Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Way OT: or not? Magnetic monopoles. (mm)
87 views
Skip to first unread message
George Herold
Nov 4, 2015, 6:43:14 PM11/4/15
to
Way OT: or not. Magnetic monopoles. (mm)
Back story: My son, 14 , was asking about the universe
black holes, (he hates energy conservation.. :^)
And I went on line and bought "the First Three Minutes",
by S. Weinberg, And then read it again.
It made me think of what he didn't know about, dark matter.
Which brings me in a round about way to mm's.
I always figured we can't find mm's because they are bound up
into magnetic "atoms" (as opposite pairs).
I went looking on line and mm's are much weirder than I'd
thought. You only need to read the beginning and end of
the classic paper by Dirac, the writing in between the equations
is fun, at least for me.
(link pam dirac paper)
www.fisicafundamental.net/relicario/doc/Dirac-Poles.pdf
Here's a much simpler "undergrad version"
(link mit paper
www.hcs.harvard.edu/~jus/0302/song.pdf
The magnetic force is ~10^4 times bigger than electric,
and it's confined to an f'ing string coming out of the pole!
When that find's it's mate, well, seems to me, its a union
that no man may sunder.
Finding stuff on line about magnetic atoms is a lot harder.
This slac paper is nice.. (at a perfect level for me.)
http://www-spires.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-2497.pdf
Magnetic "atoms" might also explain gamma ray bursts.
Well and shouldn't magnetic atoms have a dipole moment,
that we might be able to see?
George H.
Back story: My son, 14 , was asking about the universe
black holes, (he hates energy conservation.. :^)
And I went on line and bought "the First Three Minutes",
by S. Weinberg, And then read it again.
It made me think of what he didn't know about, dark matter.
Which brings me in a round about way to mm's.
I always figured we can't find mm's because they are bound up
into magnetic "atoms" (as opposite pairs).
I went looking on line and mm's are much weirder than I'd
thought. You only need to read the beginning and end of
the classic paper by Dirac, the writing in between the equations
is fun, at least for me.
(link pam dirac paper)
www.fisicafundamental.net/relicario/doc/Dirac-Poles.pdf
Here's a much simpler "undergrad version"
(link mit paper
www.hcs.harvard.edu/~jus/0302/song.pdf
The magnetic force is ~10^4 times bigger than electric,
and it's confined to an f'ing string coming out of the pole!
When that find's it's mate, well, seems to me, its a union
that no man may sunder.
Finding stuff on line about magnetic atoms is a lot harder.
This slac paper is nice.. (at a perfect level for me.)
http://www-spires.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-2497.pdf
Magnetic "atoms" might also explain gamma ray bursts.
Well and shouldn't magnetic atoms have a dipole moment,
that we might be able to see?
George H.
Jan Panteltje
Nov 5, 2015, 2:41:44 AM11/5/15
to
On a sunny day (Wed, 4 Nov 2015 15:43:08 -0800 (PST)) it happened George
Herold <ghe...@teachspin.com> wrote in
<76052ca8-ec44-46b9...@googlegroups.com>:
>Way OT: or not. Magnetic monopoles. (mm)
OK, I'l byte.
When you look at the object causing the magnetic field, imagine a fan streaming air.
It sucks air in on one side, and blows it out on the other side.
A fan that only blows and sucks nowhere is your monopole,
or it sucks and blows nowhere.
As to 'object' and 'what is streamed',
most of those mysterious things now encountered by the peer community of science fraud,
can be explained by simple particle push - interactions.
Staring with gravity (Le Sage theory)_,
I 'once' worded it out, found some predictions, and have been right(tm) for many many years.
See my stand on 'gravity waves' and here is mine on magnetic monopoles : there are none.
And my prediction of ever faster expanding universe came out, not that I even thought that far,
just somebody accused me of being wrong because in my theory the universe should be ever faster expanding,
well I did not know, but a year or so later that was indeed observed.
No gravity waves so far haha.
No monopoles.
We live in a time (as always) of quack science, kwantuum computas (will never work, is just an analog computer, noise is the limit)
and every scientific minuscule step (on physics.org etc, every freaking paper is ended with 'this may bring kwantuum computahs so much closer (when years of money is poured in).
We know very little of the macro world (what is big bang, what is dark force, what is dark energy),
and we know very little of the micro world (what is beyond quarks etc) and I am sure that we never will.
