Magentic monopole is half a gluon
in [Physics]
|
Prev: ARINDAM BANERJEE, the South Hemisphere Physics Genius nails the Einstein 's groveling sycophants of the well documented Intellectual Thief to the barn door !
Next: What does a gluon look like?
From: Igor on 15 Apr 2010 13:16 On Apr 15, 1:35 am, mathematician <hapor...(a)luukku.com> wrote: > I looked the Standard Model page from Wikipedia, and > I noticed that one important matter which I remember > that H-M told long time a go was that > > "Magnetic monopole is half a gluon" > > I have thought possibilities that magnetic monopoles > could be those small right neutrinos binded as couples > or magnetic monopoles could be right and wrong neutrino > couples binded together ? > > Hannu Poropudas Whatever they are, magnetic monopoles should be elementary objects, and should not be capable of any further breakdown in terms of more elementary particles.
From: mathematician on 16 Apr 2010 03:12 On 15 huhti, 17:58, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 15, 1:35 am, mathematician <hapor...(a)luukku.com> wrote: > > > I looked the Standard Model page from Wikipedia, and > > I noticed that one important matter which I remember > > that H-M told long time a go was that > > > "Magnetic monopole is half a gluon" > > > I have thought possibilities that magnetic monopoles > > could be those small right neutrinos binded as couples > > or magnetic monopoles could be right and wrong neutrino > > couples binded together ? > > Word salad is not a substitute for careful thought. > > A gluon is an intermediate vector bozon for the strong force. > > A magnetic monopole is a (postulated but not yet observed) > particle with a magnetic charge. It arises from some grand > and super unification theories. In those theories it does not > arise in any way related to "half a gluon." > > The interactions a gluon may go through do not include > splitting in half to form a magnetic monopole. > > Monopoles arise in a theory that involves symmetry breaking. > Because magnetic field lines ordinarly do not have an end, > there has to be some special process that allows them to > have a source or sync at a magnetic charge. This is done > through spontaneous symmetry breaking in the usual theory > that involves them. > Socks I think that knowledge that "magentic monopole is half of a gluon" could be important unknown relation between electromagnetism and strong interaction ? Hannu
From: Puppet_Sock on 16 Apr 2010 13:11 On Apr 15, 1:16 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: [snip] > Whatever they are, magnetic monopoles should be elementary objects, > and should not be capable of any further breakdown in terms of more > elementary particles. There is no data to decide such on. The basic idea of a monopole is very roughly like so: In order to have a net source of magnetic field (or sync with the opposite charge) you have to do something very different from the usual electro- magnetic field at the particle itself. The usual idea is to suppose that the electro-magnetic field is the "frozen out" portion of a more complicated field, and the U(1) symmetry of E&M is all that remains of a higher symmetry after spontaneous symmetry breaking. With only the U(1) field, there is no way to have a magnetic field that is both smooth everywhere, and a net source of magnetic field lines. (See the "hairy ball" theorm.) But with restored symmetry (at very short distances from the monopole) you fill in the U(1) circle, and allow the field to change continuously through other configurations. The usual way of expressing this is, try to imagine shrinking a Mobius strip from a finite size to zero size. You can't do it continously, because the strip always has a "wind" in it, and that can't go away continuously. But if you "fill in" the allowed configurations of the mobious strip to be a solid ring, then the strip is embedded in the larger possible configurations. Instead of a single line at each point around the loop, you have a disk. And that allows you to continuously move from having a kink, to not having a kink. (You have to imagine the edge of the strip moving around on the surface of a torus.) However, we don't yet have a good theory of how that would happen. We don't have a super unification theory that has been confirmed. So we don't really know if such a particle could exist as a singlet (that is, a fundamental particle) or would be a member of some kind of multiplet. We don't know if it should look like an electron (which sure seems to be fundamental) or a proton (which has sub-component quarks). It might even be the case that a monopole could come in both types. But we don't have any data one way or the other. They might not even be possible for all we can tell from measurements. Socks
From: Puppet_Sock on 16 Apr 2010 13:14 On Apr 16, 3:12 am, mathematician <hapor...(a)luukku.com> wrote: [snip] > I think that knowledge that > "magentic monopole is half of a gluon" > could be important unknown relation between > electromagnetism and strong interaction ? That is not a useful statement. It is a garbled collection of words jumbled together. It is word salad. We know the nature of electromagnetism. We know how the strong force behaves. Neither includes magnetic monopoles. To get monopoles you need to go outside the behaviour of the strong and electromagnetic forces. Read a book. Repeat as required. Socks
From: J. Clarke on 16 Apr 2010 13:57
On 4/16/2010 1:14 PM, Puppet_Sock wrote: > On Apr 16, 3:12 am, mathematician<hapor...(a)luukku.com> wrote: > [snip] >> I think that knowledge that >> "magentic monopole is half of a gluon" >> could be important unknown relation between >> electromagnetism and strong interaction ? > > That is not a useful statement. It is a garbled > collection of words jumbled together. It is word salad. > > We know the nature of electromagnetism. We know how the > strong force behaves. Neither includes magnetic monopoles. > To get monopoles you need to go outside the behaviour of the > strong and electromagnetic forces. > > Read a book. Repeat as required. You left out a word. Read a _hard_ book, one that makes you think through exercises that actually have right and wrong answers. Harlequin Romances don't count. |