Talk:Magnetic monopole/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Stray text

stray text from another page; anything not already on article needs to be merged in:

"Magnets exert forces on one another; similarly to electric charges, like poles will repel each other and unlike poles will attract. There is one big difference between magnets and electric charges, though - magnetic poles always exist in north-south pairs! If you take a magnet and cut it in half, you don't wind up with just a north pole and just a south pole; you wind up with two smaller magnets, each with its own north and south poles. An isolated magnetic pole is called a magnetic monopole; it has been theorized that such things might exist in the form of tiny particles similar to electrons or protons, but no such particles have ever been found."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarquin (talk • contribs) 14:24, 21 February 2003 (UTC)

Merged. looxix 18:32 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

From "Talk:Magnetic monopole (crackpot)" [ deletion log ] :

"Until now, no magnetic monopoles have ever been discovered. Nonetheless, if such monopoles could actually exist, they would cause an unprecedented revolution in electrical engineering. For instance, if one could replace the iron core of a transformer with an identical core that would be made of a substance containing free magnetic monopoles, in other words, of a 'magnetic conductor', this transformer could work as well on direct current as on alternating current, perhaps better on DC,judging from the latest theories claiming that magnetic monopoles are much heavier than electrically charged elementary particles."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by The Anome (talk • contribs) 11:38, 10 September 2003 (UTC)

Kuhne theory

Have included a reason for the Kuhne theory being mentioned. I'm not convinced that the theory is well enough accepted to deserve a mention, but seeing the whole area is speculative I think it may deserve a place. EddEdmondson 12:50 Dec 16, 2003.

Understanding

From reading this article, I don't understand why protons and electrons do not count as magnetic monopoles. Could someone give a definition that clearly to a beginner does not include the charged particles we are familiar with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.88.39 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 17 December 2003 (UTC)

An idea from a post further down: The protons and electrons would be electric, not magnetic, monopoles, and those are known to exist.  — Sverdrup (talk) 14:24, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ah, that's helping a little bit. The magnetic monopole article has a link to charge in the first sentence, referring to "magnetic charge", but there is only an article on "electric charge". I still don't quite know what the difference is between those two things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.88.39 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 19 December 2003 (UTC)

IMO, this is abt the dipole article not being helpful enuf, and i am really hesitant to tackle that bcz of limited expertise; wish someone else would, and add some stuff in this article as well. But:

An electric monopole is simply a point charge, and a charged particle is a very good approximation to a point charge. I may never have heard the expression "magnetic charge" before, but let it stand; i suspect it could be just a metaphor based on analogy between

• electric dipoles that sometimes are made up of two equal and opposite charges or electric monopoles, and
• the hypothetical magnet (not based on motion of charges, but a dipole composed of two magnetic monopoles), that would act like the magnets we know, except that when "broken in half", the two equal and opposite magnetic charges, or magnetic monopoles, could be manipulated separately.

--Jerzy 20:48, 2003 Dec 19 (UTC)

Other thoughts

This article doesn't cover all the views on this. For example, Maxwell's equations tells us that no monopoles exist. Or is that irrelevant?  — Sverdrup (talk) 15:58, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It may be worth mentioning this, but I think this is in Maxwell's Equations because no-one's ever seen a monopole rather than any more fundamental reason. EddEdmondson 12:50 Dec 16, 2003.

Now I don't know about the math of all this, I'm just posting so that better-knowing can answer my thinking. If it is stated in Maxwell's equation, then ain't it fundamental of the reason that commonly accepted fundamental theories are derived from the Maxwell equations?  — Sverdrup (talk) 14:01, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, actually Maxwell's equations could easily be fixed to accomodate magnetic monopoles. Just like the first equation ($\nabla \cdot \mathbf {D} =\rho$) accounts for electric monopoles, the second equation could be rewritten $\nabla \cdot \mathbf {H} =$"magnetic charge density". In the absence of magnetic monopoles, this would of course predict the same behaviour as today. Rasmus Faber 14:19, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Aha, I see. So the article is all about whether Maxwell's postulate that they do not exist is true or not? Thanks.  — Sverdrup (talk) 14:24, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

PS: for show symmetries on Magnetic monopole#Maxwell's Equations, see section "Nondimensionalization of fundamental physical equations" on Planck units article. To see another view of "it is all fine with Maxwells eqs", see also expression on bivectors -- 200.153.156.239 03:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Paragraphs need work

I am moving the following 'graph out of the article Magnetic monopole for work:

"However, there is a theory by Rainer W. Kühne from 1997 in which he predicts a second kind of photon, the "magnetic photon", which if found would provide indirect evidence for Dirac monopoles. This magnetic photon may have been observed by Kundt. New experiments to test Kühne's theory appear to confirm the magnetic photon rays."

It is so tenuous in the first sentence, and so vague in the second, as to merely confuse things.

IMO it could be the beginning of a longer 'graph or two that would enhance the article, but now its not yet ready for prime time. --Jerzy 19:41, 2003 Dec 18 (UTC)

Similarly, the sentence abt DC transformers resulting (which could itself badly use some explanation & references!) ended

"perhaps better on DC, judging from the latest theories claiming that magnetic monopoles are much heavier than electrically charged elementary particles."

Put it back, IMO, when "the latest theories" have names and authors, and when "much heavier" is clear enough that, e.g., we know a magnetic monopole would still be light enough to be mobile in these "magnetic conductors". --Jerzy 21:44, 2003 Dec 19 (UTC)

Another:

"This creates a problem, because it predicts that the monopole density today should be about the times the critical density of our Universe, according to the Big Bang model."

I have little idea about this subject, but that doesn't look right to me. Motor 23:58, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

At first glance one would think they meant "three", but according to [1] it's 10¹¹. -- Tim Starling 00:04, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

Request?

I have just written Eric Laithwaite and was surprised to find a link in this article. Could somebody tie a bow round this please? I've also added Felix Ehrenhaft whose claims are better known (to me) Cutler 13:19, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plz clarify yr request. --Jerzy(t) 08:26, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)

Ah, i see: no mention except in link. But the link was added in the edit [ diff ] described as

. 20:21, 2003 Dec 19 . . The Anome (* Eric Laithwaite)

at the page history; it may be worth consulting User:The Anome or inspecting their other edits that hour or the next day. --Jerzy(t) 08:41, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)

Distraction?

The following reference from the article & section Magnetic monopole#External links may be of interest to specialists, but IMO is not worth the distraction it has been presenting to more typical readers:

• A review of monopole search experiments (presented as a table in Adobe pdf format)

--Jerzy(t) 08:26, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)

vector magnetic monopole?

What about a source of vector magnetic potential, rather than magnetic field lines? That's technically different from a magnetic monopole, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.231.197 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 11 October 2004 (UTC)

Adding a function with no curl (but some divergence) to the vector potential has no physical effect. So a source of vector potential isn't a meaningful physical concept. This is explained in Griffiths 3rd ed. section 5.4, ISBN 0-13-919960-8 -- Tim Starling 01:44, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Single magnetic monopole in the universe

Referring to [2]: it's not necessary for even a single magnetic monopole to be present in the universe, there only needs to be the potential for one to exist. The argument is that charge quantisation is required for renormalisation of the magnetic monopole wavefunction. -- Tim Starling 01:39, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Magnetic monopole applications?

Can anyone perhaps give some examples of magnetic monopole applications (assuming magnetic monopoles would ever be discovered)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermagle (talk • contribs) 12:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

There are two major ones that I know of.

1. Conversion of matter into monopolium. If introduced into normal matter monopoles would effectively become the nucleus of the atoms, with nucleons orbiting them and electrons ejected into an external electron sea. Because orbital radius is proportional to mass, the resulting matter would be on the order of a million times denser than normal matter.
2. Monopole-catalyzed total conversion plants. Massed monopoles in excited energy states catalyze nucleon decay, via the following reactions: $\scriptstyle M+n\rightarrow M+\pi ^{-}+e^{+}\,\!$ and $\scriptstyle M+p\rightarrow M+\pi ^{0}+e^{+}\,\!$. Atomic nuclei are therefore converted into electrons and mesons, which will then decay further into more electrons and energy. Essentially matter is converted into energy with a very high efficiency.

67.86.75.109 23:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

How to make a monopole

My friend, lets call him Peter, wondered why you can't make a monopole by cutting a magnet in half and glue the positive ends together so that there will be two negetive ends? Please explain why this is impossible so I can tell him and my Physics teacher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.177.121 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It is conventional to call one side of a magnet north and the other side south instead of positive and negative. The two poles which you glued together in the middle won't go away for no reason. Therefore there is no monopole created. --MarSch 09:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

You can "simulate" a monopole field with a thin fulfilled cylindrical magnet, and see only one extremity. -- 200.153.155.232 Jan 2007

Can someone explain this in English?