We are - just a bunch of neurons - that want to understand "EVERYTHING".
No way
that is like saying 64 kB is enough for all calculations you need (Gates).
Not even if we are networked.
But.. as we do not know everything there may be something.
When CERN accidently or deliberately make their black hole(bomb) or we are transformed by or to strangelets,
maybe life forms on other planets will see the flash,
I'm an optimist, most science is discovered by tinkering and accident.
We are but stardust and not very special at that, just religious arguments (religion is where our understanding ends),
if we don't know what it is, then it is God, (say god of lighting etc), and the Pope is doing politics,
runs his own money laundering, and says whatever US president wants him to say, influences science
by saying to that whatshisname in the wheelchair (Hawkins) 'would be good if there was a big bang as that would explain 'everything',
etc etc
world ?planet of the apes, what science?
But it does not bother me a lot, its fun to watch, something will crystallize, everybody now a iphone or droid,
little magic mirrors, camera so you can see yourself,
different from looking in the pond, or commi-nuke-ate with ESP.
OK, sorry.
BTW abd, no should not mention that.
And then do not start an of topic thread, it is YOUR fault!
Herold <ghe...@teachspin.com> wrote in
<76052ca8-ec44-46b9...@googlegroups.com>:
>Way OT: or not. Magnetic monopoles. (mm)
When you look at the object causing the magnetic field, imagine a fan streaming air.
It sucks air in on one side, and blows it out on the other side.
A fan that only blows and sucks nowhere is your monopole,
or it sucks and blows nowhere.
As to 'object' and 'what is streamed',
most of those mysterious things now encountered by the peer community of science fraud,
can be explained by simple particle push - interactions.
Staring with gravity (Le Sage theory)_,
I 'once' worded it out, found some predictions, and have been right(tm) for many many years.
See my stand on 'gravity waves' and here is mine on magnetic monopoles : there are none.
And my prediction of ever faster expanding universe came out, not that I even thought that far,
just somebody accused me of being wrong because in my theory the universe should be ever faster expanding,
well I did not know, but a year or so later that was indeed observed.
No gravity waves so far haha.
No monopoles.
We live in a time (as always) of quack science, kwantuum computas (will never work, is just an analog computer, noise is the limit)
and every scientific minuscule step (on physics.org etc, every freaking paper is ended with 'this may bring kwantuum computahs so much closer (when years of money is poured in).
We know very little of the macro world (what is big bang, what is dark force, what is dark energy),
and we know very little of the micro world (what is beyond quarks etc) and I am sure that we never will.
We are - just a bunch of neurons - that want to understand "EVERYTHING".
No way
that is like saying 64 kB is enough for all calculations you need (Gates).
Not even if we are networked.
But.. as we do not know everything there may be something.
When CERN accidently or deliberately make their black hole(bomb) or we are transformed by or to strangelets,
maybe life forms on other planets will see the flash,
I'm an optimist, most science is discovered by tinkering and accident.
We are but stardust and not very special at that, just religious arguments (religion is where our understanding ends),
if we don't know what it is, then it is God, (say god of lighting etc), and the Pope is doing politics,
runs his own money laundering, and says whatever US president wants him to say, influences science
by saying to that whatshisname in the wheelchair (Hawkins) 'would be good if there was a big bang as that would explain 'everything',
etc etc
world ?planet of the apes, what science?
But it does not bother me a lot, its fun to watch, something will crystallize, everybody now a iphone or droid,
little magic mirrors, camera so you can see yourself,
different from looking in the pond, or commi-nuke-ate with ESP.
OK, sorry.
BTW abd, no should not mention that.
And then do not start an of topic thread, it is YOUR fault!
Bill Sloman
Nov 5, 2015, 6:18:22 AM11/5/15
to
On Thursday, 5 November 2015 18:41:44 UTC+11, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (Wed, 4 Nov 2015 15:43:08 -0800 (PST)) it happened George
> Herold <ghe...@teachspin.com> wrote in
> <76052ca8-ec44-46b9...@googlegroups.com>:
>
> >Way OT: or not. Magnetic monopoles. (mm)
>
> OK, I'l byte.
>
> When you look at the object causing the magnetic field, imagine a fan streaming air.
> It sucks air in on one side, and blows it out on the other side.
> A fan that only blows and sucks nowhere is your monopole,
> or it sucks and blows nowhere.
>
> As to 'object' and 'what is streamed',
> most of those mysterious things now encountered by the peer community of
> science fraud, can be explained by simple particle push - interactions.
