Prev: Einstein the supreme bungler - why Theory of General Relativity is bollocks
Next: How Wide Do All The Possible Computed Digit Sequences Go?
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 21 Jun 2010 01:39


It is rather good that I touch on this subject of the Universe being
the one and only
monopole in existence. Dirac had terrific physics intuition, certainly
the tallest
physicist of the 20th century of QM, and I am a baton carrier of
mostly
Dirac's legacy. Without a doubt, the biggest quantum mechanics
physicist of
that era that sported Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli and many others that
Dirac shines
brightest. Einstein was a midget compared to Dirac. But let me not get
carried away
on history.

It is good that I talk about monopole just immediately after talking
about whether
we have additive or multiplicative new radioactivities. Because
learning and understanding
complicated physics is best done when you have a bunch of stuff that
is similar or can ask
the same questions over a wide spectrum of phenomenon. For instance:

(1) Is it additive or multiplicative new radioactivities or both in
combinations?
(2) Is light ever travelling at the speed of light or is it always
slowed down due
to space always curved and space never being a full vaccuum?
(3) Is Space ever Euclidean or is it always a mix of both Elliptic and
Hyperbolic
that may be Euclidean in a few spots here and there?
(4) Can you ever have a "front" yet no "back"
(5) If you had a monopole, would it mean there is no quantum duality?
Because north and south poles of magnets are nothing more than
dualities.
(6) If you had a monopole, would it mean the Maxwell Equations are
wrong?
(7) If you had a monopole, would it mean that you had Euclidean
geometry
since a dipole means Elliptic.

I think all those questions are related to the question of whether a
monopole exists or
not.

I think that Dirac was both correct and wrong with his insistence of a
magnetic monopole.
I think he was wrong in thinking that a magnetic monopole would show
up as did the
positron for his Dirac Equation showed up in experiments. Dirac was
expecting monopoles
showing up as what happened when positrons showed up in experiments. I
think Dirac
was too persuaded by his insistence that the "electric charge is
always quantized". But to
save electric charge quantization, must we sacrifice Maxwell Equations
and Quantum Duality? So I think that Dirac never really talked about
what he would lose by having monopoles exist.

I think what Dirac made the mistake with monopole seeking was a
mistake in emphasis. He
emphasized the existence of monopoles to uphold electric charge as
always quantized. But
by having monopoles, we violate the Maxwell Equations and Quantum
Duality. So Dirac
wanted to uphold electric charge quantization but did not mind losing
Maxwell Equations and
Quantum Duality. So here, I think the logical question is whether we
can have a Universe
where we uphold charge quantization, Maxwell Equations and Quantum
Duality? Can we
uphold all three of those, not just charge quantization.

Dirac was correct by insisting that a monopole does exist. Only not
the sort of monopole that
Dirac had in mind, like a particle such as a positron validating his
Dirac Equation. The monopole that does exist is rather a condition of
the Universe. That the Universe itself
is a monopole as an "upper limit condition". This is a monopole that
we cannot generate in
a experiment. It is a condition of the Universe, not a particle.

Let me try to explain what I mean with the theory of light. We all
know that light has a speed
designated as "c" of which it is travelling in a vaccuum. But is there
a perfect vaccuum? Is there a
vaccuum at all? Probably not. And is not the Universe an elliptic
geometry meaning it has
a curvature and thus any light travelling in curved space is not going
to speed at "c". And so there is no light, ever, travelling at "c"
itself. So if all light is travelling at less than "c" does it mean
that the physics of light is wrong? No. It simply means
that light has a upper bound, an upper limit. Another place in physics
where we meet such
a condition is the absolute zero temperature. Nothing in the Cosmos is
0 Kelvin, but that does
not mean 0 Kelvin is nonexistant. It only means 0 Kelvin exists but is
an upper limit.

Monopole theory is the same sort of thing as the speed of light or 0
Kelvin. All magnets are dipoles,
but in the upper bound or upper limit we can rescue from the Universe
one monopole, the
universe itself. A dipole magnet simply means that the EM force is a
Elliptic geometry force
of going around in circles. To have a monopole magnet means that EM
force is Euclidean
flat plane geometry. No EM force is Euclidean flat plane. The only
place in physics where
light actually travels at the speed of light is a Euclidean flat plane
that is a vaccuum.

So Dirac was wanting to justify why electric charge is always
quantized, but it is quantized
not because the Universe has a monopole, but is quantized because
everything in the universe is duality driven. A monopole is not
duality but singularity. Light travelling at the speed of light is not
duality but a singularity. Dirac derives his need for a monopole by
considering the Schrodinger Equation in his book Directions in
Physics. But there is an
implied mistake that Dirac made in his derivation, on page 46 where he
gets:

Umin = (137/2)(e)

Dirac made a implicit mistake by using the Schrodinger Equation
without mention of
quantum duality. Positive charge is the dual of negative charge. Dirac
neglects that
bipolar magnets are duality relationships and Dirac neglects the
duality in his calculation
of Umin.

Noone is going to find a monopole in the laboratory, ever. But a
monopole exists as the
Universe in total is a monopole, just as the Universe in total has the
speed of light
travelling at "c" as a upper limit case. And just as the Universe has
0 Kelvin as the lower
limit of temperature.

So a monopole is not a object of existence, not an entity of existence
but a condition
of existence, a upper or lower limit condition.

So Dirac was both correct and wrong about his magnetic monopole. He
was right that
at least one exists, but it is not something that can be bottled in an
experiment. It is
a upper limit case of the entire Universe itself. Euclidean geometry
is the upper limit
case of Elliptic geometry where you have no more curves and bends but
everything
is straight lines with the parallel axiom. He was wrong in thinking
that experiments
would deliver some particle that was monopolic. And he was wrong in
not following up
on the logical implications of a monopole. Sure he had the motivation
of a electric
charge quantization, but he failed to subtract that the Maxwell
Equations are destroyed
and that the Quantum Duality is destroyed.

But it is to Dirac's credit that we now can make sense of magnetic
monopoles, because
without his adventure into that topic we would still be far into the
weeds.

P.S. I doubt that the Universe as a monopole itself can make easier
the question of
how all the matter we see is "electronic matter". Why we do not
recognize that
the Moon or Earth are parts of an electron in an Atom Totality and
would thus
appear charged matter. That we see matter as cosmically neutral
overall. I think what
masks this "electronic matter" is that space is positively charged
with positron space
and that makes the overall observable universe appear electrically
neutral.


Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Einstein the supreme bungler - why Theory of General Relativity is bollocks
Next: How Wide Do All The Possible Computed Digit Sequences Go?