Why Magnetic Monopoles SHOULD Exist
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 10. 2021
- Sign Up on Patreon to get access to the Space Time Discord!
/ pbsspacetime
What happens if you cut a bar magnetic in half? We get two magnets, each with their own North and South poles. But what happens if you keep on cutting, into fourths and eighths and sixteenths and so on? Will we ever get to a single pole? I’ll spoil the answer for you: we don’t know! But the idea of magnetic monopoles remains one of physics’ most tantalizing maybes.
Check out the Space Time Merch Store
www.pbsspacetime.com/shop
Sign up for the mailing list to get episode notifications and hear special announcements!
mailchi.mp/1a6eb8f2717d/space...
Hosted by Matt O'Dowd
Written by Dan Garisto & Matt O'Dowd
Graphics by Leonardo Scholzer, Yago Ballarini, Pedro Osinski, Adriano Leal & Stephanie Faria
GFX Visualizations: Ajay Manuel
Directed by Andrew Kornhaber
Assistant Producer: Setare Gholipour
Executive Producers: Eric Brown & Andrew Kornhaber
End Credits Music by J.R.S. Schattenberg: / multidroideka
Special Thanks to Our Patreon Supporters
Big Bang Supporters
Peter Barrett
Nils Anderson
David Neumann
Ari Paul
Kyle Bulloch
Charlie
Mrs. Tiffany Poindexter
Leo Koguan
Sandy Wu
Matthew Miller
Ahmad Jodeh
Alexander Tamas
Morgan Hough
Juan Benet
Vinnie Falco
Fabrice Eap
Mark Rosenthal
David Nicklas
Henry Van Styn
Quasar Supporters
Alex Kern
Michael Schneider
Ethan Cohen
Stephen Wilcox
Christina Oegren
Mark Heising
Hank S
Hypernova Supporters
william bryan
drollere
Joe Moreira
Marc Armstrong
Elizabeth Smith
Scott Gorlick
Nick Berard
Paul Stehr-Green
MuON Marketing
Russell Pope
Ben Delo
Nicholas Newlin
Scott Gray
Антон Кочков
John R. Slavik
Mathew
Donal Botkin
John Pollock
Edmund Fokschaner
Joseph Salomone
Matthew O'Connor
chuck zegar
Jordan Young
m0nk
John Hofmann
Daniel Muzquiz
Timothy McCulloch
Gamma Ray Burst Supporters
Jonathan Conerly
Wrymouth
Andre Stechert
Ross Bohner
Farhan Wali
Paul Wood
Kent Durham
jim bartosh
Nubble
Chris Navrides
Scott R Calkins
Carl Scaggs
G Mack
The Mad Mechanic
Ellis Hall
John H. Austin, Jr.
Diana S
Ben Campbell
Lawrence Tholl, DVM
Faraz Khan
Almog Cohen
Alex Edwards
Ádám Kettinger
MD3
Endre Pech
Daniel Jennings
Cameron Sampson
Pratik Mukherjee
Geoffrey Clarion
Nate
Adrian Posor
Darren Duncan
Russ Creech
Jeremy Reed
Eric Webster
Steven Sartore
David Johnston
J. King
Michael Barton
Christopher Barron
James Ramsey
Justin Jermyn
Mr T
Andrew Mann
Peter Mertz
Isaac Suttell
Devon Rosenthal
Oliver Flanagan
Bleys Goodson
Robert Walter
Bruce B
Ismael Montecel
Simon Oliphant
Mirik Gogri
Mark Delagasse
Mark Daniel Cohen
Brandon Lattin
Nickolas Andrew Freeman
Protius Protius
Shane Calimlim
Tybie Fitzhugh
Robert Ilardi
Eric Kiebler
Craig Stonaha
Martin Skans
Michael Conroy
Graydon Goss
Frederic Simon
Tonyface
John Robinson
A G
Kevin Lee
Adrian Hatch
Yurii Konovaliuk
John Funai
Cass Costello
Tristan Deloche
Bradley Jenkins
Kyle Hofer
Daniel Stříbrný
Luaan
AlecZero
Vlad Shipulin
Cody
Malte Ubl
King Zeckendorff
Nick Virtue
Scott Gossett
Dan Warren
Patrick Sutton
John Griffith
Daniel Lyons
DFaulk
GrowingViolet
Kevin Warne
Andreas Nautsch
Brandon labonte
From the Space Time Corrections Department (aka our always impressive fans)
At 3:30, our representation of Maxwell's equations were incorrect. The correct equations can be viewed here:
tinyurl.com/2td4v6hm
And at 11:09, we mistakenly reused a photo of Gell-Mann instead of Alexander Polyakov. Polyakov's department photo can be seen here:
phy.princeton.edu/people/alexander-polyakov
Okay, this is epic.
As for USB plugs... They always fit on the third try. Pro tip: Try it once, does not fit. Flip it over, also does not fit. Flip it over again, always fits. Not even sure what law of physics is violated there.
What would be the possible technological applications for magnetic monopole particles?
@@_John_P
You could make USB plugs that always point the correct way.
A QUARK IS A SCANDINAVIAN DAIRY DISH.
"Everything not forbidden is compulsory" sounds like the physics formulation of rule 34
I like this.
It is. Anything consistent with physical laws is inevitable (mathematical improbability will never be great enough for SOMEONE not to do it).
No exceptions. No "Rule 35" qualifier.
@@lakodamon What about Rule 63?
For every particle there is an opposite antiparticle ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
@@LilliHerveau it's from constructor theory
@@JorgetePanete There are some particles that are their own antiparticle.
Even physics says enbies are valid!
Hands down the clearest explanation of USB cables ever.
the cable or the plug?
@@SoftSemtex Those are actually equivalent in some theories.
Usb? I thought he was talking about gravity
it fits so well...
@@chriswarr641 Especially if you turn it up side down twice.
“Don’t underestimate the power of an obsessed physicist. The great Paul Dirac had a habit of discovering particles just by staring at the math.”
That killed me
our brain is already a perfect quantum computer, i believe that our brains already worked out the maths of the universe and that's why the mind was necessary, there were no answers in that numbers.
@@minderbinderful elaborate?
@@minderbinderful slow down on the brownies
@@mariogiunta1989 wrong person
@@mariogiunta1989 mate your talking to the wrong person
As a side note, it was the search for magnetic monopoles that led physicist Luis Alvarez to contribute to a theory of what led to the extinction of the dinosaurs: a huge meteorite strike. Luis was using detectors lifted into the atmosphere by balloons to capture cosmic ray particles, among which he hoped to find monopoles. He (or was it someone else doing similar experiments?) thought he might have found one too, but it turned out that Luis identified it to be a platinum (or was it iridium?) nucleus. No monopole after all, but that clued him in on the possible origins of the platinum/iridium in the C-T boundary that coincides with the fossil record of mass extinction. It seems that most platinum on earth has an extraterrestrial origin. Asteroid belt or something.
