Magnetic monopoles outed, powerless to help grand unified theory

Magnetic monopoles are cropping up in a material called spin ice, but their origins may still be too specific to that material to form the basis of a grand unified theory.

<a href='http://meincmagazine.com/science/news/2010/10/magnetic-monopoles-outed-powerless-to-help-grand-unified-theory.ars'>Read the whole story</a>

 

[jdietz]

Now that you have a monopole, use it to make a perpetual motion machine!

 

[Frennzy]

Together, the two ends of the dumbbell were a pair of magnetic dipoles and opposites of each other, but were separated by a significant distance. The researchers even found that they could move the monopoles independently of one another.

That's sounds a lot more like an oligopole to me...

 

[RicDavis]

div B =/= 0

That is all.

 

[Plaid]

So, in this particular instance, it's a quasiparticle?

 

[picklesthefirecat]

But since the monopoles are limited to this system, it's debatable whether these are really the monopoles that theorists are looking for.

...just made me think "Jedi mind trick" for some reason.

 

[GKH]

div B =/= 0

That is all.

curl E =/= -dB/dt

Now that is all.

 

[Chuckstar]

Maybe I misinterpreted this reasearch when I first saw it reported a couple weeks ago. Seems to me that they haven't created monopoles at all. They've just created a material/structure that allows them to move around the two poles of a dipole arbitrarily within the material. This is consistent with the idea that you can cut magnets into pieces and/or combine them in various ways but you always end up with a dipole.

More broadly, am I the only one who reads this stuff and thinks to themselves "based on what I was taught about what magnetic fields are and how they relate to electric fields, not only is it impossible for monopoles to exist, but it's not even really a meaningful concept."

The following is not quite right, but I think it will help the layman: Basically, electric fields can be thought of as originating at a charged particle and terminating at a particle with opposite charge. Magnetic fields don't originate and terminate at magnetic poles like that. They are better thought of as circulating between the poles (most often in a toroidal shape). For example, the typical way the Earth's magnetic field is drawn is field lines pointing out of the north pole, reaching out of the atmosphere and bending all the way around to re-enter the south pole, but then continuing through the center of the Earth to emerge again from the north pole.

In fact, magnetic poles themselves are not objects, the way charged particles are. It is possible to create a magnetic field using a torus, for example, such that the axis along which the poles would be thought of as being located is actually the empty space in the middle.

 

[Hat Monster]

While nothing in the Standard Model forbids monopoles, it doesn't take a genius to work out that they're not compatible with the rest of the universe, you create a bunch of monopoles and you've Won The Game, where the game is physics and thermodynamics is your bitch.

 

[Nevyn]

Yes Chuckstar, they don't fit current theories or explanations. But... that's why it's a theory, not a law or a proof. Physics was declared dead a hundred years ago - with only minor questions over what was happening in three measly 'parlour trick' experiments remaining unexplained. Something similarly upsetting to the established framework is plausible.

 

[Geoff Strickler]

"These aren't the monopoles you're looking for. You can go about your business. Move along."

 

[stei7766]

they don't fit current theories

Which would only really be a problem for current theories if these were actually real monopoles. They may very well provide interesting and useful new materials, but they don't seem to be "true" monopoles.

 

[bedward]

But... that's why it's a theory, not a law or a proof.

AAAARRRGGGH! AAAAAAHHH!

Ahem. Sorry. A theory does not become a law, regardless of how well it describes the physical world.

 

[MatthiasF]

Magnetism is a differential effect, meaning it's force relies on the forces around it, so for someone to be looking for a type of magnetism with only one dimension is pretty insane.

 

[norton_I]

Maybe I misinterpreted this reasearch when I first saw it reported a couple weeks ago. Seems to me that they haven't created monopoles at all. They've just created a material/structure that allows them to move around the two poles of a dipole arbitrarily within the material. This is consistent with the idea that you can cut magnets into pieces and/or combine them in various ways but you always end up with a dipole.

