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/

ueb wrote:
In opposite, if one is humble enough to confine himself to
observable quantities, nature rewards him with the particle
numbers.

When Dirac generalized the wave equation he predicted the existence of
anti-particles, which had not yet been observed. If one were to restrict
physics to that which has been observed, no new things would be
discovered. Sometimes, it is good to go with the math, but that is no
guarantee of correctness

Bob Kolker

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.

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).

-Eric

Ulrich Bruchholz
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.

Trouble is a number of unified theories predict them 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


---
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 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". The symmetrization of Maxwell's equations is not
controversial. Dirac's result is not controversial. The theory
remains self-consistent. Here is a link on magnetic monopoles.
Get an education at:

http://www.iw.net/~jakoepke/

[Old Man]

Ulrich Bruchholz

Robert J. Kolker wrote:


ueb wrote:
In opposite, if one is humble enough to confine himself to
observable quantities, nature rewards him with the particle
numbers.

When Dirac generalized the wave equation he predicted the existence of
anti-particles, which had not yet been observed.

The Einstein-Maxwell equations predict anti-particles on principle,
because the signa of spin and charge do not go into them.

If one were to restrict
physics to that which has been observed, no new things would be
discovered.

Really ? See for yourself.
My simulations do not assume that the particle numbers are already
known. I take the known numbers only for the sake of evidence.
If the simulations are improved (I cannot do it as single person),
it should be on principle possible to predict unknown numbers,
and particles themselves.

Sometimes, it is good to go with the math, but that is no
guarantee of correctness

One needs of course the correct math ;-)

Ulrich Bruchholz

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

Ulrich

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.

Ulrich Bruchholz

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 ?
Should not a theory be based on observable quantities ? If
the theory is good, it predicts further quantities or
phenomena which are observed previously or afterwards, as
we could greatly experience it with SR/GR. GR can even predict
particle numbers (see above reference), in which one may take
the already known for the sake of evidence.

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

Ulrich

"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. 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