@OrdenJust Iridium, yeah.
Everything on earth came from space... lol
It is also possible that rather than possessing spin, USB plugs exist in a state of quantum superposition. Thus, turning the plug one way or the other will do no good; you must visually inspect the plug to collapse the waveform, and then you'll know which way to orient it for insertion.
Schrödinger's USB
Never thought about that way. As a consequence, USB-C is its own antiparticle
Underrated comment is underrated
Brilliant. This is my new headcannon
@@dolomighty74 in that sense, USB-C cables are superpositioned between constant annihilation and constant recombination. It is literally every single elementary particle and a USB-C cable at the same time.
"Actually, quantum mechanics forbids this."
"Or does it?"
**cue Vsauce music*
I love that guy
hehehe they're aware of the meme x3
Vsauce has music?
"I don't know, I'm not a quantum physicist, so let's talk about holes instead. Doughnut holes."
@@Pllayer064 now that's something I can understand!
Great video! You should definitely put links on the description to those past videos you mentioned
helo
Hi Steve. :)
Meve stould
steve how sick is this channel tho
@@LordQueezle The Learning never ends,
so call it silly, but i do have the hobby of asking people
if i an recommend them science-chanenl or just education-channel in general
to them!
Mind if i do?
In the mid seventies there was some uncorroborated evidence of the existence of a magnetic monopole. I was in graduate school in Physics at Florida State University. Paul Dirac was a professor at FSU. He graciously gave a seminar describing his work on predicting the existence of the Magnetic Monopole (I was also fortunate enough to have had him as a guest lecturer in my Quantum Mechanics class, where he explained how he predicted the existence of the positron, but that is another story for another time). As you so elegantly explain, he demonstrated on the chalkboard how the quantization of electric charge led to his prediction. One uniquely interesting moment was when he reached into his pocket to pull out a scrap of paper that had Maxwell's equations written on it (no memorization of formulas required). His explanation was simple, clear and precise as though anyone could have come up with it. It was a true sign of genius.
With that aside, my understanding of magnetism is that it is a relativistic side effect of a moving electric field. This strikes me as a simpler explanation that the invention of yet another required fundamental force. How does this coincide with the existence of a magnetic monopole?
There are a bunch of different ways to think about magnetic fields, but both the relativistic and quantum mechanical picture are encapsulated in QFT's A field. I'm not sure enough about the QFT math to give you a better explanation, but as I'm sure you are aware, QFT is fully (special) relativistic, so there is definitely no conflict with the relativistic EM picture. The A field, however, is not burdened with the illusory distinction between the electric and magnetic fields. It just transforms like any other four vector.
I misread the title as "magnetic monopolies" and was wondering why this guy would want a few magnet companies to control the market of magnets
Talking about monopolist magnAtes?
Magnetic monopoles don't exist.
... Or at least that's what big magnet wants you to think.
@@1.4142 The Learning never ends,
so call it silly, but i do have the hobby of asking people
if i an recommend them science-chanenl or just education-channel in general
to them!
Mind if i do?
In RF engineering, there are some situations where it's way easier to shift the problem to an "anti-world" where magnetic monopoles exist and electric monopoles don't (If I remember correctly it's very useful when dealing with slot antennas, where you can replace the cut in the conductor with magnetic currents)
Anyway, it's been some time since I had to do it but I had a blast every time I had to consider using a parallel universe to calculate something!
lol, also nice pfp
Can't wait for friday.
@@captainharpoon your mom can’t wait for friday
what possible problem would you be working on where going to a bizarro world makes the maths _easier?_ and can I go there?
@@captainharpoon anti-Garfield's catchphrase
Actually, this magnet slicing thing reminds me about how there can be no isolated quarks: if you split (say) a pair of quarks, you need to put in enough energy to create two new quarks, so you end up with two pairs of quarks. Maybe those monopoles are similar?
It isn’t the same thing, when you slice a magnet you get two new magnetic dipoles because actually the magnet itself is a combination of millions of dipoles, in reality there are no new magnetic poles appearing, it’s just that they were always there to begin with, each atom being essentially a magnetic dipole itself, and it doesn’t end there, there’s quantum mechanics involved in the magnetic momentum of each atom, the values for these are quantized. Overall, it’s dangerous to draw conclusions from quantum mechanics because of how hard it is to interpret its math physically, for example, if the math says there can be no isolated quarks we can either interpret that as it being impossible to separate them entirely or as them being separable, but new quarks will instantly spawn into existence attached to those quarks you just separated, and you can say that the energy used to separate them was converted into mass. So yeah, it’s real hard to draw accurate conclusions from the math involved in quantum mechanics.
@@supermendi0078 I thought new quarks ALWAYS spring into existence when you try to separate quark pairs, due to quark-gluon interactions?
This is not a correct analogy by any means. The issue with splitting a pair of quarks is due to the strong force.
@@bigsmall246 correct
No. Electrons for example have quantum spin. Spin is somewhat analogous to angular momentum. This means every electron itself has a magnetic dipole.
Quarks confinement is caused by the gluons of the strong force. Unlike photons that have no charge, and do not *generally* interact with one another, gluons have a color charge, the same color charge quarks have.
When you pull a quark, a gluon flux tube develops. It's like a rubber band. Eventually the energy you have put into the system, which is manifesting as a flux tube, reaches a critical point. The flux tube decays into an anti-quark, and a new shorter flux tube binds the new anti-quark with the original quark.
I am greatly oversimplifying here, but that is the general idea.
so, basically: make the poles really far apart so that for our current human scale they can be approximated as monopoles.
Pretty much what I was thinking too!
Yep, the antarctic ice wall in our reality. Research Flat Earth and everything will become clearer.
@@flexico64 me too😂
that's the beginning of it, but there's more: if what's connecting those momopoles is undetectable, then that means it is virtually nonexistent, and so only the monopoles themselves canntruly he said to have concrete existence
Polish government really hates this one simple trick
I imagine physicists trying to discuss funding with policymakers after this
"So, why do you need millions of dollars and the electricity of a small country again?"
"To make magnets without one of the poles"
"Right...."
Millions, more like tens of billions, maybe hundreds
Well, we're using lots of electricity for bitcoin mining, so if you could somehow turn particle collision data into cryptocurrency, it would be an easy sell.
