Talk:Magnetic monopole

message: Not a single mention to Marko Rodin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnjW1zROJPc), one way or another - is there a reason for that? 89.153.150.71 (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, see WP:UNDUE. --Steve (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marko Rodin 

message: The newly added Appendix section is almost exactly copied from http://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Magnetic_monopole, on the site that the poster described. It might be relevant material, but it should definitely be presented in a different format. Also, this article does not have anything like this addition in its 2006 history. Nat2 (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I will clean up the referencing at least. It would help if people could actually reference properly, this has been done before (see for example the edit history of David Hestenes)...  Maschen (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Done, except I couldn't find [4] or [15] in the text so moved those references to the Notes section. Also cleaned up most of the formatting... Now to contact the editor/s responsible for the messy ref style, and notify others at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Magnetic monopole and Yang-Mills theory so they can rewrite the section, as indicated by the above link... Maschen (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The SpringerEOM license allows copying but requires attribution, and so this kind of copying should include a note along the lines of "tis article contains material from Springer EOM, licensed under the CC-by-SA and GFDL..etc." linas (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Appendix" 

message: Here  is a paper (and here  are more related) on the covariant form of Maxwell's equations including monopoles (it's not hard to imagine a monopole 4-current and find a second inhomogeneous equation from the Faraday and electric Gauss equations for monopoles, though obviously OR without citations). The equations are:
:\partial_\mu F^{\mu\nu} = \beta J^\nu_\mathrm{electric}
:\partial_\mu \star F^{\mu\nu} = \frac{\beta}{\gamma c} J^\nu_\mathrm{magnetic}
:\star F^{\mu\nu} = G^{\mu\nu}
in more detail the vector set is:
:\nabla\cdot\mathbf{E} = \alpha \rho_\mathrm{electric}
:\nabla\cdot\mathbf{B} = \frac{\beta}{\gamma} \rho_\mathrm{magnetic}
:\nabla\times\mathbf{E} + \gamma\frac{\partial \mathbf{B}}{\partial t}= -\beta\mathbf{J}_\mathrm{magnetic}
:\nabla\times\mathbf{B} - \frac{\beta}{\alpha}\frac{\partial \mathbf{E}}{\partial t}= \beta\mathbf{J}_\mathrm{electric}
where:
:
Units            	α   	β   	γ
SI               	1/ε0	μ0  	1
Gaussian         	4π  	4π/c	1/c
Heaviside-Lorentz	1   	1/c 	1/c
Any objections to inclusion (aside from those who think monopoles are "impossible"!)? Of course we can change the notation for α, β, γ to something less confusing with notation for the Lorentz factor... Maschen (talk) 06:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The standard vector form (the second set of equations) is already adequately covered. The tensor form may be of interest, but to try and accommodate all systems of units is rather clumsy. — Quondum 11:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The tensor (covariant) form is what I was emphasizing - obviously the vector equations are included in the article. We can just use the Gaussian and SI units for the appropriate sections, as you suggest. Maschen (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

text: It cannot. It is merely a mathematically equivalent rephrasing of existing formulae. — Quondum 13:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - exactly as Quondum says; the proposal here is for those interested in the covariant form of Maxwell's monopole equations, for use in special relativity for instance. They "explain/question/prove" nothing and no intension is made to do so. Maschen (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Covariant form of Maxwell's monopole equations? 

message: Very nicely done (by ‎Sbyrnes321), but there seems to be no mention of the U(1) symmetry, if that is the symmetry group... Also maybe it could be a 2nd level section? Maschen (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's ok I will align the formulae. Maschen (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section: Duality transformation 

message: I've never worked this before, so I apologize beforehand if I mess this up. I've found these two intriguing articles and moves magnetic monopoles into the realm of reality (albeit not a very practically useful one at present; still better than hypothetical). I'm not qualified to provide any real text submissions/editions to Wikipedia, so if someone would be kind enough to appropriately create and word the new section, it'd be appreciated.
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090903/full/news.2009.881.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090903163725.htm
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.3568v2  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.68.108.82 (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find those articles you link to above in the references (may have missed), but spin ices are already discussed in this section and linked to. I'll put these links in the external links section. Thanks, M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 10:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

