magnetic monopole

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Quarks are monopoles, they make up the neutrons and protons of an atom and they interact strongly with hard photons.

...

Gravock

That's well researched Gravock.  But there are also quarks assumed to be neutral.  How do you explain that?  And more to the point, particles can also be monopoles.  And even more to the point a monopole is simply the absence of a single charge.  That can be artificially engineered within a construction of magnets.  The monopole is not at all elusive.  It's just rather underused.

[gravityblock]

That's well researched Gravock.  1.)  But there are also quarks assumed to be neutral.  How do you explain that?  2.)  And more to the point, particles can also be monopoles.  3.)  And even more to the point a monopole is simply the absence of a single charge.  That can be artificially engineered within a construction of magnets.  The monopole is not at all elusive.  It's just rather underused.

1.)  Could you please provide references to quarks being neutral.
 
2.)  A quark is an elementary particle, so what is your point about particles can also be monopoles?

3.)  Please let me know how to artificially engineer a monopole within a construction of magnets.  If you're referring to a Halbach array where one pole is external and the other pole is mostly internal, then this isn't a magnetic monopole.  If it directly interacts with an electric charge, then it's not a magnetic monopole.

Below is a brief summary of the results derived from Comay’s equations.  For more information please see Unit 5 of "What's inside the Proton", which can be downloaded here.  For those who would like the complete version containing all of the Units, please send me a PM and I will send you the private download link.

  An electric charge does not interact directly with a magnetic monopole.

  A photon interacts with both electric charge and magnetic monopole.

  A spinning electric charge creates an axial magnetic dipole (according to Maxwell equations).

  A spinning magnetic monopole creates an axial electric dipole (which is dual to the
  previous point).

  A magnetic monopole interacts with another magnetic monopole. It interacts with a
  polar magnetic dipole but not with an axial magnetic dipole.

  An electric charge interacts with another electric charge. It interacts with a polar
  electric dipole but not with an axial electric dipole (which is dual to the previous
  point).

  The elementary unit of the monopole is a free parameter.

According to Comay’s theory, quarks carry one unit of a negative magnetic charge and anti-quarks have one unit of positive magnetic charge.

Gravock

[Rosemary Ainslie]

It's taken me a day to get back here.  Something's very wrong with Harti's new system.

1.)  Could you please provide references to quarks being neutral.

My dear Gravock, since you ask so nicely - by all means.  The first point is this.  With the possible exception of the 'up' quark - the existence of quarks has not been proved.  They were postulated - I think by Murray Gell-Mann  - to answer certain questions related to the profound structure of those more stable particles including the proton and the neutron.  The proposal is that a combination of various quarks defined as 'up' 'down' 'pink' and so on - comprise the material of hadrons.  Well.  We know that the proton is positively charged in relation to the electron.  We also know that the neutron - as its name suggests - is neutral - in relation to both the proton and the electron.  Therefore either the combination of quarks comprising the neutron - is neutral - or the quarks themselves are neutral.  The existence of a neutral potential is therefore both implicit and required.  My own authority on this is the Quark and the Jaguar - written by Murray Gell-Mann.  Very good reading. I would strongly recommend it.

2.)  A quark is an elementary particle, so what is your point about particles can also be monopoles?

A quark is NOT an elementary particle.  A quark is a PROPOSED element within an elementary particle.  But ALL particles are ELEMENTARY.  By definition.  I'm not sure of your point here.  My reference to this is that stable particles - which ONLY include the proton, electron and the photon - are postive, negative and neutral - correspondingly.  All three are ASSUMED to be monopoles?  So?  Why are you questioning this?  I might add that all other known particles have a rather questionably relevant life spans.  But they ALL fall into one of those charge categories.  Therefore not only CAN they be monopoles - they actually ARE monopoles.

3.)  Please let me know how to artificially engineer a monopole within a construction of magnets.  If you're referring to a Halbach array where one pole is external and the other pole is mostly internal, then this isn't a magnetic monopole.