@Toy we call it the "hard0n" and finally have a functioning world currency
The LHG runs on 5 watts. Not that much power
@@darealpoopster mhm. it's actually just a single light bulb
There's a mistake in Maxwell's equations at 3:34. The second equation should read (on the right hand side) the negative time derivative of B, and the right hand side of the third equation should be zero.
I came in to say the same thing. Del dot B should be 0.
I assume what happened was that the equations were meant to be ordered as del dot E, del dot B, del cross E, del cross B, but someone mixed up the middle two by mistake.
Easily done though, I have a few copying errors from my Electromagnetism module in exactly the same order they're listed in the video above,
@@insanecreeper9000 agreed
Right sides of the Eq. 2 and 3 are swapped.
Exactly. Was going to write a comment but decided to first check if anyone noticed it in comments.
Gordon doesn't need to hear all this, he's a highly trained professional!
Crowbar > Quantum physics
@@PhillipAmthor I think people should recommend each other Science-channel just 'because'.
Dont you think so?
@@loturzelrestaurant st0p being a b0t
@@PhillipAmthor Thats
not
how
ANY
of
this
works
The USB part at the end was awesome not sure how you kept a straight face
Legend
You know when you're working on your car, and you find a threaded hole with no bolt in it and no part mounted to it? And you're like, ah that must be for some option my car didn't come with, or some feature that the factory was going to integrate but never finished developing. Theoretical topological discontinuities in the Higgs field are like the extra threaded holes of our universe and magnetic monopoles are that novel feature that we never got.
Car bolt blah blah
they're God's hardpoint and we're working on the attachment
Or… what ever was bolted to that mounting point had rattled lose and fallen away years ago.
God just didn’t get the magnetic monopoles dlc smh
so youre implying there is a slot open for it to exist, but it just doesnt? and we dont know what fills that slot. That sounds pretty stupid, implying theres a blank space in reality. stuff would just implode if that were the case loool.
The moment Matt said "But what about Quantummechanics..." I knew I'm going to question my whole education and wonder if my degrees are worthless
yes, yes they are. the degrees anyway, the education just wasn't worth the price you paid. If you make a discovery no one can dispute, than what does it matter that a school said you are capable of making it? a degrees only benefit is that you don't have to prove yourself as knowledgeable in a subject because you have an institute's certification backing that you are.
I don't think so. If monopoles are so very massive that the energy requirements to make them are unattainable then they don't make much difference. At least not to an engineer.
There's so much you can do with that art appreciation degree.
@@peircedan The unimaginative engineer maybe.. But man, you could make some interesting magnetic shielding with a magnetic monopole.
lol somebody just wanted to mention they have degrees in the field haha
I love how much scientific rigor is put into both the presention & the humor (USB cables). That's the cherry on top for these already very enjoyable and mentally stimulating videos :)
Woh, really appreciate you bringing out the first-year physics equations out to help connect to these higher-level concepts. Nice!
When's the "why magnetic monopoles should NOT exist" dropping?
Same thought here right after reading the title
Lack of experimental evidence KEKW
@@mrnarason theorists BTFO
Typically they drop a week apart so keep an eye out next week.
@@hugmynutus Experimental physics. Theorist worst nightmare.
Is this going to be one of those where you release another companion video called "Why Magnetic Monopoles SHOULDN'T Exist" in a couple of days?
In all likelihood yes. Honestly I'm more optimistic for naked or semi-naked singularities than magnetic monopoles.
Magnetic monopoles seem like one of those things that if real should be relatively common and detectable, while the hypothetical conditions for naked singularities seem extremely rare, and I'm not sure we would even know what one would look like if we saw it.
I'm pretty sure monopoles should exist, it's just they were created very early in the creation of our universe, then cosmic inflation pushed them all to beyond our observable universe. I'm kinda stupid though, so idk
@@ferretappreciator are we really so "special" that essentially all magnetic monopoles (to our knowledge) were flung to "everywhere but here"? Remember the typical assumption is that we live in a roughly average patch of space.
@@JMurph2015 ahhh naked singularies, where astrophysicists go mental when the discussion comes up.
I mean, they break the second law of thermodynamics
The version of "Maxwell's Equations" you show is in 'Vector Calculus' notation, as developed by Gibbs and Heaviside long after Maxwell was dead. (Maxwell used quaternions.) Interestingly, Heaviside always calculated including the magnetic charge terms. He only set them to zero at the end.
Thank you for that. Been awhile since I've had to touch vector math, and I was confused as to why "x" and "·" didn't both mean "multiply" here.
Yep Heaviside has been written out of history. If I recall correctly, Maxwell's equations numbered 24. Not exactly the elegant quartet with which we're familar.
@@DanHarkless_Halloween_YTPs_etc In a way, they do. You can model them as scalar and vector multiplication of a vector by Del (that upsidedown triangle), which basically represents a vector operator written as (ð/ðx, ð/ðy, ð/ðz) in Cartesian coords. Writing and thinking about them in this way makes calculating divergences and curls much easier I find.
@@DanHarkless_Halloween_YTPs_etc The x and dot do mean multiply, but more than just standard multiplication. There is a relationship between del dot E (called divergence of E), and the dot product. There is also a relationship between del cross E (called curl of E) and the cross product.
The del symbol is not really a number, but rather a vector of differentiation operators, each with respect to the coordinate directions of x, y, and z. The divergence notation means you differentiate corresponding components of the vector field, and add them up. Just as a dot product multiplies corresponding components of two vectors, and adds them up. Like work is force dot displacement.
The curl notation is like a cross product, because you never differentiate the corresponding term, and instead have mixed terms of differentiation. You form a matrix with the coordinate unit vectors in the top row, the differential operators in the middle row, and the vector field components in the third row. Then you carry out operations along the diagonals, positive along down-right diagonals, and negative along down-left diagonals, to get the three components of the curl vector field. You do a similar thing for finding cross products, where you construct a similar matrix, and add up each of the three products along positive diagonals, and subtract each of the three products along negative diagonals.
"If there are magnetic monopoles, then electric charge is quantized" is logically equivalent to, "If electric charge is not quantized, then there are no magnetic monopoles," not, "If electric charge is quantized, there are magnetic monopoles." A statement is equivalent to its contrapositive, not its converse.
Correct. However, if the original statement is actually "Magnetic monopoles exist if and only if electric charge is quantized," then its converse is true.So, it maybe that he meant the bidirectional statement, which would have been equally sloppy on his part.
I have built several permanent monopoles Dirac was correct
I have built several permanant magnet monopoles Dirac was correct in 1932 lecture
@@andrewmcqierry4542 Oh really? And where have you published your work? What was the procedure, and how did you verify that you had monopoles? There should be some information to back up this kind of claim.