The length scale over which this special vacuum configuration exists is called the correlation length of the system. A correlation length cannot be larger than causality would allow, therefore the correlation length for making magnetic monopoles must be at least as big as the horizon size determined by the metric of the expanding Universe. According to that logic, there should be at least one magnetic monopole per horizon volume as it was when the symmetry breaking took place.

This statement consists primarily of self-referential jargon, and desperately needs to be re-written:

1. What is the "correlation length", and why does it exist?
2. Why can't it be "larger that causality would allow"? What does this even mean?
3. What "horizon size determined by the metric of the expanding Universe"? Do you mean "the size of the universe"?
4. Why should there be 1 monopole per volume? And what volume, I thought we were talking about length?
5. If there's 1 per such volume, why do we expect 10^11 of them today? Alternately this could be re-phrased as why is the volume 10^11 different than it was during the symmetry breaking? And when did this occur?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Maury Markowitz (talk • contribs) 18:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't explain all of it, but the questions you ask lead into other areas of physics, rather than magnetic monopoles. For 1, the correlation length is the distance over which quantum vacuum fluctuations influence (or correlate with) one another. So this leads to a volume of the area within that distance, which is where you get the volume you mention in 4. For 3, the horizon size is the size of the observable universe. See the wikipedia page on 'observable universe'. Notably, the early observable universe was much smaller than it is now, and at one point it would have been 10^-11 times the volume, which may go some way towards clarifying that. None of this is self referential, and in my opinion is written just fine. It's just using scientific terms you may be unfamiliar with. Perhaps it might be a good idea to link up some of the technical terms to their relevant wikipedia pages though. Also, a 'correlation length' article would be useful if anyone is skilled enough to write it. 314159 00:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Mass

From the article:

"The most recent such experiments suggest that monopoles with masses below 600 GeV/c² do not exist, while upper limits on their mass due to the existance of the universe (which would have collapsed by now if they were too heavy) is about 1026 eV."

These two figures should be converted to the same notation for clarity. I'd do it myself but I'd have to bust my brains to remember how, and then I'd probably screw it up. Also, I don't understand why the first figure has the "/c²"; it's a constant, so do the math for the poor reader. KarlBunker 17:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This has been fixed - it should be eV/c^2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crumley (talk • contribs) 20:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You remember E=mc²? Well, eV and GeV are units of energy. So, if we take Einstein's famous equation, and divide by c² on both sides, we get E/c²=m. Thus, we can measure mass in units of energy divided by the square of the speed of light. Properly, we should use eV/c² or GeV/c² in both cases, but physicists are lazy, and it is a sufficiently strong and widespread convention that the c² is frequently left off in practice. If we "[did] the math for the poor reader" by actually dividing by c², we'd have to choose some non-standard and/or less informative units for mass. 600 GeV is the rest mass energy of a particle massing 600 GeV/c², to explain why the chosen units are particularly informative. See Electronvolt#Using electronvolts to measure mass for somebody else's wording of what I just said. Jon Wilson 24.162.120.52 03:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Magnetic force

The article says:"The magnetic force is actually due to the finite speed of a disturbance of the electric field, the speed of light, which gives rise to forces that appear to be acting along a line at right angles to the charges. In effect, the magnetic force is the portion of the electric force directed to where the charge used to be."

I find this to be bull. This would predict no magnetic force from an electrically neutral current carrying wire (because there was never an electric force). I don't know if the author of this part was trying to explain the Lorentz transformation of the EM field but I think the way it is written is very misleading. Achoo5000 04:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Apr 06 removal

The following was just added:

---

Although Maxwell equation do not support monopoles J. Garcia suggested that if the radial part of the Magnetic field :$B=a/(r-d)^{2}$ where d is somehow a distance from the origin to a point (a,b,c) on R^{3} for r=d the magnetic field goes to inifnite, if we take the equation

$\nabla \times \mathbf {E} =-{\frac {\partial \mathbf {B} }{\partial t}}$

and integrate over a surface :$T=S+S(\epsilon )$ where epsilon is the surface of a sphere with center in (a,b,c) the volume enclosed by this surface avoids the singularity at r=d so the volume of integration would be  :$V-V(\epsilon )$ we have that B comes from a rotational (curl) so div(rot(E))=0 but we had that:

$\iint _{S}dsRot(E)-\iint _{S(\epsilon )}Rot(E)ds=0$ (divergence theorem),the Rot(E)=-dB/dt and the integral over the sphere making epsilon tends to 0 is equal to  :$4\pi {B(d,t)}$ so we can associate a "magnetic charge" to the point where singularity for B occurs in the form:

$divB=Q_{m}=-4\pi {\int _{a}^{t}{duB(d,u)}}$

to make this valid the radial part of the magnetid field should depend only on the variable r and t but not on the angles :$\Omega$, every time there is a singularity of the magnetic field, there is also a magnetic charge associated to this, if we are integrating over the surface of an sphere, its normal vector is n(r) and the integral is equal to :$\int _{0}^{R}f(r+d)4\pi {r^{2}}dr$ so the quadratic singularity cancels, making the radius tend to 0 we get the value f(d) being d the distance from the origin to the center of the sphere.

---

I've removed it as original research. Melchoir 18:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge Dirac monopole into this article

The two articles discuss aspects of the same general idea, so I'd suggest merging them. Yevgeny Kats 03:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Yevgeny Kats 16:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

General observations

Would it be better to write Maxwell's Equations in such a way that does not assume the medium is free space? For example, writing Gauss' Law of Electric Charge as Div(D) = Pe rather than Div(E) = Pe/epsilon? This would allow any medium (including anisotropic and non-linear mediums) to be represented. Also, what are the units of the magnetic charge density variable? When I do the calculations, I am getting Coulombs per cubic meter. Shouldn't the magnetic charge density be in units of webers per cubic meter? Can someone please give a second opinion on this? Nlalic 09:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard any response, so I've made the changes outlined above Nlalic 08:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"Criticism" and ensuing edit war

Magnetic monopole relevance?

Lorentz transformations can be used to prove that magnetic and electric fields are simply different aspects of the same force — the electromagnetic force. From this point of view, the magnetic monopole is only a "relativistic manifestation" of the electric field and electric charges. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.153.155.232 (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Then, there are two strong arguments about "Magnetic monopole non-relevance" for usual physics:

• A - All observed magnetic fields, and all magnetic effects, are actually due to the motion of charged particles, and explained in terms of "electric charges dynamics".

• B - The Electromagnetism Theory and Relativity suggest that only electric charges exist, magnetic charges not make sense.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.153.155.232 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 22 January, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[Interjected] (see 26 Jan Notes below) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.153.156.239 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear contributor IP 200.153.155.232,

Magnetic monopoles make much sense in particle physics. In particular, they're predicted by Grand Unified Theories. Other possibilities exist as well. This is explained in the article to some extent. In addition, I would recommend you reading about it in one of the following textbooks:

• Srednicki, "Quantum Field Theory", chapter 92
• Weinberg, "The Quantum Theory of Fields", volume 2, chapter 23.3

Therefore, your claims that magnetic monopoles are irrelevant to physics are at least very inaccurate. Yevgeny Kats 06:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Yevgeny, please:

1. We take care to use the term "usual physics"... interpret it as "usual Wikipeadia readers".
2. This (the "non-relevance" view) is another point of view ... If it is also CORRECT (it is not??), it MUST stay on the article, please NOT REVERT, discuss here first.
3. Read WP:NPOV, all sections.
4. Put back the Criticism section (reverted by you on 22 January 2007), or adapt it with your words.

200.153.156.239 02:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Notes:

• About A: see on the article's Background, it is wrong?
• About B: there is (EXIST and all Physics accept!) a very good and consistent (with the "this days" empirical reality) set of comproved theories... and they not need a "future possible observable particle" (based on the non-empirical aesthetic "symmetry principles").

200.153.156.239 03:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the "Criticism" section,

Criticism There are three (strong) arguments for another point of view, where Magnetic monopole assumptions are non-relevant: Background: all observed magnetic fields and magnetic effects are explained in terms of the motion of charged particles. Theoretical models and explanation: the Electromagnetism theory and Relativity theory suggest that, even in thought experiments, "only electric charges" make sense. Symmetry and aesthetic principles supply good clues on Physics, but, only it, not provide a sufficient argument for a Reality explanation.

for the following reasons.

• The main point it made (that presently-known magnetic effects can be adequately explained in terms of electric charges only) is already made more clearly elsewhere in the article.

