Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 03:12:12 UTC No. 16166749

There is some theory on the properties of a hypothetical magnetic monopole. But, a magnetic monopole has not been experimentally confirmed. Magnetic fields are formed from the motion of charge. In general, Maxwell’s equations tell us that magnetic flux must always be conserved through any closed surface, therefore, it is in the shape of a loop and cannot be a source or sink. There are many ways to experimentally determine this.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 03:13:18 UTC No. 16166751

>>16166738
Because the traditional view of magnetic fields is that of a line, when in reality it is a sphere. You can't have half a sphere, that's silly.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 03:22:23 UTC No. 16166758

>>16166749
Wouldnt it make more sense if the magnetic and electric field behaved the same? what is preventing the magnetic fields from having a source or a sink like the electric field? I understand the math that follows from maxwells equations but is there any explanation for why they are what they are besides experimental evidence?

Cult of Passion at Thu, 9 May 2024 03:23:21 UTC No. 16166760

>>16166738
A closed ring is a monovector....

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 03:31:16 UTC No. 16166768

There very well may be magnetic monopoles

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 03:37:07 UTC No. 16166773

>>16166758
There are electric sources and sinks because charge is a fundamental property of particles, where positive is typically a proton and negative, an electron. Therefore, we can have net positive or negative charge. There isn’t an equivalent particle for magnetic fields which either has net “north” or “south”. Instead, magnetic fields arise in closed loops when charges move. I’m thinking you’d violate conservation or charge or energy if you started violating conservation of magnetic flux. But, I am not an expert; just an EE.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 03:42:34 UTC No. 16166781

>>16166738
There is no such thing as a magnetic "pole," mono- or otherwise.

The conventional images of a "magnets," like bar magnets and solenoids, are an illusion. The real magnetic phenomenon is the flux loop, which conveys speed- and momentum-like information similar to a flywheel.
Asking why there are no monopoles is like asking why there's no East without a West, no North without a South. Magnetism is fundamentally a direction.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 21:35:42 UTC No. 16167995

>>16166773
>There are electric sources and sinks because charge is a fundamental property of particles
What is spin (as a quantum property)? Honest question.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 21:49:13 UTC No. 16168014

Faraday's tubes of force.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 22:17:55 UTC No. 16168071

>>16166738
>lower left image
Reminds me of some kind of configuration that was *almost* monopole.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 23:08:35 UTC No. 16168130

>>16166781
You should note that magnetic monopoles do exist at ∞. And much like black holes, we can make up a bunch of bullshit at this boundary condition.

Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 00:50:53 UTC No. 16168235

>>16166738
If there were, magnetic spin wouldn't be an intrinsic properly of particles.

Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 00:57:04 UTC No. 16168244

>>16167995
All intrinsic properties of objects tell you, loosely speaking, how that object responds to fields. You name a field, and I'll name the intrinsic property related to it
>Gravitational field yields mass
>Electric field yields charge
>Magnetic field yields spin
There are quantum fields (qft) as well
>Electroweak field yields isospin
>Qcd field yields color
>Highs field yields gauge boson mass
And so on. Spin is to magnetic field as charge is to electric field.

Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 03:21:38 UTC No. 16168450

>>16168130
>do exist at ∞
infinity doesn't exist retard

Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 22:45:06 UTC No. 16169778

>>16166738
it's more of an observational fact
lots of theorist would like them to exist

Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 23:00:55 UTC No. 16169794

>>16169778
More like a lot of perpetual motiontards would like them to exist. But they can't, because that's literally not what magnets are. See >>16166781

Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 23:06:23 UTC No. 16169805

>>16169794
i use magnetic charge, magnetic current, and magnetic dipoles extensively in advanced electromagnetics
there is nothing inconsistent in maxwell's equations with modeling those things
they just don't appear to exist from observational data
as far as we know, all magnetic phenomena are attributed to electric currents

Anonymous at Sat, 11 May 2024 00:16:05 UTC No. 16169896

>>16169805
>all magnetic phenomena are attributed to electric currents
So the spin of an electron is an electric current?

Anonymous at Sat, 11 May 2024 00:51:43 UTC No. 16169949

>>16166758
>Wouldnt it make more sense if the magnetic and electric field behaved the same?
Not necessarily - remember that the magnetic part of an electromagnetic field (as far as we currently understand it) is an exclusively relativistic phenomenon, and that part of the interaction is only present if there is some relative motion involved in whatever is generating the field and whatever is interacting with the field, whereas the electric part of the dynamics still exist whether there is relative motion or not. It's not necessarily unsurprising, then, that they don't follow *quite* the same behavior.

Anonymous at Sat, 11 May 2024 02:02:59 UTC No. 16170043

>>16169896
i thought of quantum magnetic dipole moments 2 seconds after submitting fuck face
people tried in vain for years to describe that shit classically as an electric current, with varying success