text: @Thangalin -- The "detection of the particle in nature" is what this wikipedia article is about, and it hasn't happened yet. The David Hall work is not it. Otherwise they would have said "the accomplishment is a revolutionary development comparable to the discovery of the electron..." rather than saying "the accomplishment paves the way for..." (And by the way, "paves the way for" is actually a euphemism for "does not make any progress towards".) The David Hall article is quite deceptive, and the press is gullible ... See discussion below. --Steve (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proven Existence in Modern Physics 

message: Here we have a demonstration of monopoles being created;  and here is a more thorough demonstration of their monopole nature (a compass is circulated completely around the object, showing that it has only a south pole and no north).
Is it the opinion of the editors of this article that these videos are a hoax? 71.219.201.182 (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that comment sounds a lot like "Mr. Galileo's claim of moons orbiting Jupiter must be a hoax, as Jupiter does not have moons!" 75.163.204.203 (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the above comment does seem to be either a tautological statement or reasoning in a circle like "There are no Zoompers because Zoompers do not exist." (PeacePeace (talk) 06:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New monopole demonstration videos 

message: Many years ago this article had an "In popular culture" section. It was entirely deleted, which is a pretty common fate for these kinds of sections -- See WP:POPCULTURE! But now it has been recreated and is steadily growing.
For what it's worth, here is the old version, immediately before it was deleted: .
I personally think that these sections can be nice when they are done well (not a list), but they tend to get flooded with trivia, and it's so much trouble to maintain that it's better to delete the section altogether. --Steve (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been deleted. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 21:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  In popular culture 

message: The new paper is:
Observation of Dirac monopoles in a synthetic magnetic field
in Nature
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7485/full/nature12954.html
This is just... they exist?? arghhhhhhhh  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waylah (talk • contribs) 14:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Magnetic monopoles can theoretically be of two types: having electric charge, or not having electric charge.  It would be good to clarify which kind the recently-discovered ones are.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

text: No, they don't exist, not as particles. The discovery of a true magnetic monopole would be a news event no less significant than that of the Higgs boson. —Quondum 05:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The Nature paper set up a chamber full of protons, neutrons, electrons, photons. They did not discover any new elementary particle besides those. The press descriptions from this paper are extremely misleading, bordering on dishonest. --Steve (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In the article is clear that authors used superfluid helium, not BEC condensed matter and surely not decoupled protons, neutrons and electron. Furthermore in the presentation there is a clear phrase: "These real-space images provide conclusive and long-awaited experimental evidence of the existence of Dirac monopoles". The question is only "are they right"? --Pippo skaio (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The paper is shamelessly sensationalist in its description. I am surprised (and disgusted) that Nature published the paper without demanding a rewording. It is not only the popular press at fault here. Read the text carefully: they do make it clear that no actual fundamental particles were created, and no true monopoles created. There is nothing new over the spin ice "magnetic monopole", except that the medium and detailed mechanism is different. So, if you are asking about whether they are right about discovering what physicists refer to as a magnetic monopole, i.e. what is described in this article (i.e. Magnetic monopole), the answer is a very clear "no". —Quondum 16:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Pippo -- I never said the protons, neutrons and electrons were "decoupled" -- obviously they are interacting with each other!! I just said that there are not other elementary particles in the chamber besides those (plus photons, gluons, gravitons, etc.). I was wrong before: It is not just the press release that is deceptive, but also the paper itself. You can find more clarity by reading Nature's own description of this article, in the very same issue. The title is "Quantum cloud simulates magnetic monopole" not "Quantum cloud contains magnetic monopole". Quote from the article: ""There’s a mathematical analogy here, a neat and beautiful one. But they’re not magnetic monopoles," Bramwell says. "You have to do a sideways jump — a bit of lateral thinking in your mind — to project these onto magnetic monopoles,"" --Steve (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery 

