Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: RTCPhysics on 12/10/2015 10:49:35
-
Quote: “A magnetic monopole is a hypothetical elementary particle in ‘particle physics’ that is an isolated magnet with only one magnetic pole.”
We take the earth's magnetic field for granted and attribute it to a circulating molten iron core. On the other hand, the sun hasn't got a circulating molten iron core, it is primarily a plasma mixture with hydrogen and helium gases as its main components. But it is known to have massive magnetic fields functioning within it, magnetic fields that can bottle up vast quantities of its plasma, which display themselves as 'sun spots' on its surface. When the plasma gets too energetic, the magnetic cage is breached and the sun spews out huge jets of plasma from its surface, which we call ‘coronal mass ejections’. So magnetism is not just a unique property of planets with a ‘circulating molten iron core’, it is a fundamental force of nature.
Now we have to ask the question as to how these magnetic fields are formed in stars like the sun and more to the point, which particular family of particles generates the field? That is a simple question to answer, because all matter: gaseous, liquid or solid is built from just two families of particles: the quark and anti-quark family and the electron and anti-electron family. We can rule out the quark family, as their ‘function in life’ is to create the atomic nuclei and in achieving this, they are locked together by a very powerful, non-magnetic force called ‘the strong force’. Hence we are left with the ‘humble electron family’.
We know from multiple experiments with magnets, that the ‘field lines’ from a magnet all exit in one direction and return from the other, having executed a ‘circular path’, so if the electron is the generating mechanism, then the line of magnetic force must have started from an electron and returned back to it. As no-one would sensibly wish to say that the electron has a ‘north’ and ‘south’ pole, we can assign that ancient notation and its derivative the ‘magnetic monopole’ to the history of physics and accept that the electron is a ‘generator of magnetic energy’ in its own right. And as a consequence, it has its own measurable magnetic moment. This concept of the ‘electron’ creating a 'magnetic field ring' leads to the perception that each magnetic field line is a ‘quantum of energy’ but a consequence of there being billions of electrons in a magnet, the field generated by them appears to be a ‘magnetic continuum’. But it isn’t.
By now, it has probably flashed through your mind that if all electrons can generate a magnetic ring, then why aren't all the elements of the Periodic Table magnetic? But just as quickly you will have realised that for a magnetic field to appear on a 'macro scale' rather than a 'micro scale', all the electrons must line up with their magnetic lines of force having the same orientation. In addition, the nuclear structure of the element or compound must be structured such that these lines of force can stream out together along the channels between the nuclei and this only occurs with a small number of metals such as: iron, cobalt and nickel.
So what exactly is a quantum of magnetic energy? We can hypothesise that it behaves like a ‘pulse’ of energy, starting from the electron and returning to that same electron, but never losing any energy on its circuit and hence obeying the ‘conservation of energy’ law. Alternatively, the ring can be viewed as a classical field line of force. The main advantage of the ‘pulse concept’ is that it is discrete and conforms to quantum theory.
These magnetic lines of force obey certain well researched rules, the first being that lines of force travelling in the same direction repel each other. This repelling force acts like Pauli’s exclusion principle, in that the magnetic lines of force repel their neighbours and as a result the outer lines of force generated by electrons located in the centre of the magnet are forced to lengthen and spread out further from the magnet, creating a ‘spherical body’ of lines all around the magnet. (Think of the magnetic lines of force around a bar magnet in two dimensions, then spin it upon its apparent ‘north-south’ axis to visualise the field’s spherical shape.)
The magnetic strength at any location upon the larger diameter rings is weaker than those of a smaller diameter, with the strength falling off as the square of the distance from the magnet, but the cumulative energy for each magnetic ring remains exactly the same. Lines of force that depart a magnet along its ‘north-south’ axis can appear to be heading for infinity, but as there are a finite number of electrons, there exists a finite number of magnetic field lines and they all return to their home electron intact. So all magnetic fields have a finite size.
The second rule that magnetic lines of force obey is that lines of force travelling in opposite directions attract each other. This attraction has the opposite effect of causing their magnetic rings to shorten and strengthen enabling the two sets of magnetic rings to move together creating an attracting force. When you bring two magnets into close proximity, your fingers will feel the familiar attracting or repelling forces, even if you can't see them.