> Staring with gravity (Le Sage theory)_,
> I 'once' worded it out, found some predictions, and have been right(tm) for
> many many years. See my stand on 'gravity waves' and here is mine on magnetic > monopoles : there are none.
>
> And my prediction of ever faster expanding universe came out, not that I even > thought that far, just somebody accused me of being wrong because in my
> theory the universe should be ever faster expanding,
> well I did not know, but a year or so later that was indeed observed.
>
> No gravity waves so far haha.
> No monopoles.
Paul Dirac thought that magnetic monopoles can exist. He's got a track record - he imagined that positrons could exist before anybody had observed any.
> On a sunny day (Wed, 4 Nov 2015 15:43:08 -0800 (PST)) it happened George
> Herold <ghe...@teachspin.com> wrote in
> <76052ca8-ec44-46b9...@googlegroups.com>:
>
> >Way OT: or not. Magnetic monopoles. (mm)
>
> OK, I'l byte.
>
> When you look at the object causing the magnetic field, imagine a fan streaming air.
> It sucks air in on one side, and blows it out on the other side.
> A fan that only blows and sucks nowhere is your monopole,
> or it sucks and blows nowhere.
>
> As to 'object' and 'what is streamed',
> most of those mysterious things now encountered by the peer community of
> science fraud, can be explained by simple particle push - interactions.
> Staring with gravity (Le Sage theory)_,
> I 'once' worded it out, found some predictions, and have been right(tm) for
> many many years. See my stand on 'gravity waves' and here is mine on magnetic > monopoles : there are none.
>
> And my prediction of ever faster expanding universe came out, not that I even > thought that far, just somebody accused me of being wrong because in my
> theory the universe should be ever faster expanding,
> well I did not know, but a year or so later that was indeed observed.
>
> No gravity waves so far haha.
> No monopoles.
Jan Pantelje isn't in the same class. I'll agree with him that magnetic monopoles seem like an odd idea - at a macro level magnetism is just what you get when you apply the relativistic transformation to the electrostatic force between moving charges - but quantum theory isn't any area where our intuitions are worth much.
Niels Bohr famously once said "we are all agreed that your theory is crazy, but is it crazy enough?".
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
George Herold
Nov 5, 2015, 9:21:16 AM11/5/15
to
you could wrap it up in one nice package.
George H.
George Herold
Nov 5, 2015, 9:52:09 AM11/5/15
to
What I hadn't known was how weird mm's are (at least according to Dirac.)
The field ..hmm maybe it's the vector potential.. can only exist on a filament.
(Ok take it as given that most of what I'm saying is garbage :^)
But it's like the first step into string theory.. being honest again, I
don't have a very good model/image of the vector potential.
Back to work... I just got ~$6k worth of interference filters plopped on my desk
I've got to check them out.
George H.
Joe Hey
Nov 5, 2015, 12:08:14 PM11/5/15
to
On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 06:52:03 -0800 (PST)
George Herold <ghe...@teachspin.com> wrote:
}snip{
> Back to work... I just got ~$6k worth of interference filters
> plopped on my desk I've got to check them out.
OT: Reminds me of a question that years ago got 'plopped' on my desk:
"Think out and write a research project proposal about <some subject>,
the available subsidy is 200k."
I asked how many years it was allowed to run and 'plopped' within 20
minutes some text on a piece of paper. It got accepted and 'we' (not
me, well, actually it was 'they'!) got the money. :)
While the project was running 'the boss' came in, took money off it for
his own overhead and that was it, I gave up and quit.
Fucking stupid idiots!
Semi government, that'll explain it.
They're still paying me some money though. :)
joe
> George H.
George Herold <ghe...@teachspin.com> wrote:
}snip{
> Back to work... I just got ~$6k worth of interference filters
> plopped on my desk I've got to check them out.
"Think out and write a research project proposal about <some subject>,
the available subsidy is 200k."
I asked how many years it was allowed to run and 'plopped' within 20
minutes some text on a piece of paper. It got accepted and 'we' (not
me, well, actually it was 'they'!) got the money. :)
While the project was running 'the boss' came in, took money off it for
his own overhead and that was it, I gave up and quit.
Fucking stupid idiots!
Semi government, that'll explain it.
They're still paying me some money though. :)
joe
> George H.