@@michaelmann8800 how rude its really simple look at what Dirac said he is totally correct i didn't do it I just followed directions if you can read read it for your self
Matt: they say Quantum Mechanics forbids this
Everyone: who says that?
Matt: I do
The Royal They
Matt is Quantum Mechanics, confirmed. ^^
This guy Matt O'Dowd is pure garbage. I've heard him say so many things that are flat-out FALSE, he can't even be called a "scientist".
@@djbenje4019 haha, good one.
I think I learned more about magnetic monopoles from this video than I ever learned when I studied high energy physics in grad school! Great explanation!
you guys do such a good job on these
I didn't get into physics until I was in my twenties so most of these concepts and maths go all the way over my head, but I wanted to tell you that I appreciate the hecc out of this channel and watch at least a few of your videos daily. I started watching Spacetime in hopes that I might start to understand some of it and after a month or so I'm starting to recognise words and names (but none of the math yet). I love learning and I love this channel, thank you so much for teaching people like me about space and time.
The only way that the math will become familiar is by working out the problems. It's kind of like a function in an arbitrary programming language. You need to know what the "variables' represent and the various different ways they can be calculated unless if they are a known constant. Then it's a matter of knowing which operations are being applied to them that gives you the definition of its output. Here's a simple geometry equation: A = (1/2)*b*h. You should recognize this, but to demonstrate what I've mentioned above we can change this into a function f(A) = 0.5*b*h. Here f(A) is your output and this represents Area. Then (1/2) or 0.5 is a constant of one half very straightforward. Next we have b which is the length of the base leg of a given triangle, and finally h is the height of that triangle where b and h are perpendicular or orthogonal to each other. In programming it might look something like this in C/C++:
struct Vertex {
Vertex() : x_{0.0}, y_{0.0}, z_{0.0} {}
Vertex(double x, double y, double z) : x_{x}, y_{y}, z_{z} {}
double x_;
double y_;
double z_;
};
// functions to perform calculations or vertices or vectors.
class Triangle {
//
Vertex A;
Vertex B;
Vertex C;
Triangle() : A{ Vertex() }, B{ Vertex() }, C{Vertex() } {}
Triangle( Vertex v1, Vertex v2, Vertex v3 ) : A{v1}, B{v2}, C{v3} {}
// member functions for finding length of each leg, calculating the angles between any two legs...
}
// you could even define this within the triangle's class as a member, but I defined it outside so that it would stand out.
double find_area( Triangle& t ) {
// pseudo code to create 2 lambda's here to calculate triangle t's base and its height
auto base = [](){}; // calculate the base
auto height = [](){} // calculate the height
return (base*height*0.5);
}
Higher level maths are no different. Just more terms, variable names, etc... but all of operations or operators are for the most part the same. Nearly everything in mathematics and your sciences from physics to chemistry and even biology is an expanded form of 1+1=2. In fact all mathematics are embedded in y=x which is the identity equation, but that's a topic or discussion for another day.
Matt is such a wonderful teacher. The inevitable QCD episode is one of my most anticipated events. It's more exciting than movies or whatever else is out there to be released
Forgive me but what does QCD stand for?
This guy Matt O'Dowd is pure garbage. I've heard him say so many things that are flat-out FALSE, he can't even be called a "scientist".
@@djbenje4019 dude's like the Santa Claus of physics learnings. Try a "thank you" bro you'll live longer.
@@djbenje4019 bro what lies please tell them 🥺🥺
Can Matt make a channel where he teaches qcd with all formalism?
Btw. If I remember correctly, then there was discussions about rot B not being zero which leads to that scalar waves /energy discussion. Konstantin Meyl was one Electrophysisist from Germany was active on the Topic. He also traced everything back to vortex structures. - when talking about modifying the maxwell laws, I suggest having a look at his work.
Great video. I would like to have heard you address the relativistic origins of the magnetic field from moving charge in maxwells equations and how that relates to the existence of monopoles. I.e. magnetic field is a relativistic effect of the electric field from movement of charge.
Just wanted to say I’ve now started my journey to become a real physicist! I’ve started university a few weeks ago studying physics with astrophysics. Thanks for keeping me interested in physics over the last few years!
Good luck!
Figure out what happens when the event horizon of a black hole meets the shrinking cosmic horizon of the Big Rip and let us know.
A monopole is just what we need to finally put Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook on the map!
Now I'm signing the song. Thanks for that.
Mono......doh!
lmao, good one
Screw Shelbyville
Ok, Boomer 🤣😜
I loved the ending you did on USB cables… lol… perfect Matt.
That's some high quality humor in the end! I like it! Not sure if usb type C can be condensed like other bosons though.
I was enjoying the education all through. The straight-faced discussion of USB cables as spin 2/3 particles at the end was just icing on the cake.
“There outside the standard modal”😂
I'm sure glad that USB-C can easily be understood with a simple theory of quantum gravity.
My problem with USB-C is that it's impossible to keep both ends entangled for very long. My phone in particular is very bad about observing them.
Have you tried the decoherence plug?
It's a cute trick when you can make all the field from a solenoid disappear except for the end bits (aka 'monopoles').
@11:00 The 't Hooft-Polyakov monopole is a soliton which has a smooth structure right down to r=0, it does not require a topological "defect," or, if you like, it is the defect itself. It can occur in any model with symmetry breaking, so does not require a Higgs.
I can't get over the fact you said "simple theory of quantum gravity" with a straight face XD
i did not know you could use those words in the same sentence.
Years of academy training WASTED
Buzz light-year?
That's why theoretical physics will never make a breakthrough with QM.
It's fundamentally flawed but we spend so much time and energy into it.
Feynmen says theoretical physics has given up on trying to explain the phenomena we observe.
But we are also not ready drastically and fundamentally question the theory because we are afraid that that means our last 100 years of theoretical physics have been a waste.
Theoretical physics today isn't much different from sci-fi.
The math just relates to the real world and is more accurate.
@@kevinkonig3892 - absolutely - think of all the time people have spent trying to apply a quantum / photon model to double slit interference and it simply does not and never will apply in that specific experiment. All that time asking how does the photon know which slit to go through etc
@@kevinkonig3892 QM has been responsible for a ton of useful inventions in the same way Relativity allows us to get GPS to work and actually do things in space without wasting tons of fuel as the distances in space along with actually changing significantly the local gravitational environment means not using relativity will mean you will miss your target by a good deal using just Newton. Although at sea level newton has been very useful for a long time despite actually being flat out wrong in how things are happening.
And now theoretical physics has not given up on it wholly although certain branches certainly have. In example the rise of pilot wave theory from almost non existence.
