1. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
53

## Magnetic Monopoles

Magnetic Monopoles

I will begin this exploration into the theory of everything by explaining, using present-day laws of physics, how magnets work. I will then explain how magnets work under my new theory, which uses magnetic monopoles, and how to isolate monopoles. People have known about electricity and magnetism for centuries. In time, scientists found that there are two types of electric charges: positive and negative. These opposite charges attract each other, and the electric charge is quantized. That is, all electric charges are multiples of an elementary electric charge found on the electron. As for magnetism, the ancient Greeks knew that certain minerals attracted iron and other pieces of the same mineral. About a thousand years ago, the Chinese noticed that a magnetized needle always points in the same direction and thus can be used for navigation.
Unlike electric charges, which can be isolated, magnetic materials always have two poles (called north and south after the directions they point to on Earth). If one breaks a magnet into two pieces, each smaller piece will again have both a north and a south pole. It is therefore apparently impossible to isolate a single magnetic pole—only the combination of north and south poles (called a dipole) seems to exist.
The absence of a single magnetic charge (called a monopole) makes the laws of electricity and magnetism different. This lack of symmetry has bothered physicists for decades. We now know of two distinct methods of generating a magnetic field. We can either use a permanent magnet, such as a bar magnet, or we can run an electric current through a coil of wire. Are these two methods fundamentally different, or are they somehow related to each other? Let us investigate further.
http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x...ppiw/Fig1A.jpg
Fig 1 A.
Magnetic lines of force
As illustrated in Fig 1 A, the external magnetic fields generated by a coil of wire and a conventional bar magnet are remarkably similar in appearance. Incidentally, these fields can easily be mapped out using iron filings. My first hypothesis is that the field of a bar magnet is produced by electric currents that flow around the outside of the bar magnet in a counterclockwise direction as we look along the magnet from its north to its south pole. There is no doubt, by analogy with a coil of wire, that such currents would generate a magnetic field.
My second hypothesis is that the field is produced by a positive magnetic monopole located close to the north pole of the magnet in combination with a negative monopole of equal magnitude located close to the south pole of the magnet. But what, exactly, is a magnetic monopole? Well, it is the magnetic equivalent of an electric charge. For example, a positive magnetic monopole is an isolated magnetic north pole.
We would expect magnetic field lines to radiate away from such an object, just as electric field lines radiate away from a positive electric charge. Likewise, a negative magnetic monopole is an isolated magnetic south pole. We would expect magnetic field lines to radiate toward such an object, just as electric field lines radiate toward a negative electric charge.
The magnetic field patterns generated by both types of monopole are sketched in Fig 1 B.
http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x...ppiw/Fig1B.jpg
Fig 1 B.
Magnetic monopoles
We now have two hypotheses to explain the origin of the magnetic field of a bar magnet. What experiment could we perform in order to determine which of these two hypotheses is correct? Well, suppose that we break our bar magnet in two. What happens according to each hypothesis?
If we cut a coil of wire in two, then we just end up with two shorter coils of wire. So according to our first hypothesis, if we break a bar magnet in two, then we just end up with two smaller bar magnets. However, our second hypothesis predicts that if we break a bar magnet in two, then we end up with two equal and opposite magnetic monopoles. Needless to say, the former prediction is in accordance with experiment, whereas the latter most certainly is not.
Indeed, we can break a bar magnet into as many separate pieces as we like, and each piece will still act like a smaller, but otherwise equivalent, bar magnet. No matter how small we make the pieces, we cannot produce a magnetic monopole. In fact, nobody has ever observed a magnetic monopole experimentally, which leads most physicists to conclude that magnetic monopoles do not exist. Thus, we can conclude that the magnetic field of a bar magnet is produced by electric currents flowing over the surface of the magnets. However, what is the origin of these currents?
Perhaps there is one more hypothesis to consider. If you take a coil of wire and move a bar magnet past it, you get an electric current. This is how electricity is generated in a generator. So let us go one step further; if the movement of this bar magnet past this coil of wire produces electricity, then why would you have protons and electrons—which have an electric charge—coming out of this coil of wire? We all know that a bar magnet has a magnetic field, not an electric charge. Then why did the protons and electrons come out of the coil of wire? Perhaps they are not protons and electrons, but rather the north and south magnetic monopoles that Paul Dirac theorized existed in 1931 (see Introduction).
