Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
sci.math.*
»
sci.math
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
Topic:
Deriving the idea that all magnetic monopoles are attractive force #1237 New Physics #1357 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Replies:
1
Last Post:
Feb 17, 2013 5:47 PM




Deriving the idea that all magnetic monopoles are attractive force #1237 New Physics #1357 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Posted:
Feb 17, 2013 4:29 PM


Deriving the idea that the magnetic monopoles are all attractive force, not repulsion
Alright many posts ago I wrote how the Maxwell Equations, the symmetrical Maxwell Equations when summed together produce both the Schrodinger and Dirac Equations as subsets, minor subsets of the Maxwell Equations. But today I want to tease out of the Maxwell Equations the idea that all magnetic monopoles are attractive force. This means that no matter whether you have north to north, north to south, south to north or south to south magnetic monopoles that all four possibilities is always an attraction force and never a repelling force.
So let me see if I can derive that idea. And I would hazard to say that I believe no physicist of today, other than myself is capable of doing this task, but that hundreds of mathematicians are capable of doing this task. Physicists of the last 100 years were so bad in mathematics that only 2 physicists could venture to use mathematics into physics, Schrodinger and Dirac and we see now that even their attempts come up as minor subsets of the true physics. For in the total summation of the Symmetrical Maxwell Equations, we get not only the Dirac Equation as a minor subset, but we get so much much more. From the Dirac Equation we could not get the fact that magnetic monopoles are all attractive regardless of what pole they are, whether north or south. But in the summation of Maxwell Equations we can derive that idea as I spell out below.
Alright, these are the 4 symmetrical Maxwell Equations with magnetic monopoles: div*E = r_E ?div*B = r_B ? curlxE = dB + J_B ?curlxB = dE + J_E Now to derive the Dirac Equation from the Maxwell Equations we add the ?lot together: div*E = r_E ?div*B = r_B ? curlxE = dB + J_B ?curlxB = dE + J_E ________________ div*E + div*B + (1)curlxE + curlxB = r_E + r_B + dB + dE + J_E + J_B Now Wikipedia has a good description of how Dirac derived his famous equation which gives this: (Ad_x + Bd_y + Cd_z + (i/c)Dd_t  mc/h) p = 0 So how is the above summation of Maxwell Equations that of a generalized Dirac Equation? Well, the four terms of div and curl are the A,B,C,D terms. And the right side of the equation can all be ?conglomerated into one term and the negative sign in the Faraday law ?can turn that right side into the negative sign. Alright the Schrodinger Eq. is easily derived from the Maxwell Equations. In the Dirac Equation we need more than one of the Maxwell Equations because it is a 4x4 matrix equation and so the full 4 Maxwell Equations are needed to cover the Dirac Equation, although the Dirac Equation ends up being a minor subset of the 4 Maxwell Equations, because the Dirac Equation does not allow the photon to be a double transverse wave while the Summation of the Maxwell Equations demands the photon be a double transverse wave. But the Schrodinger Equation: ihd(f(w)) = Hf(w) where f(w) is the wave function The Schrodinger Equation is easily derived from the mere Gauss's laws combined: These are the 4 symmetrical Maxwell Equations with magnetic monopoles: div*E = r_E div*B = r_B  curlxE = dB + J_B curlxB = dE + J_E Now the two Gauss's law of Maxwell Equations standing alone are nonrelativistic and so is the Schrodinger Equation. div*E = r_E ?div*B = r_B ?____________ ?div*E + div*B = r_E + r_B this is reduced to ?k(d(f(x))) = H(f(x)) Now Schrodinger derived his equation out of thin air, using the Fick's ?law of diffusion. So Schrodinger never really used the Maxwell ?Equations. The Maxwell Equations were foreign to Schrodinger and to ?all the physicists of the 20th century when it came time to find the ?wave function. But how easy it would have been for Schrodinger if he ?instead, reasoned that the Maxwell Equations derives all of Physics, ?and that he should only focus on the Maxwell Equations. Because if he ?had reasoned that the Maxwell Equations were the axiom set of all of ?physics and then derived the Schrodinger Equation from the two Gauss ?laws, he would and could have further reasoned that if you Summation ?all 4 Maxwell Equations, that Schrodinger would then have derived the ?relativistic wave equation and thus have found the Dirac Equation long ?before Dirac ever had the idea of finding a relativistic wave ?equation. Now, how is it that we derive all monopoles are attractive regardless of polarity from the Summation of Maxwell Equations? I need mathematicians to verify my claim. And I think the physicists of today are too dumb to be able to proceed in this.
I roughly figure that if you had a repulsion or repelling in the polarity of magnetic monopoles that you would have to introduce another negative term in the Summation whereas the summation as it stands now has only one negative term in the Faraday law component. If magnetic monopoles had repulsion then the magnetic current density and the Gauss's law of magnetism would also require negative terms. But if all monopoles had one polarity, had only attraction force, then no need to have negative terms in the Maxwell Equation other than the Faraday law negative term.
Again, I need competent mathematicians to verify for my opinion is that no physicist of today is competent enough. Of course, if Dirac were still alive and in prime, would be the best qualified of all. I dare say, if Feynman were alive, he too would be competent enough. But sadly, both are gone and the physicists remaining are not worth the asking.

Google's archives are topheavy in hatespew from searchengine bombing. Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent, simple and fair archiving of AP posts for the past 15 years 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 electrondotcloud are galaxies



