"Magnetic current is the same as electric current. Current is [actually] a wrong expression. Really it is not one current, they are two currents, one current is composed of North Pole individual magnets in concentrated streams and the other is composed of South Pole individual magnets in concentrated streams, and they are are running one stream against the other stream in whirling, screwlike fashion, and with high speed." -- Edward Leedskalnin, stone mason, 1945
Dirac and Leedskalnin confirmed again. Last month scientists confirmed what Leedskalnin already knew -- magnetic monopoles exist.
Other scientists are just now repeating the discovery: Large-Scale Cousin Of Elusive 'Magnetic Monopoles' Found At NIST.
ScienceDaily (Oct. 8, 2009) — Any child can tell you that a magnet has a “north” and a “south” pole, and that if you break it into two pieces, you invariably get two smaller magnets with two poles of their own. But scientists have spent the better part of the last eight decades trying to find, in essence, a magnet with only one pole. A team working at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has found one.
In 1931, Paul Dirac, one of the rock stars of the physics world, made the somewhat startling prediction that “magnetic monopoles,” or particles possessing only a single pole—either north or south—should exist. His conclusion stemmed from examining a famous set of equations that explains the relationship between electricity and magnetism. Maxwell’s equations apply to long-known electric monopole particles, such as negatively charged electrons and positively charged protons; but despite Dirac’s prediction, no one [except Leedskalnin and the scientists last month] has found magnetic monopole particles.
Now, a research team working at NIST’s Center for Neutron Research (NCNR), led by Hiroaki Kadowaki of Tokyo Metropolitan University, has found the next best thing. By creating a compound that under certain conditions forms large, molecule-sized monopoles that behave exactly as the predicted particles should, the team has found a way to explore magnetic monopoles in the laboratory, not just on the chalkboard. (Another research team, working simultaneously, published similar findings in Science last month.)
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
7 comments:
OIM,
NIST team's work is cool.
However, the Scidaily Title is:
Large-Scale Cousin Of Elusive 'Magnetic Monopoles' Found At NIST.
The article does not claim detection of magnetic monopole, which is equivalent to an electric charge. Original Maxwell's equations were casted in quaternions, and mathematically, included scalar fields as well.
Somehow, I feel quaternion equations are more correct representation of the physical reality.
For those interested, look up "Spin Ice" and "Geometric Frustration" at Wiki.
@ KV:
I am interested in the electromagnetism possibilities, inherent in your comment:
"Original Maxwell's equations were casted in quaternions, and mathematically, included scalar fields as well.
Somehow, I feel quaternion equations are more correct representation of the physical reality."
This conclusion seems reasonable.
I have a difficult time understanding "quaterion" ideas. One loose analogy, that gets discussed from time to time is an electromagnetic "figure eight" or "infinity" insignia shaped energy structure.
This figure also seems to come into play with 'sigmoids', which have been observed & measured in the Sun's atmosphere in the corona. And perhaps at the poles on Venus.
As stated in a Universe Today article, Solar Sigmoids Explained:
"The new model describes how sigmoids consist of many thin and twisted layers (or ribbons) of strong electric current. When these layers interact it leads to the formation of the observed powerful flares and the eruption of strong magnetic fields which carry highly energetic particles into interplanetary space."
(Images of sigmoids accompany the UT article -- notice the two "J" shapes come together to form a structure similar to a "figure eight" or "infinity" insignia.)
"He [Dr. Vasilis Archontis] remarks, “Sigmoids work as 'mangers' or 'cocoons' for solar eruptions."
This comes to mind because there are four quadrants in a "figure eight" and seemingly in the 'sigmoid' and presumably, 'quaternion' refers to four energy regions, but perhaps my idea is mistaken.
KV, I would be very much appreciate and be interested in your explanation of the 'quaternions' concept, and your opinion regarding my attempt at a loose anology using the 'sigmoid' example.
Solar Sigmoids Explained
Do the presence of plasmoids result in a localized electromagnetic disturbance around the plasmoid. (Could a 'sigmoid' be a type of plasmoid?)
I suggest it does.
I suggest "ball" lightning comes into play, along these same lines. And why do reports of "ball" lightning often (the existence of "ball" lighting is disputed, and if it does exist, is rare, at that, so the use of the word, "often" is somewhat a misnomer) note that the physical phenomenon, "ball" lighting, moves irradically, seemingly independent of gravity?
KV, I also am interested in your take on the concept that frequency and resonance are related to "spin".
I ask this because I wonder if tuning for frequency and resonance might be a way to set up electromagnetic conditions that cause physical phenomenon that while very rare in Nature, such as "ball" lighting, are, yet, still possible nevertheless?
Could it be that "ball" lightning is an example of a result of random conditions (actually very specific conditions) that happen only very infrequently in Nature?
And, if so, could Man, with sufficient understanding of the frequency and resonance dynamics, and control, thereof, reconstitute these very specific conditions to create these rare physical phenomenon at will?
In other words, technological manipulation of physical phenomenon for the benefit of Man.
Could it be that very specific physical conditions cause very specific physical reactions, namely, physical phenomenon which seemingly act contrary to our present understanding of physical laws like gravity?
Could it be that specific electromagnetic frequecies and resonances result in electromagnetic behavior ("spin" and electron behavior, or something else) which has the appearance of acting counter to gravity?
Recent posts have discussed possible anti-gravity effects: Leedskalnin's coral castle and acoustical anti-gravity. The Hutchinson effect is another anti-gravity effect.
Could it be that specific frequency and resonance modulation can be employed to cause specific electromagnetic processes that can, in turn, be manipulated and directed to behave in ways that cause an anti-gravity effect in specific material bodies?
If, as Leedskalnin says, the Earth is a large magnet, could electromagnetic tuning by frequency and resonance cause objects to take up an "opposite" polarity from the Earth, which would cause in result an anti-gravity effect akin to placing two similar magnetic poles together?
Something loosely akin to how air pressure overcomes gravity, but instead of fluid dynamics controlling the process, as in the case of airplanes, instead, electrodynamics control the process.
The schematic in the instant post suggests that "magnetic current" can act in ways that current science doesn't understand.
Could this possible insight allow for more exacting control of electromagnetic phenomenon?
Am I thinking outside the box? Hell yes. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. Is it worth exploring the possibilities, even in the face of possible failure and error?
Emphatically yes!
Thinking outside the box is how Man advances his understanding of the physical world.
Man is unlikely to have large steps of progress without small missteps of error and failure during the journey.
Well, it's apparent the magnetic "monopole" concept is completely at odds with current electromagnetic theory.
And, by and large, all the examples for the magnetic "monopole" hypothesis can be explained by current electromagnetic theory...except if one accepts Leedskalnin's supposed ability to employ the anti-gravity effects resultant from his hypothesis to move the giant blocks of coral at his coral castle.
Too bad, nobody knows whether he actually did...or not.
So, now I have a taste of what it's like to have a theory you are familiar with and are convinced has validity be challenged by a rival hypothesis that suggests superior power (anti-gravity), but has a definite lack of observation & measurement to support it.
The challenge is to approach the rival hypothesis with an open-mind, yet reasonable sceptism.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the-Creator-claims-academic.html
Not a new interpretation, but interesting that a solo run gets this sort of prominence? Fits with EU too, of course.
Post a Comment