That is my hypothesis—that the proton and electron are really Dirac monopoles. The proton is actually a north magnetic monopole, and the electron is actually a south magnetic monopole.
In addition, just how would these magnetic monopoles behave? For example, the bar magnet is considered a dipole with its north magnetic pole at one end and south magnetic pole at the other. However, my hypothesis considers using two directions to create a magnetic field, as illustrated in Fig 1 C.
http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x...ppiw/Fig1C.jpg
Fig 1 C.
Magnetic field lines
Fig 1 C shows that a magnet’s north magnetic monopole would travel from the south pole of the bar magnet to the north pole of the bar magnet, and just the opposite would occur for the south magnetic monopole. Now both magnetic monopoles are moving in opposite directions. The north magnetic monopole will attract the south magnetic monopole in perpetual motion, creating a magnetic line of force. Without this perpetual motion of magnetic monopoles, you cannot have a magnetic field.
This perpetual motion is attained by the magnetic attraction between the north and south magnetic monopoles. It is my hypothesis that each monopole has an area that does not attract or repel. This area is close to the surface of the monopole (see Fig 1 D). When north and south monopoles mutually attract, their magnetic attraction brings them closer together. But once these opposite monopoles get very close to each other, they no longer have any attraction for each other.
http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x...ppiw/Fig1D.jpg
Fig 1 D.
Magnetic monopoles’ no repel/attraction area
http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x...ppiw/Fig1E.jpg
Fig 1 E.
Magnetic monopoles’ perpetual motion
Fig 1 E, Ref A shows the area of no repulsion or attraction. Any monopole in this area will experience neither an attractive nor repulsive force. Ref B shows a monopole in this area. That south monopole will then attract the north monopole at the area shown in Ref C and bring it closer to the north monopole at Ref A. Because Ref A is a north monopole, it will repel the force of the north monopole already at Ref A. The south monopole at Ref B will then move closer to Ref C, and the attractive force of Ref A will keep the south monopole in the no repel/attraction area, bringing the north monopole at Ref C into the no repel/attraction area of Ref A. The attractive force of Ref B will keep the north monopole near the north monopole of Ref A, in the no repel/attraction area. Now the south monopole in Ref D will take the place of the monopole that was in Ref B, and this cycle will continue in perpetual motion, as shown in Ref E.
It’s this perpetual motion that creates a magnetic line of force. In bar magnets, this line of force also creates a north and south magnetic pole, making the bar magnet a dipole. Fig 1 C shows the perpetual motion of the north and south magnetic monopoles that create the bar magnet’s north and south magnetic poles. This is accomplished by the mutual attraction of the north and south magnetic monopoles. The south monopoles create a magnetic north pole by attracting all of the north monopoles in the same direction. Likewise, the north monopoles create a magnetic south pole by attracting all of the south monopoles in the same direction. This is why you continue to get a magnetic dipole when you break a bar magnet in half—since the perpetual motion of the north and south monopoles that make up the magnetic lines of force is unaffected by breaking the bar magnetic in half.
In conclusion, magnetic monopoles have already been discovered; they have been mislabeled as the proton and the electron. When you move a bar magnet past a coil of wire, it will attract and repel monopoles, which have a magnetic charge. Having an electric charge, protons and electrons will not be affected by the magnetic charge of a bar magnet and therefore cannot be coming out of the coil of wire.
It’s these north and south magnetic monopoles that produce electricity, not protons and electrons. This explains why you get a magnetic field around a coil of wire when an electric current is passed through it. Electricity is created by separating the north and south magnetic monopoles into concentrated streams. This separation of magnetic monopoles is accomplished using a bar magnet, which has a magnetic charge and thus attracts the opposite monopoles in the same direction that the bar magnet is moving. When these concentrated streams of north and south magnetic monopoles recombine in a coil of wire, they will again create a magnetic field producing a dipole, because this is where they had originated before being separated by a bar magnet.
These are also the same north and south magnetic monopoles that create the magnetic lines of force in a bar magnet, which are responsible for producing all forms of energy in the electromagnetic spectrum, including gravity. Using only north and south magnetic monopoles and a particle of matter that represents an element, you can build an atom. With this three-particle atom, you can unite the fundamental forces of nature.
Last edited by pzkpfw; 2009-Oct-03 at 09:34 PM. Reason: IMG to URL

2. Welcome to BAUT. Please make sure you check out the rules.

3. Established Member
Join Date
Aug 2008
Posts
562
OP in your model a free electron for example would be a magnetic monopole? Outputting a current? What would this current be if not an electron flow (which it obviously could not be)

If magnetic flux is current can it be made to do work? And if so would this degrade the magnet (the source of potential energy)?

4. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
1,399
An electron beam is known experimentally to be deflected by a transverse magnetic field. Now if we reverse the direction of that e-beam, what does your theory predict for the deflection in that same magnetic field?

5. Originally Posted by L Wippler
My first hypothesis is that the field of a bar magnet is produced by electric currents that flow around the outside of the bar magnet in a counterclockwise direction as we look along the magnet from its north to its south pole. There is no doubt, by analogy with a coil of wire, that such currents would generate a magnetic field.
The fact that some ferromagnetic materials are electrical insulators poses a few difficulties for this idea...

We know quite a bit more about the behavior of electricity and magnetism than you seem to be aware of. Individual electrons have a magnetic dipole moment, and some electron orbitals have a net angular momentum. These both contribute to the field of "permanent" magnets.

Originally Posted by L Wippler
Indeed, we can break a bar magnet into as many separate pieces as we like, and each piece will still act like a smaller, but otherwise equivalent, bar magnet. No matter how small we make the pieces, we cannot produce a magnetic monopole. In fact, nobody has ever observed a magnetic monopole experimentally, which leads most physicists to conclude that magnetic monopoles do not exist. Thus, we can conclude that the magnetic field of a bar magnet is produced by electric currents flowing over the surface of the magnets. However, what is the origin of these currents?
Why do you assert that an electrical current on the surface of the magnet is responsible? The idea has major difficulties...as mentioned above, some magnets are electrical insulators. Those that aren't are still imperfect conductors.

The mainstream explanation is that the fields are the result of the intrinsic dipole moments of subatomic particles, and of electron orbitals. No bulk electron current.

Originally Posted by L Wippler
Perhaps there is one more hypothesis to consider. If you take a coil of wire and move a bar magnet past it, you get an electric current. This is how electricity is generated in a generator. So let us go one step further; if the movement of this bar magnet past this coil of wire produces electricity, then why would you have protons and electrons—which have an electric charge—coming out of this coil of wire? We all know that a bar magnet has a magnetic field, not an electric charge. Then why did the protons and electrons come out of the coil of wire? Perhaps they are not protons and electrons, but rather the north and south magnetic monopoles that Paul Dirac theorized existed in 1931 (see Introduction).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force

Protons don't go anywhere, outside of systems involving hydrogen plasma or electrochemical reactions. Free electrons react to the moving magnetic field by being pushed toward one end of the wire, leaving the other electron-poor. If the circuit is closed by a conductive path between the ends of the coil, electrons will flow from the electron-rich end to the electron-poor end through that conductive path.

You seem to imagine that the mainstream model has electrons shooting out of one end of the coil and protons shooting out the other. That doesn't remotely resemble any accepted theory.

Originally Posted by L Wippler
It’s these north and south magnetic monopoles that produce electricity, not protons and electrons. This explains why you get a magnetic field around a coil of wire when an electric current is passed through it. Electricity is created by separating the north and south magnetic monopoles into concentrated streams.
How do electron guns work, then? Vacuum tubes? Mass spectrometers? Electrolysis, electroplating, electrochemical batteries? Do you seriously think all of modern electronics technology could have been achieved while being as fundamentally mistaken about the nature of electricity as you claim?