Wond
Nov 5, 2015, 12:15:29 PM11/5/15
to
On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 07:41:39 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> I'm an optimist, most science is discovered by tinkering and accident.
> We are but stardust and not very special at that, (snip)
> I'm an optimist, most science is discovered by tinkering and accident.
Billion year old carbon.
..........we are golden. Hey, Bud, which way to the garden?
Ideas from a paper by Joni Mitchell, back in the sixties! :)
Alie...@gmail.com
Nov 5, 2015, 6:30:55 PM11/5/15
to
On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 3:43:14 PM UTC-8, George Herold wrote:
> Way OT: or not. Magnetic monopoles. (mm)
> Back story: My son, 14 , was asking about the universe
> black holes, (he hates energy conservation.. :^)
> And I went on line and bought "the First Three Minutes",
> by S. Weinberg, And then read it again.
> It made me think of what he didn't know about, dark matter.
> Which brings me in a round about way to mm's.
>
> I always figured we can't find mm's because they are bound up
> into magnetic "atoms" (as opposite pairs).
> I went looking on line and mm's are much weirder than I'd
> thought. You only need to read the beginning and end of
> the classic paper by Dirac, the writing in between the equations
> is fun, at least for me.
> (link pam dirac paper)
> www.fisicafundamental.net/relicario/doc/Dirac-Poles.pdf
>
> Here's a much simpler "undergrad version"
> (link mit paper
> www.hcs.harvard.edu/~jus/0302/song.pdf
Dirac pointed out that if even a single m exists, then electric charge has to be quantized. As far as we know it is, but it has *two* quantizations; +/- 1/3e for quarks, and +/-e for everything else.
> Way OT: or not. Magnetic monopoles. (mm)
> Back story: My son, 14 , was asking about the universe
> black holes, (he hates energy conservation.. :^)
> And I went on line and bought "the First Three Minutes",
> by S. Weinberg, And then read it again.
> It made me think of what he didn't know about, dark matter.
> Which brings me in a round about way to mm's.
>
> I always figured we can't find mm's because they are bound up
> into magnetic "atoms" (as opposite pairs).
> I went looking on line and mm's are much weirder than I'd
> thought. You only need to read the beginning and end of
> the classic paper by Dirac, the writing in between the equations
> is fun, at least for me.
> (link pam dirac paper)
> www.fisicafundamental.net/relicario/doc/Dirac-Poles.pdf
>
> Here's a much simpler "undergrad version"
> (link mit paper
> www.hcs.harvard.edu/~jus/0302/song.pdf
> The magnetic force is ~10^4 times bigger than electric,
> and it's confined to an f'ing string coming out of the pole!
> When that find's it's mate, well, seems to me, its a union
> that no man may sunder.
If so, magnetic atoms will be very short-lived.
Since they must be very massive I wouldn't want to be very close when they annihilate...
> Finding stuff on line about magnetic atoms is a lot harder.
> This slac paper is nice.. (at a perfect level for me.)
>
> http://www-spires.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-2497.pdf
>
> Magnetic "atoms" might also explain gamma ray bursts.
> Well and shouldn't magnetic atoms have a dipole moment,
> that we might be able to see?
Mark L. Fergerson
George Herold
Nov 5, 2015, 11:02:22 PM11/5/15
to
(There are theoretical things with both mag and elec "charge"
called dyons.) I thought the particle anti particle pair
would annihilate fast too, I did read a paper that said it could be
long lived.
But I was thinking more like a hydrogen atom than positronium.
Opposite signed poles but a lepton and baryon.. or whatever
the monopole equivalent is.
>
> Since they must be very massive I wouldn't want to be very close when they annihilate...
>
> > Finding stuff on line about magnetic atoms is a lot harder.
> > This slac paper is nice.. (at a perfect level for me.)
> >
> > http://www-spires.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-2497.pdf
> >
> > Magnetic "atoms" might also explain gamma ray bursts.
> > Well and shouldn't magnetic atoms have a dipole moment,
> > that we might be able to see?
>
> If they have spin, mms will display an electric dipole moment. Depending on how their spins are allowed to align, they may or may not have an externally visible electric or magnetic moment.
That's how it seems to me. I thought it might be a way to detect them...
> Since they must be very massive I wouldn't want to be very close when they annihilate...
>
> > Finding stuff on line about magnetic atoms is a lot harder.
> > This slac paper is nice.. (at a perfect level for me.)