They have created quasi-particles with 'magnetic charge.' This would be incredibly useful if we had physical evidence of magnetic monopoles but limited theoretical understanding of how they would work. As it stands, we have the reverse: everyone knows how a monopole would work (at least as far as these systems are applicable), but nobody has seen one. That relegates this to an interesting curiosity, at least as far as the fundamental physics is concerned. I am woefully underqualified to suggest how realistic their practical application possibilities are.

More broadly, am I the only one who reads this stuff and thinks to themselves "based on what I was taught about what magnetic fields are and how they relate to electric fields, not only is it impossible for monopoles to exist, but it's not even really a meaningful concept."

The following is not quite right, but I think it will help the layman: Basically, electric fields can be thought of as originating at a charged particle and terminating at a particle with opposite charge. Magnetic fields don't originate and terminate at magnetic poles like that. They are better thought of as circulating between the poles (most often in a toroidal shape). For example, the typical way the Earth's magnetic field is drawn is field lines pointing out of the north pole, reaching out of the atmosphere and bending all the way around to re-enter the south pole, but then continuing through the center of the Earth to emerge again from the north pole.

This explanation is missing something crucial: electric field also exist in the loop form you describe for magnetism, and are created by oscillating magnetic fields. This is the thing that bothers physicists with an overdeveloped sense of symmetry (i.e., all physicists). It is fairly easy to imagine how a world with magnetic monopoles would exist: now just like electric fields we would have two kinds of magnetic field lines: closed loops created by electric currents and open curves that start and end on magnetic monopoles. The crazy thing is according to QED, we can even tell you the value of the fundamental unit of magnetic charge. The reason is that the field generated by a pair of (stationary) particles, one electric and one magnetic pole, have angular momentum, which must be quantized in units of hbar. The angular momentum depends only on the magnitude of the charges, not their separation, so it enforces that both electric and magnetic charges must be quantized. Since we know e, we can calculate the quanta of hypothetical magnetic charges.

Of course, there are problems with magnetic monopoles too, and I have presented a quantum mechanical viewpoint with relativity tacked on that makes monopoles look desirable. If you look at physics from a perspective of relativity with quantum decorations there is really no reason to expect magnetic monopoles: magnetic fields are simply lorentz shifted electric fields. You start with static charges and coulombs law, make it relativistically invariant "in the simplest possible way", and out pops all of maxwell's equations including div(B)=0 with no magnetic monopoles. Of course, again you can do all that in a way that allows monopoles, but few people would see a reason to without evidence that they actually exist.

 

[neodorian]

F@$%ing magnets....

 

[SirOmega]

Is it bad if the first thing I thought of was, "Oh I think Sheldon [Cooper] was wo.... oh wait that's a TV show about physicists. Damn.".

 

[auctoris]

@doormat: Yeah, my first thought was, "Well if Leonard, Howard, and Raj hadn't screwed up the experiment in the Arctic, then Sheldon would already have this figured out."

 

[OmniThought]

"monopoles are like sausage—never mind how they are made, and just enjoy the taste—"

Thanks for today's laugh. That should be the one liner for anything someone doesn't agree with being semi-proved in a questionable fashion.

 

[kevin_luke]

Very interesting read! I remember first hearing about this stuff when I was 15 years old, while playing Alpha Centauri.

 

[Kyle Smith]

"These spin ice monopoles come from playing with magnetically manipulable materials with atoms that arrange themselves at unusual angles." This isn't quite right. These materials are special because they are magnetically Frustrated, with a degenerate ground state: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometrical_frustration It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the angles.

 

[grimlog]

The authors of the Nature Physics paper note that manipulation of their monopoles could lead to "new types of logic and spintronic devices." The ability to separate magnetic spins could be useful in developing transistors that are operated using magnetic fields instead of electricity.

Statements like these really get my goat but abound in materials papers. If you can't describe how your material X or property X can lead to improved devices, don't say that it can. These kinds of hand-waving statements should never get into published papers. Hand-waving really doesn't add to a paper's value.

