Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Chapt15.54 generalization of the Maxwell Eq and deriving Darwin
Evolution #1301 New Physics #1504 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Replies: 8   Last Post: Apr 21, 2013 5:16 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com Posts: 18,572 Registered: 3/31/08
does the magnetic current density make for attraction-only?
Chapt15.54 Maxwell Eq deriving Darwin Evolution & Superdeterminism #1305 New
Physics #1508 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Posted: Apr 20, 2013 3:25 AM

Alright, I think I am correct on this. What I need is assurance that
the magnetic monopoles are always attractive force so that unlikes
attract and yet also likes attract, wherein electric charge we have
both attraction and repulsion.

So my problem is to find out if the Maxwell Equations with magnetic
monopoles required some negative sign somewhere to denote this special
feature of magnetic monopoles.

Now it is commonsense or instinctively clear that monopoles have to be
always attraction and never repulsion because in a bar magnet, one end
is the north and the other is the south and if you had both repulsion
with attraction, then you could never have all the "norths
conglomerated" and all the "souths conglomerated" at the other end.
But if magnetic monopoles were always attractive, then the norths can
conglomerate and the souths can conglomerate.

So, the problem for me is to find out where I need a extra negative
sign so that the Maxwell Equations with magnetic monopoles has only
attraction force for magnetic monopoles.

div*E = r_E

div*B = r_B

- curlxE = dB + J_B

curlxB = dE + J_E

Now there are three likely candidates of where to add an extra
negative sign.
The first is Gauss's law of magnetism for it introduces the magnetic
monopoles.
So do we have a -div*B = r_B as the solution?

Or another spot is the Faraday law of its new term the magnetic
current density as -J_B ? However, I wonder if the magnetic current
density term alone, stands up and tells us that there is no repulsion
force with magnetic monopoles since it is not negative termed.

Or a third spot is the Ampere/Maxwell law as -curlxB? Now if it is
this term that needs a negative sign, then the Maxwell equations would
be symmetrical overall
Now does it make sense? Well I think so, since the negative sign in
Faraday's law yields the Lenz law that says the direction of the
magnetic field is opposite to the bar magnet. So that Lenz's law with
the negative sign creates a repulsion.

So is it one of these three?

I suspect it is, for I cannot see how the status quo can deliver a
attraction-force-only for magnetic monopoles unless it is embedded in
the positive term of magnetic current density.
positive term J_B the magnetic current density, for a density term of
monopoles suggests conglomeration of monopoles of north conglomerating
with north and not repelling.

So maybe I need not add a new negative sign at all and that the J_B
term takes care of the idea that magnetic monopoles always attract,
never repel, and that the Maxwell Equations are meant to have its
slight asymmetry.

magnetic dipoles, not monopoles and that we need to be careful in the
Maxwell Equations of when we are talking of dipoles or monopoles.

Now I am probably more confused than when I had started. So I will
sleep on it.

--
Approximately 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google
newsgroups author search starting May 2012. They call it indexing; I
call it censor discrimination. Whatever the case, what is needed now
is for science newsgroups like sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.bio,
sci.geo.geology, sci.med, sci.paleontology, sci.astro,
sci.physics.electromag to?be hosted by a University the same as what
Drexel?University hosts sci.math as the Math Forum. Science needs to
be in education?not in the hands of corporations chasing after the
next dollar bill. Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent,
simple and fair author-archiving of AP sci.math posts since May 2012
as seen here :

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies