FrediFizzx wrote:
"ueb" wrote in message
...
| People seriously discuss about the magnetic monopole, a strange
| factually non-existing object. As known, it is predicted from
| Dirac's idea to make Maxwell's equations symmetrical.
| Who knows Dirac's wise thoughts, can understand this suggestion
| only ironically, done with the goal to demonstrate what happens
| if one introduces non-existent quantities in a theory.
| If we write Maxwell's equations as four-dimensional tensor
| equations, Dirac's suggestion makes all components complex.
| That means that one mingles time with length. As well,
| the smart idea to take only discrete cases in which components
| are purely real or imaginary might be a fallacy, because it
| runs at best in a special case if at all.
| Consequently, nature does not behave like smart people think.
| In opposite, if one is humble enough to confine himself to
| observable quantities, nature rewards him with the particle
| numbers.
|
| Ulrich Bruchholz
| http://home.t-online.de/home/Ulrich.Bruchholz/

I think I have to agree with you. In fact, it is not hard to show that the
magnetic force is entirely due to relativistic effects. Bilge has done it a
few times in this group. It is just a rotation of your perspective.

Caution ;-)

I feel
that there is little difference between electric charge and magnetic charge.
It is just a matter of how you are "viewing" it. "Mag" monopoles do exist
and they are simply the electric monopoles we have now. I highly doubt a
"separate" particle we could call a mag monopole will ever be found. Dirac
un-intentionally used the wrong value for elementary charge. The true value
of elementary charge is +,- sqrt(hbar*c) in CGS units. It is not hard to
show this.

I think the symmetry of Maxwell's equations are restored if we think this
way.

FrediFizzx

You see it rightly from sense. In SR, the magnetic and electric field
strengthes perform a common field tensor. Moreover, the electric
potential becomes the fourth component of the common electromagnetic
vector potential. The electric and the magnetic field are _different_
parts of a unity. A symmetry problem does simply not exist with the
electromagnetic field as is.

Have a look at above reference, at least the introduction and the
listed results. It should be interesting for you. If one properly
understands the GR stuff (and the related math , he can of course
see the particle numbers in the valid tensor equations. Knowing
that, one cannot understand all the discussions about non-existing
things.

Ulrich

ueb wrote:
Eric Prebys wrote:

ueb wrote:

People seriously discuss about the magnetic monopole, a strange
factually non-existing object. As known, it is predicted from
Dirac's idea to make Maxwell's equations symmetrical.
Who knows Dirac's wise thoughts, can understand this suggestion
only ironically, done with the goal to demonstrate what happens
if one introduces non-existent quantities in a theory.
If we write Maxwell's equations as four-dimensional tensor
equations, Dirac's suggestion makes all components complex.
That means that one mingles time with length. As well,
the smart idea to take only discrete cases in which components
are purely real or imaginary might be a fallacy, because it
runs at best in a special case if at all.
Consequently, nature does not behave like smart people think.
In opposite, if one is humble enough to confine himself to
observable quantities, nature rewards him with the particle
numbers.

Ulrich Bruchholz
http://home.t-online.de/home/Ulrich.Bruchholz/



There are many arguments against magnetic monopoles,
but saying that we should look for things based on
purely mathematical arguments is not one of them.


Is mingling time with length a purely mathematical argument ?

?? All covariant notation mingles time and length, and
it's been pretty darn successful.

Should not a theory be based on observable quantities?

Most theories are based on non-observable postulates which
lead to observable predictions.

For example, one cannot "observe" gauge invariance, but
it is the central principle of the Standard Model.


If
the theory is good, it predicts further quantities or
phenomena which are observed previously or afterwards,

Yes, and on *this* basis, it appears that the magnetic
monopole theory was incorrect. Nevertheless, it doesn't
mean that Dirac was in error for making it.

as
we could greatly experience it with SR/GR. GR can even predict
particle numbers (see above reference), in which one may take

?? GR alone makes no particle predictions (unless you count
black holes). Quantum gravity predicts particles which have
yet to be seen.

the already known for the sake of evidence.


You picked a very strange example to illustrate your
point. GR is based on the abstract concept of
curved space, as well as the mixing of time and
length.


Here is a short list of things which were predicted
prior to being observed for purely mathematical reasons.


- displacement current (put in to make Maxwell's equations
mathematically self-consistent. Led
to the prediction of propagating EM
waves and realization of the nature
of light)
- neutrinos (put in by Pauli as a "desperate
measure" to restore energy conservation
in weak decay. Not directly observed
until 26 years later!)
- pions (predicted by Yukawa model for the strong
potential)
- antiparticles (predicted [by Dirac!] as a result of
"extra" solutions to his wave equations)
- charm quark (put in to explain anomalously low K-mu+mu-
decay rate)
- t & b quarks (put in to explain CP violation. Actually
predicted a year *before* the charm quark
was even discovered. Later, heavy top
needed to explain a plethora of precision
measurements)
- W and Z bosons (predicted as part of SU(2)xU(1) electroweak
symmetry breaking mechanism).
- black holes (the equations say they can exist, and by God
they do).


Minor question :
Have pions, quarks, bosons been ever observed ? (Teach me)

Yes.

Fact is : Nearly all that GR (with EM) predicts is observed, inclusive
seen particles. And that needs no unseen quantities or hidden forces !

Ulrich


-Eric

"ueb" wrote in message ...

[snip]

Minor question :
Have pions, quarks, bosons been ever observed ? (Teach me)

Minor question:
Have your brain cells and neurons ever been observed? (Teach me)

Fact is : Nearly all that GR (with EM) predicts is observed, inclusive
seen particles. And that needs no unseen quantities or hidden forces !

Fact is: nearly all that biology predicts is observed, inclusive
seen cells. And that needs no unseen quantities or hidden forces!

Dirk Vdm

"ueb" wrote in message ...
Old Man wrote:
ueb wrote in message
...
People seriously discuss about the magnetic monopole, a strange
factually non-existing object.

No. It's not a fact. The elementary magnetic charge for magnetic
monopoles was predicted by application of QM to a magnetic field.
They have not been observed, but magnetic monopoles have not
been "proven" to be non-existent, nor is their non-existence an
empirical "fact".

My understanding of natural science is another. I take anything
as non-existent as long it is not observed. One has to "prove"
not the non-existence but the existence.

We have not observed your brain cells.

Dirk Vdm

"ueb" wrote in message
...
Bill Hobba wrote:

Trouble is a number of unified theories predict them
[magnetical monopoles]
along with things like
proton decay etc. Because of that its existence would help decide
between
these theories. BTW I do not believe they exist because people have
been
looking for quite a while now and has not been able to find one - but
you
never know.

Thanks
Bill

Read http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...se2.private.de

Had a look. You wrote: 'Nature is nothing else than an electrovacuum'.
While admitting not understanding exactly what your trying to say a cursory
interpretation would indicate you not acknowledging the strong force or
gravitation. Can you elaborate?

Thanks
Bill


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 9/18/2003

[ueb]
I take anything
as non-existent as long it is not observed. One has to "prove"
not the non-existence but the existence.

Dirk Vdm wrote:
We have not observed your brain cells.


Ok. Germans say in such case that the comparison limps.
My own brain cells have been still not observed, in return those
of lots of other persons. As well, there was not a single failure
in the observation. - Are the failures so rare in physics too ?

Ulrich Bruchholz

EjP wrote:
ueb wrote:
Eric Prebys wrote:

ueb wrote:

People seriously discuss about the magnetic monopole, a strange
factually non-existing object. As known, it is predicted from
Dirac's idea to make Maxwell's equations symmetrical.
Who knows Dirac's wise thoughts, can understand this suggestion
only ironically, done with the goal to demonstrate what happens
if one introduces non-existent quantities in a theory.
If we write Maxwell's equations as four-dimensional tensor
equations, Dirac's suggestion makes all components complex.
That means that one mingles time with length. As well,
the smart idea to take only discrete cases in which components
are purely real or imaginary might be a fallacy, because it
runs at best in a special case if at all.
Consequently, nature does not behave like smart people think.
In opposite, if one is humble enough to confine himself to
observable quantities, nature rewards him with the particle
numbers.

Ulrich Bruchholz
http://home.t-online.de/home/Ulrich.Bruchholz/



There are many arguments against magnetic monopoles,
but saying that we should look for things based on
purely mathematical arguments is not one of them.


Is mingling time with length a purely mathematical argument ?

?? All covariant notation mingles time and length, and
it's been pretty darn successful.

No. In GR are timelike and lengthlike components, and both are
cleanly separated. I have calculated lots of that stuff, and I
have _never_ experienced that any single component was complex.
But if we follow Dirac's suggestion, just that would happen.

Should not a theory be based on observable quantities?

Most theories are based on non-observable postulates which
lead to observable predictions.

For example, one cannot "observe" gauge invariance, but
it is the central principle of the Standard Model.

I say here nothing about the Standard Model, but the theories
which make no trouble are based on the more narrow "postulate"
of the near action. I think, it is reasoned with the fact that
nobody can observe a far action.

If
the theory is good, it predicts further quantities or
phenomena which are observed previously or afterwards,

Yes, and on *this* basis, it appears that the magnetic
monopole theory was incorrect. Nevertheless, it doesn't
mean that Dirac was in error for making it.

I think so too, and take Dirac's suggestion rather as an example
how one should not do.

as
we could greatly experience it with SR/GR. GR can even predict
particle numbers (see above reference), in which one may take

?? GR alone makes no particle predictions (unless you count
black holes).

Ah. GR does it really, if EM (Maxwell's equations) is taken into
consideration. Particles result from the equations of the
electrovacuum. - You do obviously not know this fundamental.
Thank those who suppress the propagation of this essential
information. This information is the only one reason why I
bother myself with these postings, because people take no at all
interest in facts or results.

Quantum gravity predicts particles which have
yet to be seen.

Does it do with seen particles too ?

the already known for the sake of evidence.


You picked a very strange example to illustrate your
point. GR is based on the abstract concept of
curved space, as well as the mixing of time and
length.

As abstract this concept is, may be a point of discussion.
About mixing of time and length see above (absolute contradiction).


Here is a short list of things which were predicted
prior to being observed for purely mathematical reasons.


- displacement current (put in to make Maxwell's equations
mathematically self-consistent. Led
to the prediction of propagating EM
waves and realization of the nature
of light)
- neutrinos (put in by Pauli as a "desperate
measure" to restore energy conservation
in weak decay. Not directly observed
until 26 years later!)
- pions (predicted by Yukawa model for the strong
potential)
- antiparticles (predicted [by Dirac!] as a result of
"extra" solutions to his wave equations)
- charm quark (put in to explain anomalously low K-mu+mu-
decay rate)
- t & b quarks (put in to explain CP violation. Actually
predicted a year *before* the charm quark
was even discovered. Later, heavy top
needed to explain a plethora of precision
measurements)
- W and Z bosons (predicted as part of SU(2)xU(1) electroweak
symmetry breaking mechanism).
- black holes (the equations say they can exist, and by God
they do).


Minor question :
Have pions, quarks, bosons been ever observed ? (Teach me)

Yes.

I have read at http://pdg.lbl.gov/ , that quarks were even not
observed. You are the first who unconditionally says "yes"
without to roll.

Fact is : Nearly all that GR (with EM) predicts is observed, inclusive
seen particles. And that needs no unseen quantities or hidden forces !

Ulrich


-Eric

Ulrich

Bill Hobba wrote

Had a look.
[at a parallel posting, Subject: Einstein was more right than people think]
You wrote: 'Nature is nothing else than an electrovacuum'.
While admitting not understanding exactly what your trying to say a cursory
interpretation would indicate you not acknowledging the strong force or
gravitation. Can you elaborate?

Willingly.
My results do indeed not support the assumption of the "strong force"
but need only gravitation and electromagnetism. I.e. particles are
described solely by the "classical" fields. These fields, without
ominous matter sources, perform the "electrovacuum". The equations
of the electrovacuum have purely geometric meaning, see the derivation
on my site. Particles are discrete solutions of these equations.
It has to do with chaos.

Ulrich

ueb wrote:

EjP wrote:

ueb wrote:

Eric Prebys wrote:


ueb wrote:


People seriously discuss about the magnetic monopole, a strange
factually non-existing object. As known, it is predicted from
Dirac's idea to make Maxwell's equations symmetrical.
Who knows Dirac's wise thoughts, can understand this suggestion
only ironically, done with the goal to demonstrate what happens
if one introduces non-existent quantities in a theory.
If we write Maxwell's equations as four-dimensional tensor
equations, Dirac's suggestion makes all components complex.
That means that one mingles time with length. As well,
the smart idea to take only discrete cases in which components
are purely real or imaginary might be a fallacy, because it
runs at best in a special case if at all.
Consequently, nature does not behave like smart people think.
In opposite, if one is humble enough to confine himself to
observable quantities, nature rewards him with the particle
numbers.

Ulrich Bruchholz
http://home.t-online.de/home/Ulrich.Bruchholz/



There are many arguments against magnetic monopoles,
but saying that we should look for things based on
purely mathematical arguments is not one of them.


Is mingling time with length a purely mathematical argument ?


?? All covariant notation mingles time and length, and
it's been pretty darn successful.


No. In GR are timelike and lengthlike components, and both are
cleanly separated.

Until you do a Lorentz Transformation.

I have calculated lots of that stuff, and I
have _never_ experienced that any single component was complex.
But if we follow Dirac's suggestion, just that would happen.


Should not a theory be based on observable quantities?


Most theories are based on non-observable postulates which
lead to observable predictions.


For example, one cannot "observe" gauge invariance, but
it is the central principle of the Standard Model.