So our disagreement is your thinking they totally spinning their wheels were I think way to many but in no means all are spinning their wheels.
Part of the problem is pushing the math too far past the testable waiting for other science and engineering and world resources to make it to the point things are testable to give them new data to modify.
It would help if press and scientists would stop stating things like they are certainties. Scientists already assign all the correct limiters to any others Scientists statement so wasting time using all the limiters while talking or reading is a waste of time but the limiters should always be used with the public. Example way way too many times I have hear a statement on the Universe is X years old without adding to the best of a consensus of a majority of scientists who are aware of things fully not explained that could change this by a little or massively. Massively less likely than little. Or shorter the Universe is X years old to current consensus but these things are always subject to change as more knowledge is gained.
But creationists your stuff is disproven that not going to change.
@@kevinkonig3892 seriously? General Relativity was theoretical physics. You know? Your damn GPS?
Looking at Dirac’s theory
Assuming a large & infinitely long solenoid in space where one end is Black hole and other end is a hypothetical white hole
And emphasising on the theories that states that white holes and black holes being connected to each other
Can this connection be a Dirac string?
Assuming electrons travelling through the string have electric charge as integer of basic charge.
It's like we're trying to persuade God to add monoelectromagnetism in the next update. Hopefully it doesn't become a Deluxe Bundle.
I'm a bit surprised you got through this video without mentioning Special Relativity and how it creates magnetic fields out of electric charge. I guess from a quantum angle it doesn't matter, but it seems important. It certainly the reason why I never expected to see a monopole.
me too. but that work involves putting Maxwell's equations into SR, and his comment about Maxwell just assuming there were no magnetic monopoles kind of changes everything. Specifically, it means that the SR formulation only applies in a region where there are no magnetic monopoles ;)
@@kumoyuki We always need to be careful with assumptions, and interpretations of assumptions. An assumption just means we're filling in some blanks to that we can try to continue moving forward; they are neither good nor evil. Maxwell didn't know about relativity, but his observational understanding of electromagnetism was good enough to predict the speed of light.
So, my first instinctive reaction to someone like Maxwell assuming there were no magnetic monopoles, is the same as assuming there are no natural planets in the universe made entirely of cheese. Yes, it's "just" an assumption, but a pretty safe one.
Einstein pre-dated the relative maturity of QM theory, but his completely independent development of relativity was entirely consistent with Maxwell, and explains with satisfaction (an experimentally) how magnetism is "simply" a relativistic by-product of moving electric fields. So, not only are their no magnetic monopoles, but the case could be made that magnetic fields exist in name only.
When the day comes that someone creates an actual magnetic monopole, turning hypothesis into reality, I will be happy to revise my thinking (and teaching). But anything prior to that is just speculation ... equal in value to thoughts about natural planets in the universe made entirely of cheese.
One of the reasons that magnetic monopoles would be so weird is that they might not have the same "charge" for all observers. For instance, you could have the situation where two monopoles looked like "northtrons" to one observer, a "northtron" and a "southtron," to another observer, and two "southtrons" to a third observer. This would make their behavior hard to square with the Equivalency Principal and, by extension, Relativity.
I'm glad we are keeping our eye out for these reality-shattering particles, but I'm not holding my breath!
are you implying that by viewing them they change, or are you saying that depending how you view them that they will look different?
@@commenteroftruth9790 the latter
@@josephpotila7386 well thats pretty basic
Is it possible that there are no magnetic monopoles because the entire universe is, in a way, one giant magnetic monopole?
This is actually awesome. I just started my Masters project 2 weeks ago on magnetic monopoles and everything that has been said in this video is everything that I’m doing. Talk about a happy coincidence. Great video!!! You’re making me more excited for my project!!
This is my PhD thesis and yes! It is such an interesting topic!
Loved the bit of humor at the end. I submit that a discussion of the many species of USB-C cable deserves an episode of its own. We certainly could use some guidance in dealing with the damn things, in particular the growing body of evidence that the theorized external monitor exclusion principle is real.
This is still interesting, but slowly SpaceTime is becoming a graduate-level conceptual seminar in physics. I feel like to keep watching and understand, I will have to complete at least an undergrad in math and physics. I do hope that future, budding physicists are inspired by this show.
Take your GREs (if you are in the US) and go to grad school. Don't waste it like I did. All I can do is make snarky comments about youtube videos.
Took me 3 years of undergrad physics to start understanding his videos, it’s tough.
@@backugai007 wait what?
* I * can often understand his videos. But then i have been watching them for a few years now.
And yet I had to take algebra 2 three times because i just couldn't understand the concept of Factoring.
I only got a passing grade the third go around because the summer course was curtailed.
And that was the end of my education in Mathematics.
I think it is a testament to the script writer(s) that my understanding is even possible.
Even if the Equations (when rarely referenced) are; often as not, so over my head it may as well be a foreign language.
( to extend the analogy: A foreign language that i some how understand its basic sentence structure and syntax but at the same time have almost no vocabulary)
I feel like that since the beginning of this channel, and look of all the things I learned along the way.
It's science. The best learning happens at the edge of your current understanding, where you still go "Huh?"
Your chroma keying is getting noticably better. Next up is white balance. If you haven't already, try using one of those color balance cards.
Idk, Matt looked kind of ill this episode, his nose was too colorless.
Oof
God damn! ease up Steven Spielberg!
@@TactileCoder I didn't say it's terrible. In fact I said the visual quality is getting better.
Your voice is so calm and relaxing I love it
It works so well with his bone dry humor delivery. I had to rewind and listen to the Beauxbatons professor line again, Matt was so convincingly deadpan.
Just an observation - the picture of Murray Gell-Mann at 3m 56s looks remarkably like Alexander Polyakov at 11m 09s.
Apart from that, very enjoyable and informative.
Given the description of the Dirac string, would it be accurate to assume that positive and negative monopoles would be equal in number, and would they be paired like entangled particles?
Sounds like a genius workaround
I've got a whole drawer full of these. I call them "bar magnets".
The dirac string is not a monopole though, it's just a big magnet. I don't get too much of the explanation of the monopoles in the quantum examples, my first idiom is not english after all, but for a north monopole to exist, it needs to create magnetic field, and a south monopole needs to delete it (maybe if you transform that magnetic field from, or in, other energy, it works too)
The dirac string just moves the magnetic field from the south part, to the north part trought the string, so, even if the poles are far away, they still are conected, so its not a monopole.
Also, this is an opinion of mine, but i don't think that the magnetic field can be transformed in other energy, but i don't know what the magnetism really is and from where come from.