It's easy to just ask for the math, but it's quite appropriate here. Can you mathematically describe the forces your monopoles have on each other and how they interact to produce the effects we have mistaken as electrical currents? Can you describe simple induction in mathematical terms?

6. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
53
Originally Posted by rodin
OP in your model a free electron for example would be a magnetic monopole? Outputting a current? What would this current be if not an electron flow (which it obviously could not be)

If magnetic flux is current can it be made to do work? And if so would this degrade the magnet (the source of potential energy)?
All currents are Magnetic, they are caused by the flow of North and South magnetic monopoles.

If magnetic flux is current can it be made to do work? YES
A Magnet is used to separate these monopoles creating Electricity.

Watch these Videos

7. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
53
Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan
An electron beam is known experimentally to be deflected by a transverse magnetic field. Now if we reverse the direction of that e-beam, what does your theory predict for the deflection in that same magnetic field?
What you call an electron beam is actualy a beam of monopoles, they can be north of south monopoles, the laws of attraction apply here, monopoles are what create a magnetic field.

8. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
1,399
I do not see an actual answer to my question. My question was quite specific, so please provide a specific answer. If, say, the deflection is upward when the beam is traveling in one direction, which way does it deflect when the beam is traveling the other way? Does it

a) Deflect downward.
b) Continue to deflect upward.

Thank you.

9. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
53
Originally Posted by cjameshuff
The fact that some ferromagnetic materials are electrical insulators poses a few difficulties for this idea...

Originally Posted by cjameshuff
You seem to imagine that the mainstream model has electrons shooting out of one end of the coil and protons shooting out the other. That doesn't remotely resemble any accepted theory.
?
North Monopoles are shooting out of one end of the coil and South Monopoles are shooting out the other when they are recombined they willcreate a magnetic field.

Originally Posted by cjameshuff
ow do electron guns work, then? Vacuum tubes? Mass spectrometers? Electrolysis, electroplating, electrochemical batteries? Do you seriously think all of modern electronics technology could have been achieved while being as fundamentally mistaken about the nature of electricity as you claim?
YES Watch the Videos

10. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
53
Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan
I do not see an actual answer to my question. My question was quite specific, so please provide a specific answer. If, say, the deflection is upward when the beam is traveling in one direction, which way does it deflect when the beam is traveling the other way? Does it

a) Deflect downward.
b) Continue to deflect upward.

Thank you.
The direction of the beam makes no difference it's which monopole the beam is made of.

If you have a beam of (North monopoles) that is moving in ether direction it will be deflected up in the presents of a south magnetic pole.

11. L Wippler wrote:
Using only north and south magnetic monopoles and a particle of matter that represents an element, you can build an atom. With this three-particle atom, you can unite the fundamental forces of nature.
Bold mine.

Elements are made up of atoms.
So my first Direct Question is What is a particle of matter?
My second Direct Question is How can this particle "represent" an element?
Last edited by AstroRockHunter; 2009-Oct-04 at 06:08 PM. Reason: Edited for formatting.

12. L Wippler, It's not good enough to just point people to Utube movies, any support needs to b presented here in the forum. 'Look at the pictures' has never been an acceptable form of defence. WHat we want are details and answers to direct questions. Take some time to read the Rules for Posting and the Advice for ATM thread both linked at the bottom of this post.

13. Originally Posted by AstroRockHunter
L Wippler wrote:

Bold mine.

Elements are made up of atoms.
So my first Direct Question is What is a particle of matter?
My second Direct Question is How can this particle "represent" an element?
Those questions sounded very familiar, so I did a search. This same idea was previously promoted by a "Tina Bear":

A Three Particle Theory of Everything

The element issue was brought up there, and never answered. Perhaps we'll get some answers here.

14. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
1,399
Originally Posted by L Wippler
The direction of the beam makes no difference it's which monopole the beam is made of.

If you have a beam of (North monopoles) that is moving in ether direction it will be deflected up in the presents of a south magnetic pole.
Thank you for your answer. So you are saying that your theory predicts the exact opposite of what is experimentally observed. That would seem to pose a difficulty.

15. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2006
Posts
1,307
Originally Posted by L Wippler
You are wrong about this. Some ferromagnetic materials are observed in reality to be electrical insulators. The standard models have nothing to do with it.

In order to refute these observations, you will have to show us ferromagnetic materials that have previously been observed to be electrical insulators, and show us that they are in fact electrical conductors.

Direct Question: Can you do this?

16. Originally Posted by Van Rijn
Those questions sounded very familiar, so I did a search. This same idea was previously promoted by a "Tina Bear":

A Three Particle Theory of Everything
Indeed. Tina Bear's first post links to http://www.lwippler.clearwire.net/.

And on the second page, Tina Bear says
Originally Posted by Tina Bear
So, L Wippler, were you Tina Bear?

Fred

17. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
53
Originally Posted by AstroRockHunter
L Wippler wrote:

Bold mine.

Elements are made up of atoms.
So my first Direct Question is What is a particle of matter? ?
Every atom has a particle in it's core this particle determines what element the atom will become. If you replace this particle with a different one the atom will become a different element.

Originally Posted by AstroRockHunter
My second Direct Question is How can this particle "represent" an element?
This particle determines what element the atom will become.
All atoms are magnetic dipoles the difference between elements/atoms is the magnetic field lines that pass through its core. This particle of matter in the atoms core represent one of the many elements.

I have posted a lecture on utube on how the atom is made that may help you.

18. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
53
Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan
Thank you for your answer. So you are saying that your theory predicts the exact opposite of what is experimentally observed. That would seem to pose a difficulty.
If your experiment used negative electricity/South monopoles the end result would be the opposite of my experiment, because is used positive electricity/North monopoles.

Remember electricity is made by separating north and south monopoles the same monopoles that create a magnetic field.

19. Originally Posted by Nowhere Man

So, L Wippler, were you Tina Bear?

Fred
I too would like to know the answer tothis question before you post anything else on the BAUT Board.

20. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
53
Originally Posted by stutefish
You are wrong about this. Some ferromagnetic materials are observed in reality to be electrical insulators. The standard models have nothing to do with it.

In order to refute these observations, you will have to show us ferromagnetic materials that have previously been observed to be electrical insulators, and show us that they are in fact electrical conductors.

Direct Question: Can you do this?
That statement you are referring to was a quote from the standard model laws of physics, I don't agree with it.

Yes some ferromagnetic materials can be electrical insulators.

21. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
1,399
Originally Posted by L Wippler
If your experiment used negative electricity/South monopoles the end result would be the opposite of my experiment, because is used positive electricity/North monopoles.

Remember electricity is made by separating north and south monopoles the same monopoles that create a magnetic field.
The experiment was described in a way that a misunderstanding is unlikely; in any event, you did not ask for a clarification, so my assumption was that it was as clear as could be. Your response revealed a fundamental disagreement with experiment. And now, you add "word salad" to cloud the situation.

In my straightforward description of the experiment, the only thing that changes is the direction of the electron beam. The composition of the beam remains the same. Whether you call them electrons or monopoles is irrelevant, so please don't obfuscate by wasting time on redefinitions.

Your original answer was that only the composition of the beam mattered, not the direction. You now seem to be saying something different.

This is a direct question (which, by the rules of the forum, you are obligated to answer): To avoid unnecessary confusion, please provide simple equations that describe the force on the electron beam. The equation(s) should show explicitly the dependence, if any, of the force on the direction of the e-beam. Again, you can call the beam anything you like, but it is made out of what the mainstream calls electrons. The composition of the beam does not change. The ONLY thing that changes is the direction of the beam flow.

Again, provide equations. This avoids the word salad problem that can inhibit understanding.

22. Nowhere Man, while drawing attention to a potential problem in a thread is appreciated it should be done by reporting the post. Don't post in thread, get a Mod involved.
Speculation by other posters can be seen as disruptive

23. Originally Posted by L Wippler
No, they are from reality. A typical ceramic fridge magnet has a permanent magnetic field and is an electrical insulator.