I say here nothing about the Standard Model, but the theories
which make no trouble are based on the more narrow "postulate"
of the near action. I think, it is reasoned with the fact that
nobody can observe a far action.


If
the theory is good, it predicts further quantities or
phenomena which are observed previously or afterwards,


Yes, and on *this* basis, it appears that the magnetic
monopole theory was incorrect. Nevertheless, it doesn't
mean that Dirac was in error for making it.


I think so too, and take Dirac's suggestion rather as an example
how one should not do.


as
we could greatly experience it with SR/GR. GR can even predict
particle numbers (see above reference), in which one may take


?? GR alone makes no particle predictions (unless you count
black holes).


Ah. GR does it really, if EM (Maxwell's equations) is taken into
consideration. Particles result from the equations of the
electrovacuum. - You do obviously not know this fundamental.
Thank those who suppress the propagation of this essential
information. This information is the only one reason why I
bother myself with these postings, because people take no at all
interest in facts or results.


What particle are predicted by GR?


Quantum gravity predicts particles which have
yet to be seen.


Does it do with seen particles too ?


The existing Standard Model does not include gravity
at all.

There are many flavors of unification
theories, which attempt to incorporate gravity,
but none of these have yet been verified
experimentally.


the already known for the sake of evidence.



You picked a very strange example to illustrate your
point. GR is based on the abstract concept of
curved space, as well as the mixing of time and
length.


As abstract this concept is, may be a point of discussion.
About mixing of time and length see above (absolute contradiction).


Here is a short list of things which were predicted
prior to being observed for purely mathematical reasons.


- displacement current (put in to make Maxwell's equations
mathematically self-consistent. Led
to the prediction of propagating EM
waves and realization of the nature
of light)
- neutrinos (put in by Pauli as a "desperate
measure" to restore energy conservation
in weak decay. Not directly observed
until 26 years later!)
- pions (predicted by Yukawa model for the strong
potential)
- antiparticles (predicted [by Dirac!] as a result of
"extra" solutions to his wave equations)
- charm quark (put in to explain anomalously low K-mu+mu-
decay rate)
- t & b quarks (put in to explain CP violation. Actually
predicted a year *before* the charm quark
was even discovered. Later, heavy top
needed to explain a plethora of precision
measurements)
- W and Z bosons (predicted as part of SU(2)xU(1) electroweak
symmetry breaking mechanism).
- black holes (the equations say they can exist, and by God
they do).


Minor question :
Have pions, quarks, bosons been ever observed ? (Teach me)


Yes.


I have read at http://pdg.lbl.gov/ , that quarks were even not
observed. You are the first who unconditionally says "yes"
without to roll.


Well, saying quarks have been "observed" might be a bit of a
stretch, but then whenever we "observe" anything with something
other than optical means what we're *really* saying is "We've
observed phenomena consistent with our conceptual picture".

For example, when you see those cool "pictures" of individual
atoms, what you're really "seeing" is a graphical representation
of a tunneling signal consistent with quantum mechanics and
our model for the electron probability cloud around atoms.

That said, charged pions have been observed at exactly the
same level we have observed electrons and protons; that
is, they propagate macroscopic distances and we directly
observe their interactions with matter. The same is
true of kaons and a few other particles.

W and Z bosons are too short-lived to travel macroscopic
distances and be detected directly, but we observe their
decay products, which reconstruct to precise masses. This
is something they share with many subatomic particles,
and in the standard lexicon, reconstructing a particle's
decay products counts as "observation".

In the current model, quarks cannot exist in an unconfined
state, and indeed, free quarks have never been observed. Our
strongest evidence for quarks comes from
- scattering experiments involving nucleons
- compelling, yet somewhat arcane evidence involving
particle/antiparticle interaction rates.
- various "jet" studies, in which the energy and
momentum of a parent quark manifest themselves
as a jet of particles. High energy jets come the
closest to a direct observation of quarks.
While this is perhaps not "observation" at the same level
as the other particles, there is no other model
that comes even close to explaining the existing
body of data without quarks.

-Eric



Fact is : Nearly all that GR (with EM) predicts is observed, inclusive
seen particles. And that needs no unseen quantities or hidden forces !

Ulrich



-Eric


Ulrich

"ueb" wrote in message ...
[ueb]
I take anything
as non-existent as long it is not observed. One has to "prove"
not the non-existence but the existence.

Dirk Vdm wrote:
We have not observed your brain cells.


Ok. Germans say in such case that the comparison limps.

So do Belgians: we say "de vergelijking loopt mank".

My own brain cells have been still not observed, in return those
of lots of other persons. As well, there was not a single failure
in the observation. - Are the failures so rare in physics too ?

:-p

Dirk Vdm