> >
> > http://www-spires.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-2497.pdf
> >
> > Magnetic "atoms" might also explain gamma ray bursts.
> > Well and shouldn't magnetic atoms have a dipole moment,
> > that we might be able to see?
>
> If they have spin, mms will display an electric dipole moment. Depending on how their spins are allowed to align, they may or may not have an externally visible electric or magnetic moment.
However if they are heavy and very small... bound up tightly,
then the gyroelectric* ratio (equivalent to gyromagnetic) may be small.
George H.
*making up words is a bad sign.
>
>
> Mark L. Fergerson
Jan Panteltje
Nov 6, 2015, 2:15:05 AM11/6/15
to
On a sunny day (Thu, 5 Nov 2015 06:21:08 -0800 (PST)) it happened George
Herold <ghe...@teachspin.com> wrote in
<48b0cb15-4e8f-4f39...@googlegroups.com>:
>> And then do not start an of topic thread, it is YOUR fault!
>Sorry it was just something I've been thinking about and doing a little online research. Dark matter, monopoles and gamma ray
>bursts... it would be nice if
>you could wrap it up in one nice package.
Yea, simple-city
Herold <ghe...@teachspin.com> wrote in
<48b0cb15-4e8f-4f39...@googlegroups.com>:
>> And then do not start an of topic thread, it is YOUR fault!
>Sorry it was just something I've been thinking about and doing a little online research. Dark matter, monopoles and gamma ray
>bursts... it would be nice if
>you could wrap it up in one nice package.
Jan Panteltje
Nov 6, 2015, 2:41:59 AM11/6/15
to
On a sunny day (Thu, 5 Nov 2015 15:30:43 -0800 (PST)) it happened
"nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote in
<e40a0e82-38a8-4180...@googlegroups.com>:
>On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 3:43:14 PM UTC-8, George Herold wrote:
>> www.fisicafundamental.net/relicario/doc/Dirac-Poles.pdf
Nice paper, he is very clear, but a bit of mathemagician...
Need to write all that out,..
In My Theory(tm) ;-) where I reject magnetic monopoles, and compare with air flow (see other posting),
it is _obvious_ you can create a temporary monopole in analogy by putting compressed air in a vessel and then opening it at some time t.
That would indeed require energy to create the monopole, and release energy when an opening is created.
What the containment vessel is (made of)... ?
In any case it would be a storage event, vacuum vessel in a place filled with medium (particles X) would work too.
One can ask if not all matter (particles) that we know are some storage event, some oscillation of something,
energized by some standing wave in Da UniVerse.
>> Here's a much simpler "undergrad version"
>> (link mit paper
>> www.hcs.harvard.edu/~jus/0302/song.pdf
That actually seems more complicatiatiated to me.
But, I am no physisicks, so for what its worth.
It is good to sink about those sings some times
Let it 'sink in', well, sing about it, what difference does it make.
OK, back to, what was it, will let ye know.
"nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote in
<e40a0e82-38a8-4180...@googlegroups.com>:
>On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 3:43:14 PM UTC-8, George Herold wrote:
Nice paper, he is very clear, but a bit of mathemagician...
Need to write all that out,..
In My Theory(tm) ;-) where I reject magnetic monopoles, and compare with air flow (see other posting),
it is _obvious_ you can create a temporary monopole in analogy by putting compressed air in a vessel and then opening it at some time t.
That would indeed require energy to create the monopole, and release energy when an opening is created.
What the containment vessel is (made of)... ?
In any case it would be a storage event, vacuum vessel in a place filled with medium (particles X) would work too.
One can ask if not all matter (particles) that we know are some storage event, some oscillation of something,
energized by some standing wave in Da UniVerse.
>> Here's a much simpler "undergrad version"
>> (link mit paper
>> www.hcs.harvard.edu/~jus/0302/song.pdf
But, I am no physisicks, so for what its worth.
It is good to sink about those sings some times
Let it 'sink in', well, sing about it, what difference does it make.
OK, back to, what was it, will let ye know.