[Interjected] Yes, the link (click and see) for Background is for this point. -- Lixo2 21:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• It claimed to be offering "strong reasons" when in fact all it offered was hand-waving. One person's gut feeling about how physics should be doesn't constitute "strong reasons".

[Interjected] Ok, change the text (deleting the word "strong"), but not delete the section. -- Lixo2 21:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• It seemed to be assuming that the article is claiming that there are monopoles, which in fact it certainly isn't. (If it's not, then I'm not sure what "irrelevant" is meant to mean; perhaps that no one should waste their time thinking about monopoles? But it would be insane to say that no one should think about monopoles because one person thinks they aren't needed.)

[Interjected] The criticism is a section for show (resume) another point of view. Change the text, but not delete the section. -- Lixo2 21:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• It was entirely unsourced. It looks like "original research"; if it isn't, then some sort of reference(s) should be provided.

[Interjected] FALSE ARGUMENT: see links (and the criticism is a abstract/resume, the complete explanation is at the links), if unsourced articles, or you not like, TALK on linked-articles. -- Lixo2 21:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Text and sources from another colaborator was removed by User:Yevgeny Kats without justification (as span!?). "has recently shown that the Dirac's derivation is inconsitent with the fundamentas of mathematics" Revision as of 21:17, 10 February 2007, an cited a scienceDirect author, A. R. Hadjesfandiari, see "Field of the Magnetic Monopole". For delete this (and not delete Brau 2004 or Shnir 2005), need some justification. -- Lixo2 22:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• (Less important, because more fixable) It was very unclearly written; in particular, the third alleged "strong reason" was very difficult to make sense of. (I think what it meant was that just because one theory is more symmetrical than another, it doesn't follow that it actually describes reality better. Well, indeed, but no one is claiming otherwise.)

[Interjected] Ok, your opinion; change the text, but not delete the section. -- Lixo2 21:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Gareth McCaughan 13:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Plese, put back the section, and change/adapt the text for your sugestions. The criticism section show another point of view, and is on NPOV dispute. Lixo2 21:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Lixo2: you haven't actually answered my reasons for deleting that section. You agree that the main point it makes is already present elsewhere in the article. You don't deny that the alleged "strong reasons" are mere hand-waving. You don't clarify whether you think the article is claiming that there are monopoles (which I think it clearly isn't), or whether you agree that it isn't (in which case your criticisms aren't at all to the point). The only source you have to offer is an unrefereed article on the arXiv by a mechanical engineer which supposedly claims that Dirac's derivation is "inconsistent with the fundamentals of mathematics"; see Melchoir's comments below. As for the NPOV dispute, looking at that page it seems that you raised a complaint and then didn't respond to the person attempting to resolve the dispute, twice; in any case, making such a complaint doesn't confer immunity from criticism. Gareth McCaughan 00:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

About Criticism section: the irrelevance is a common point of view, and it is expressed here (at the article and linked articles) at the Wikipedia... readers need a alert for it.

About Gareth McCaughan comments: the answer is here for all readers, not only for your interpretation. The "article on arXiv by a mechanical engineer" is not relevant for the NPOV dispute.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.178.200 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No sources ==> no section. Please stop. Melchoir 23:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

FOR WHAT?? Electromagnetism theory and Relativity theory ??? PLEASE STOP TO DELETE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.178.200 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

For what is exactly the problem. It is not enough to point to well-known elements of other physical theories to make an argument about magnetic monopoles. You have to be able to attribute the statement about magnetic monopoles to some source. See WP:NOR for details. Melchoir 23:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

As I already said in an edit summary: "WP:V -- it is the duty of those who wish to add content to attribute reliable sources. Please do so." – Luna Santin (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A. R. Hadjesfandiari

A. R. Hadjesfandiari's article on arXiv is not a reliable source, since it is self-published. Whenever you see an article on arXiv under "General Physics" without a journal ref, those should both be red flags. Melchoir 05:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, now that I see the above section, this appears to be a chronic problem with the article. Please stop attempting to add it. Melchoir 05:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the articles on arxiv.org are also moderated and can not be self-published easily. Hadjesfandiari's second article on arxiv.org has been rejected. -Mohseng 04:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Being kicked off of arXhiv, which accepts papers before they have been reviewed by journals, can hardly qualify the author as a reliable source. Every now and then an author whose work was rejected everywhere proves to be correct and their work is eventually accepted. Wikipedia, however does not have a place for such authors until that acceptance takes place. See WP:V.--agr 06:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You must be kidding. Being on arXiv does not qualify a person let alone being kicked out of it! I was responding to Melchoir after he said (I hope you fully read it) 'the articles on arXiv are "self-published"' by explaining to him that THEY ARE NOT because they have moderators and they intervene, apparently as Hadjesfandiari claims so. that's all. In contrast, if I publish my paper on my own website, that's called self-publishing. phew.. Now, if the paper is not worthy in their opinion or if there is something in the paper that they do not like, I am not sure. The paper is anyway available in his webpage if somebody wants to read it. I suggest to Hadjesfandiari, if he reads these: talk to the moderators at arXiv or find forums over the net and discuss this. Also we would be happy if he could discuss over here. -Mohseng 21:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Melchoir is correct. Posting a paper on arXhiv is considered self-publishing. The fact that they have some limits as to what can go up there doesn't change that fact. It's simply not a reliable source for Wikipedia. What Dr. Hadjesfandiari is doing is considered original research. Original research is a good thing, but Wikipedia does not offer a home for it, even on the talk pages. So, no, he is not welome to discuss it here. Please read WP:NOR.--agr 10:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I am curious to know the reaction of people who have read the Hajdesfandiari [ deletion log ] papers (arXiv) and inconsistency of magnetic monopole on denial of Magnetic monpoles. The problem is with the differentiability of B/integrability of A around the negative z axis which apparently has been ignored by Dirac. The Wu/Young explanation does not seem to fix the problem. If the idea proves Dirac were wrong, there will be enourmous repercussions in physics. -Mohseng 05:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC).

Reasons to the Criticism are here!

Criticism There are, at this article and linked articles, arguments for another point of view, where Magnetic monopole assumptions are non-relevant: Background: all observed magnetic fields and magnetic effects are explained in terms of the motion of charged particles. Theoretical models and explanation (see Lorentz transformations): the Electromagnetism theory and Relativity theory suggest that, even in thought experiments, "only electric charges" make sense. Symmetry and aesthetic principles supply good clues on Physics, but, only it, not provide a sufficient argument for a Reality explanation.

1. Magnetic_monopole#Background: "The modern understanding of magnetism posits that all magnetic effects are actually due to the motion of charged particles; that is, all magnets are in fact electromagnets". And at Magnetic_monopole#Maxwell.27s_Equations: "... the empirical background and usual models of matter: on Earth, at this days, all observed magnetic fields, and all magnetic effects, are actually due to the motion of charged particles, and can explained in terms of 'electric charges dynamics'".
2. Magnetic_monopole#Maxwell.27s_Equations and Lorentz_transformation#Special_relativity: "Lorentz transformations can also be used to prove that magnetic and electric fields are simply different aspects of the same force — the electromagnetic force. If we have one charge or a collection of charges which are all stationary with respect to each other, we can observe the system in a frame in which there is no motion of the charges".
3. ...

To delete Criticism section need first (to be consistent) rewrite Wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.178.200 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you're still not citing any reliable sources, as was requested above. That being the case, I can't support this. Please find some sources to back up your claims. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

See what is write (a copy/paste from SOURCED WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES) and what you writing... please IT NEED LOGIC CONSISTENCE: if you delete a section by "find some sources" justification, need DELETE ALL ARTICLES! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.6.11.70 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at the page Hadjesfandiari [ deletion log ] which is taged to be deleted. Please post your comments in the discussion page. If general concensus agrees with deletion, I won't remove the tag. -Mohseng 02:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC).

Ongoing edit war

What we have here is an edit war. The user or users using IP 201.83.166.62, IP 200.153.155.232, and name User:Lixo2, adamantly insist that their "criticisms" of the notion of a magnetic monopole must be in the article; others, including at least me and User:Yevgeny Kats, consider those criticisms out of place, ill-expressed and dubiously coherent, and generally not appropriate for an encyclopaedia article.

No actual response has been offered to the specific and clear reasons I gave above for thinking that the "criticisms" section doesn't belong in the article, only a lot of bluster. Let me once more summarize the position as I see it.