@@abcdss1806 thats because magnets are incomprehensible, their poles can never be separated every time there's a north pole the inequality cancels out because it causes another pole at the opposite end that's why it's such a big deal because even if you break a magnet in half it's polarized by definition that's what separates magnets from non-magnets.
@@abcdss1806 magnetic fields are not energy. The Dirac string is observationally equivalent to two electric monopoles but for magnetism
12:04 when I hear that a speculative idea is saved by yet another speculative idea, I instantly think “epicycles on epicycles”.
A little speculation is okay as long as it's not dominating an entire field.
@@danieljensen2626 You can say it out loud - string theory
Epicycles is just an approximation method similar to Fourier transform. Nothing wrong with that.
Yeah good luck. Use that 11 dimension to prove something that cannot exist in any other dimension.
@@cherubin7th With the benefit of hindsight we know that now, but in its time it was considered the be-all-and-end-all of celestial theories.
"GUT theories," the physicist's equivalent of "ATM machines."
Lmao
@@mateusnicolinibezerra9757 true but GUTs would sound a little janky
Not that I don’t love this channel, but it’s also the best sleepytime channel
USB physics is now my favorite field of scientific interest.
How do you reconcile magnetic monopoles with the fact that a magnetic field is just the relativistic perception of the electric field?
I cant prove of course (I would be world famous), but my physicist instinct suggests that there are no magnetic monopoles. In particles there is the "electric charge" which has polarity, and there is the "magnetic momentum" correlating with "spin" which has a "polarity". This has a sense of completeness by similarity to me.
I think the main problem is that we do not completely know what the magnetic field REALLY is, so we try to use the same "source + propagation" QED model which had the great success for electric charges. Bot for that we need a "monopole" just the reduce the mathematics to the same basics. But I don't think we really need it. This is just the model working down to a certain detail... below that there is something else we don't know yet.
Because of the simple equation: quantum physics = magic
That's no problem; the electric field is just the relativistic perception of the magnetic field, so if you discount magnetic monopoles on that basis, you should discount electrons as well.
There is an interplay between the electric and magnetic fields -by changing reference frame you can make the magnetic field disappear along one direction, but it must be compensated by an increase in magnetic field in different directions, in fact even more magnetic field in those other directions, there is no frame where it disappears in all directions.
Unless it is also charged- the magnetic field made by a moving charge can be mads to disappear by being in the reference frame in which it is stationary.
The field produced by a coil of wire has frames where there is no charge, thus there is always a residual msgnetism
No expert but a moving magnetic monopole if it exists would induce a dipole electric field...now imagine a world in which there are no electric charges..will they not believe that an electric field is just a relativistic effect of moving magnetic charges.To them the concept of a stationary electric charge will be only theoretical as magnetic monopoles are to us.
Love the dead pan USB commentary, it was a very nice touch.
I never feel like I have fully understand a video from this channel , and I mean that in a good way it means that it’s good and advanced for my level of physics so I need to work on it and understand the video, it also challenges me so it’s a good thing. I understand the title and the first couple of mins and I just don’t know what happens 😂😂
Fantastic content. Just a small correction: The photo you posed from Blas Cabrera Navarro is actually from his father, Nicolás Cabrera, also a Spanish physicist. Keep up with the great work!
So, magnetic monopoles from knots in Higgs field and after a quick search I found out that they could be either "pointing in" or "pointing out" making monopoles and anti-monopoles.
So I have questions from this :
1) Are positive and negative polarity magnetic monopoles represented by monopoles and anti-monopoles, or are they both represented by the monopoles and the anti-monopoles give something else?
2) As opposite magnetic charges attract, a positively and negatively polarized monopoles couple would inevitably end-up together, but in this case, what would happen?
*Would they cancel each other out?
*Would they get infinitely stuck together, acting like a totally neutral thing?
*Something else?
2.5) If positive and negative magnetic monopoles are different from monopoles and anti-monopoles, what would happen if a monopole and an anti-monopole meet?
Given the description of the Dirac string it seems monopoles and antimonopoles are basically positive and negative; if that's so then my guess is if the two ends met you'd basically get a completely undetectable dirac torus, so uhm I guess they'd annihilate?
@@dsdy1205
That's what I find the most logic.
They get stuck together and act as if nothing was there or cancel each other out.
In such a case, would there be a link with quantum fluctuation?
Maybe those pairs are everywhere, and sometimes they get slightly out of alignment one with the other and give the illusion of a particle+anti-particle pair popping in and out of existence?
The pointing in/out is just how mag fields work, they flow from north to south (earths field is currently upsidedown btw).
And since they attract i would assume they would attempt to become super imposed, the question is what happens on contact. Do they stick together like magnetized balls and if so how big are they (you would theoretically detect this dipole with an axis of 1 monopole diameter, which is probably super insanely hard to sort out from all other background noise).
Other options are merging together the way an electron + a proton = a neutron, or they could phase into eachother which while wierd would also make it impossible to detect the cancelled out "magnetic charge".
Granted i don't think they exist because magnetic fields are a result of moving electric charges and not a fundamental property like gravity or electrostatic charges. (And gravity is weird for not having negative values only positive mass)
"Classical Electrodynamics" (2nd ed.) by J.D. Jackson contains an interesting discussion on Magnetic Monopoles in §6.12 "On the Question of Magnetic Monopoles" and §6.13 "Discussion of the Dirac Quantization Condition" plus references in the bibliography.
i think there was a lecture on this somewhere on here it was really cool
When Maricourt was about to cut his first magnet in half were people afraid he would destroy the Earth?
Yes. Yes they were.
i'd imagine there's a lot of experiments that scared people that way.
He was a death eater
I'm sure someone's already mentioned it but: 11:09 , that's Gell Mann's picture again instead of Polyakov
Prof. Steve Barnett added a remark on the magnetic monopole during a conference once: If we assume magnetic charges/monopoles to exist, and assume that the ratio of magnetic to electric charge is fixed for any given piece of matter, then you can use the (then usually broken) Heaviside-Lorentz symmetry to find a mixing angle theta such that all resulting force fields are the same as without the magnetic charge. In other words: Adding the magnetic charge does not necessarily imply a "more symmetric theory"; it might be just be a gauge choice.
I was actually really interested in this awhile ago, and did a little research on this subject back then. It seems like "spin ice" would be a good and relative topic to at least touch on here?
Matt you are so brilliant, humorous, and entertaining ; I love learning quantum physics from you. I might have done better in physics class if you had been my professor.
Mind if i recommend my fellow Science-Fans
some Stuff?
Science or just Education in General or even just Fun in General?
Matt looks like Peter Dinklage, scaled up to the more common size of an adult.
