It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Quantum gas reveals first signs of path-bending monopole

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2018 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Phys.org


The team measured the orientation of the atoms' spins after they completed their journey and compared the result to their initial orientations. They found that the atoms' spins didn't return to where they started, a discrepancy that can arise during a trip through curved space. In this case, the size and direction of the deflection matched predictions for the curvature created by a Yang monopole.

To test that the deflections were indeed due to the monopole and not another source, researchers sent the atoms on a different journey, one that attempted to avoid the space-bending singularity created by the monopole. On this new path, the atoms no longer felt an overall tug from the curvature, a strong indication that they had exited the monopole's realm of influence.

Turning the monopole's effects on and off depends only on the big-picture shape of the paths that the atoms take and not on any small wiggles along the way—an indication that the effect is topological. The paths either enclose a monopole or they don't, and this provides a topological feature that could lead to new types of quantum charge pumps, Spielman says.


Magnetism, in general, is a pretty well-understood concept. Magnetic monopoles are a bit of a holy grail in high-energy physics as well as electronics and electrical engineering. Magnetic monopoles in inductors and transformers would have to be treated as voltage sources and their values added into Vs as branches of Vs(tot). Since current is directly proportional to Vs(tot). Kirchoff's Law would require us to add the induced current and voltages and treat them each as if they were branches of Itot and Vs(tot), respectively.

This voltage is NOT "free energy". It is a magnetically induced voltage produced by both the monopole and the Vs and is dependent on the physical parameters of the monopole as illustrated the magnetic flux density:
, the magnetic field intensity: H=Fm/l the magnetomotive force: Fm=NI, and inductance in terms of physical parameters: L=N^2uA/l. But all of those equations may need to be modified somewhat to include the lack of either a positive or negative pole/path. Doing so doesn't change the laws of physics, however, and nothing magical is happening here.

To go further we'd have to talk about what charge is. Charge is the number of electrons divided by 6.25x10^18 electrons/C (per C) which is the number of electrons per 1 coulomb of charge.

Voltage is simply the function of a difference in electrical potential which can be created in any number of ways. Voltage is equal to the energy in joules divided by the charge in coulombs: V= W/C.

This could lead to far more efficient electronics in the future. In the case of a magnetic monopole inductor, the exponential voltage parameters would have to be adjusted to include additional voltage produced by the monopole inductor.

Even power ratings would have to change to include the additional charge.

People don't seem to realize that today is the heyday of science. We are truly in a renaissance of scientific discovery and this doesn't seem to be slowing down any.
edit on 29 6 18 by projectvxn because: some errors in wording and some stuff I accidentally left out.




posted on Jun, 29 2018 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Excellent. Now, if I could just wrap my head around the concept of a magnetic monopole I'd be able to understand Kip Thorne.




posted on Jun, 29 2018 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj

The reason this story is important is that the path-bending properties of this monopole are not just mathematical inference. It's a physical effect that has been detected which is experimental evidence of a monopole at work.



posted on Jun, 29 2018 @ 03:14 PM
link   
With regard to bending space using magnetic charge:
www.scientificamerican.com...
edit on 29 6 18 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2018 @ 03:29 PM
link   
To be clear, the experiment does did not create a monopole nor does it demonstrate that such a beast exists. The effects of a Yang monopole were simulated, intentionally. A Yang monopole is a topological construct. A zero dimensional object. Not a real thing.

Your source:

Now, a team at JQI led by postdoctoral researcher Seiji Sugawa and JQI Fellow Ian Spielman have succeeded in emulating a Yang monopole with an ultracold gas of rubidium atoms. The result, which provides another example of using cold quantum gases to simulate other areas of physics, was reported in the June 29 issue of Science.


The title of their article is "Second Chern number of a quantum-simulated non-Abelian Yang monopole."
www.sciencemagazinedigital.org...

The experiment was not about the existence of monopoles, but about other implications of the Yang monopole (that zero dimensional not thing).

I'm not going to pretend I completely understand it but it is clear that no monopoles were harmed, or created.

edit on 6/29/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2018 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




The effects of a monopole were simulated, intentionally. A Yang monople is a topological construct. A zero dimensional object. Not a real thing.


This is true. But these simulations are extremely sophisticated.




The experiment was not about the existence of monopoles, but about other implications of the Yang monopole.




They found that the atoms' spins didn't return to where they started, a discrepancy that can arise during a trip through curved space. In this case, the size and direction of the deflection matched predictions for the curvature created by a Yang monopole.


As I said in this post:




The reason this story is important is that the path-bending properties of this monopole are not just mathematical inference. It's a physical effect that has been detected which is experimental evidence of a monopole at work.



It's experimental data. People get hung up on terms like simulation. This isn't some video game or physics emulator.

This has implications for charge pumps and as such can also be applied, in principle to magnetic inductors. Though as far as engineering is concerned, I'll leave that up to guys with bigger budgets and bigger brains.



posted on Jun, 29 2018 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

I must have misunderstood:


It's a physical effect that has been detected which is experimental evidence of a monopole at work


I was trying to clarify. There was no monopole at work. Right?
edit on 6/29/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2018 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Not a physical monopole. This is STILL experimental evidence.

A physical effect that is quantified by a simulation indicative of the effects of a monopole in this experiment.

Yes you did misunderstand.

EDIT:

Did you know that the physics at CERN being done every day is a simulation based on experimental data?
edit on 29 6 18 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2018 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn




Did you know that the physics at CERN being done every day is a simulation based on experimental data?


No. I didn't know that.
I didn't know that the LHC was active every day and I was under the impression that they were crashing actual particles into each other.



posted on Jun, 29 2018 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Why are you trying to down play experimental data from simulations?

Without which much of physics would be impossible to test in controlled conditions.

Yes, they are crashing real atoms together. Did you know that before they do that they run simulations? That's how they know what to look for. EDIT: And then they simulate their results and see if they MATCH.

Nowhere in my post did I assert that a magnetic monopole was physically discovered. YOU asserted that I did.

My entire OP was about hypothetical devices based on this experimental data. It's called informed speculation.


edit on 29 6 18 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2018 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn


Nowhere in my post did I assert that a magnetic monopole was physically discovered. YOU asserted that I did.
I made no such assertion. As I said in my first post "To be clear...", I was offering clarification because you did not mention that this was a simulation in your OP.

No need to get uptight about it.



posted on Jun, 29 2018 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




I was offering clarification because you did not mention that this was a simulation in your OP.


I just figured reading the article would take care of that for people.




I'm not going to pretend I completely understand it but it is clear that no monopoles were harmed, or created.


Seemed like you were here. I don't mean to get uptight about it but you have a way of saying things.
edit on 29 6 18 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2018 @ 01:44 AM
link   
I had a magnet at home one time. I cut in in half so I would have a monopole. No just ended up with two magnets. Monopoles are not real things



posted on Jun, 30 2018 @ 01:48 AM
link   
a reply to: ZeussusZ

Heh. Well, that's hard to prove.

But for sure there is no such thing as a Yang monopole, except on paper. But paper is two dimensional, almost. Not zero dimensional.


edit on 6/30/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2018 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: ZeussusZ
I had a magnet at home one time. I cut in in half so I would have a monopole. No just ended up with two magnets. Monopoles are not real things


Yes I'm aware that if you cut magnets in half you just have two magnets.

Anything else?




top topics



 
7

log in

join