Originally Posted by L Wippler
North Monopoles are shooting out of one end of the coil and South Monopoles are shooting out the other when they are recombined they willcreate a magnetic field.
That's not what I asked. To repeat: do you believe the mainstream model has electrons coming out one end and protons coming out the other?

Originally Posted by L Wippler
YES Watch the Videos
No, I will not watch the videos. Explain here.

Originally Posted by L Wippler
That statement you are referring to was a quote from the standard model laws of physics, I don't agree with it.
No, it was not, no more than the following is:

Originally Posted by L Wippler
Yes some ferromagnetic materials can be electrical insulators.
This statement simply restates the one you claim is a "quote from the standard model laws of physics"! It is still accurate, however. So, how do you obtain an electrical current flowing across the surface of an insulator?

From all evidence, your understanding of the mainstream model is severely lacking. You say you disagree with it, yet argue against profoundly inaccurate models, such as your idea that permanent magnets would require electrical currents flowing across their surfaces.

By the way, you never said why you thought this surface current would be necessary...that was a direct question, and you need to answer it. I asked several other questions that need responses, as well. To repeat:

How do electron guns work? Vacuum tubes? Mass spectrometers? Electrolysis, electroplating, electrochemical batteries? You gave some YouTube videos...links to YouTube videos are not answers.

A new one...can you explain semiconductors?

Can you explain even simple electrical components, specifically capacitors and inductors?

Can you mathematically describe the forces your monopoles have on each other and how they interact to produce the effects we have mistaken as electrical currents? Can you describe simple induction in mathematical terms?

24. Originally Posted by L Wippler
[SNIP!]

As illustrated in Fig 1 A, the external magnetic fields generated by a coil of wire and a conventional bar magnet are remarkably similar in appearance. Incidentally, these fields can easily be mapped out using iron filings.
That's because they are both dipole fields, produced by a magnetic moment.

Originally Posted by L Wippler
My first hypothesis is that the field of a bar magnet is produced by electric currents that flow around the outside of the bar magnet in a counterclockwise direction as we look along the magnet from its north to its south pole. There is no doubt, by analogy with a coil of wire, that such currents would generate a magnetic field.
That was Ampere's idea, about 200 years ago.

Originally Posted by L Wippler
[SNIP!]

Perhaps there is one more hypothesis to consider. If you take a coil of wire and move a bar magnet past it, you get an electric current. This is how electricity is generated in a generator. So let us go one step further; if the movement of this bar magnet past this coil of wire produces electricity, then why would you have protons and electrons—which have an electric charge—coming out of this coil of wire?
They are not coming out.
Maybe you should inform yourself more accurately about the experimental results.

Originally Posted by L Wippler
Perhaps they are not protons and electrons, but rather the north and south magnetic monopoles that Paul Dirac theorized existed in 1931 (see Introduction).
That is my hypothesis—that the proton and electron are really Dirac monopoles. The proton is actually a north magnetic monopole, and the electron is actually a south magnetic monopole.
Did you know that the dipole magnetic moments of the electron, proton and neutron are well-established experimental facts?

Originally Posted by L Wippler
In addition, just how would these magnetic monopoles behave?
Based on the observations, they seem to behave uncannily like dipole moments, rather than magnetic monopoles...

Originally Posted by L Wippler
[SNIP!]

Fig 1 C shows that a magnet’s north magnetic monopole would travel from the south pole of the bar magnet to the north pole of the bar magnet, and just the opposite would occur for the south magnetic monopole. Now both magnetic monopoles are moving in opposite directions. The north magnetic monopole will attract the south magnetic monopole in perpetual motion, creating a magnetic line of force. Without this perpetual motion of magnetic monopoles, you cannot have a magnetic field.
Then why are we not observing this movement of particles around a magnet?
If particles with mass were "tracing" the magnetic field lines, wouldn't we be able to intercept them, using -- for example -- a sheet of non-magnetic material?

25. I am locking this thread while the identity of the OP is investigated.