Jan Panteltje
Nov 6, 2015, 2:44:28 AM11/6/15
to
On a sunny day (Thu, 5 Nov 2015 20:02:05 -0800 (PST)) it happened George
Herold <ghe...@teachspin.com> wrote in
<65f74be4-74c9-4e30...@googlegroups.com>:
y>
https://www.google.nl/search?q=gearlose&biw=1670&bih=850&tbm=isch&imgil=XF6Arbr4izXsPM%253A%253Bd0E85o8TnElZ_M%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fdisneycomics.wikia.com%25252Fwiki%25252FGyro_Gearloose&source=iu&pf=m&fir=XF6Arbr4izXsPM%253A%252Cd0E85o8TnElZ_M%252C_&usg=__vXOrxzgJ1juVZaEFwUAo_0yxA-Q%3D&ved=0CEAQyjdqFQoTCPGStLSm-8gCFQa1Dwod5iEO5A&ei=JVo8VrHsN4bqPubDuKAO#imgrc=XF6Arbr4izXsPM%3A&usg=__vXOrxzgJ1juVZaEFwUAo_0yxA-Q%3D
Herold <ghe...@teachspin.com> wrote in
<65f74be4-74c9-4e30...@googlegroups.com>:
y>
>That's how it seems to me. I thought it might be a way to detect them...
> However if they are heavy and very small... bound up tightly,
>then the gyroelectric* ratio (equivalent to gyromagnetic) may be small.
I think it is spelled gearlose:
> However if they are heavy and very small... bound up tightly,
>then the gyroelectric* ratio (equivalent to gyromagnetic) may be small.
https://www.google.nl/search?q=gearlose&biw=1670&bih=850&tbm=isch&imgil=XF6Arbr4izXsPM%253A%253Bd0E85o8TnElZ_M%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fdisneycomics.wikia.com%25252Fwiki%25252FGyro_Gearloose&source=iu&pf=m&fir=XF6Arbr4izXsPM%253A%252Cd0E85o8TnElZ_M%252C_&usg=__vXOrxzgJ1juVZaEFwUAo_0yxA-Q%3D&ved=0CEAQyjdqFQoTCPGStLSm-8gCFQa1Dwod5iEO5A&ei=JVo8VrHsN4bqPubDuKAO#imgrc=XF6Arbr4izXsPM%3A&usg=__vXOrxzgJ1juVZaEFwUAo_0yxA-Q%3D
George Herold
Nov 6, 2015, 8:48:06 AM11/6/15
to
On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 2:41:59 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (Thu, 5 Nov 2015 15:30:43 -0800 (PST)) it happened
> "nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote in
> <e40a0e82-38a8-4180...@googlegroups.com>:
>
> >On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 3:43:14 PM UTC-8, George Herold wrote:
>
> >> www.fisicafundamental.net/relicario/doc/Dirac-Poles.pdf
>
> Nice paper, he is very clear, but a bit of mathemagician...
> Need to write all that out,..
Yeah I can't really follow the math unless I unpack the notation.
> On a sunny day (Thu, 5 Nov 2015 15:30:43 -0800 (PST)) it happened
> "nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote in
> <e40a0e82-38a8-4180...@googlegroups.com>:
>
> >On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 3:43:14 PM UTC-8, George Herold wrote:
>
> >> www.fisicafundamental.net/relicario/doc/Dirac-Poles.pdf
>
> Nice paper, he is very clear, but a bit of mathemagician...
> Need to write all that out,..
(I didn't even try.)
I've seen all that four vector stuff, but never used it.
> In My Theory(tm) ;-) where I reject magnetic monopoles, and compare with air flow (see other posting),
> it is _obvious_ you can create a temporary monopole in analogy by putting compressed air in a vessel and then opening it at some time t.
> That would indeed require energy to create the monopole, and release energy when an opening is created.
> What the containment vessel is (made of)... ?
> In any case it would be a storage event, vacuum vessel in a place filled with medium (particles X) would work too.
>
> One can ask if not all matter (particles) that we know are some storage event, some oscillation of something,
> energized by some standing wave in Da UniVerse.
>
>
> >> Here's a much simpler "undergrad version"
> >> (link mit paper
> >> www.hcs.harvard.edu/~jus/0302/song.pdf
>
> That actually seems more complicatiatiated to me.
>
> But, I am no physisicks, so for what its worth.
the binding energy of a magnetic atom could be almost the same
as the rest energy of the two separate poles... so the
mass of the composite could be a lot less than the sum of
the pieces. That stretches my mind!
George H.
George Herold
Nov 6, 2015, 8:49:07 AM11/6/15
to
George H.
George Herold
Nov 6, 2015, 8:01:20 PM11/6/15
to
search term is monopolonium. I think this is the classic article.