 

[Shadowself]

These "monopoles" are just marginally separated ends of a dipole. Nothing more.

They are still in pairs. For every "north pole" there is still a related "south pole".

Wake me when there are more of one pole than the other.

I'll get excited when there are a large number of one pole and none of the other pole within a measurable distance.

 

[Bicentennial Douche]

Magnets, always with the magnets....

 

[BorgOvermind]

They get nowhere with the unified theory because their initial assumptions are wrong from start. There are no monopols...at all.
Even the electron (-) is not actually a monopol, because it's (+) is inside it, and the electron is actually a spinning energy sphere with + inside, - outside and with 511KV potential.

"The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.”
N. Tesla.

So yes, the relativity based SciFi is used in SciFi movies and that ends there. In real word, a unified theory is possible if you disregard all the current junk and get back to the field theory bases.

 

[AlfieGitwood]

A note to Ars Technia editors. Why don't you do a story on why none of these great ideas are producing results? I mean, geez! By now we should all be living in a world that looks like something right out of The Jetsons, right? You do remember The Jetsons, right? I am not revealing my age, am I? I mean, I cannot understand why we are not making daily trips to the moon and back. You'd think we would given what I read in all the science sections of every paper in the world. It's starting to make me paranoid! I may turn into a conspiracy theorist...No efficient energy storage devices? The good old lead-acid batteries are as good as we've got? What's up with that? Why don't we have efficient lighting for crying out loud? Are the laws of physics conspiring against us or is it that we simply cannot get our acts together?

I have been reading about "nano-this" and "nano-that" for a long time now, but I have never bought a product that came as result of nano-tech. I am beginning to think that nano-tech is what fluidics turned out to be--nothing going nowhere. On the other hand, genetics seems to be making great strides, if news people were not so busy bitching about the breakthroughs in that field. I mean, how much more "nano" can we get once we are down to the genetic level? Not much, I'm guessing.

You guys need to change your perspectives a little bit. Start demanding more from our techno-wizards.

 

[WaggishWombat]

A note to Ars Technia editors. Why don't you do a story on why none of these great ideas are producing results? I mean, geez! By now we should all be living in a world that looks like something right out of The Jetsons, right? You do remember The Jetsons, right? I am not revealing my age, am I? I mean, I cannot understand why we are not making daily trips to the moon and back. You'd think we would given what I read in all the science sections of every paper in the world. It's starting to make me paranoid! I may turn into a conspiracy theorist...No efficient energy storage devices? The good old lead-acid batteries are as good as we've got? What's up with that? Why don't we have efficient lighting for crying out loud? Are the laws of physics conspiring against us or is it that we simply cannot get our acts together?

Maybe thats because when Science make new discoveries, it doesn't invalidate most of what was previously assumed to be true.
Magnetic monopoles and Higgs bosons won't change the fact that Earth is a fracking gravity well and that you need to add a lot of energy to matter in order to send it to the moon.
It's thermodynamics, it's Newton laws, it's basic chemistry, it's here to stay.

Science fiction is exactly that: fiction.
If you want to have an idea of what our future will probably be, forget books about flying cars, anti-mater batteries and teleportation. Start reading anticipation books about a World lead by Megacorps, full of desperate peoples and religious crackpots (aka. the USA in 10 years).

You guys need to change your perspectives a little bit. Start demanding more from our techno-wizards.

In a World were business layers and marketing assholes makes good money, while scientists make very long studies, get very insecure jobs, low wages, and have to spend 50% of their time chasing after ridiculously small budgets, what do you expect?
Our techno-wizards are giving much more to society than what they receive.

If the Citizens want more from fundamental and applied scientists, then Citizens should start to show some gratitude, stop second-guessing everything scientists says when some ignoramus talks about his doubts on TV, and stop electing the most inbred congenital idiots they can elect.