message: A magnetic monopole is a hypothetical elementary particle in particle physics that is an isolated magnet with only one magnetic pole (a north pole without a south pole or vice versa).[1][2] In more technical terms, a magnetic monopole would have a net "magnetic charge". 
In fact, all electro-magnetic phenomena are the result of natural properties of electrons, depending on their relative velocity. When the velocity, relative to the observer is zero, he observes what we call electrostatic field. The electric charges are attracted/repelled by a force given by Coulomb law. If the same electric charges are moving the forces are given by Lorentz law, depending on their relative velocity, without any other “elementary particles with magnetic properties - magnetic monopoles”. That is why they can never be found. 
This article has already been two times deleted!!!  Why?!
78.45.207.57 (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for deletion was given in the View history tab, which you might not be looking at. Please review WP:FORUM. You should also use the "New section" tab to start a new topic, not append an unrelated post to an existing thread – this helps in including a heading for the new thread etc. —Quondum 15:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

text: The thread that I referred to is the one above: "", to which you appended your post, and to which your post does not seem to relate. With that I was merely pointing out show to use talk pages, though you seem to have misunderstood me. —Quondum 18:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

text: It is true that bar magnets, and electromagnets, and every other magnetic phenomenon that humans have ever observed, all have absolutely no involvement of magnetic monopoles in how they work. If you believe this (and it sounds like you do), then you are correct about that. Everyone else believes it too. In my opinion, this wikipedia article explains this fact very clearly. I find that the article states this fact over and over and over again, at least 10 or 15 times (e.g. the top figure and its caption, the first sentence, the second paragraph, Section 1.1, and Section 2). If I had to guess, I would say that the article is so clear about this point, that nobody reading this article could possibly wind up misunderstanding this point. But who knows, maybe I'm wrong. Do you think that the article is unclear or confusing on this point? If so, how would you suggest making it clearer? Thanks in advance, --Steve (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

text: If you are the same person from Czechoslovakia, who has come back to this page for almost three years to say that monopoles cannot be found or it's pointless to search for them, then please desist. You keep demanding to change the article along these lines, and it's using up other editors' time (not mine). Thanks, M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 09:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

text: The sole purpose of this talk page is for improvement of the article, and most definitely not for publishing anything. Hence, by your admission, you concede that your post does not belong here.  This has been pointed out to you several times.  The original deletion of your post was appropriate. If you wish to publish anything, Wikipedia is not the place to do it. You are also not educating any of the editors here: we are all fully aware of the point you are making, so all you are doing is airing your opinion of "Why bother?" to people who have a far deeper interest in physics than you display. —Quondum 13:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim 

message: What on Earth has happened to the discussion of the monopole problem on Wikipedia?  I seem to recall there actually being a decent article on this topic.  But now monopole problem redirects to a page about inflation?  And only a handful of poorly explanatory material at that?  Seriously?  Isn't that a bit POV?  Wouldn't this page be a more appropriate place for an NPOV discussion?  There is already text referring to the issues here, although it's not a coherent thread.  I could have sworn it already had a reasonable page.  It certainly merits one, as it could support a number of other articles, such as this one, articles about Grand Unified Theory, unresolved problems in physics, and yes, even inflationary theory.  Don't know what's happened, but something definitely seems awry here.  75.139.254.117 (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it was redirected almost 15 years ago. A year before I even joined Wikipedia. Wow, that brings me back. El_C 06:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  What on Earth? 

message: OK, so ... The section titled "Further descriptions in particle physics" appears to be word-for-word identical to the Springer EOM article. That section was added with this edit:  which says two confusing things: First, that its restoring some "old deleted text from 2006", and second, that it's claiming to have been written by Nigel Hitchin. If it was actually written by Hitchin, that would be great, as he's a world-expert on this, having created much of the field in the 1980's.  However the actual contributor seems to be User:Enyokoyama, who did a similar cut-n-paste from EOM's Hitchin system to Hitchin system, claiming that the original WP article had been AfD'ed. I could not find any AfD logs to back this up, though. Next, the Springer EOM states that new material is covered by the CC-by-SA license, which I think means it's OK to copy this into WP, except that it's not clear if either of these articles are "new" or "old". Or what's up with that. So I've no clue what to do about this copyvio. (I did recently expand the Ginzburg–Landau theory article, which is effectively more-or-less covering the same material as here, and so it would make sense to merge, revise or fork all this off into a generic article on this topic, maybe merging into Yang-Mills-Higgs theory or something like that.  Hmm.  67.198.37.17 (talk) 08:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find the content in any of the old revisions of the article. The ISBN they provide (1402006098) points to the copyrighted paper version of the encyclopedia. I am removing the section in question. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio  