A magnetic field is not the same as an electric field. The misconception about their similarity comes from the fact that they are often viewed superficially, as two vectors. But, the electromagnetic field is a 4-dimensional bivector, in which the electric and magnetic fields separately have different roles. This becomes clearer if we consider the electromagnetic 4-potential, in which the magnetic vector potential is only a projection onto the spatial axes of the electric scalar potential located in the moving frame of reference. This is just a mathematical coincidence that a 4-dimensional bivector can be represented in the form of two other 3-dimensional vectors, in smaller or larger dimensions this can no longer be done. 4-vector representation is more fundamental in this regard. The electromagnetic 4-potential is created in space-time in the same direction as the electric 4-current that creates it, which is also parallel to the 4-speed of the charged particle. For a particle to create only a magnetic potential, it must be a tachyon. Also, such a particle will still not create a magnetic field monopole, since its magnetic potential will have a zero rotor.
It is even impossible to describe the electromagnetic potential of a magnetic monopole so that it is continuous. This is important because the electromagnetic potential is more fundamental than the electromagnetic field.
That's one of the problems with this philosophy about supersymmetry. They want to have a superficial balance of fundamental forces as they currently see them. Rather than accepting that they are either not symmetrical or the models are not correct.
That's what I was gonna say
This comment woke up my special relativity PTSD, and now everything is contracting and time is going slower…
@@mykulpierce it is unfortunate but that's how humans work, once they find a theory that somewhat works they stick to it and only provide funding to those who continue to push for it. Therefore science becomes a little bit stagnant before they are forced to change.
We're in a time right now where change is being forced as we dig deeper into the quantum realm.
I don't understand AT ALL what this comment is about, but I'm giving it a thumb up because it sounds smart.
Beautiful video. Ill donate for sure in the near future.
Thought experiment: we are all inside a magnetic monopole, ie. the universe. It is impossible to detect or measure since it is our reference. Our closest parallel universe shares the opposite pole. This is the nudge that caused our universe to be primarily devoid of anti-matter. Parallel universe pairs share many similarities, however quantum differences arise from their respective charge polarities.
I love learning about magnets, they're continuously fascinating.
Mind if i recommend my fellow Science-Fans
some Stuff?
Science or just Education in General or even just Fun in General?
Somehow I expected a pun :(
Every major hardware store carries an assortment of magnets. So while they aren't forbidden by the laws of economics, in practice I think there are no magnetic monopolees.
laws of economics?
"If there's a magnetic monopole anywhere in the universe, electric charge should be quantized"
That's wild. Existence of a single monopole somewhere in the depths of the universe means electric charge everywhere must be quantized. That gave me chills
Great video, thanks :)
This is a great example of physicists coming up with elaborate convoluted explanations of things which they wish existed, but have never observed.
Define "observed"
@@dsdy1205 Detected in reality.
@@douggale5962 Your mileage may vary on what counts as "detected" though. If someone came to you with a giant list of numbers that went through 5 years of processing to arrive at the answer would that qualify?
pretty much this is how all science is created. You imagine things existing and look for them and wow, sometimes actually you were right :)
So... they're doing physics, where postulations must occasionally be made, *as in any other science*? You understand that to find "things" in reality you must often first postulate these "things", correct? Instead of taking umbrage with the scientific method, maybe read up on how science is actually *done*.
So, under the conjecture of Dirac's String, would magnetic monopoles have to exist in pairs?
I look at the improbability of finding MM in this way: +/- charge can be either / or for any fundamental particle that carries charge. When you finally get to just 1 electron, it is just negative only. But try to do the same with N/S magnetism of just one electron and you can't. In a magnet you get alignment of many spin up electrons that aren't equally counteracted with the same amount of spin down. So we have an organized net magnetic field emanating from a group of iron atoms (for example). But continue to isolate down to a single spin up electron in an iron atom or even the individual atom itself and you won't ever find N without S. That's how I look at this problem.
Perhaps, there is something wrong with the Dirac string concept.
I am trying to recall the exact quote from the begining of protector. "Up until the 21st century monopoles had been theory and conflicting theory at that. Quantum theory suggests they do exist and magnetic theory suggesting they do not."
It makes me wonder if the quantum component of electromagnetism isn't a guon, in the example of trying to separate quarks, you generate enough energy to spontaneously create another pair of quarks. Doesn't that seem to someone that that is an incredible mechanical advantage somewhere? Isn't it an act of creating sub-atomic particles with nothing but space itself?
maybe space is some kind of energy, like particles are just condensed energy
You're creating them from the energy you used to pull them apart
@@Xnoob545 the implications of that are immense , that’s the opposite of entropy . Particles came from the Big Bang and have been fading into pure energy… if pure kenetic energy can create particles then that’s the start of the ability to reverse entropy and create new matter from space
@@devdecker7812 yes but you lose more energy doing that
I'm early enough to notice the error in Maxwell's equations at 3:30 :P
error
You're back!
We missed you out there in the void, PBS Spacetime!
Man! I LOOOVE your USB lecture!
I love the USB talk :D that was great :)
"The magnetic monopole. Of all the fantastical beasts of particle physics this is perhaps the most likely to actually exist." Some introduction, worthy of being included in the welcome speech for new acolytes in the temple of theoretical sciences. I say that with no ill will, on the contrary it is with the greates mirth. I really, really like that sentence. Love it! - Just wish the field itself was more conscious of what it is actually saying; the direction the scientific evolution is headed which is implied.
Do the GUTs that predict monopoles predict them to form in pairs like the pairs of monopoles connected by virtual strings that Dirac predicted?
Also would massive monopoles very quickly just annihilate themselves by crashing into eachother, or could they be likely to orbit each other to become effectively a spinning dipole magnet?
What would be the strength of the coupling constant for a GUT magnetic monopole? How would it compare to the value for the fine structure constant alpha? What is "The Power of Alpha"?
Very interesting but Im AMAZED to see Murry Gelmann and Alexander Polyakov are Identical Twins.
The magnetic monopole thing sounds a lot like relating to quantum pairing of particles in relation to their spin, particularly the Dirac string thing. But it also seems that the projected field from it would be next to nothing. It would just have an effect on an observable state of a particle with that quality rather than much around it.
There might be some fun things with rotating or otherwise moving fields too. Then you get stuff like odd behaviors with the inertia of a moving field, and things that seem to hint at gravitomagnitism. (So force due to gravity in the presence of moving fields may be offset or behaving a bit different. Things will want to arc around or take on a spin. And potentially that phenomena may be exploitable if better understood.)
The Dirac String on the surface, sounds like spooky action at a distance.
