Practical Applications of Magnetic Monopoles: Possibilities and Limitations

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter maine75man
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Practical
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the theoretical existence and potential applications of magnetic monopoles, a concept in physics that remains unproven. Participants explore the nature of monopoles, their implications in theoretical frameworks, and the possibility of practical uses if they were to be discovered.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that magnetic monopoles are still in the realm of theoretical possibility, with no evidence supporting their existence.
  • Others argue that while there may be indirect evidence of monopole-like behavior in condensed matter systems, this does not imply the existence of fundamental monopoles.
  • A participant questions the definition of "fundamental monopole" and discusses the implications of quark fields in relation to monopoles.
  • There is a contention regarding the interpretation of findings in spin-ice systems, with some asserting that these findings do not correspond to the monopoles described in Grand Unified Theories (GUT).
  • Some participants emphasize that the quasiparticles observed in certain experiments are not the same as the fundamental monopoles theorized in particle physics.
  • There is a call for accessible references to support claims made about the nature of monopoles and their theoretical frameworks.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the existence and nature of magnetic monopoles, with no consensus reached on their implications or the validity of various interpretations of experimental evidence.

Contextual Notes

Discussions include references to specific experimental setups and theoretical frameworks, highlighting the complexity and nuance in defining and understanding monopoles. The conversation reflects ongoing debates in the field without resolving the underlying questions.

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

Undergrad Why could magnetic monopoles exist?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Undergrad Why does Gauss's Law for Magnetism prohibit monopoles?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
Graduate How would *You* detect magnetic monopoles?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Graduate Multipole Expansion: Understanding Electric & Magnetic Fields
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Undergrad Why are Dust Particles Moving in a Specific Direction in a Sunlit Car?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
8K
Graduate Field Energy of Permanent Magnets vs. Magnetic Monopoles
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
Graduate Conceptual Question About Magnetism
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate Inflation and Monopoles: Exploring the Mysteries of Cosmic Expansion
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
6K
Graduate Are Magnetic Monopoles Possible in Physics?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
High School Why are there only two types of electric charge?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K