As a consequence of these first two rules of magnetism, we can state the third rule of magnetism, which is that ‘magnetic lines of force never cross each other’. If their direction of travel is at an angle or perpendicular to each other, so that they are on a collision course to cross each other, they will divert from their original course and find another route back to their ‘home electron’. Because all magnetic fields are finite, it is always possible for a magnetic ring to return to its home electron even if it has to completely circle around the opposing field to get back there. But all magnetic lines will take the shortest route home.
There is a fourth and somewhat unexpected rule of magnetism, called ‘magnetic re-connectivity’. If a magnet is cut in half, which separates one group of the electrons from the other half, then the magnetic lines of force are able to re-route themselves back to their generating source electron. How spooky is that! How do the lines of force know where their home electron is, once their magnetic ring has been cut? This phenomenon can be added to some of the more inexplicable phenomenon of particle physics such as: ‘action at a distance’, the ‘electron twin slit experiment' and ‘quantum tunnelling’. But it is possible that this quantum ring concept of the ‘magnetic electron’ offers an alternative path to explaining them.
-
An electron is a magnetic dipole. This is the basis of electron spin resonance spectroscopy and has been known for so long that I can't find a discovery date - it was certainly in the undergraduate syllabus 50 years ago, and has been an essential tool in the chemists' armamentarium since the 1950s.
-
An electron is a magnetic dipole. This is the basis of electron spin resonance spectroscopy and has been known for so long that I can't find a discovery date - it was certainly in the undergraduate syllabus 50 years ago, and has been an essential tool in the chemists' armamentarium since the 1950s.
1925 by George Uhlenbeck and Samuel Goudsmit.
I don’t think you need me to tell you that Newton’s theory of gravity formed in 1687 is still an essential tool for space exploration, but until Einstein published his general theory of relativity, no one understood why. From what I have read, ‘electron spin’ is still a bit of a physics mystery.
But as you point out, an unpaired electron can be flipped by targeting it with radiant energy of a specific resonant frequency and is the basis of ‘electron spin resonance spectroscopy’, in the same way that MRI machines flip the proton nucleus of the hydrogen atom.
The logic behind this 'theory' is that the electron ‘spins off’ a magnetic ring around itself, just as it is known to do around a current carrying wire. As such, it will have an associated magnetic angular momentum, but that does not make the electron a magnetic dipole, in the sense of having a north and a south pole. No ring, magnetic or otherwise, has an entry or exit point.
The ability of an electron to attract or repel another electron will depend upon the respective directions of their magnetic rings. If both are circulating clockwise or anticlockwise they will repel. However. flip one electron over and the two electrons will attract and ‘pair up’, as they are known to do in the orbital structure of the atom.
-
The logic behind this 'theory' is that the electron ‘spins off’ a magnetic ring around itself, just as it is known to do around a current carrying wire. As such, it will have an associated magnetic angular momentum, but that does not make the electron a magnetic dipole, in the sense of having a north and a south pole. No ring, magnetic or otherwise, has an entry or exit point.
A current circulating in a ring produces a magnetic field vector perpendicular to the ring. You can descibe that in terms of a north and south pole. Same with the field vector of an electron.
The ability of an electron to attract or repel another electron will depend upon the respective directions of their magnetic rings. If both are circulating clockwise or anticlockwise they will repel. However. flip one electron over and the two electrons will attract and ‘pair up’, as they are known to do in the orbital structure of the atom.
Except that they don't attract one another - they are both attracted by the nuclear charge and the shapes of orbitals suggest that electrons in any particular orbital stay away from each other. Anyway, if an electron were a magnetic monopole, it couldn't attract another electron - like poles repel.
So either an electron is a dipole as I said, or it is a dipole as you said.
[/quote]
-
A current circulating in a ring produces a magnetic field vector perpendicular to the ring. You can describe that in terms of a north and south pole. Same with the field vector of an electron.
You could. But has that achieved anything, over and above it being an application of the first three rules of magnetism! Isn’t this a case of perpetuating a dated concept born out of the behaviour of a piece of lodestone in the earth’s magnetic field? Particularly if the magnetic field vector of the electron particle can be explained by the concept of a circulating magnetic ring.
[/quote]
Except that they don't attract one another - they are both attracted by the nuclear charge and the shapes of orbitals suggest that electrons in any particular orbital stay away from each other. Anyway, if an electron were a magnetic monopole, it couldn't attract another electron - like poles repel.
So either an electron is a dipole as I said, or it is a dipole as you said.
I believe I made the point that the electron is neither a ‘magnetic dipole’ nor a ‘magnetic monopole’. If I did not, that is what I meant.