(at least it's sited 256 times.)
http://www.phenix.bnl.gov/WWW/publish/wasiko/Monopole/Monopolium/Hill_Monopolium.pdf
Still not an "atom". I'd love to know the search term for that.
90% of the problem (sometimes) is knowing what to call something.
George H.
Jan Panteltje
Nov 7, 2015, 2:39:00 AM11/7/15
to
On a sunny day (Fri, 6 Nov 2015 17:01:10 -0800 (PST)) it happened George
Herold <ghe...@teachspin.com> wrote in
<1c909fe2-d3d5-48f2...@googlegroups.com>:
>> > OK, back to, what was it, will let ye know.
>
>I'm not sure anyone cares, but another mm - anti mm pair
>search term is monopolonium. I think this is the classic article.
>(at least it's sited 256 times.)
>http://www.phenix.bnl.gov/WWW/publish/wasiko/Monopole/Monopolium/Hill_Monopolium.pdf
I just assimilated that paper.
As soon as I detected 'renormalisation', some alarm bells went off,
they refer a lot to the Higgs, that is now claimed to be found, not sure if their numbers
take the current knowledge into account, as it is a 1989 paper.
And I only trust mathematicians as far as the proof of their own equations,
not at all in the *application* of those mathemagical tricks.
To make things simple for me:
At the heart of the matter(tm) is the Panteltje,
the elementary particle that explains 'everything'.
That makes things simpler for me.
The symbol is 'P'.
So say you have P dollars, then you have it.
>Still not an "atom". I'd love to know the search term for that.
From the Greek 'atom' (that cannot be divided) we have hacked apart many things.
Electronix came from what could not be divided, the electron.
So even 'atom' in your view of 'monopole' at some point or other will be dissected
into whatever.
I keep with my view comparing it with a dynamic system, like air flow and pressure difference,..
My personal life, long time ago, maybe I was 5 years or 6 years? old,
my father and I build an electric motor (from meccano parts at that time,
and an electromagnet, on 50 Hz, 12V, wheel with tabs,
spin it and it kept spinning synchronous motor).
I was fascinated and asked my father what exactly is that force 'magnetism' that attracts that iron.
he got angry as he did not know what it was, and said:
'You will learn that later at school'.
Well he got angry often when not knowing something, but OK, also when I defeated him with chess,
but OK, school... no, years and years,
stories about electron spin, OK, so what then is charge?
What then is the strong force? What then is the weak force, What then is gravity?
There we are today, I'm fairly old, many at my age are now underground studying worms or something,
and I still do not know all these things.
Does not make me angry, you gotta see the relativity (not Einstein's) of it all.
I am still very curious though, scepticism I have learned in all those years,
and modern physics is largely a joke, although if humanity is still
around in a couple of thousand years and kept evoluating? (word) it would indeed look at todays physics
as we do on earth fire and water (that was a music group, think I went to a concert once), from the Greek.
So, what to say,.
Have fun experimenting.
>90% of the problem (sometimes) is knowing what to call something.
>
>George H.
No, speak so many language, a rose by any other name ...
Over time I build my own little theory, very little math, more of a neural net model.
Works much better,
I always say, catch a ball (you, me, neural net) or let a mathemagician do it, the mathe.. will be writing equations
for years, the hardware, the sensors, it will be slow, need many cores (processors), and ball will be long gone.
I write software and design hardware the same way, I spend in the latest ultrasound thing the most time calculating
a voltage divider and selecting resistors from a bunch of E values I have than any part of the rest of it.
1:7 seems difficult, was wondering of some body made a binary resistor, 1,2 4, 8, 16, 32 etc..
Anyways, approximation, if you get too exact you get a divide by zero, need renormalisation,
get sucked into a wormhole or warp to whoknowswhere and
OK, Hollywood loves that stuff.
But in reality no fusion power, no more powerful weapon from CERN (that is why they were put to work really),
no warp drive and magnets still make a good tractor beam.
There is a lot to do!
So, do not take it all to seriously.
Insight is something that happens,
I remember at school learning that oil (we drill from the ground) came from plants.
Wanted to raise my finger and say it does not make sense,.
Some years ago I was reading about the NASA mission to Pluto, and that paper said:
'We hope to arrive before the atmosphere there condenses'.
That was like 'YES", oil formed when hydrocarbons in the hot atmosphere of earth condensed, it must be everywhere,
under the sea, in the sand, percolated through it, later covered by water that condensed later...