• The "criticisms" section purports to argue for "another point of view, where 'magnetic monopole' assumptions are non-relevant".
• There's no explanation ...
  • ... of what point of view that is
  • ... of just what point of view it's an alternative to (belief in magnetic monopoles? belief that there might be magnetic monopoles? or what?)
  • ... of what "assumptions" are being criticized (that there are magnetic monopoles? but no one assumes that; that there might be magnetic monopoles? but the "criticisms" offer no grounds for denying that; that it might be worth thinking about magnetic monopoles? but, again, the "criticisms" don't offer grounds for denying that)
  • ... of what is meant by "non-relevant" (not relevant to what? or is this just an obscure way of saying "wrong"?).
• The criticisms themselves are unclearly expressed; this is partly because of the authors' imperfect command of English (fair enough; it's far better than my Portuguese) but also, I suspect, because the ideas being expressed aren't themselves entirely coherent.
  • The authors' response to having that pointed out is to suggest that those of us arguing against the "Criticism" section should rewrite them to be clearer. But (1) we can't do that when it's far from clear what they actually mean, and (2) we think the section shouldn't be there at all, so why should we have to expend effort improving it?
• The authors claim that this section is necessary for the sake of some kind of balance. But the article already mentions (right up at the top, in the very first section) that as far as we currently know it's possible to explain all electromagnetic phenomena in terms of moving electric charges, and that it's possible that magnetic monopoles couldn't exist. If there's anything more to the authors' "other point of view" than that, then it's entirely unclear what. And if there isn't, it's hard to see how that point of view can need to be given more prominence in the article than it already has.

201.83.166.62/200.153.155.232/Lixo2, please stop scribbling your ill-considered, ill-expressed, ill-mannered criticisms over this article until you can explain, clearly, on the talk page:

• just what you're objecting to;
• just what the alternative view is that you want notice of here in Wikipedia;
• just why what the article already says doesn't already express your objections adequately;
• just what reliable sources you can offer for your alternative view.

Thank you.

I shan't delete your criticisms again right now, because on past form it seems likely that you'll just put them straight back in again, and revert wars are boring, boring, boring. But if you want them to stay in in the longer term, you'll be well advised to give clear answers to those questions.

(A point of style: please don't answer by interpolating responses between every pair of successive sentences, as you did above. That works quite well for e-mail and Usenet, where the earlier non-split-up text is readily available, but here it just makes the discussion extremely hard to follow. It will be easier for everyone if you leave what others have written intact, and add your own comments as a unit. Thanks.)

Gareth McCaughan 21:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The IP user is apparently unwilling to cooperate or discuss this issue at all, much less provide anything which even resembles a source. Instead, they apparently plan to revert war until we give up. That poses a problem. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have semi-protected as provisional measure. I also added a comment at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-26 Magnetic Monopole NPOV. --Pjacobi 07:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please add me to the list who think the criticisms make much more sense than the speculative innuendos implying the existence of monopoles. There is not even any such thing as dipole magnets, let alone monopoles. This article is based on the lack of proof that monopoles do not exist. John 04:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV violation

There should be notion of criticism of magnetic monopoles. The whole article looks like there is a general oppinion that magnetic monopoles exist and just needs to be discovered. Removing the criticism is severe violation of NPOV --83.131.5.115 14:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It is childish to be prejudiced about a physical theory. The sound criticism of the magnetic monopoles is an example of fair conduct compatoble with the spirit of science. Mohseng 15:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't look at all as if there is any such general opinion. I've pointed out above that it acknowledges that no known physics requires magnetic monopoles, and that it's entirely possible that there are -- or even could be -- no monopoles. If you think there's childish prejudice in the article, please say what specifically is prejudiced and how. The problems with the criticism section are (1) that it's very unclear what its criticisms actually are and (2) that, so far as one can tell just what the criticisms are, they appear to be redundant because the article already gives prominent mention to the issues they're trying to raise. The question isn't whether criticizing monopoles, or the notion of monopoles, or people who work on monopoles, is "fair conduct compatible with the spirit of science", it's whether adding the proposed criticism section or something similar would improve the article. I've explained why I think it wouldn't, and the only response from proponents has been "waaaah, it's not fair, the article is terribly biased", with no actual justification of that claim. Gareth McCaughan 16:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The only point we are trying to make is that nobody has the right to delete somebody else's comments even if the logic is flawed. They are different points of views and you can add your own to correct/explain. Please DO NOT DELETE. That's all. 129.252.21.247 20:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC). Mohseng 20:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

On the contrary, everyone has the right to delete inappropriate material. Wikipedia is not a proving ground for different POVs to respond to each other; that's what the rest of the Internet is for. Here, argumentative material is not corrected by adding an explanation; it is corrected by reformulating or removing it. In the case of material that is too nonsensical to reformulate it with attention to reliable sources, removal is the only option. Melchoir 21:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Melchoir, I am talkiing about the discussion page. Do you beleieve I can delete your comment instead of arguing about your point? Mohseng 21:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

Anyhow I give up on this. Mohseng 21:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

Of course not, but you have to make yourself clear. I don't recall anything on the talk page being deleted. Melchoir 21:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mohseng, I deleted the links added by you today for the following reasons. The first paper deals with one very particular type of a magnetic monopole, rather than making a general claim. The paper is very technical, one of thousands of papers written on magnetic monopoles, nothing special about it that would make it interesting to the general public. The expectation to find magnetic monopoles hasn't been affected much by the appearance of this paper. Note also that this link isn't freely accessible. The second link is an unpublished and unnotable paper, whose author isn't known to be an expert in the field, so it would be misleading to include a link to it. Yevgeny Kats 03:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I had a mistake about the first paper and was going to delete it. Thanks. But the second external link was only material on the web for interested people to read. It amazes me how picky you people are when it comes to this specific subject in physics. Frthermore, please take some time to read the paper and let us know where exactly it is making a mistake. The objecting external link need be present corresponding to the sections in the paper that challenges the magnetic monopoles. I know some people's jobs are updating and maintaining wikipedia articles for a specific company but my actual job is not this and have more stuff to do so I won't insist. Mohseng 14:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Dear Mohseng, here is an example of a mistake in the paper of Hadjesfandiari. Consider the discussion on pp.4-5. The author doesn't like the fact that Wu and Yang used eqs. (10)-(11) to describe the vector potential of a magnetic monopole. According to the author, it's not allowed to have two different expressions for A in two different regions, and he presents a "counterexample". His counterexample is that the field B of a solenoid, eq.(13), can be represented by either the vector potential of eq. (14) or that of eq. (15). Both (14) and (15) give the desired result for B. However, he notes correctly that these two possibilities would give different Aharonov-Bohm effects, thus they aren't equivalent. He misses the point. The reason that everything is fine in describing the magnetic monopole by the combination of eqs.(10)-(11) is that one -is- allowed to glue them to each other (for example at $\theta =\pi /2$) even though they aren't equal, because they are related by a gauge transformation, so the difference between them isn't physical. On the other hand, eqs. (14) and (15) cannot be transformed one into the other by a gauge transformation, and this is exactly why they aren't equivalent. Yevgeny Kats 17:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Kats, thanks for your time. Hadjesfandiari is showing A is not as arbitrary as Wu and Yang think. He says generating B from from A in (15) does not make this A valid. A has to correctly satisfy the boundary value problem posed by Poisson equation (17) which requires continuity of A at ρ=R. It is obvious (15) cannot predict Aharanov-Bohm effect correctly. (10) and (11) do not satisfy the required continuity and single valuedness of A which is a fundamental property of every elleptic boundary value problem. This has been clearly explained in page 13-14. I think, he could have written this paper in three pages based on Helmholtz decomposition theeorem and Stokes theorem. As we can see, he has explained everything by bringing examples and concepts which makes it readable and understandable to every student of physics, mathematics and engineering. He has shown that, there is no A left for Wu and Yang to develop anything. You have to find a way to beat that. Using example or counter-example would not work. In his second paper (inconsistency of magnetic monopole), which I downloaded from his website, he shows the concept of magnetic monopole is wrong. It makes sense to me. I don't care if a mathematical mistake is committed by Dirac or Picaso! -Mohseng 01:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Dear Mohseng, as I wrote above, the vector potential A doesn't need to be continuous: we have the freedom of gauge transformation. Hadjesfandiari tried to disprove this statement by a counterexample, and I explained you why his counterexample isn't good. I have no idea why you suggest that a mathematical mistake was committed by Dirac or Picasso, after I explained you in detail that Hadjesfandiari is the one who has a mistake. (I agree with you that Hadjesfandiari is presenting his ideas in a clear and readable way, but unfortunately they're incorrect.)

Anyways, as I said at the beginning, the reason for not including a link to this paper is that it is unpublished and unnotable, and the author isn't known to be an expert in the field. The paper violates the No Original Research policy of Wikipedia. Yevgeny Kats 03:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please let me know what specific gauge transformation you are talking about. In any event first of all, the definition of A has to permit a Curl of A. Second that the B1 calculated this way has to be equal to B everywhere in the space. If you can solve this problem with a gauge transformtion, I would be happy to know how. Let me put it this way. You have to be able to replace A1 of (4) by an A (produced by a gauge transformation) such that the generated B1 be equal to the "original" B. Then I come to the point that others' works are, as you put it, "unnotable." Let us not judge by ourselves and leave it to the experts if something is notable or not. It is good that you take part in arguments but is very bad when you decide for the science and act before discuss. I find it very irresponsible. What I see from a PhD student in distingushing what is "notable" and what is not is strange. Many of us have been PhD students at some point. Regards -Mohseng 05:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

What I'm saying is standard textbook material. See, for example, Ch. IV.4 of "Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell" by A.Zee (and many other textbooks that I don't have an exact reference at the moment); or a review article given in "External Links". Notable or not is determined by whether the article is endorsed by other researchers in the field. This can be checked by a simple search. Experts or Ph.D. students play no direct role in Wikipedia decision making process. Yevgeny Kats 15:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Kats, for your last statment, please refer to your previous comment. -Mohseng 16:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

A reference to textbooks is not enough when the objection is fundamental and aimed at the established core idea which should naturally be found in textbooks. Anyhow I am going to leave it to the readers to judge. There seems to be at least (I hope I am wrong) a biased approach towards this article's connection with Hadjesfandiari's controversial papers. As of now, nobody in this discussion has been able to reject the idea in Hadjesfandiari's papers in rejection of Magnetic monopoles. Only can a clear reasoning and a clear mathematical write-up, reflected in this page, help resolve this issue forever. Please contribute. Thank you. -Mohseng 16:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-26 Magnetic Monopole NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArnoldReinhold (talk • contribs) 11:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarify units

Sorry if this comment is misplaced, I could not find an add comment button.

Can someone please clarify the units in the following statement: "qe qm (element of) Z" ? This is certainly not true in Gaussian units. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.29.99 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why aren't protons and electrons monopoles?

So... why aren't protons and electrons considered to be monopoles? Titanium Dragon 10:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

They are. But they are electric, not magnetic monopoles.--193.198.16.211 17:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

One equation?

"Note: the Bivector notation embody the sign swap, and this four equations can be written as only one equation." What is the one equation? -- SurrealWarrior 21:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up a bit

The end of section "Maxwell's equations" included the following text:

So, classically, the question is "Why does the magnetic charge always seem to be zero?" Nothing in Maxwell's equations suggests that it has to be, nor has any other development based on these original formulations. This has been a curiosity for a long time, but it has become more of a problem in recent years, when new particle theories of Physics seem to predict the existence of magnetic monopoles.

The suggestion was "only" the empirical background and usual models of matter: on Earth, at this days, all observed magnetic fields, and all magnetic effects, are actually due to the motion of charged particles, and can explained in terms of "electric charges dynamics".

For "usual Physics", like on Electromagnetism and Relativity theories, the Lorentz transformations can be used to prove that magnetic and electric fields are simply different aspects of the same force — the electromagnetic force. From this point of view, the magnetic monopole is only a "relativistic manifestation" of the electric field and electric charges.

I corrected the last sentence of the first paragraph to:

This fact can only be explained by theories of elementary particles.

The sentence was incorrect the way it was written. First, nothing changed in the recent years. Theories of magnetic monopoles existed for many decades. Second, theories of elementary particles give perfect answers to why we don't usually observe magnetic monopoles. (Depending on the exact question under consideration, the answer has to do with the electroweak unification, with the huge masses predicted for the magnetic monopoles, etc.)

I removed the second paragraph for two reasons:

1. It's unclear what is meant by the words "empirical" and "background". The sentence doesn't make any sense.

2. The second part of the sentence, that all magnetic phenomena on Earth can be attributed to electric charges, already appears in the article.

I removed the third paragraph because it doesn't explain what exactly it means by saying that Lorentz transformations disprove the existence of magnetic monopoles (in fact, I know they don't. It's true that electric and magnetic fields mix up in Lorentz transformation, but magnetic charge density, if exists, cannot be eliminated). The paragraph doesn't cite sources.

Yevgeny Kats 04:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Magnetic Photon

Should the article about magnetic photon be merged into this article about magnetic monopoles? Or are they two different things? Reko 21:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

They are two different things. Urvabara 18:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Maxwell's equations

I removed the following dubious claim:

Nothing in Maxwell's equations suggests that it has to be, nor has any other development based on these original formulations. This fact can only be explained by theories of elementary particles.

The article Maxwell's equations shows the Modern Heaviside Versions, which are what are commonly taught in college physics classes. The equation ${\vec {\nabla }}\cdot {\vec {B}}=0$ can be summarized "no magnetic monopoles", which seems to directly contradict the above claim. If there is some complicated reason why there is no contradiction here, someone should explain it in more detail and also supply a reference to a reliable source. Thanks, Beland 04:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Setting ${\vec {\nabla }}\cdot {\vec {B}}$ to zero is a statement of an experimental fact. There is no mathematical necessity for doing so. Symmetry suggests ${\vec {\nabla }}\cdot {\vec {B}}$ should equal the net magnetic charge. I've tried to clarify the article on this point and added a cite. --agr 14:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

But there would still be asymetry between electric field and magnetic field - electric field is vector field while magnetic field is pseudovector field. This also means that magnetic charge of magnetic monopoles (if they exist (if their existence is mathematicly consistent)) would be pseudoscalar quantities. Simpler Maxwell's equations doesn't necessary have to imply simpler laws of nature. --78.0.28.41 19:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is Maxwell's equations can easily accommodate a magnetic charge. Symmetries in equations have been very reliable predictors of laws of nature. Much of modern physics is built on this idea. So the failure to detect monopoles is a problem. --agr 20:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal case - move for closure

This article is currently the subject of an active Mediation Cabal case. However, the issues seems to be largely resolved. If this is not the case, please add your comments on what issues are outstanding so they can be looked into further. Cheers, Thewinchester ^(talk) 18:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

MedCab Case

A case for this article is open at the Mediation Cabal - Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-26 Magnetic Monopole NPOV. It appears that none of the editors of this article have participated in the case since March. If there are still issues that need to be resolved and the editors involved are still interested in mediation, please update the case with this information. The case will be closed after a week if there is no response. Thank you! Shell ^babelfish 04:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Particle decay statement in the grand unified theory secton

"The majority of particles appearing in any quantum field theory are unstable, and decay into other particles in a variety of reactions that have to conserve various values. Stable particles are stable because there are no lighter particles to decay into that still conserve these values. For instance, the electron has a lepton number of 1 and an electric charge of 1, and there are no lighter particles that conserve these values. On the other hand, the muon, essentially a heavy electron, can decay into the electron and is therefore not stable."

If we accept the premise that the only reason a particle won't decay is because there is nothing lighter to decay to that still conserves all appropriate values then protons should be decaying into their constituent quarks and stable elements such as Carbon 12 or Helium 4 should be undergoing decay as well. The facts are that decay is not governed by whether or not there is something smaller to decay to so much as whether or not the energy of the system is larger than the binding energy (or at least large enough energies to quantum tunnel out of the barrier posed by the binding energy). Yes it is a necessary condition that there be suitable particles to decay to, but it is not a sufficient condition. Fatal shadow 23:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Fatal Shadow

Criticism

There is no mention of criticism of magnetic monopole theories in this article. It would be good to add some common (or not so common but in any way consistent with WP:RS & WP:OR) arguments against existence of magnetic monopole. Also, there is no mention that magnetic charge would be pseudoscalar quantity in contrast to electric charge which is scalar quantity, so magnetic and electric field would still not be so symmetric as they would look like in "expanded" Maxwell's equations, and this symmetry is common argument for existence of magnetic monopoles.

Since there are only arguments for existence of magnetic monopoles mentioned in the article, this article has a serious NPOV issue. --83.131.20.15 17:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no magnetic monopole in universe, since magnetic monopole is an inconsistent concept. A. R. Hadjesfandiari has clearly shown this fact in his papers (inconsistency of magnetic monopole). It is obvious to see that people, who have interest in magnetic monopoles, are afraid of any criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.24.65 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hadjesfandiari hasn't "clearly shown" any such thing; see earlier discussion right here on the talk page. The article already says that monopoles are "hypothetical", that whether they exist or not is an open question, that "there has never been reproducible evidence for the existence of monopoles".

It's not clear to me what you want to see in the article.