 

[PervertRyan]

Fucking magnetic monopoles, how do they work?

Come on guys, someone had to make that joke. You disappoint me.

 

[.Spartan]

While nothing in the Standard Model forbids monopoles, it doesn't take a genius to work out that they're not compatible with the rest of the universe, you create a bunch of monopoles and you've Won The Game, where the game is physics and thermodynamics is your bitch.

ROFL!! I can see the Sheldon T-shirts now.....

Winning the game of physics
one electron at a time because
thermodynamics is his bitch!

 

[Sardonic]

If we can't research Monopole Magnets, how are we ever going to be able to terraform mag tubes?

 

[radializer]

I have been reading about "nano-this" and "nano-that" for a long time now, but I have never bought a product that came as result of nano-tech. I am beginning to think that nano-tech is what fluidics turned out to be--nothing going nowhere.

Are you serious? What is your definition of nanotechnology? Do you realize that every single transistor in the current generation of integrated electronics is about 25-45nm (yes, nm stands for nanometers) in length ... so these devices are "nanoscale" devices by definition. Obviously, there are many other dimensions that are much smaller - such as the dielectric thickness itself which is 1-2nm at best. I assume the ubiquity of these ICs need not be argued?

If you were looking for some form of exotic application for "nano-this" and "nano-that" (which seems more likely) ... may I bring you "down to earth" by pointing you toward a more mundane example such as stain-resistant pants. Yes, these are considered nanotech as the surface is treated with a "nanowhisker" solution that presents fluids from wetting the surface.

Science need not be all flash and Hollywood - whatever "it" is, in the end, "it" needs to work repeatably, accurately and reliably.

 

[Control Group]

I have been reading about "nano-this" and "nano-that" for a long time now, but I have never bought a product that came as result of nano-tech. I am beginning to think that nano-tech is what fluidics turned out to be--nothing going nowhere.

Are you serious? What is your definition of nanotechnology? Do you realize that every single transistor in the current generation of integrated electronics is about 25-45nm (yes, nm stands for nanometers) in length ... so these devices are "nanoscale" devices by definition. Obviously, there are many other dimensions that are much smaller - such as the dielectric thickness itself which is 1-2nm at best. I assume the ubiquity of these ICs need not be argued?

If you were looking for some form of exotic application for "nano-this" and "nano-that" (which seems more likely) ... may I bring you "down to earth" by pointing you toward a more mundane example such as stain-resistant pants. Yes, these are considered nanotech as the surface is treated with a "nanowhisker" solution that presents fluids from wetting the surface.

That's really the key to the problem with the "where's my flying car" perspective. We've got an incredible amount of wonderful futuristic technology all around us...but because it's all around us, we take it for granted and don't think of it as wonderful futuristic technology.

It's like a depressive's version of the anthropic principle: why don't we have any cool futuristic tech? Because if we have it, it's not futuristic.

 

[Schmads]

This article just made me feel like I was in a Larry Niven book, considering that is the only place I'd ever heard about magnetic monopoles. Anyone feel like some belt mining to find some more? It does seem like these aren't "true" monopoles, but are instead contrived examples of a monopole. But, either way, even small steps in the right direction can be useful!

 

[AlfieGitwood]

Maybe that's because when Science make new discoveries, it doesn't invalidate most of what was previously assumed to be true.

Oh, really? Does the phrase "over selling" mean anything to you?

Magnetic monopoles and Higgs bosons won't change the fact that Earth is a fracking gravity well and that you need to add a lot of energy to matter in order to send it to the moon.
It's thermodynamics, it's Newton laws, it's basic chemistry, it's here to stay.

Aw, hell! We knew about and understood all that stuff back in the fifties for crying out loud. We have had a long time to overcome it. Why haven't we? Where is all this whiz bangy stuff I was promised when I was a kid?