But may I add another property of magnetically paired electrons for your consideration. If the pair are split and physically moved apart, any distance you like, they will always retain their magnetic link and knowledge of each other’s state, even though their magnetic rings are stretched miles apart. Flip one electron and to retain their status as an attracting pair, the other electron will also flip. “Spooky action at a distance” I believe it is called.
And now for a forecast! If either of the paired electrons is released, it will re-appear with its partner!
As you point out, the current concept of the atom is based upon the concept of electrostatic charge. You put a plus sign on one particle and a negative sign on the other and they attract, a notation, I believe, coined Benjamin Franklin in his iconic work with batteries being charged (+) and discharged (-). Hence electrons are perceived as having a negative not a positive charge.
Switching to a theory of the atom based upon the rules of magnetism is a fundamental leap of imagination and perhaps too far for immediate credibility, given the amount of work that has been put into the electrostatics model. But as I intimated, there is a lot more clarity in the concept of a magnetic structure of the atom, but building of a picture needs to be taken and analysed step by step.
You did, however, take one of those steps when you said, “the shapes of orbitals suggest that electrons in any particular orbital stay away from each other.” If electrons do not have a negative charge, this problem goes away to be replaced by magnetically linked and self-contained paired electrons.
-
Before dismissing the concept of magnetic monopoles on the basis of quantum mechanics theories, I might point out (I am an ether theorist) that magnetic monopoles would be a good basic-theory fit in Bioiogy, for mitosis, reproduction, and other biological processes. -One-way forces could explain their basically different dynamics compared to non-biological energy systems.
I would cite the work of Dr. Phillip Callahan who has studied possible roles of the magnetic monopole in plant dynamics.
-
If electrons do not have a negative charge, this problem goes away to be replaced by magnetically linked and self-contained paired electrons.
Ah, but they do have a negative charge.
-
I don’t think you need me to tell you that Newton’s theory of gravity formed in 1687 is still an essential tool for space exploration, but until Einstein published his general theory of relativity, no one understood why.
Why would you say "no one understood why."? Everyone who followed Einstein's work in relativity knew why. It was to apply relativity to the theory of gravity and to generalize relativity to general frames of references other than inertial frames.
From what I have read, ‘electron spin’ is still a bit of a physics mystery.
If that's what you believe then you should read the article What is spini? by Hans C. Ohanian. Am. J. Phys., 54 (6), June 1986. It's online at: http://people.westminstercollege.edu/faculty/ccline/courses/phys425/AJP_54(6)_p500.pdf
-
The primary force transmitter in electromagnetism occurs via elemental etheric units which resonate linearly and dipolarly - as their outward vibrational motions form loose connections of a dipolar nature (with respect to each linkage.) Then this process forms linear etheric entrainments which produce, first, fermionic units like electrons, and then still- larger units. Electrons are merely observable, "incidental," by-products, in electromagnetism. The primary process is elemental etheric vibrational resonance.
We will only come to understand magnetic monopoles through appreciating this underlying etheric vibrational framework. (I have posted several threads in this Forum describing my overall ether model.)
(Quantum Mechanics does not coherently address the phenomenon of action-at-a-distance. Einstein himself took note of this effect in 1935, and because of it, he called into question the very foundations of QM theory, an opinion he never really changed. -I submit that so-called quantum entanglement just represents radiated packets of etheric energy which have the same vibratory pattern. Elemental etheric units are the only actual participants in this phenomenon, with the quantum units being kinetically walled off, like cool "arms" of a quiet purring mechanism.)
-
Before dismissing the concept of magnetic monopoles on the basis of quantum mechanics theories, I might point out (I am an ether theorist) that magnetic monopoles would be a good basic-theory fit in Bioiogy, for mitosis, reproduction, and other biological processes. -One-way forces could explain their basically different dynamics compared to non-biological energy systems.
I would cite the work of Dr. Phillip Callahan who has studied possible roles of the magnetic monopole in plant dynamics.
Having kicked into touch (in my own mind) the concept of a ‘magnetic dipole’ with its north and south seeking poles, replacing them with clockwise circulating and anticlockwise circulating magnetic rings, (or equally ‘up-facing’ and ‘down-facing’ rings), I perhaps thoughtlessly included the ‘magnetic monopole’. I am aware that particles appearing to behave as magnetic monopoles have been detected in research work upon a Bose Einstein condensate held at near absolute zero temperature.