• An admission that monopoles are hypothetical and that despite plenty of attempts no one yet seems to have been able to observe any? That's there already.
• Discussion that doesn't presuppose their existence? That's there already, too.
• A statement that there are known to be no such things as monopoles because Hadjesfandiari proved it? Sorry, that's not going to belong in the article until Hadjesfandiari comes up with a proof that actually makes it to peer-reviewed scientific publication, which doesn't seem likely to happen.
• A statement that some people believe there are no monopoles? Not necessary; they're already "hypothetical", "there has never been reproducible evidence", etc.
• A statement that Hadjesfandiari's criticisms are important, or correct, or widely accepted? But they don't, in fact, appear to be any of those.

(I'm not afraid of criticism; I have no vested interest in the existence magnetic monopoles; if someone *does* prove that there are none, the total impact of this on my life will be that I'll say "oh, that's neat". See Wikipedia:Assume good faith.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gareth McCaughan (talk • contribs) 19:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

There are no arguments against existence of magnetic monopoles mentioned in the article, while there are some arguments for existence of magnetic monopoles mentioned in the article, such as symmetry of Maxwell's equations. Since both arguments for and against existence of magnetic monopoles exist, it is unneutral to present only arguments for existence of magnetic monopoles or only arguments against existence of magnetic monopoles. And it might be good idea to create new section for both kinds of arguments with two subsections (one for each kind of arguments) to make more clear which facts make existence of magnetic monopoles more likely and which facts make it less likely.

Thank you. --83.131.8.57 13:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The user agr has mentioned, "The failure to detect monopoles is a problem for modern physics". Does not this mean modern physics people are afraid of any criticism against magnetic monopole? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.24.65 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This only means that user agr might think that the failure to detect monopoles is a problem for modern physics. And please sign your posts, 128.205.24.65 and Gareth McCaughan. --83.131.79.53 21:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The article mentions some reasons for skepticism about magnetic monopoles, such as the fact that they haven't been detected experimentally despite prolonged efforts. So I take it you mean that the article doesn't mention any theoretical arguments against their existence. Well, are there any that deserve to be in the article? So far, the candidates on offer are Hadjesfandiari's self-published papers (nope, for reasons already extensively rehearsed here) and Lixo2's "criticisms" (nope, for reasons also extensively rehearsed here). So what arguments against magnetic monopoles should be in the article? And: Apologies for the unsigned edit earlier, which was a slip rather than evidence of a general policy of not signing my edits :-). Gareth McCaughan 21:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Yes, there should be theoretical arguments both for and against existence of magnetic monopoles. There is an argument for existence of magnetic monopoles in the article - the symmetry of Maxwell's equations incorporating magnetic monopoles. Fact that magnetic charge would be a pseudoscalar value, unlike electric charge which is scalar value, is not mentioned in this article (however, it is mentioned in pseudoscalar article). With magnetic monopoles there would be no electromagnetic four-potential, because magnetic field would have divergence. Also, force exerted on magnetic monopole in magnetic field isn't well defined in more than three dimensional space, so existence of magnetic monoples would mean that there are no more than three spatial dimensions, or some things are more complicated. And higher number of spatial dimensions (where additional ones are "small") is predicted by some theories, such as string theory. There might be some other reasons as well and creating section about them would encourage editors (who know them) to add those other reasons.

It would good idea to create section for both arguments for and against existence of magnetic monopoles, with two subsections as mentioned above, to treat both kinds of arguments equally and to give them the same weight, but also to make them more clearly mentioned in the article. It is mentioned in the article that magnetic monopoles are predicted by some GUT theories. It should be explained how (or why) are magnetic monopoles predicted by some GUT theories and what role do they have in those theories.

So new section might not be called "Criticism", but something like "Theoretical arguments for and against existence of magnetic monopoles", only much simpler. :-) --83.131.1.220 10:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see why the fact that magnetic charge would have to be a pseudoscalar is an argument against the existence of magnetic monopoles, or an objection to "it would make Maxwell's equations simpler" argument. B is already a pseudovector and E an ordinary vector, whether or not there are monopoles. The theories that predict higher numbers of spatial dimensions also predict that "some things are more complicated". So I'm not seeing any actual theoretical arguments against here. The theoretical arguments the other way consist mostly of handwaving too, of course. The fact that monopoles would be theoretically nice makes the question of their existence interesting, but that's all; the only way to actually resolve that question is by experiment. So far, no one's found a monopole. The article reports that. Gareth McCaughan 23:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious from the arguments in this page that some modern physics people are afraid of any criticism against magnetic monopole especially from Hadjesfandiari’s work. I have checked. The first time criticism appeared in the article is 01/22/2007. Hadjesfansiari’s first paper appeared on internet 01/21/2007. It is possible that the people who created criticism were infuenced by his work. The criticism was in article for a while. Then it was deleted to suppress Hadjesfandiari’s work. Strangely, whenever Hadjesfanidiari’s name comes in this discussion, it is answered by one member of the united group consisted of Yevgeny Kats, Melchoir, Gareth McCaughan and agr immediately. It is obvious this group doing this job to cover the people who have interest in magnetic monopole. McCaughan is right, he is not afraid. He is just covering up for the others. However, he and his colleagues are not so fast about comments like the one made by user 83.131.8.57 about a possible criticism section.

I would like to add a comment about inconsistency of Dirac’s work in electrodynamics regarding magnetic monopole. Dirac in an article in 1951 in Nature (Is there an aether? http://home.tiscali.nl/physis/HistoricPaper/Dirac/Dirac1951b.pdf) has considered possibility of aether by giving physical reality to the four-vector potential by defining a velocity field in aether. However, this contradicts with his magnetic monopole vector potential used by him with the line of singularity. Existence of the line of singularity means the velocity field on this arbitrary line is infinite! Did he know about this inconsistency? Mohseng

I know nothing of any "united group"; the only interaction I've had with any of the other people you've put me in a "united group" with is right here on this page. I'm not covering for anyone. And how "fast" I am on any given occasion depends entirely on how much spare time I have for Wikipedia; I expect others are the same. As for Hadjesfandiari, I see no sign that anyone's "suppressing" him. It just appears that on this subject he's unpublished (other than by himself), not generally regarded as an expert, and wrong, any one of which would on its own be good grounds for not citing him as any sort of authority in a Wikipedia article and all of which together explain why there's opposition to stuffing his claims into the article. No conspiracy theory required. Gareth McCaughan 23:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm... interesting discussion. How about adding something like this to the article:

Theoretical arguments regarding existence of magnetic monopoles Arguments for existence of magnetic monopoles: Symmmetry of "expanded" Maxwell's equation Magnetic monopoles are predicted by some GUT theories Existence of magnetic monopoles would explain quantization of electric charge Arguments against existence of magnetic monopoles: Classical electromagnetism (without magnetic monopoles) is the simplest relativistic generalization of Coulomb's law Force exerted on (pseudo)scalar magnetic charge by magnetic field wouldn't be well defined in higher dimensional space while force exerted on electric charge by electric field would, and extra dimensions are predicted by some theories With magnetic monopoles there would be no electromagnetic four-potential, because magnetic field would have nonzero divergence.

It would summarize both kinds of arguments and treat them equally. And it would be good to have an explanation in article about how are magnetic monopoles predicted by some GUT theories and what role do they have in that theories as somebody already mentioned somewhere.

Thank you. --antiXt 16:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

antiXt, I agree with adding that kind of information to the article, provided that it can be sourced and that it is labelled as providing arguments for/against monopoles only if the sources say as much. I've done some research, and while I'm not ready to write anything yet, I've found that the above points would need a lot of care:

• The symmetrized Maxwell equations were a target of interest long before 1931; until then, the magnetic charge was regarded as a fictitious quantity that aids in certain derivations and makes things nicer. Although the equations certainly get one thinking about magnetic charge, historically they were not an argument that magnetic charges exist.
• It's not my field, but I think that "some GUT theories" badly understates the point. One 2004 paper says,

  "In the theoretical arena however, monopoles thrived for the more then 70 years that followed. The subject certainly went through various ups and downs but it is fair to say that in spite of the dramatic lack of experimental evidence, the theoretical case has gained strength to the point that monopoles appear to be unavoidable in any theory that wants to truly unify electromagnetism with the other fundamental forces. Whether it is through the road of Grand Unification or through the compactification of spatial dimensions á la Kaluza and Klein and/or through String Theory, monopoles appear to be the price one has to pay."