The Halbach array has NOTHING to do with a monopole.  It's an arrangement of magnets designed to effect a perfectly neutral 'charge' condition - if I can use the term 'charge' in that context.  And NO - I'm not about to detour this already confusing thread to a discussion of how to bury a second pole inside anything at all.  But it most certainly is doable.  And as for this...?

If it directly interacts with an electric charge, then it's not a magnetic monopole.

What exactly do you mean?  Does an electron interact with another electron?  I think there's an acknowledged force of repulsion required by Pauli - which insight also formed the basis of our periodic table.  So?  On what do you base that extraordinary statement of yours?  An electron itself  is ASSUMED to be a magnetic monopole.  AS IS A PROTON.   

An electric charge does not interact directly with a magnetic monopole.

This is the kind of statement that makes my toes curl.  Define 'electric charge' and we can discuss this.  I believe that the confusions of the standard model are such that there is the ASSUMPTION that electric charge comprises the flow of electrons.  Sadly - that's a widely held assumption, which is also entirely FALLACIOUS.

A photon interacts with both electric charge and magnetic monopole.

IF photons interacted with electric charge then we would see light coming off every single wire carrying an electric current.  Not sure that this is the case.

A spinning electric charge creates an axial magnetic dipole (according to Maxwell equations).

Maxwell was not even alive when the quark was proposed - is the first point.  And what - in God's good name - is 'an axial magnetic dipole'?  Or indeed an 'axial electric dipole'?   And on and on.  What is a 'polar magnetic dipole'?  And what is a free parameter other than a license to speculate rather freely and somewhat illogically on anything at all.  Which makes the the following statement 'the elementary unit of the monopole is a free parameter' - somewhat fanciful - at best.

According to Comay’s theory, quarks carry one unit of a negative magnetic charge and anti-quarks have one unit of positive magnetic charge.

If, as you say, Comay's theory requires that ALL quarks are negatively charged - then there is NO WAY under God's Sun - that they can also form the parts of a proton.  Assuming, obviously, that quarks exist at all.

Gravock - I am not sure that any of us are enlightened by any science that's presented without clear definitions.  For starters - what is an electric current?  Define that and then move on from there.  Otherwise science tends to become somewhat absurdly pretentious - with respect.  When one can seriously propose a little foray into  'free parameters' then surely our speculations are just rather nonsensical attempts at trying to sound just so awfully clever.  Bamboozling by BS.  I think we've all had a bellyful of this.

Regards,
Rosemary

[BobTEW]

Sorry guys I need to work more on my theory.I made a better model today and can't explain what I found.Its not as easy as I thought!?!triffid

the spins lockup when they dissimilar, kinda like gears.

[gravityblock]

It's taken me a day to get back here.  Something's very wrong with Harti's new system.
My dear Gravock, since you ask so nicely - by all means.  The first point is this.  With the possible exception of the 'up' quark - the existence of quarks has not been proved.  They were postulated - I think by Murray Gell-Mann  - to answer certain questions related to the profound structure of those more stable particles including the proton and the neutron.  The proposal is that a combination of various quarks defined as 'up' 'down' 'pink' and so on - comprise the material of hadrons.

Quarks were introduced as parts of an ordering scheme for hadrons, and there was little evidence for their physical existence until deep inelastic scattering experiments at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in 1968.  All six flavors of quark have since been observed in accelerator experiments; the top quark, first observed at Fermilab in 1995, was the last to be discovered. (Reference: Quarks-wiki).  Since it's obvious you don't read the references I include in my posts, then I have included a snapshot of the wiki page below.

A quark is NOT an elementary particle.  A quark is a PROPOSED element within an elementary particle.  But ALL particles are ELEMENTARY.  By definition.  I'm not sure of your point here.  My reference to this is that stable particles - which ONLY include the proton, electron and the photon - are postive, negative and neutral - correspondingly.  All three are ASSUMED to be monopoles?  So?  Why are you questioning this?  I might add that all other known particles have a rather questionably relevant life spans.  But they ALL fall into one of those charge categories.  Therefore not only CAN they be monopoles - they actually ARE monopoles.