So, your observation upon the potential application of ‘magnetic monopoles’ in biology, forced me to clarify in my mind what a ‘magnetic monopole’ could actually be! Is it a particle in its own right on the brink of discovery or is it a ‘magnetic charge’ akin to the ‘electrostatic charge’ of classical particle physics?
If ’magnetic monopoles’ were to follow the classical concept of an electrostatic charge, then they would have to conform to the following rules:
1. There exists a ‘north seeking’ and a ‘south seeking’ magnetic monopole.
2. The magnetic source must be able to generate perpetual energy in order to continually produce its magnetic force field.
3. The force field is required to leave the monopole particle in straight lines and thus must have an infinite reach.
4. It must be assumed that the magnetic monopoles know where each other is, so that they can route their respective field lines between themselves and induce an attracting or repelling force.
5. Accept that the magnitude of the monopole’s magnetic charge is always exactly the same.
6. Assume that every magnetic monopole can either attract or repel every other monopole in existence, as they have an infinite reach.
7. Hypothesise that for the universe to be a ‘null’ or ‘unmagnetised entity’, there must exist an equal number of oppositely signed magnetic monopoles.
Alternatively, on a post classical approach, hypothesise the existence of an undetectable universal ‘magnetic continuum’, which transports the energy between the locations of the magnetic monopoles within it.
Assume that the north and south seeking magnetic monopoles have no energy themselves, but take a constant quantum of energy through their interaction with the ‘magnetic continuum’.
Finally, prompted by your post, I looked up Dr Callahan and although I overlooked his work upon plant dynamics, (being short of knowledge in that field), I did spot this para:
Quote: “Dr. Callahan explains that a particle moving faster than the speed of light is called a tachyon, and a message sent by such a particle would actually arrive before it was sent. He also states that he published, in 1986, the first experimental proof that tachyon particles actually exist.”
I am not sure that I can visualise the tachyon arriving before it was sent as a ‘reality’, but, as usual, novel concepts intrigue me.
PS Having read your latest post, I realise that I did not understand what an 'ether theorist' does and what the concept of 'elemental etheric vibrational response' is. So I much doubt the value of my response to you.
-
f that's what you believe then you should read the article What is spini? by Hans C. Ohanian. Am. J. Phys., 54 (6), June 1986. It's online at: http://people.westminstercollege.edu/faculty/ccline/courses/phys425/AJP_54(6)_p500.pdf
Many thanks for this reference. It was an articulate and readable article. As I understood its content, quote1: 'spin' may be regarded as an angular momentum generated by a circulating flow of energy in the wave field of the electron. quote2: neither the spin nor the magnetic moment are internal, they are not associated with the internal structure of the electron.
Am I too far from this concept of the electron with its circulating flow of energy? My quote:The logic behind this 'theory' is that the electron ‘spins off’ a magnetic ring around itself, just as it is known to do around a current carrying wire. As such, it will have an associated magnetic angular momentum. The analogy I used for Ohanian's concept of a 'wave field' was a 'circulating pulse of magnetic energy'.
This model fits the concept of the electron as having the properties of both a particle and a wave. If so, why all the mystery surrounding its behaviour? The electron is both a particle and a wave.
-
To RTCPhysics:
Replying to your interest in how an ether model would address the basic nature of a magnetic monopole, of course there is a lack of objective evidence to call upon, since we are at present unable to detect ether forces. -My theoretic model of the ether would offer this sub-model for how magnetic monopoles would exert such an effect in an energy setting.
In my ether model, the ether first arose, cosmically, in a setting prior to the formation of our universe, following the initial formation of an ether from original space (which was oscillational - then oscillational fatigue broke the symmetry, leading to a universal vibrational (as derived from the oscillational) ether, which behaves energically via resonance between outwardly-vibrating elemental ether units. -In this early cosmic setting, these resonances produced linear resonational connections, forming entrainments of energy in space, which in turn resonated with one another, producing foci of energy which were super-intense and etherically super-refined. These foci were capable of initiating reversible energic processes far beyond our imagination based on our familiar quantum-order energy systems. -The idea is that this was how sapience first arose, and how biological systems arose also.
The super-intensity of the energy levels in such foci produced energic fluxes which would be beyond our experience here on earth now. -I propose they included, at least transiently, magnetic monopoles, which initiated one-way processes, such as reproduction, and the first biological systems. -Such magnetic monopoles could have represented linear entrainments of etheric resonant elemental units that had "side branches" which were not linearly aligned with their "opposing" pole. -Once monopoles, energically acting one-way, appeared, life processes could then have appeared.