So I posted that 'insight' to sci.physics, and oil prices since then have shown an absolute minimum.
Blame it on me? on 0bama playing with tar sand, on Bush out of power,
on pestering Russia and Venezuela, but do not blame it on me.
But logic.
BTW my spell sjeker insists it is not monopole but monopoly.
Herold <ghe...@teachspin.com> wrote in
<1c909fe2-d3d5-48f2...@googlegroups.com>:
>> > OK, back to, what was it, will let ye know.
>
>I'm not sure anyone cares, but another mm - anti mm pair
>search term is monopolonium. I think this is the classic article.
>(at least it's sited 256 times.)
>http://www.phenix.bnl.gov/WWW/publish/wasiko/Monopole/Monopolium/Hill_Monopolium.pdf
As soon as I detected 'renormalisation', some alarm bells went off,
they refer a lot to the Higgs, that is now claimed to be found, not sure if their numbers
take the current knowledge into account, as it is a 1989 paper.
And I only trust mathematicians as far as the proof of their own equations,
not at all in the *application* of those mathemagical tricks.
To make things simple for me:
At the heart of the matter(tm) is the Panteltje,
the elementary particle that explains 'everything'.
That makes things simpler for me.
The symbol is 'P'.
So say you have P dollars, then you have it.
>Still not an "atom". I'd love to know the search term for that.
Electronix came from what could not be divided, the electron.
So even 'atom' in your view of 'monopole' at some point or other will be dissected
into whatever.
I keep with my view comparing it with a dynamic system, like air flow and pressure difference,..
My personal life, long time ago, maybe I was 5 years or 6 years? old,
my father and I build an electric motor (from meccano parts at that time,
and an electromagnet, on 50 Hz, 12V, wheel with tabs,
spin it and it kept spinning synchronous motor).
I was fascinated and asked my father what exactly is that force 'magnetism' that attracts that iron.
he got angry as he did not know what it was, and said:
'You will learn that later at school'.
Well he got angry often when not knowing something, but OK, also when I defeated him with chess,
but OK, school... no, years and years,
stories about electron spin, OK, so what then is charge?
What then is the strong force? What then is the weak force, What then is gravity?
There we are today, I'm fairly old, many at my age are now underground studying worms or something,
and I still do not know all these things.
Does not make me angry, you gotta see the relativity (not Einstein's) of it all.
I am still very curious though, scepticism I have learned in all those years,
and modern physics is largely a joke, although if humanity is still
around in a couple of thousand years and kept evoluating? (word) it would indeed look at todays physics
as we do on earth fire and water (that was a music group, think I went to a concert once), from the Greek.
So, what to say,.
Have fun experimenting.
>90% of the problem (sometimes) is knowing what to call something.
>
>George H.
Over time I build my own little theory, very little math, more of a neural net model.
Works much better,
I always say, catch a ball (you, me, neural net) or let a mathemagician do it, the mathe.. will be writing equations
for years, the hardware, the sensors, it will be slow, need many cores (processors), and ball will be long gone.
I write software and design hardware the same way, I spend in the latest ultrasound thing the most time calculating
a voltage divider and selecting resistors from a bunch of E values I have than any part of the rest of it.
1:7 seems difficult, was wondering of some body made a binary resistor, 1,2 4, 8, 16, 32 etc..
Anyways, approximation, if you get too exact you get a divide by zero, need renormalisation,
get sucked into a wormhole or warp to whoknowswhere and
OK, Hollywood loves that stuff.
But in reality no fusion power, no more powerful weapon from CERN (that is why they were put to work really),
no warp drive and magnets still make a good tractor beam.
There is a lot to do!
So, do not take it all to seriously.
Insight is something that happens,
I remember at school learning that oil (we drill from the ground) came from plants.
Wanted to raise my finger and say it does not make sense,.
Some years ago I was reading about the NASA mission to Pluto, and that paper said:
'We hope to arrive before the atmosphere there condenses'.
That was like 'YES", oil formed when hydrocarbons in the hot atmosphere of earth condensed, it must be everywhere,
under the sea, in the sand, percolated through it, later covered by water that condensed later...
So I posted that 'insight' to sci.physics, and oil prices since then have shown an absolute minimum.
Blame it on me? on 0bama playing with tar sand, on Bush out of power,
on pestering Russia and Venezuela, but do not blame it on me.
But logic.
BTW my spell sjeker insists it is not monopole but monopoly.
0 new messages