A quark is an elementary particle and a fundamental constituent of matter. Quarks combine to form composite particles called hadrons, the most stable of which are protons and neutrons, the components of atomic nuclei.  Not all particles are considered elementary by definition.  Protons and neutrons are by definition considered to be composite particles.  (Reference: Quarks-wiki).  See image below.   

Maxwell was not even alive when the quark was proposed - is the first point.  And what - in God's good name - is 'an axial magnetic dipole'?  Or indeed an 'axial electric dipole'?   And on and on.  What is a 'polar magnetic dipole'?  And what is a free parameter other than a license to speculate rather freely and somewhat illogically on anything at all.  Which makes the the following statement 'the elementary unit of the monopole is a free parameter' - somewhat fanciful - at best.
If, as you say, Comay's theory requires that ALL quarks are negatively charged - then there is NO WAY under God's Sun - that they can also form the parts of a proton. Assuming, obviously, that quarks exist at all.

I said, "A spinning electric charge creates an axial magnetic dipole (according to Maxwell equations)."  This statement is in regards to electric charges, which has nothing to do with Maxwell being alive or not when the quarks were first proposed.  Rose, I know you have bad eyesight, but your reading comprehension is even worst.

An axial magnetic dipole is created when electric charges move in a loop or when an electrically charged particle has a spin. Two dipoles apply forces on one another. The direction of the force depends on the exact setup of the dipoles and it generally does not coincide with the line connecting them. This kind of force is called a “tensor force”. (Reference: "What's inside the proton", page 105)  Again, you obviously didn't read this reference I provided in my earlier post.  If you had, then you wouldn't be asking these questions.

A polar electric dipole is created when two opposite electric charges are positioned one next
to the other and the sum of the charges vanishes. When observed from a distance, the electric
charges of two objects nearly cancel each other out and they behave similarly to an axial
dipole.  (Reference: "What's inside the proton", page 105)  See attached image below (For those who refuse to take a look at the publication itself).

Therefore, just as an electrically charged, spin 1â,,2 electron creates an axial magnetic dipole, the magnetically charged spin 1â,,2 quark creates an axial electric dipole. Based on the equations Comay developed, the quarks carrying the monopoles do not apply an electrical force directly on the electric charges. It is rather the force exerted by one axial electric dipole on another. That is to say, protons and neutrons can be considered as axial electric dipoles exerting tensor force on one another.

I never said, "Comay's theory requires that ALL quarks be negatively charged".  Where did I say this?  This is what I said.  I said, "quarks carry one unit of a negative magnetic charge and anti-quarks have one unit of positive magnetic charge."  You're confusing the quark's electrical charge with the quark's magnetic charge.  I clearly made the distinction between magnetic and electrical charges in my statement.

Gravock - I am not sure that any of us are enlightened by any science that's presented without clear definitions.  For starters - what is an electric current?  Define that and then move on from there.  Otherwise science tends to become somewhat absurdly pretentious - with respect.  When one can seriously propose a little foray into  'free parameters' then surely our speculations are just rather nonsensical attempts at trying to sound just so awfully clever.  Bamboozling by BS.  I think we've all had a bellyful of this.

Regards,
Rosemary

Rose, It seems that in order to support your convictions, you tend to ignore facts that do not go smoothly with your own model.  For starters - Don't reply to my posts if you haven't read the references submitted while being open-minded, even if they may go against your own model.  You're the one who is trying to bamboozle and hoodwink everyone with your BS model.  The science I presented does have clear definitions (You would have known this if you had actually read Comay's work or the references I provided).

Let's settle this issue.  Here's a link to all of the Units contained in the publication titled, "What's inside the Proton"(Complete Version), and you read it all the way through.  Then we'll both be on the same page and can have a rational discussion without all of the BS.  If you want clear definitions and terms, then read the publications and references provided.  If not, then don't reply to my postings.


Thanks,

Gravock