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources.  Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: I've flagged this section as lacking citations.  This would include a basic reference on fiber bundles in differential geometry, one applying that to Yang-Mills gauge theory, and one linking that to the 't Hooft-Polyakov monopole.  Here's one that address the latter: Monopoles and twisted sigma models.  There are probably better sources, but this is one I'm familiar with. NPguy (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible citation for "Mathematical formulation" section 

message: A monopole is a speculative exception to the rule that magnetic fields diverge away from one magnetic pole, say the N pole, then converge again to its paired S pole. But then it is required for the magnetic field to close the loop by returning to the N pole.
Non mathematically inclined physicists see this last requirement as arbitrary, and look for the exception, magnetic monopoles.
But mathematical physicists will look for mathematical reasons, and reasons from physics theory, for not finding monopoles.
The physical theory at stake is the conservation laws. I argue that the conservation of angular momentum and the conservation of energy would be broken by magnetic monopoles.
Make two rings interlinked. Provide rollers so that they can spin, one in the x-y plane and another in the z-x plane. Embed a positive charge in one ring, and embed a magnetic north pole in the other. Now give one a spin. From the law of induction, the other ring will start to rotate, and the one slow. This conserves energy. But angular momentum disappears in one plane, and differently oriented angular momentum appears in the other.
But angular momentum would be conserved if an ordinary magnet were embedded instead of a monopole. No net induction would happen.
Now consider that a crossed E field and B field will provide a net impulse and energy boost to an electric charge that crosses them at right angles to both. This is the principle of an electric motor. To conserve energy, the source of the electrostatic field or the source of the magnetic field would be de-energized to compensate. If the source of the E field is static, then the electromagnet that provides the B field must give up energy and de-magnetize.
Actually, the charge must be coupled to a mass that is trailing it , or otherwise moving at different direction than the charge. This is needed to get work done by the magnetic field.
But a magnetic monopole can not de-magnetize, so the law of conservation of energy would then be broken.
Now, the deeper and non-conventional understanding of this result invokes the basic properties of spacetime. Energy, momentum, and angular momentum are conserved because they are sources of gravity. And sources of gravity are conserved because the Bianchi identities are an intrinsic part of geometry. “The boundary of a boundary is zero.” So the origins and sinks of momentum are naturally zero from this property of spacetime geometry.
If a physicist wants to argue that conservation comes from group theory, the reply is that group theory is also part of geometry.
So electromagnetic energy must be conserved by the existence of the potential A. And then the Bianchi identities applied to A directly require the non existence of magnetic monopoles.
I have written a simulator for a rotating motor powered with free energy from a magnetic monopole. 2602:306:3126:3170:DA1:17AC:3686:FFF1 (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page is for discussions about improving the article and not about a general discussion of the topic.  WP:NOTFORUM. Constant314 (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticizing magnetic monopoles using conventional language. 

message: Is a topological monopole the same as / similar to / different than a magnetic monopole? Also, are 'Alice rings' a related phenomenon worthy of mention here? Sample source: . Thanks, Last1in (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Too speculative for Wikipedia.  Still primary research.  From your source "While the team have yet to observe this inversion experimentally". Constant314 (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry that I was unclear. I wasn't necessarily suggesting using that source for anything. I was just wondering if what they are discussing is the same as what this article is about. If it is, perhaps we can find real source that mention it and create a redir for other non-scientists who stumble upon the term. Same questions, really, for 'Alice rings'. It is a legit term and, if so, should some mention of them from real RSs be discussed in this article? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in this article.  Generally, we stay away from primary results until they become widely accepted and reproduced. Constant314 (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topological Monopole? 

message: Magnetic monopole was created in 2014 with Bosen-Einstein condensate. Could someone update the article. Sources: https://www.tekniikkatalous.fi/tiede/2014-01-30/Aalto-tutkija-l%C3%B6ysi-ensimm%C3%A4isen-synteettisen-hiukkasen-%E2%80%93-80-vuoden-etsinn%C3%A4n-j%C3%A4lkeen-3317491.html and https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12954 --HenriHa (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: My english skill isn't good enought to update this article with this radical changes. --HenriHa (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnetic monopole created in 2014 with Bosen-Einstein condensate