Practical Applications of Magnetic Monopoles: Possibilities and Limitations

  • Thread starter Thread starter maine75man
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Practical
AI Thread Summary
Magnetic monopoles remain hypothetical, with no current evidence supporting their existence, despite their potential implications for theoretical physics. Discussions highlight that while certain condensed matter systems exhibit behaviors resembling monopoles, these do not confirm the existence of fundamental monopoles as defined in grand unified theories (GUT). The conversation also touches on the distinction between quasiparticles and fundamental particles, emphasizing that observed phenomena in materials like spin ice do not equate to true monopoles. Participants express skepticism about the practical applications of monopoles, should they be discovered, questioning the nature of matter that could consist of monopoles. Overall, the consensus is that while the concept is intriguing, significant scientific evidence is still lacking.
maine75man
I'm not a professional in any scientific field just an avid consumer of popular science writing. I ran into a mention of magnetic monopoles awhile back and have been trying to dig up the answer to a few questions. Thus far I have failed so I decided to ask here.

OK I understand magnetic monopoles are still in the 'Could/should exist but we haven't found them yet.' category. I also understand that if they are discovered they will confirm certain ideas of some larger theories.

What I'm wondering first is there any idea what sort of matter could be a monopole. Would they be limited to subatomic particles or could there be elements or compounds that are made up of monopoles

Second if monopoles are discovered and they can be created/harvested in "useful" quantities, what practical uses could we find for them?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
maine75man said:
OK I understand magnetic monopoles are still in the 'Could/should exist but we haven't found them yet.' category.

No, they are in the "we have no evidence for any of them, no good reason for them to be there, and would be very surprised if we found them" category.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
No, they are in the "we have no evidence for any of them, no good reason for them to be there, and would be very surprised if we found them" category.

Well, maybe. There is evidence of Dirac strings in condensed matter, that indirectly implies (magnetic) monopole fields.
 
No, it doesn't. Not in the slightest. The fact that you get behavior that has quasiparticles that share properties with fundmental monopoles without fundamental monopoles does not imply that there are fundamental monopoles.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
No, it doesn't. Not in the slightest. The fact that you get behavior that has quasiparticles that share properties with fundmental monopoles without fundamental monopoles does not imply that there are fundamental monopoles.

I don't know what your definition of a "fundemental monopole" is. However, the interesting requirement of this experiment is that background space cannot be the vacuum. The same is true of quark fields that cannot be separated from other quarks. This observation blurs the line of distinction unless we are willing to say that quark fields are not fundemental.
 
Phrak said:
I don't know what your definition of a "fundemental monopole" is. However, the interesting requirement of this experiment is that background space cannot be the vacuum. The same is true of quark fields that cannot be separated from other quarks. This observation blurs the line of distinction unless we are willing to say that quark fields are not fundemental.

I'm not sure what your explanation has anything to do with what Vanadium has said.

If you are referring to the apparent discovery of "magnetic monopole" in the spin-ice system, then you need to look at it again! It is not THE monopole as what one would expect in a Standard Model-type GUT-type particle. It is analogous to a monopole in the sense that the flaw in the magnetic moment tetrahedral arrangement mimics a monopole.

Zz.
 
ZapperZ said:
I'm not sure what your explanation has anything to do with what Vanadium has said.

If you are referring to the apparent discovery of "magnetic monopole" in the spin-ice system, then you need to look at it again! It is not THE monopole as what one would expect in a Standard Model-type GUT-type particle. It is analogous to a monopole in the sense that the flaw in the magnetic moment tetrahedral arrangement mimics a monopole.

Zz.

Ok, so in your mind, monopoles are only real if they also exist in the background space of the vacuum.
 
Phrak said:
Ok, so in your mind, monopoles are only real if they also exist in the background space of the vacuum.

What is with this "real" stuff? Where did I make such a claim?

This "monople" is "real", as real as quasiparticles! But it is NOT THE monopole that is within most GUT-type description! Read the paper!

Zz.
 
ZapperZ said:
What is with this "real" stuff? Where did I make such a claim?

This "monople" is "real", as real as quasiparticles! But it is NOT THE monopole that is within most GUT-type description! Read the paper!

Zz.

OK, I get it, already. Spin ice indicators via measurements of alleged Dirac strings are not really monopoles because they are not GUT monopoles.

Provide an *accessable* link to this paper and we'll hash it out.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top