Science fiction is exactly that: fiction.
If you want to have an idea of what our future will probably be, forget books about flying cars, anti-mater batteries and teleportation. Start reading anticipation books about a World lead by Megacorps, full of desperate peoples and religious crackpots (aka. the USA in 10 years).

Now look who is fantasizing. Are you going admit that maybe Robert A. Heinlein got something right?

In a World were business layers and marketing assholes makes good money, while scientists make very long studies, get very insecure jobs, low wages, and have to spend 50% of their time chasing after ridiculously small budgets, what do you expect?

Exactly what Captain Kirk always expected from Scotty. Or, what every management type who ever lived expected from us working stiffs. Miracles.

Our techno-wizards are giving much more to society than what they receive.

Are you speaking for your self? Or someone you know? Or someone you heard about? Who?

If the Citizens want more from fundamental and applied scientists, then Citizens should start to show some gratitude, stop second-guessing everything scientists says when some ignoramus talks about his doubts on TV, and stop electing the most inbred congenital idiots they can elect.

Be careful how you talk about our President.

 

[AlfieGitwood]

Are you serious? What is your definition of nanotechnology? Do you realize that every single transistor in the current generation of integrated electronics is about 25-45nm (yes, nm stands for nanometers) in length ... so these devices are "nanoscale" devices by definition. Obviously, there are many other dimensions that are much smaller - such as the dielectric thickness itself which is 1-2nm at best. I assume the ubiquity of these ICs need not be argued?

No, but they are not what nano-tech advocates have been talking up, either. Remember all those little robots we were going shoot into our arms to keep cancer under control? Where are they with that? I have yet to one thing typical spoken of as nano-tech that actually exists.

If you were looking for some form of exotic application for "nano-this" and "nano-that" (which seems more likely) ... may I bring you "down to earth" by pointing you toward a more mundane example such as stain-resistant pants. Yes, these are considered nanotech as the surface is treated with a "nanowhisker" solution that presents fluids from wetting the surface.

I am talking about sub-microscopic machines. Where are they? This comes close, I will admit, but it is a long way from what we have been promised.

Science need not be all flash and Hollywood - whatever "it" is, in the end, "it" needs to work repeatably, accurately and reliably.

A pronounced lack of reliability I will forgive, okay? I consider that part of the price of progress. We need not be perfect the first time out and every time thereafter. That is not a reasonable expectation. Do you understand me, yet?

 

[AlfieGitwood]

It's like a depressive's version of the anthropic principle: why don't we have any cool futuristic tech? Because if we have it, it's not futuristic.

That's a funny once.

 

[bedward]

I am talking about sub-microscopic machines. Where are they? This comes close, I will admit, but it is a long way from what we have been promised.

Oh, stop your whining. The only thing you're promised is your own death.

That's a funny once.

At least you're spending some of your remaining time on worthwhile literature.

 

[nummycakes]

They get nowhere with the unified theory because their initial assumptions are wrong from start. There are no monopols...at all.
Even the electron (-) is not actually a monopol, because it's (+) is inside it,

So how is the outside world shielded from seeing the +-ness? Where do the +-ness electric field lines end? If they end on the --ness part then there's no net effect on the rest of the universe and we'd see a neutral particle.

and the electron is actually a spinning energy sphere with + inside, - outside and with 511KV potential.

The electron can't be a sphere: if it is a sphere with its charge uniformly distributed around it or within then this arrangement will have an electrostatic energy/c² greater than the electron mass if it is any smaller than about 3e-15m (see the wiki). However, the electron has a size no greater than 1e-22m. Therefore the electron is not a sphere of charge.

 

[AlfieGitwood]

Oh, stop your whining. The only thing you're promised is your own death.

No! I am short on time and so are you. I have a right to bitch.

 

[Hypnos7]

Follow the money. We have killer drones and stain-resistant khakis because they pay, either from the gov't or corporations.

We have the gov't and corporations who make such things because it's what pays, from taxpayers or customers.

One might argue this would be okay if we came to this situation by people thinking for themselves. But they don't.