That is EPR (entanglement), this is more like ER (wormholes). Ok, some think that those are the same (like Susskind).
There are people who think magnetism is spooky action at a distance and that gravity doesn't exist. They had trouble with 5th grade level physics.
You aren't traveling down a Dirac string. It's more like you take a measurement of one end of the string, a single monople, then you instantly know the value of the other end. They aren't connected in any fundamentally detectable way, you can only know the value of one if you measure it, and based on what I'm seeing here, they can be stretched infinitely apart. That screams Entanglement, not Einstein-Rosen bridges.
@@deathscreton you aren't traveling down wormholes either. There are theories which assume equivalence of emitted particle-antiparticle pairs and Planck-scale wormholes.
@@shardator some? Lol no, they are mathematically the same, susskind really did showed that they are equivalent
Could these be existing inside black holes? That the centre of the black hole is pulling so hard in one direction that the magnetic field only can be pointed that way?
My thought was that if these are that much heavier then protons and neutrons that would also maybe explain how there can be much more mass in a smaller space.
From the description given, the dipole comes from the very nature of the electron itself, and as strong as gravity can be in a black hole, that doesn't alter the dipole nature of the electron.
@@Novarcharesk Except that the mass collecting at the center of the black hoole gets so dense that the elecrons (along with protons and neutrons) do no longer exist ad are at best replaced by all kinds of quarks. I'm ot convinced either by the idea of monopoles, but the truth is that all we know about about the inside of black holes is derived from what we understand of what's outside of them.
Why do people keep talking about stuff "existing in black holes?" Flabbergasted.
More the gravity is so strong nothing including the magnetic field can escape past the event horizon nothing going on is observable except when your on the wrong side of the event horizon.
@@RedRocket4000 Not even in that case, the event horizon is not like a bubble but like an onion with infinite layers.
Once inside, even the light has no other option than to fall down so you won't see anything from the singularity before crashing into it.
You can however see things falling ahead of you, but as they were at a time they were actually behind your current position.
the pure, dry sarcasm on that USB question both made it technically correct and infinitely funny.
Can you make a video on all (some) of the equations you use on a daily breaking your videos down…?! feel like a video on these will help many newbies like me catch the bug
im sure hundreds of years of science never thought of this: are we not looking at magnets incorrectly... meaning take a piece of string, we see 2 separated ends of the string, so we cut it in half to get each end on it's own, but at the moment we half the string, each half instantaneously created a "top" and "bottom" end again. there is not 2 ends of the string, just the string itself. cutting it just keeps creating more strings. so instead of us seeing a north and south pole, we are actually just seeing "M" for magnet and halving "M" just makes more "M's". "N" & "S" is what we invented in our heads.
The magnet exerts a measurable force in the area around it. What were saying here is that measurable force changes as we split the magnet.
Early in this very video, he explains this with electric polarity. If you take the same shape as the magnet, and make one half positive charged and the other half negative, when you split them you end up with two pieces that are entirely charged either positive or negative.
But this isn't what happens with magnets. Measuring the force this object applies before and after the split confirms this to be a real change in force, not just labeling something top and bottom
Right, but WHY can we do that? You can have a proton and electron making loops of electric current, 'strings' tying them together. But when you cut the string you don't get a new proton and electron on the ends of the two new strings. Why? An electron doesn't have a positive and negative end, but any magnetic field it creates has a north an south, WHY? Why is the magnetic field like a string when it seems it doesn't have to be?
I bought every magnet and every magnet producer on earth, yet I somehow couldn't establish a magnetic monopole. I wish I had watched this video earlier.
👏
Lmao mate
you missed one
I think that dipoles work on the same principle as electrons flowing through a circuit. You cannot have a monopole because that would be the same thing as having a positive or negative part of a power source, since there is no flow, there is no force. This may also explain the second law of thermodynamics as energy flows from hot to cold, dipoles can only work when there is transfer of energy.
Well not to mention magnetism is just electrostatic attraction with relativity considered, and you would need to break geometry to see something receding or approaching from every angle around it
Yes magnet are created by moving charges that is how solenoids work.
It was called magnetic flux, or fluid
@@d3vitron779 ah
Can I ask one question…..What direction will the electrons be moving to create a monopole?
A charge moves in a line creating an electric field with a chirality. When we turn the path into an orbit that chirality is leveraged and becomes the magnetic field with poles and flows.
So what direction/path for a charge do you propose to create a monopole?
well monopole is fundamental as electron so i Guess it does not need electron
@@tewog6285 no. It is not. Charge is the fundamental force. All other forces are created by different constructions of charge and spin. The only truly fundamental particles are electron, positron and the two kinds of neutrino.
There are 3 generations of neutrino you repeat slavishly….no. When you see a die and it has a 4 facing up do you say this is a die with value 4 ? Or that the 4 is facing you that moment? Same with neutrinos. One object, 3faces.
@@KaliFissure well monopoles are created by topology of higgs field so maybe not fundamental but still do not need electron
@@tewog6285 whatever your QM math might tell you there is no magnetic field without electrostatic/charge. There can be a rotation of the magnetic component but without the charge to make that rotation manifest there is no magnetic field.
There is no particle associated with magnetism. A magnetic field results from a moving charge. That field is a vortex, therefore an "in" and an "out." It's a torus.
Not strictly true. The Maxwell / Faraday equation says curl(E) = -dB/dt where E and B are vectors that I can't write properly!
So it is a time varying electric field rather than a moving charge that is needed to generate a magnetic field. There is no charge in a radio wave. The time varying E field and B field maintain each other.
@@oldbloke135 however, a "static" magnetic field has the shape of a torus. What we call a magnet is a vortex.
What maintains the vortex in an atom of iron for example? The N/S physics of the field of the atom is there at all times.
The aether, that thing which "waves," is the discarded but essential missing piece to the physics of fields.
@@oldbloke135 good...just 1 question
.
What is current bt a derievative of the electric field....derievative=rate of change as we know.
How many gluon fields are associated with quarks?
@@pyro1813 as many as they think they need for a particle they will never find.
Wait, following the animation, shifting the wave by one phase and recombining it would not exactly keep the wave packet unaltered, it would just make it harder to observe. The recombined packet in the animation has shifted peaks and appears as if the amplitude raise and drop is slower, i.e. the location of the particle just got a tad more uncertain, didn't it?
Thanks! USB explanation rocks!
All the magnetic monopoles in the universe exist inside a black hole's event horizon.
That only might make sense if there's an equal number of positive and negative monopoles... If the numbers are not equal then the black hole itself becomes one gigantic monopole as if I'm not mistaken they can possess an electromagnetic field