• The electric charge quantization thing seems to be fairly well-covered in the present article. Except that on the 50th anniversary of its discovery, Dirac himself became discouraged and no longer thought that monopoles exist.
• Whether Maxwell's equations are simpler with or without magnetic charge is a judgement call. Certainly the standard equations are minimal in that they contain as few terms as possible, but it's only to be expected that the most restrictive theory explaining one phenomenon (electric charge) does not describe any other phenomena (gravity, nuclear physics, magnetic charge). At most you could say that classical electromagnetism fails to predict magnetic charge as a necessity, which is far from saying that classical electromagnetism argues against magnetic charge. Certainly the literature makes no such claim.
• Gareth McCaughan talked about the next two points above, but I can echo him. Since the magnetic field and magnetic charge are both parity-odd, their product is parity-even, which is just fine for constructing a force vector for a particle. The fact that North poles and South poles are mirror images is also well-known in classical magnetism. There is also a small literature on the discrete symmetries of magnetic charge from the 60s and 70s; it does not appear to have uncovered any problems. One point I want to note here is that in the absence of electric current, the magnetic current (and magnetic field) may as well be parity-even; it is only when electric and magnetic currents are both present that one of them must be treated as parity-odd, and of course since electric charge is familiar to us, it's magnetic charge that gets the short end of the stick. Physically speaking, it's no less exotic than the rest of electromagnetism. Also, I didn't see any complaints in the literature about extra dimensions.
• Of course if you symmetrize Maxwell's equations you also need to symmetrize the four-potential. This has been done in a few ways, apparently starting in 1962. Sometimes you get a magnetic photon out of this analysis, which is an experimental concern, but there are ways around it. I do think that the four-potential needs to be dealt with in this article somehow, as the "Maxwell's equations" section ends pretty abruptly.

Anyway, I just want to impress the point that there are legitimate theoretical issues here that we can and should expand upon with sources; BUT they are subtle and do not lend themselves to a sensational, for/against, contest of opinions. Melchoir 19:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Antixt, I agree with your suggestion to add this. Moreover, I appreciate its simplicity; I think it is more effective if you maintain it as a summary, that is, decline to develop underlying principles in your summary. John 01:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is Pseudo-science

We need someone with a modern understanding of the relativistic cause of magnetism to add some real science to this article. An understanding of the effect of Einstein's Special Relativity on moving charged particles will make it obvious that Magnetic Monopoles cannot exist.

See: A. Einstein: "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", June 30, 1905. http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Request someone with a clear understanding of the cause of magnetism post a explanation for why this is fictitious. Lets be honest, this is pseudo-science. I will attempt to add some of this to the lead article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JA.Davidson (talk • contribs) 05:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a modern understanding, and I don't agree with your additions in this edit, which I've reverted.

• "Fictitious" is a less neutral term than "hypothetical", since it seems to imply that monopoles are known not to exist. "Hypothetical" might be construed as meaning that the community in general hypothesizes the existence of monopoles, which is probably wrong. But the word is usually understood to mean that some theories hypothesize their existence, and their hypothetical existence would have consequences that have been explored in those theories. This is true, and it is quickly qualified in the third sentence by mentioning GUTs and superstrings. (Many other articles also use "hypothetical". The article Preon uses "postulated", which is roughly equivalent to "hypothetical".)
• "Expensive research projects were carried out on this despite the fact..." The past tense is inappropriate. Also, mentioning the expense of monopole searches is judgmental, as well as uncorroborated. I doubt that monopole searches are a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of experimental physics. If you have evidence that some scientific organization feels that too much money is spent on monopole searches, then that would be a valuable addition to the article.
• The "relativistic foundation of magnetism" is simply the equality of electric charge with a certain derivative of the electromagnetic field. Magnetic monopoles break this equality. If the equality were logically axiomatic, constituting a definition of charge, then magnetic monopoles would not make sense. However, it isn't axiomatic; it is a law of nature subject to experimental falsification.
• http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ says nothing about monopoles.

There is a much more productive way of talking about negative effects of monopoles on familiar physical theories. Rather than claim that they don't make sense, one can follow some of the lines 83.131 mentioned above.

Anyway, when a theorist claims "this is elegant, therefore true", the skeptic's usual rebuttal is "elegance ain't everything" rather than "this is inelegant, therefore false". :-) Melchoir 07:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Truth is relevant, not elegance. Encyclopedia articles need to be based on reasonable correctness. Do you understand the "relativistic foundation of magnetism"? What certain derivative of the electromagnetic field is the equality of electric charge maintained over? John 04:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia articles actually need to be based on sources, not what a given editor thinks is "reasonable".

The derivative in question is laid out in a few different notations at Formulation of Maxwell's equations in special relativity. The relativistic foundation of magnetism, as you call it, is just the observation that if you write relativistically covariant equations that describe the motion of a charged particle in the field of a stationary particle, then it is guaranteed that your equations also describe motion in the field of a moving particle. The latter phenomenon is called magnetism. Melchoir 04:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It is exactly that motion that requires that a magnetic line be a closed path, and therefore not ending on a point, so no monopole. If anyone discovers a magnetic equipotential line that is not a closed path, it will not be magnetism. It will be something else. John 04:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The field generated by a moving object with no magnetic change... does not require magnetic charge to explain. True but trivial.

As for what is or is not magnetism... most people would call a magnetic field with a nonzero divergence a magnetic phenomenon. If you insist that it is "something else", then that is your choice of language, although this encyclopedia cannot follow you. In any case, this article is about that "something else". Melchoir 04:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

These edits just don't work. You need evidence for a claim of "considerable skepticism and debate"; the last time I checked, no one was claiming that monopoles do exist. Einstein's 1905 text does not say anything about monopoles and therefore cannot be used as a reference for the claim that his theory is inconsistent with them. And the failure to find monopoles with past searches does not say anything about their plausibility; again, you'd need a source for such an evaluative statement. Melchoir 05:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This page is evidence of debate, this page exists. The silence on monopoles of Einstein's paper has nothing to do with monopoles inconsistency with it. The simple high school bar magnet 'theory' is silent on monopoles yet monopoles are clearly not consistent with that; be logical. Finding of a monopole would speak volumes about its plausibility, therefore, failure to find them does too. John 05:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A reliable source. Melchoir 05:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, valid point. I will add a ref. John 05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, when? Melchoir 05:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of your ref, I've pulled in Milton as a reference. I've also split the lead into two paragraphs to emphasize the fact that monopoles have not been found and are not known to exist; hopefully this will dispel the notion that the article suggests otherwise. Melchoir 08:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Also... bar magnets? This article does not make the claim that monopoles are responsible for all magnetic phenomena. To the contrary, monopoles are not responsible for any known magnetic phenomena. No one claims otherwise. Melchoir 08:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

All magnetism we know about is caused by charge motion and could not originate from a point source. If there is a magnetism-like field that originates from a point “magnetic charge”, it would be distinct from magnetism in this way. This would amount to a new particle and its new field that differs from magnetism in its shape and origin. John 01:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A magnetic monopole would be a new particle and a new phenomenon, but it would by definition contribute to the same magnetic field B. It would only differ from known magnetism in its shape and origin.

It sounds like you want to restrict the definition of the word "magnetism" to only those aspects of magnetism that we observe today. There are probably a few good reasons for making such a choice, but it is not a common use of scientific language. It is always possible to discover a new element, a new particle, a new planet, a new species. In our case, the electromagnetic field is not defined as the unique solution to Maxwell's equations with such-and-such boundary conditions. It is defined as the field that exerts a certain force on test charges. A priori, this field may or may not obey Maxwell's equations; if it doesn't, too bad! Melchoir 04:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

By what 'definition'? I have no preference for a definition, but nature may have already restricted that definition. There may very well be only electric charge, no 'magnetic' charge, and that may support an even more elegant scheme we haven't thought of. We need to keep this article in context, it is supposed to be an article is about a hypothesis, not a particle that exists but we haven't yet 'discovered'. Nature has no obligation to meet anyone's expectations. John 17:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This article doesn't present a single definition of a magnetic monopole, but for our purposes it does enough: it associates monopoles with extra terms in Maxwell's equations for the usual electric and magnetic fields E and B. You get the same treatment in any other source on magnetic monopoles; for example, the equations start on p.4 of Kimball.

Of course there may not be magnetic monopoles. Nobody says otherwise! This point already appears in the article early and often. Given that, I don't know what you mean by keeping the article in context. Melchoir 17:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't know what I mean? Maybe I can think of a clearer way to put it. John 21:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering the possibility of the existence of magnetic monopole shows how vulnerable modern physics could be. Dr. A.R. Hadjesfandiari has clearly proven that magnetic monopole is an inconsistent concept in Theory of Electrodynamics and therefore can not exist. Dirac has just made a mathematical error. However, admitting this mistake would not undermine Dirac's position in physics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.44.79 (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a whole section on Dr. A. R. Hadjesfandiari elsewhere on this talk page. I read the paper and it's certainly incorrect, and even if he was right it's not a reliable source, so cannot be mentioned in this article. In my view, it's unfortunate that this otherwise-bright scientist was unable to fill in the details of the "patching" argument (which is a bit of a subtle argument, but completely sound), but it's even sadder that he chose to trumpet this misunderstanding for the whole world to see. But that's just me ranting...for the purposes of wikipedia, the beginning and end of it is that arxiv is not a "reliable source". --Steve —Preceding comment was added at 22:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There are alot of articles on wikipedia with references to arxiv. There has never been any argument against those references.

