 #18
    A macroscopic monopole is impossible to construct.

    A key requirement of a monopole demands that a wholly N or S field eminate without return. Experimentally this has been shown to be impossible regardless of macroscopic magnet configuration.

    A subatomic or quantum monopole may or may not have this restriction, but a macroscopic monopole configuration does.
  20. Oct 29, 2008 #19
    I don't understand. How does the magnetic field very close to a magnet ever resemble the magnetic field of a monopole? In a monopole the field lines would have to start, or end at the monopole. Very close to your normal magnet, the field lines still continue happily, one side outside the magnet and the other through the magnet itself, eventually looping back on itself (the fieldlines are closed). So how does the field resemble a monopole there?
  21. Nov 5, 2008 #20
    In close proximity to a pole, the flux lines exit (or enter) the pole straight out along the end of the bar. They eventually wrap around to the other pole at some distance away from the pole. But at very close distances, the wrap around is far away, and the flux appears to emanate from the pole and continue onward.

    Take any reference book showing the lines around a bar magnet. Examine a point very close to one pole. You will see what I'm talking about. BR.

    Last edited: Nov 5, 2008
  22. Nov 6, 2008 #21


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    But is this really what is meant by a "monopole", i.e. having a non-zero divergence of the vector field?

    What you described is no different than having, say, a uniform magnetic field. But you don't see people referring to it as the "monopole" field, do you?

  23. Nov 6, 2008 #22
    Of course. I never inferred that this example is a "true monopole", as no one has ever found such. In a small region of space very close to the pole, the flux lines appear similar to that of a monopole. But if we enclose a finite spatial region, then the divergence of the field is indeed zero.

    If the pole was a true monopole, the flux lines emanate outward and never wrap around. If we enclose a volume just outside the monopole, we get zero divergence as the monopole is not enclosed. With an actual bar magnet, the lines emanate outward, and if the enclosed space near the pole is small and close to the pole, the lines appear to emanate straight out. The wrap around is far enough away to be negligible. Enclosing a finite volume near the pole results in zero divergence just like the true monopole case.

    This analogy is very limited since you cannot simulate a true monopole in every sense of the word.

  24. Nov 6, 2008 #23
    You may be right (I don't know that much about monopoles to be honest) but I can see one flaw (assuming my understanding of monopoles is correct) in your logic:

    In a monopole, would the field lines 'radiate' outwards OR inwards only? For example, a 'South' monopole would have all field lines pointing toward it, while a 'north' monopole would have all field lines pointing away from it.
    (Compare to a single electric charge)

    If what I just stated is correct (please correct me if not) then even infinitely close to the bar magnet you have a giant flaw:
    On one side, the field lines 'flow outwards' (point away from) the magnet, while the other side (inside the bar magnet for example) has the field lines pointing toward the magnet!
    (Not so much like a single electric charge!)
  25. Nov 6, 2008 #24


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    How? What exactly does a "monopole field" look like that is similar to this?

  26. Nov 6, 2008 #25
    A magnetic monopole field would resemble the electric field pattern of a point charge. If a closed volume included an isolated magnetic monopole, the divergence of B is non-zero. If an enclosed volume is located in very close proximity to the mag monopole but does not enclose the monopole, the div B = 0. In this volume, the B field lines exit the monopole and enter the volume, pass through, and exit the enclosed volume.

    A bar magnet, when viewed from a small enclosed volume very close to a pole, but not enclosing the pole is now examined. Here, div B = 0. Also, the B lines emanate from the pole of the bar magnet, pass through the enclosure, exit the enclosure, then eventually wrap around to the opposite pole. But if the enclosed volume is small enough, and very close to the pole of the bar magnet, the field lines in the enclosed volume appear very similar to that of the first case above. The wrapping around of B is far away from the enclosed volume, so that there is a similarity.

    However, under no circumstances does this produce a non-zero divergence of B. This analogy is quite limited. If you're looking for a B field with non-zero divergence, then this analogy does not produce that.

    Have I explained myself well? BR.

Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook