I'm currently involved in a debate elsewhere with an EU proponent involving magnetic reconnection. The debate shifted from astrophysical events to events in Tokamaks. Right now, the debate is focusing on Priests usage of the term "monopole" here: http://books.google.com/books?id=nfQcEXpPAMoC&pg=PA472&lpg=PA472&dq=priest+monopoles&source=web&ots=ujguVpzSQW&sig=zt329H5_hEsL6QsQjJ81YLxnqh8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result#PPA134,M1 [Broken] More specifically, this statement in the paragraph spanning pages 133 and 134: "Thus, if the inflow field is potential, the distortion may be regarded as being produced by a series of monopole sources along the x axis between |x|=L and |x|=Le, say." The EU proponents argument is that monopoles don't exist and they violate Maxwell's equations, specifically Gauss' Law. My first argument is that saying they don't exist is an extreme stance utilizing the absence of evidence fallacy. I also argue that they are not a violation... There discovery would simply mean the equations were not complete. Even with their discovery, Maxwell's equations would still be effective is explaining our everyday world. In other words, discovery of monopoles wouldn't fundamentally change what we already know concerning electromagnetism. My second argument is that Priest and Forbes are not referring to monopole particles, but rather to some type of indirect effect due to plasma containment in a Tokamak. Another gentleman mentioned fictitious monopoles as a way to impose the boundary conditions that would create the assumed field. I'm out of my depth concerning MHD and Tokamaks and am not sure how to approach this argument. I think it is pretty clear they are not referring to particles in the way that Dirac did and are not violating Maxwell's equation, but don't know how to properly explain what Priest and Forbes are referring to and why the usage of the term "monopole." For the EU proponent, he is using the "AHA!" moment in that Priest and Forbes are directly violatiing Maxwell's equations by invoking non-existent particles to explain magnetic reconnection. I'm hoping someone can dumb down, for me, Priest's reasoning for using the term "monopole". I can handle his first angle concerning monopole particles and his claim they don't exist and would be a violation, but I don't know how to show him Priest is not using "particles". Any guidance would be much appreciated and thanks in advance.