It is very interestinge to see that there is no criticism section about magnetic monopole, a paricle which has never been discovered!!! Naturally, there should be many arguments and debates about it. Dr. Hadjesfandiari delivers valid arguments. This implicitly demonstrates how high level physicists can ignore such a simple mathematical mistakes involved with continuity and differentiability. That's exactly why the patching method is wrong.

All I have seen here is a criticism of his papers, saying that they are wrong and unreliable, but I'm yet to see anyone with any scientific facts to come forward and show why these papers are wrong. It seems to me that these people keep arguing with his papers,not because they are wrong, but because they are unable to answer his criticism. 128.97.251.154 01:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read the previous thread about this, where you will find, explicitly, a mistake in the paper. Or, better yet, see these referee reports [3] [4] on his own website, which I think do a great job of explaining everything wrong with it. Arxiv is not a reliable source; elsewhere on wikipedia where an arxiv paper is referenced as the sole source for a substantive claim, it is usually the case that the article is on arxiv and also published in a respectable journal. Again, the arxiv issue is discussed in more detail elsewhere on this page. --Steve 18:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Fang Zhong et al 2003 paper

The following was added, and then reverted with the comment "rm POV/misinterpreted_ref".

In 2003, a group of people observed indirect evidence for magnetic monopoles.< ref >Zhong, Fang (October 3, 2003). "The Anomalous Hall Effect and Magnetic Monopoles in Momentum Space". Science. 302 (5642): 92–95. doi:10.1126/science.1089408. ISSN 1095-9203. Retrieved 2007-08-02. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)< /ref >

I'm reluctant to add it back without knowing more about this subject, but it seems to have at least something in common with the subject of this article (a short excerpt from the abstract is "the magnetic monopole in real space have been made in cosmic rays and in particle accelerators, but there has not yet been any firm evidence for its existence because of its very heavy mass, ~10^16 giga–electron volts"). If Zhong et al are wrong, it might still be worth mentioning (we might find another WP:RS saying they are wrong). Although that might kind of depend on what the situation is. Kingdon 22:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[I'm sure this wasn't intentional, but that "short excerpt from the abstract" is grossly out of context: the full quote is "Efforts to find the magnetic monopole in real space have been made in cosmic rays and in particle accelerators...".] More importantly, the paper is about a collective phenomenon in condensed-matter physics which is mathematically analogous to magnetic monopoles. The paper does not at all imply that there's anything in the solid other than nuclei and electrons, or that the microscopic B-field is not divergenceless. Of course, they play up the connection to real monopoles in the abstract, but don't be fooled, that's just for publicity...be sure that if a paper in Science had evidence for a "real" monopole, they would trumpet that fact, and it would have gotten a lot more press. --Steve 04:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks. I didn't fully appreciate the strange wording about "in real space" versus "in the crystal momentum space". (And no, my "short excerpt" was not intended to stand alone, just to point out what part of the abstract was eye-catching; thanks for assuming good faith). Agreed that the connection to this article is pretty distant, and if it isn't notable enough to mention some place like Hall effect, it certainly doesn't belong here. Kingdon 17:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Not this again?

I just reverted some changes. Here's the reasoning:

• The phrase "Maxwell's equations" is not universally understood to mean the equations with no magnetic source terms. See [5] for a source that calls the symmetric equations "Maxwell's equations" and then afterward notes that "often" the magnetic sources are set to zero. See [6] for a source that states that "Maxwell's equations" would assume a different form if magnetic sources were experimentally discovered. Of course, I am confident that still other books use the terminology in different ways. It seems most logical, not to mention neutral, to use the phrase "Maxwell's equations" in this article in an inclusive fashion that doesn't clash with the literature. "Without Magnetic Monopoles" and "With Magnetic Monopoles" are perfectly adequate phrases to distinguish between the forms.
• Section titles should be short and assume little.

Melchoir (talk) 06:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Melchoir- Your statement that "Maxwell's equations" would assume a different form if magnetic sources were experimentally discovered" is reasonable to me. However, that different form differs from the actual form in its acknowledgment of monopoles. The table presents the two forms of Maxwell's equations as if they are both equally valid thereby providing misleading suggestion of evidence of monopole existence. But they are not. The ability to write an equation just does not constitute evidence. I personally know of cases where laymen are misled by this article to conclude near-proof is offered of monopole existence; we just haven't seen them yet.

This entire article reads like it has a misleading agenda: it reads like magnetic monopoles actually exist and we just haven't detected them. That is not true. We have no physical evidence they exist. Surely it would be very convenient for some people's theories; beneficial to some careers if they did. This is not balance. I believe with your knowledge and interest in balance you could add some balance instead of supporting this misleading agenda, if you will. John (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you are misunderstanding the usage of mathematical equations in science. (1), the equations on the right do not acknowledge monopoles. In fact, the very next sentence after they are introduced makes the important point that if the magnetic sources are zero then the two sets of equations are exactly the same. (2), I don't know what you mean by "equally valid", but surely you realize that the equations on the right are at least as valid as the equations on the left. The only thing that can invalidate an equation describing a physical law is if the variables in the equation are measured in some experiment, and the equality fails to hold. Surely you are not suggesting that this has been done? Melchoir (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello John. I am a layman; I know nothing more about monopoles than what I have read in this article. As the article stands at the moment...

• The very opening sentence says that monopoles are hypothetical.
• Immediately below this it says Despite systematic searches since 1931, magnetic monopoles have never been observed.
• and It therefore remains possible that monopoles do not exist at all.
• There is a tag box that says Unsolved problems in physics: Are there any particles that carry "magnetic charge"
• at the bottom it says there has never been reproducible evidence for the existence of magnetic monopoles.

...so it's very hard indeed to believe that anyone could read the article, and get the impression that the existence of monopoles is anything more than a possibility. I get the impression that you believe very strongly that the existence of monopoles is an impossibility - why is that? --catslash (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Melchoir, I guess one of us doesn't understand. I was not commenting on mathematical equality, but on addressing reality. What I mean by ‘equally valid’ is of course expressing the situation in the universe as far as we know it; specifically, setting ‘magnetic charge’ to zero. Presenting it as a variable implies that we assume it varies. That is a false assumption. Since we can’t prove the negative, we don’t assume monopoles exist until we verify it. I think it is misleading not to obviate that in the table. John (talk) 06:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

catslash, I am glad you were not misled by the article, you seem to understand it quite well, are you sure you should consider yourself a layman? By the way, I have read the article. Still, you did get the wrong impression; my view is that they are not impossible, but until they are detected, they remain hypothetical. John (talk) 06:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Presenting the magnetic charge density as a variable does not imply that we assume that it actually varies in a given situation, any more than presenting the electric charge density as a variable prevents us from studying infinite plane waves in the vacuum.

Now, I cannot comment on a hypothetical effort to obviate, in the table, the fact that monopoles are not known or assumed to exist. However, I really wonder why you think it's necessary, since this fact is already stated early and often. Any reader who doesn't get it must not be paying attention. Melchoir (talk) 07:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"Given situation" is double talk. You cannot produce such a 'given situation' where it varies or is anything but zero. The table is more salient than the text. It is also not made clear enough throughout the article, this is one case of a general reluctance to admit monopoles is a hypothesis. It would have been nice to have your help in adding balance to this article, but I think I the title of this discussion sums up your position. John (talk) 07:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There are, in fact, situations where the magnetic charge is nonzero, such as this classic calculation. It is not claimed in the article that such calculations reflect the real world. And yes, unless you want to willfully mislead yourself, you have to read the surrounding text. When you challenge the interpretation of the equations, it is especially unreasonable to claim that the equations are more salient than the text. The equations themselves are properly sourced, and the declarative statement about them reads,

"The extended Maxwell's equations, simplified by nondimensionalization, are as follows:"

You are not arguing that those equations are not the extended Maxwell's equations. You are not disagreeing with any factual claim made in the article. Your one objection, that the fact that monopoles remain a hypothesis is not made clear enough, is a personal judgment that no other editor shares. There is all kinds of text intended to mitigate your concern, but you cannot be satisfied. Yes, in these circumstances, I ought to be frustrated. Melchoir (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone (but Melchoir) have a problem with adding some balance to this in the form of making it more clear that the existence of monopoles is hypothetical? John (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, I agree with everything Melchoir said here. --Steve (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Archived from /Comments page

Needs references Snailwalker | talk 00:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)